I would like to bring up a
discussion about marriage.

What does marriage mean to you?

Is being married important or not?

And why?

Would you deny this to others, such as
Gay people - and why/why not?

I don't want to make this discussion simply
about Gay marriage. What I don't understand though
is for people to whom marriage is important -
why would some of them then deny it to others?

Fox, "I don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage"

LOL Of course you do!

Marriage is primarily about intention to bring up children as it is the only stable building block of society in which children are properly nurtured by their natural genetic parents. I see the emotional destruction of children by separation, divorce and dysfunctional households. Children not seeing loving relationships of parents and having close loving relationships with each parent on a daily basis breeds future emotionally dysfunctional adults.

The problem with one gender adult carers is children do not establish intimate bonds with the missing gender essential for a healthy society.

Hi Foxy, you have no real chance of rational debate with this one you know :)
I will try though.

I was overjoyed to get married, because I feel it shows more of a commitment to a relationship than living together, which I was doing before we married.

I felt more secure and connected to my husband after we married, and I preferred my new surname! Also, I have to admit, I wouldn't have had children until I was married because I had seen all sorts of legal drama re children with passports and after marital separation and remarriage, if they had different surnames from one of their parents.

If I were to divorce anytime from now on though, I wouldn't get married again.
I hope that is not on the cards though, after 28 years of marriage...

'Hi Foxy, you have no real chance of rational debate with this one you know :)


Certainly not with you on board Susie. You are still leaving 99% people puzzled over your willingness to make excuses/overlook rape by muslims in Europe. Tip. Look up the word rational.

I'll have to ask my wife.

I fell in love with my husband.
And, a miracle happened.
he also fell in love with me. I was fortunate enough
to find a grown man who was capable of loving fully
with all of his heart. I could not imagine life
without him. And when he proposed - I accepted.
His honesty, devotion and unconditional love bound
us together in an inseparable state of familial bliss
that has been unshaken to this day.

I realise that for some people marriage is not important
while others desperately want to get married.

I am happy that I was able to get married. I cannot imagine
my life any other way.

Dear Suse,

Thank You for answering my question on how
important marriage is to you.

I understand why you would not want to
re-marry. I feel the same way.

Dear Mr Opinion,

With all due respect -

I'm interested in what marriage means
to you not your wife.

So how about telling me?

Hi there FOXY...

My first marriage ended in absolute grief and sorrow. My second is very very happy, and though I have great companionship, I do wonder if the variance in our age's will cause any problems in the future?

I must say I'm a very lucky to have married my current wife, we get on very well indeed, with similar interests, and a similar circle of friends. Educationally, she's miles ahead of me, with an under-graduate degree from a prestigious North America University, and her second degree from a notable uni. here. She excels in Mathematics, and the Sciences, specifically Physics, so we can never have a legitimate academic discussion because of the wide disparity of our educational standards. They do say opposites do attract!

I must admit, I'm the luckiest bloke in the world, to have convinced my wife to marry me, though I suspect she's (covertly) undertaking a Masters in Anthropology, majoring on deviant behaviour, by silly ol' buggers who've now retired from the coppers? Seriously though, I couldn't have asked for a better wife with whom to spend the remainder of my life with, I'm so very lucky.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for sharing how important marriage
is to you.

I'm so happy for you and your wife.

And luck had nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

You're a lovely bloke and she, I imagine, she thinks that
she's the lucky one.

Dear Josephus,

Not every couple who marries has or even wants children.
Not all marriages unfortunately are happy. There are
many adults who are dysfunctional. And children often
develop relationships with other genders with members
of their extended families. They don't miss out.
It's wrong to generalise.

Dear runner,

This discussion is not about rape. It's about
the importance of marriage.
Could you contribute something on the subject?

Dear OTB,

I can assure you that I genuinely did not want
this discussion to be simply about gay marriage.
That's why I stressed that fact in my opening post.
But because gay marriage comes under the umbrella of
marriage and how important it is to some people -
I thought I would stress the fact that this
should not just be about Gay marriage.

Now how about you commenting on what marriage means
to you. After all the importance of marriage is the
issue here. If you have nothing to say or if it's
not important to you - why did you enter this
discussion? If its to poke fun at me -
That's nasty.

Dear Foxy,

When it comes to marriage, love and relationships, we humans behave more like birds than any other living species.

Marriage is just a contract governing the social relationship between the participants as well as sanctioning their sexual access to each other, the social status of their offspring, and the class and sociopolitical relationship between the wife-giving and the wife-taking groups.

But it is the idea that we behave like birds when acting out our evolutionary driven desire to procreate in order to transmit our genes that most fascinates me.

Does that answer your question?

The important thing is the relationship, which is marriage, not the State contract. If one does not have children or cannot have children [as one daughter] their love and commitment to each other is the marriage and does not need a State contract. They have a private legal contact and still hold their own names.

A State contract only need apply if children are involved; both to register the children as citizens and accept responsibility for their upbringing. I know of single mums with five children of different fathers and weekend access is hell for the children. I've heard boys say they want to murder their father for the way he has treated their mother. They have grown up with uncontrolled anger that is released in all their relationships. The media has a lot to answer for in promoting dysfunctional relationships and murder which children accept as normal behaviour.

Josephus, I have heard of similar problems amongst children of married couples too, so what is your point?
My parents were married in the Catholic Church and appeared happy for 20 years before dear old dad ran off with another divorced woman and her kids, greatly adversely affecting myself and my 3 young teenaged siblings.

So don't go on about marriage being the be all and end all for kids, because it often is not...

Suseonline,
Exactly my point. Marriage is the relationship not the State certificate.

Foxy

'Could you contribute something on the subject?'

Marriage to me is a covenant in contrast to a contract. Personally I have been extremely blessed to have a wife that has accepted me with warts and all. A covenant is entered more in what you can give rather that what you can get. Biblically speaking marriage reflects Christ who is the Bridegroom and His church (people in relationship with Christ). Unfortunately in our selfish generation good marriages are becoming rarer and rarer. People are carrying so much baggage into marriages that many fail.

As for changing the definition I think my views are well known. God is a covenant God (hence the hatred for Israel throughout history). God witness's a covenant in marriage hence whether u r shacked up, living in sin, or practicing homosexuality it will never be genuine marriage.

Thanks to everyone who's spoken about their
marriages and what it means to them.

To me - it is the relationship that matters.

It isn't always easy to keep the flame burning.
People grow comfortable with each other, or
they become creatures of habit and they aren't
always in tune with their partners. Sometimes
when you've been in a relationship for a while
you can get bogged down with a lot of negativity
and dullness and you can get tired of dealing
with all that stuff.

I think what is important is to take responsibility.
One person may do all they can to keep their
relationship as healthy as it can be, but it's not
enough. No matter how healthy you become, your
partner has to be working alongside you. Otherwise
it's not going to work.

Luckily, my partner does work alongside me.
We are a team. That's why it has and is working.
And hopefully, will continue to do so.

I've written in the past on this forum
what I think is relevant today about
marriage:

Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right
and proper, and usually God given as well.

If we assume that there is only one "right"
marriage and family form, then naturally any
change will be interpreted as heralding the
doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise,
therefore, that there is an immense range in
marriage, family, and kinship patterns. The
marriage and family patterns of other cultures
challenge many of our assumptions about the
nature of marriage, family, and kinship.

Marriage like any other social institution, must
therefore inevitably change through time, not only
in our own society but in others as well.

Changes are already being attempted.
With Gay marriage being lobbied. But,
whether this succeeds or not in our society,
we have to wait and see. Thus far it still is illegal.

Marriage until recently did have real importance to me.

It was an open & public commitment by 2 people to exclusively share their lives in a monogamous relationship, & was one people should make, before bringing children into their lives, or the world.

Unfortunately modern marriage for the majority today is nothing more than justifying serial monogamy, until they are sick of each other or one of them finds something more exciting. With over half ending in diverse, there is little long term commitment today.

It is now so cheapened that many believe that poofters & lesbians have some right to partake in it. It has become a cross between a joke, & a political plaything. It is only to help them with inheritance that they even bother, despite their grandiose rhetoric.

There really is so little left of the original concept, I would not bother with it today.

Dear Hassie,

You would I'm sure if you were to find the
right person.

Unfortunately not everyone does.

Perhaps, not every one is meant to?

People are staying single longer, others are
not marrying at all - preferring other life-styles
such as no children or a career or travel, et cetera.

Foxy you said "t is important to recognise,
therefore, that there is an immense range in
marriage, family, and kinship patterns. The
marriage and family patterns of other cultures
challenge many of our assumptions about the
nature of marriage, family, and kinship."

Would you outline these patterns as you call them, as I see it there is no pattern more beneficial to society than a man and a woman committing to a life together to raise a family.

What is your immense range of cultural marriages? Or is this an unknown generalization?

I agree, Hasbeen.

Marriage was once about trading daughters for livestock and forming alliances between powerful families. Now it’s just about love and commitment. If that’s what it’s been reduced to, then the poofs ‘n’ lezzos can ‘ave it. We’ve ‘ad no good flamin’ reason for denyin' 'em the privilege of it for donkey’s, at least now we ‘ave a reason to give it to the bastards.

Whaddya reckon ya flamin’ yobbo? Sound like a plan?

Dear Josephus,

Every society has an incest taboo, a powerful
moral prohibition against sexual contact
in between certain categories of relatives.
But although no society allows people to mate
with anyone they choose, different societies
have quite different ideas about who might be
a prohibited marriage partner.

Many countries prohibit marriage
between a person and his or her parent,
grandparent, uncle or aunt, brother or sister,
and niece or nephew.

Many societies, however, do not make any
distinction between siblings (brothers and sisters)
and cousins. In these societies there are usually
no separate words for "brother" and "sister"
they are regarded as the same kind of relative, and the
incest taboo is therefore extended to first, second,
third and even more distant cousins as well.

Some cultures, on the other hand,
are very specific about
whom people may or should marry

In modern, industrialised societies it is generally
assumed that marriage is founded on romantic love between
partners and that the choice of a mate should be left to the
individual.

But this concept of romantic
love is entirely unknown in many societies
and is considered laughable or tragic in many
others. In most traditional societies marriage is regarded
as a practical economic arrangement or a matter of family
alliances, not a love match.

Throughout history, in fact, alliances between entire
societies have been sealed by marrying a prince of one royal
family to a princess of another.

Earlier in the last century for example Ilbn Saud, a local
Arabian chieftan, married over 300 women from various
tribes binding these groups into the country now called
Saudi Arabia. In many traditional societies, therefore
marriage is negotiated by the parents of the partners, often
with little or no consideration of their children's wishes.
If love is a feature of these marriages at all, it is
expected to be a result and not a cause of the union.

There are many other examples in family patterns ranging
from number of partners, partner preference, residence
patterns, authority relationships, family forms
(extended family, nuclear family) and so on.

cont'd ...

Marriage and the family is one of the most basic and
ancient of all institutions, and it remains the
fundamental social unit. Yet there are many people
today who predict the end of the family and
marriage system as we know it. Our system, it is
contended, is breaking down, the victim of moral
decay, sexual permissiveness, changing gender roles,
or irresistible socia forces.

Such predictions are heard in industrial societies.
Especially the world's leading post-industrial
ones like the United States -being under the most
pressure. Where the great majority of both men and
women begin sexual activity before marriage.

Statistics indicate that one in every American
births is to an unmarried mother, usually a teenager.
One in every four pregnancies ends in abortion.
The number of married couples living together has
increased greatly in less than two decades.
People are staying single longer, and more than one
adult in five now lives alone. Many marriages are
expected to end in divorce.

New alternatives to traditional marriage, such as
single-parent household, are becoming steadily more
common. And to complicate matters further children can
now be conceived through artificial means.

What does it all mean?
Is marriage and the family threatened with collapse,
or can it thrive under the changing social conditions
of the modern world?

I feel that our ideas on the subject may tend to be
ethnocentric, for they're often based on the
middle-class "ideal" family and marriage so relentlessly
portrayed in TV commercials, one that consists of a
husband, a wife, their dependent children.

This particular pattern, however is far from typical.
A more accurate conception of marriage and the family
must take into account the many different marriage
and family forms that have existed or still exist
not only in our society but in other cultures as well.

Dear Foxy,

I understand what you are talking about. But you have to take into consideration that a lot of people on The Forum are only just engineers (or people who have completed similar trade degrees) and describing the anthropology of marriage systems to them is much too intellectual for them to understand. Image what would happen if you start to talk about Levi-Strauss and the structuralists' position on marriage and kinship. You would throw the poor old engineers into a complete spin.

Well said Foxy, but not many on this forum would have the broad minded attitude towards love and marriage today that you and I do.
Many would prefer to live in the past and let others dictate who they can and can't love or marry, or even worse, some religious guys who tell others they know what is best for us.

Marriage today in our society is what it is. Just like our parents and grandparents before us, many senior members will tutt-tutt about the way the 'new generation' choose to live their lives.

To my mind, married life today is no worse or no better than in the past, just different.
One good difference is that women in our society now are supposed to have an equal say and equal rights in marriage, and that is as it should be, but this fact tends to threaten some of the old boys...

Dear Mr Opinion,

You flatter me. However I do have
a great deal of respect for engineers'
and anybody who studies, be it for a
profession, a trade, or an Arts degree.
Studying and completing any field, is
quite an achievement in itself.
Studies are not easy - and have to be
given their due respect.

As far as understanding the broader picture
of marriage, family, kinship,
all people have to do is a bit of
research on the subject and they would get
the history of the social institution
and how it is changing today.
Of course people's own values and experiences
(and religion)
come into the equasion.

Dear Suse,

Very well put.

You've summed things up very well indeed.
I tend to rant a bit and usually end up boring
people.

Dear Foxy,

I agree with you that getting through any degree program is extremely hard work. Especially a PhD, which is one the hardest tasks in the world to complete.

But you should note that engineers do think that Claude Levi-Strauss is a pair of denim jeans.

Gees AJ Philips, why the hell didn't you tell me about all this earlier. I would have much preferred someone giving me lots of stuff to take my daughters off my hands, rather than me spending a king's ransom on wedding receptions to get rid of them. All I got from the deal was people wanting me as a guarantor for housing loans.

Perhaps the poofters do have it right, it would be a lot cheaper if we couldn't breed.

I admit I've indulged in some pretty expensive hobbies in my time, but this mirage is the most expensive hobby I've ever found.

Someone once said, mirage is a very bad hire purchase agreement. For blokes it's everything you have down & everything you earn for the rest of your life, & you are not even allowed to trade the old model for a new one.

Engineers are probably changing now, with all this alternate truth the humanities people are pushing in universities. Get enough of that in real disciplines, & the alternative will be, do the bridges stay up or fall down. Now that is where these clowns would have us go.

Dear Hasbeen,

This is the first I have heard of this 'alternate truth the humanities people are pushing in universities'. Can you give us details on it with some examples?

Dear Mr Opinion.

Talking about PhDs.

I like the following definitions:

BS - Bull shyte.

MS - More of he same.

PhD - Piled higher and Deeper.

Dear Foxy,

Marriage is made in heaven and as such is very precious. It binds two souls in a very beautiful way.

Unfortunately, marriage is often counterfeited on earth for social purposes and then its worth is as any other counterfeit.

What to do? eliminate the social benefits of "marriage" thus reduce the temptation to fake it.

Dear Foxy,

Those definitions have been around ever since I can remember. But they didn't put me off from doing four degrees and they won't divert my attention away from doing another one. The people who might take most pleasure in using those terms are the ones who could never complete a degree (eg. Andrew Bolt). Those who have a degree will always tell you that they would rather have a degree than not have one.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Anthropologists have shown that marriage, across all societies and throughout the ages, is basically a contract. I think you are the one who belongs in heaven where you can fantasize to your heart's content. Can't you just picture what fun you would have jumping from cloud to cloud chasing after fairies and unicorns.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Human sexual relations, unlike those of other animals,
are not restricted to brief breeding seasons. This fact
encourages human mates to form stable, long lasting
bonds. In other species, more over, the offspring are
generally able to fend for themselves quite soon after
being born or hatched.

In contrast, the human infant is helpless and in need of
constant care and protection for several years after
birth - a far longer period of dependency than that found
in any other animal. The fact that women bear and suckle
infants restricts their activity during this period,
making them at least temporarily dependent on the
protection and economic support of males.

The result has been a universal pattern, in which men and
women establish permanent bonds that maximise the efficiency
of their child-rearing and economic activity, hence, marriage
and the family.

Most of us spend our lives in two families in which we play
quite different roles: a family of orientation, the one in
which we are born, and a family of procreation, the one
which we create ourselves. In every society, a family is
expected to be formed through marriage; a socially
approved mating arrangement between two or more people.

The partners
in a marriage are expected to have a sexual relationship;
indeed many societies require that all sexual intercourse
take place within this context, Additionally
marriage imposes certain economic rights and duties on the partners -
for it implies the sharing of a household.

Every society distinguished between offspring born in wedlock
and those born out of wedlock. Legitimate birth is birth
to a mother and a father who are married to each other.
Illegitimate birth is birth to a mother who is not married
to the father.

All societies encourage legitimacy because
it enables them automatically allocate the social roles of
mother and father to specific persons
who are then responsible for the care
and protection of the young.

Dear Foxy,

Nice little summary of the anthropology of marriage.

Just one little thing re your final two paragraphs. The legitimacy factor is mainly to do with inheritance rights within the social group. This could be rights to ownership of property, rights of usufruct, Ego's position within the kinship system, etc.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Although the family and marriage institution arose from
our characteristics as a species, we are not merely
biological animals, we are social animals as well.
A full understanding of the universality of the
family and marriage must take into account the functions
that the institution performs.

Firstly the regulation of sexual behaviour. The marriage
and family system provides a means of regulating sexual
behaviour by specifying who may mate with whom and under
what circumstances they may do so.

Secondly the replacement of members - A society cannot
survive unless it has a system for replacing its members
from generation to generation. The family provides a
stable, institutionalized means through which this
replacement can take place with specific individuals
occupying the social roles of mother and father and
assuming defined responsibilities.

Thirdly, socialisation - The primary context for
socialisation is the family, starting at birth. Because
the child is theirs, the parents normally take particular
care to monitor his or her behaviour and to pass on the
language, values, norms, and beliefs of the culture.
Although in modern society many of these socialisation
functions have been taken over by other institutions
such as schools, the churches, or the media - the family
remains the earliest and most significant agency of
socialisation.

We then have things like care and protection, social
placement (birth into a family gives the individual a stable
place in society). Then there's emotional support, The family
is the primary, social context in which emotional needs can be
fulfilled and the deepest personal feelings can be
expressed. The family functions as the place of ultimate
emotional refuge and comfort.

All these functions are necessary and these institutions
(family and marriage) fulfill them so effectively that
they take primary responsibility for these functions in every
human culture.

Dear Foxy,

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. But there is a much bigger picture to the story. But that takes us into anthropological theory e.g., marriage as the 'atom of kinship' and alliance theory. Unfortunately for anthropology all of these wonderful kin-based social systems are rapidly disappearing under the weight of globalisation.

Mr. Opinion "The people who might take most pleasure in using those terms are the ones who could never complete a degree (eg. Andrew Bolt). Those who have a degree will always tell you that they would rather have a degree than not have one."

It seems that those who have degrees never tire of informing others they have them either. For someone with all those degrees Mr. Opinion, I would have thought you would be aware that to be a journalist, one needs to have a degree?

As much as I dislike many of Bolt's views, he is actually meant to be quite bright, and he did complete an Arts degree at Adelaide University. You should have done your homework before making assumptions about Bolt.

Dear Suseonline,

Are you sure Andrew Bolt has a degree? because I read an article some time ago that said he dropped out of first year in Arts at Adelaide Uni to take up a cadetship as a journalist. Can anyone clarify this?

One does not need to have a degree to be a journalist. If one needed a degree to be a journalist half of the profession would be out of a job. Same thing also goes for the engineering profession. When I started work (many years ago) about 70% of engineers did not have a degree. Today I am guessing that the figure is around 50%. And I would say that outside of medicine a large proportion of the professions is manned by members who have not gained a degree in their field.

The following link may clarify things about
Mr Bolt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

Dear Foxy,

The facts that you state are true,
but the functions you describe are social, including procreation.
Society and its rules is formed on earth, not in heaven.
As such it is not of much value.

Why aggrandise or sanctify biological functions such as the sexual attraction that are not even ours, but imposed by the mechanism of our genes?

Note that everything on earth, including societies, will disappear once the earth itself dissolves.
For example, no permanent bonds between men and women are possible because we will not remain men and women for long.
Why then invest so much in the temporal?

Dear Yuyutsu,

As one society after another has industrialised over the
course of the past two centuries, there has been a major
global change in family patterns - a change that involves
a fundamental shift in people's loyalties.

Essentially, people have come to focus less on their
responsibilities toward their kin and their families, and
more on their desires for self-fulfillment as individuals.

This shift in loyalties has had dramatic effects on family
life. The extended family had tended to be replaced by the
nuclear family; the ideal of polygamy has steadily given
way to the ideal of monogamy; neolocal residence has rapidly
replaced patrilocal ir matrilocal residence; and
patrilocal unions have become more egaliterian.
Above all, people's entire way of thinking about marriage has
changed. It is now viewed less as an economic arrangement
or a kinship alliance, and more as a companionship based on
the emotional commitment of two individuals.
This transformation is, of course, a general trend, not a hard
and fast fulre.

Dear Foxy,

I had already seen that Wiki on Andrew Bolt. It only says that he started in Arts at Adelaide. It doesn't say he finished it.

I found another article that says he joined The Melbourne Age as a cadet journalist in 1979. This means he was 19 years old when he started his career in journalism, which would have been too early by a couple of years to have graduated (usually 21 years of age). So going on that bit of evidence it would appear that he has not completed a degree (unless of course he had started uni at the age of 15). Would you agree?

MrOpinion, "When I started work (many years ago) about 70% of engineers did not have a degree. Today I am guessing that the figure is around 50%"

Who signs off their work do you say?

What about government regulatory and insurance requirements?

Sure, one continually meets those who call themselves 'engineers' and highly specialised surgeons too.

There are many among migrants and their lobbyists that we as taxpayers are obliged to fund, who are continually demanding that government remove the claimed onerous conditions, academic and demonstrated supervised experience TO TREAT PRACTICE RISKS set in place government itself and the relevant professional colleges

Eventually the trail of malpractice and victims they leave behind them forces investigation that confirms the usual qualms and complaints expressed to government regulators (all politically correct diplomats) of the professional colleges.

Many here might remember the sad losses in (say) Queensland's health system where the Labor administration allowed and directed unqualified surgeons near patients in the public health system. The constant informal and formal complaints and medical professionals refusing to operate with them were no problem to Labor who covered up of course, but finally the weight of public complaints forced action.

Government and private industry cheat the public by having lower paid workers without professional recognition do a lot of work that should be done by properly qualified professionals. Affirmative action and multicultural policy impinge negatively as well. For example the generalist where a properly qualified professional should be managing and advising policy.

Then they expect the few qualified professionals in their employ or more likely as short-term contractors, to sign off on the work. That is unethical and unprincipled, but government especially has raised it to an artform.

My, "Eventually the trail of malpractice and victims they leave behind them forces investigation that confirms the usual qualms and complaints expressed to government regulators (all politically correct diplomats) of the professional colleges"

should be,

"Eventually the trail of malpractice and victims they leave behind them forces investigation that confirms the usual qualms and complaints previously expressed by professionals and their professional colleges to government regulators (all politically correct diplomats and slow).

Dear onthebeach,

The best engineers I have worked for did not have degrees while the worst engineers I have worked for did have degrees.

But that's not the point I am making. What I am saying is that a large proportion of the engineering profession (my guess being 50%) do not have degrees. Which means that it is not necessarily essential for an engineer to have a degree to perform the tasks required by the employer. Which I think is good because it allows employers access to a range of engineering skills: from those who are trained outside of a university in practical hands-on application to those who are trained at university in using mathematical and scientific applications.

Plus there are all sorts of engineers ranging from welders and boiler makers, to locomotive drivers, to marine refrigeration mechanics, to site coordinators, to designers, to project managers. It's a very broad profession of which the graduate engineer is just a part of.

Totally illogical for people to believe engineers designed/built things and at the same time the human brain came by chance. Such stupidity with no logic even if you put a Mr at the start.

Dear Foxy,

Your account demonstrates well how society is fleeting and unreliable:
one day it values this - the other it values that, one day it fakes "marriage" for the interests of extended families, the next for nuclear families, the next again for individual desires.

If marriage has any meaning, then it cannot be changing subject to social fashion. Either one is married - always, or one is unmarried - never. You can't honestly say, "well now one is married because we value the joining of family wealth and titles" or "well now one is married because we value procreation in monogamous heterosexual couples" or "well now one is married because we value pleasant emotions".

Going back to your original questions: "What does marriage mean to you? Is being married important or not?", true marriage means a lot to me but fake marriage for social purposes, means nothing.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It's not really that confusing. If you read between the lines of what Foxy has been saying you will be able to identify that marriage - and all the things associated with it - have taken on new forms and meaning as a consequence of modernity. It's that simple.

Mr Opinion, Sunday, 7 February 2016 2:14:04 PM,

That is laughable. The sort of tosh one hears in a public bar.

Are you seriously asking anyone here to believe you have an engineering Degree and Engineers Australia membership?

As for your multiple Arts Degrees, that would be a likely story too.

For once we are of the same opinion about something (someone), Onthebeach.
You took the words right out of my mouth...

Dear Mr. Opinion,

What I read in Foxy's account is not about real marriage, but about how different societies of different eras produced different forgeries of counterfeit, artificial "marriage" to suit their varying agendas.

Only that which is constant is real.

From this discussion we can see that marriage
means different things to different people.

Each society views its own patterns
of marriage, family, and kinship as self-evidently
right and proper, and usually as God-given as
well. Much of the current concern about the
fate of modern family and marriage stems from
this kind of ethnocentrism.

If we assume that there is only one "right" family form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns that each of these patterns may be, at least in
their own context, perfectly viable; and above all, that
the family, and marriage, like any other social institution
will inevitable change through time, in our own society,
as well as in others.

I would like to Thank everyone of you who contributed to
this discussion. For me this one has now run its course.
I look forward to our next one.

Enjoy the coming week and happy posting.

Fox,

The homosexual marriage theme is always there where you are concerned. Despite the inventive sly backdoor ways you use to disguise it and tediously work your way around to home on it. See here,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16442&page=3

Anyhow, just taking that example of the umpteen spruiks you have made over and over and over years, you and ors of a similar ilk have never proved:

- any abuse of homosexual 'rights' occasioned by the existing Marriage Act. Fact is, if there was any discrimination as you claim, the President of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, would have been all over it like a fat kid with a packet of Smarties now the LNP is in government and certainly while Tony Abbott was PM' and,

- secondly, why the few percent of the few percent of homosexuals in the population cannot use another term for their unions. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that.

Nothing said either of the many homosexuals, likely the silent majority, who never wanted the State to regulate their personal affairs, which was arranged behind closed doors entirely without public consultation while Labor was in government.

Now the same leftist 'Progressives' want to overturn the Marriage Act and 'just because'. However, the same idealists are also trenchant critics of marriage and would get rid of it if they could.

There is no way in hell these leftist elitists would be occupying themselves with the problems of 'Struggle Streets' though and nor do they ever own up to the negative consequences of their social meddling.

Dear onthebeach,

Foxy has already drawn a line under this discussion.

But since you are still online it does give me an opportunity to answer your question. No, I am not a member of Engineers Australia. I was a Grad member in my early days but got out of it. And I won't be going back because I have since advanced myself above that level.

OTB,

I have no control over your interpretations
concerning any of my postings - past and present.
You keep on making all sorts of accusations
which are totally skewed. You don't
read what I actually did say.

I refuse to be drawn into your paranoid
obsessions - be they about Leftists, Gays,
Feminists, Socialists, Fabians, the Labor
Party, Progressives, et cetera.
I don't put labels on people, even though
I could assign quite a few appropriate ones
to you.

In any case
I can't help you with whatever's eating you.
They must be suffering terribly.
You need professional help and I'm sick and tired
of trying to consistently explain things to
you. I've never met anyone with so much hatred
inside them as you have.

Seriously, get professional help.
It just may raise the bar of this forum.

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for letting us in on that. I thought onthebeach was just another knucklehead engineer. After reading your comments I am realising that he is actually a crackpot deluded twisted nonsensical knucklehead engineer.

Dear Mr opinion.

The art of reasoned, intelligent debate is a
skill not easily acquired.

No one likes or supports an abusive, illogical
debater.

Dearest Foxy,

You started off this thread writing " .... I don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage."

Well, thank goodness for that.

There have been homosexual liaisons since long before David and Jonathan, but in no society in the world, at ay time, have such liaisons been recognised a marriages. Surely that counts for something.

In every language, the word 'marriage' has signified a socially-sanctioned relationship between a man and at least one woman. In more enlightened societies, and as the notion of romantic love has evolved, this definition has become predicated on the dedication of one woman and one man to each ogther.

Now that other forms of relationship are legal, perhaps it is time to find new words for them. I don't see what's wrong with 'union', or 'long-term liaison' or 'bonding'.

But I can't say that I've ever been all that interested in homosexual issues. Having been dashingly handsome as a youth, I suppose I got my fair share of hands up the thigh from blokes who I thought were friends, but who seemed to want more than friendship. I hope they found it.

But leave marriage alone. Find your own word, Nancy !

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Thank You for sharing your views with us in this
discussion.

People tend to see things from a viewpoint of
subjectivity. An interpretation based on personal
values and experiences. We can adopt varying
perspectives on the same problem and can come to
different and even contradictory conclusions as
a result.

If the world consisted simply of some self evident
reality that everyone perceived in exactly the
same way, there might be no disagreement among
people. But the truth of the matter is that what
we see in the world is not determined by what exists
"out there." It is shaped by what our values,
past experiences has prepared us to see and by what
we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

Knowledge and belief do not exist in a vacuum; they are
social products whose content depends on the context
in which they are produced. For example a fundamentalist
preacher will tend to view pornography in one way; the
owner of a strip-tease establishment in another way.
Each is inclined to perceive facts selectively and to
interpret them accordingly.

The same applies to marriage. If we assume that there is
only one "right" marriage form, then naturally any change
will be interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole
institution. As I've stated earlier - it is important
therefore, that we recognise that there is an immense
range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns and that
marriage like any other social institution will change
over time, in our own society as well as in others.

Gay marriage will have no impact on heterosexual
communities just as racial integration in the 60s had no
negative impact on the majority of white communities.

Dearest Foxy,

You suggest that " .... it is important therefore, that we recognise that there is an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns and that marriage like any other social institution will change over time, in our own society as well as in others."

Well, no, there may have been "an immense range in marriage patterns", but not such that any society has ever recognised homosexual relationships as 'marriage', anywhere, at any time.

Call it something else and move on: I've never, for the life of me, seen anything particularly progressive about the extension of homosexual rights: I always associated homosexuality with the effete and corrupt English upper classes, who married for convenience and shacked up with their boyfriends otherwise. I ask myself, what would Marx have thought ?

Good luck to them, but leave at least some bits and pieces of culture alone.

Ah, I get it: all of OUR culture is to be criticised, ripped apart, disparaged and degraded as just another Western or bourgeois institution to be torn down - while everybody else's cultural practices are to be carefully bathed in praise and love, by comparison.

So I'm relieved that you " .... don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage." I agree that there are far more important issues to focus on.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Gay unions and marriages have been around for
centuries. Google the subject for yourself.
There are many articles on the web to choose
from. This is but one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Ah dearest Foxy,

Pea-and-thimble trick ? Definitional slides galore ? But 'marriages' ? I don't think so, not from the examples on Wikipedia. Older men rooting little boys is not marriage, even if it's part of their culture and 'therefore' good. Coupling is not 'marriage'.

If you can show me that, in any way, homosexual 'marriage' is progressive, I'll pay it some attention. But otherwise, there are vastly, vastly, more important issues to be concerned about.

So I'm quite relieved that you " .... don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage.""

Love,

Joe

'progressive'. more like Sodom and Gomorrah. That is regressive.

Dear Joe,

Define what you mean by "Progressive?"
And in what way are heterosexual marriages
Progressive?"

Dear runner,

Please explain your reference to "regressive?"
And how do you what kind of sex Gays
or any couple for that matter, partake in
that has a negative impact on anyone else?

Dearest Foxy,

Gosh, I'm glad that you " .... don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage."

Throughout the ages, like it or not, heterosexual marriages have been the norm. They're not particularly progressive, one way or the other, but they keep societies ticking over. I suspect that even Marx would say, in response to your question, if marriage is working, leave it alone, unless you can show me that homosexuality somehow advances the cause of the proletariat, and not the predilections of the upper classes.

Perhaps we could say to homosexuals, as in that First World War cartoon, "If you can find a better hole, go to it." They don't have to tear down what they can't have, you know Foxy :)

Love,

Joe

Fox, "And how do you what kind of sex Gays or any couple for that matter, partake in that has a negative impact on anyone else?"

No need for a national health campaign for those young bare-backing gays and bisexuals to wear a condom then?

No worry either that young women are being pressured against their commonsense and inclination to be 'bum girls', putting their health, wellbeing and life and that of their unborn children at risk?

However those issues and others have been explained to you by dozens of concerned posters before today, but you choose to ignore, why?

Dear Joe,

Marriage should be between a spouse and a
spouse - not a gender and a gender. People
should be allowed to marry the person they
love and publicly celebrate their commitment,
and have legal security. Gays are not allowed
these privileges simply because we have
decided there is only one "right" form of
marriage. I find that wrong. I find that being
committed for life to one partner - is far healthier for
our society - than having multiple partners.
That applies to both heterosexuals and gays.

Anyway, I can see that we have different
opinions on this issue. You're entitled to
yours, of course - and I'm entitled to disagree with
you. Your reference to the way you think all
gays have sex - is out of my sphere of experience.
I'll simply accept what you know but I am not
in a position to agree or disagree. I frankly
find that an individual's sex life is - none
of my business. Nor what I do in private is
anyone else's business.

In any case, I have no further wish to discuss this
matter any further. I have expressed my views. I
fully understand yours. I don't see anything
productive being achieved by going round in circles.

See you on another discussion.

Spruikers of anal sex can make their own choices and be responsible for them. One doesn't expect that political and gay activists would ever take responsibility for any negative negative consequences from normalising anal sex and other risky sex.

Although it is the health system and the taxpayer who ultimately must pick up the tab.

Where girls and young women are concerned, the ONLY choice is to never have sex, to refuse it outright, where a request is made for anal sex, or more likely the offender just bullies them, "Everyone does it, the ABC says so", or tries it on without asking. Bisexuals present as very high risk.

The problem is however that girls and young women cannot exercise informed choice because there is no legal requirement and there should be, for the man to disclose prior if he has ever had sex with another male.

//The problem is however that girls and young women cannot exercise informed choice because there is no legal requirement and there should be, for the man to disclose prior if he has ever had sex with another male.//

The logical corollary of this, of course, is that man should be allowed to have sex with as pox-ridden VD incubators as he wants and not disclose it, provided that all those clap-mongers were female. Because in beach's world, only those disgusting poofs spread veneral diseases.

Remember: She may look clean - but you can't beat the Axis if you get VD.

http://tinyurl.com/hzkowlh

OTB,

You seem to be genuinely concerned about young women
and females in general and their sexual practices.

Perhaps you could start your own discussion on the
subject - both on the risks involved on various risky
sexual habits and unprotected sex.

Just a suggestion.

This discussion has now finished for me.

Cheers.

cont'd ...

Here is a link for you that may help if you
decide to start your own discussion on the
subject, that you may find useful:

http://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/stdfact-msm.htm

The jump of HIV to young heterosexual women is concerning health authorities all around the world and for obvious reasons.

Something positive needs to be done to protect girls and young women. Making it a formal requirement for their intending male partners to divulge prior same-sex experimentation (or current practice!) is perfectly reasonable where the lives of the woman and her unborn infants are at stake.

It should also be an offence as it is in Sweden and Julian Assange groupies would be aware, where the male partner has not properly used a condom as expected. Very few women would not have the expectation that an intending sexual partner would be proposing to do anything other than wear a condom and do it effectively. It is not unreasonable to expect that an intention to go 'bare' would ordinarily be an additional, required part of obtaining consent.

Dearest Foxy,

Even though you " .... don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage .... ", it may be constructive if we differentiate between lesbians and homosexual men: maybe like OTB and most blokes (at least heterosexual blokes), I have far less objection to female homosexual activity than to male homosexual activity.

I can appreciate why women may not want to enter into exploitative relationships with men, and that they can love each other as passionately as any heterosexual couple. I can't see that they could transmit any diseases to each other any more than any heterosexual couple can. On that score, what Toni has inferred is quite appalling.

But although I would give lukewarm support to legalising male homosexual activity, I don't have to like it, or the idea of it. I feel sorry, of course, for all those homosexuals who have caught AIDS from a partner, and I look forward to a proper vaccine for them.

I suppose two men can love each other just as heteros can, but the thought still makes my skin crawl. So call be a troglodyte, conservative, whatever. And let them call whatever they seek something other than 'marriage'.

In answer to your very first question, yes, marriage is very important to me - monogamous marriage, as giving a sense of security to women. I hope that is not seen as patronising or presumptuous.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I fully understand how you feel.
I suspect many heterosexual men may share
your viewpoint.

However that still does not give anyone
the right to decide who should be
allowed to be married based on their
sexual practices because there are many
practices in the heterosexual world that
are also questionable and risky.

As I stated earlier marriage should be between
a spouse and a spouse. Not a gender and a
gender. And allowing people to make and celebrate
their life-long commitment to just one partner is
healthier for all concerned including society.

Fourth post, I think.

Derarest Foxy,

Even though you " .... don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage .... ", I guess that's all it's going to be. But male homosexuality is more than just sexual practices, surely ? And whatever they may be, they can choose another word for it.

And if there is to be a plebiscite about it, then we can all vote on it, and take the consequences.

Yes, I too " .. don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage .. " Marriage is more important, more substantial, more consequential, and should be respected as such. I'm sure your incredibly lucky husband would agree :)

Love,

joe

Dear Joe,

I'm the lucky one.

I count my blessings every day.

It is the duty of anyone proposing change and in the change is very serious indeed, to trash the Marriage Act and turn the whole meaning of marriage on its head, to:

- not only detail specific and compelling reasons for change, but to,

- demonstrate clearly, simply and unequivocally how the change will retain the meaning and purposes of the Act for those already married, and,

- show what the future will be, ie how the institution of marriage will work in the future. That considers child raising and even how more 'marrieds' affects singles, the other forgotten half (when do they get to speak).

The discussion on gay marriage has once again been unedifying, just the broken record and a slew of ad hominems directed at anyone who might challenge the proposal, as I did for example.

The starting point must be the statement of previous PM Ms Julia Gillard and her Attorney General Nicola Roxon, who publicly and emphatically announced that their overturning and amendment of 85(87?) individual pieces of legislation, had removed totally and forever any discrimination affecting the homosexual population.

It is worth noting that they did NOT regard the Marriage Act as any risk at all where 'gay' discrimination was concerned, otherwise they would have targeted it too.

By their actions, all the leftists, feminists and homosexual activists who participated in the back room rejigging of all of that legislation did NOT see the Marriage Act as problematical (a much used feminist term at the time) for gays. Marriage was a hated institution for the leftist 'Progressives' and especially the many radfems of Emily's List. Homosexuals also despised marriage as the sorry out-moded, manacles of heteros.

Now Fox and ors want the electorate to believe that PM Gillard, her Attorney-General and her parliamentary comrades lied.

Coincidentally, none of the many homosexuals, lesbians included, who were and remain opposed to State regulation of their personal affairs and for damned good reasons too is heard and definitely NOT heard on the ABC. Arguably the ABC has relentlessly championed gay marriage.

My first sentence should read, "It is the duty of anyone proposing change and IN THIS CASE the change is very serious indeed, it is to trash the Marriage Act and turn the whole meaning of marriage on its head.. "

Dear OnTheBeach,

It is indeed concerning that those already married would find themselves in a status they never accepted and is not the deal they signed and paid for, without being able to renege on the deal after it was modified by the other party.

The very minimum requirement for changes in the Marriage Act, is to include a clause that will allow those that already married prior to the date it is changed, to become un-married (without being required to separate for a year).

The right thing to do of course, is to abolish the Marriage Act altogether. Surely this will provide marriage-equality!

Yuyutsu, "The very minimum requirement for changes in the Marriage Act, is to include a clause that will allow those that already married prior to the date it is changed, to become un-married (without being required to separate for a year)"

Many would agree with you.

Besides, it would be only humane to set the cowering trained manginas free from the yoke of their bullying feminist cowdozer handlers. Imagine them walking free again, life regained.

Er, make that 'spouses'. Yes, 'spouse' appears to be the PC new-speak to dispense with the inconvenient one man and one woman of marriage. Has 'spouse' replaced 'partner' and why? It is hard to keep up with the spin.

Dear OnTheBeach,

I was not previously aware of this term, "manginas", so I made interesting observations looking it up.

Please note that those who wish to separate and divorce can do so already: if they want to but do not dare, then no new clause in the Marriage Act would help them.

Rather, I was referring in my post to couples that are genuinely married, often bound together for life or even beyond by a religious sacrament, whose beautiful relationship is written in big letters up in heaven and have neither wish nor intention to ever separate; but who no longer wish to be considered married for civil purposes once the civil authorities changed their definition of 'marriage' so that it no longer reflects their own understanding of the nature of their relationship.

Yuyutsu,

I understood your meaning and I agree with your para 4 above. It would change the very essence of marriage for millions already married. Totally unnecessary too, because the Marriage Act should be left as it is and a new regulation specific to homosexuals can be drafted.

However 'gay marriage' also finalises the State's control of homosexual relationships set in train by Gillard and Labor. That also puts pressure on the great many homosexuals who never wanted State interference in their relationships, ever.

My reference to mangina was tongue in cheek. It is simply astonishing how many feminists who trash men, fatherhood and marriage at every opportunity and in some cases for decades, also lay claim to having a feminist trained male partner ('spouse' appears to be the new-speak PC term), presumably neutered, who adores them, totally supports them and shares their radical views etc.

Mangina
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mangina

Of course to feminists and those leftist 'Progressives' who have never supported marriage anyway and would like to deep six the institution ASAP, gay marriage is just a blunt weapon to belt men and 'conservatives' and to cause disruption. To cynical Greens and Labor it is a political distraction and wedge. -Much better than facing up to the CFMEU and other nagging problems.

Make that your para 3, Yuyutsu. Got to rush, c u.

Nobody wants to "trash" the Marriage Act.
That has already been done by our former
PM Mr John Howard. He was the one who
put in the words that "Marriage was to be
between a man and a woman, to the exclusion
of all others."

Gay Australians simply want to re-instate
the wording that the former PM John Howard
replaced. He was
the one who changed the wording to make
marriage between "A man and a woman," only.
Instead of between two people.

Had he not done what he did - we possibly
would not have the problems that we are
having today. All citizens of this country
are entitled to be treated equally and fairly
and not be discriminated against because of
somebody's version of what the "right" idea of
marriage should be.All Australian citizens are
entitled to be treated
equally and to celebrate their commitment to the
person they love as the rest of the country does.

That of course is simply my opinion from what I
have read on the web and watched on the media.
And I do understand the feelings of those who
disagree with this viewpoint. It would therefore be
appreciated if personal attacks and wrong assumptions
were not made about me simply because of my viewpoint.
Nobody likes or supports abusive, or illogical posters.

Good Lord Fox your nose will be a metre long.

As you very well know and have been reminded countless times before, all PM John Howard did was ensure the meaning and intent of the Act and how it was understood and practised by millions of Australians were protected from a sly backdoor legal attack.

Doubtless the mainstream of the homosexual population welcomed Howard's move, all excepting the interfering feminists and bullying Gay Pride activists of course.

The majority of gays, the mainstream who never wanted the State to control their lives and lawyers and Courts to make decisions for them, rue the day they sat back and let a few bolshie attention-seeking activists and the meddling feminists with their secondary agenda to take over leadership. As demonstrated by the Gillard(+Greens sidekicks) government, the educated middle class feminist elite drive their own agenda and what is good for their income, careers and to preserve their self-entitlement.

Of course you ignore the inconvenient facts raised in my post on page 14 [onthebeach, Wednesday, 10 February 2016 9:25:20 PM], but no surprise there.

Dear Foxy,

You shouldn't be too hard on old John Howard. He isn't what you might call a man of great knowledge.

You frequent the same club rooms, Misopinion ?

In the current march through the institutions of bourgeois society, is it intended that when homosexual liaisons are recognised as 'marriages', that widow's pensions will be payable to any survivor of such a 'marriage' ? To husband 1 or husband 2, whoever is the survivor ?

Equality in marriage. Yeah, right.

Joe

OTB,

I would like to respond to you in more depth.
All you need to do is cut the abuse, use logic,
and reasoning, and I shall be happy to respond.
Give it a go. It may surprise you. And me.

Dear Joe,

Some evidence please.

From what I gather - unless you're married
nobody gets anything. Even if you're in
hospital your partner is not allowed to
be given any medical information about you
unless you're married. Only immediate family
members are allowed to be given this
information.
Talk about equality?

Dearest Foxy,

Well, yes, I suppose that's what being married means. My point is that, once the marriage gate has been kicked in, the next paling in the fence will be aspects of marriage like widow's pensions and probably other aspects that I'm not aware enough of.

After all, how significant is marriage ? One can bequeath one's worldly goods to whomever one likes already, married or not, and that includes one's super, I suppose.

Of course, one fly in the ointment could be that, once homosexuals are recognised as married, this might extend to 'de facto homosexual couples' as well, i.e. homosexuals who have been living together for more than six months or whatever, whether they like it or not, would be considered as 'married' as heterosexual couples - and subject to all the hassles of divorce as a consequence.

'Be careful of what you wish for' - should be on the back of every pro-marriage placard.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

People want what they want - hetero or gay.
Gays are simply asking for the same things
that hetero's already have and they want
to be given the same rights that the rest of us have
is all and not be told who they can or can't marry.

By the way Google inheritance rights for gays. There are rules
that have to be obeyed. It's not that simple - as you
suggest.

Anyway, I'm done here

Dearest, sweet Foxy,

Ah, so innocent, so trusting. So what terrible impositions are placed on homosexuals and homosexual couples now ? Apart from Muslim societies, where are they under threat in any way ? We don't chuck them off the top of buildings here.

For all anybody would know (or care) these days, they can live together as closely or whatever as if they are married, and nobody will care two hoots.

Oh, they can't adopt as easily as heterosexual couples ? It's not that easy for heteros either. There are complications with inheritance ? Make a will, and get your partner to make one, that should do it.

What else ? Ah yes, there's still things like entitlement to widow's pensions. That's the next paling.

Love,

Joe

It was the educated middle class elite, particularly those on the government payroll and enjoying the generous conditions of service and entitlements that go with management and executive jobs, who benefited hugely from the Hillard government's back-door rejigging of 'married' status through extension of the definition of de facto and inclusion of homosexual as de factos and as 'marrieds'.

For instance, a public bureaucrat gained the entitlement to take his/her de facto squeeze of the day with them under the spouse accompanying travel provisions that were originally framed to reduce the distress of long separation in days where travel was not so common.

To take another example, public bureaucrats were able to nominate the de facto (incl same sex) as the beneficiary of their superannuation.

Of course the lesser beings who did not enjoy those and other entitlements, for instance junior staff don't get the overseas postings and the opportunity to travel and cannot avail themselves of the benefits, all there was for them from Gillard's changes was the inconvenience and irritation of State interference in their private lives where they had previously been independent.

What rights and entitlements do gays already have? Fox and other spruikers for gay marriage are always silent on that, but the answer is that had PM Julia Gillard's nominated de facto been a woman she and they would have enjoyed exactly the same conditions and ultimately the same golden handshake, with travel super conditions and so on.

All of that comes at a cost to the taxpayer. Once there were far fewer snouts in the public trough.

What is noticeable in the marketing of gay marriage is that the voices of the large bulk of homosexuals -who unlike the middle class elite and the wealthy few, get no advantage from the proposal at all- are NOT heard. There are no talk fests for them on the ABC with endless opportunities to score free runs and with compere/interviewer assistance.

I wonder too what singles think of it, with their taxes going to all of those marrieds' entitlements and now there are so many of them.

Dear Joe,

Gays are first-class taxpayers but 2nd class citizens
according to the Human Rights Commission:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-same-entitlements-executive-summary

OTB,

We're so lucky to have such a sage as yourself
shedding his fathomless light
to discussions on this forum.

Dearest Foxy,

I don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage, but since somebody raised the topic, I suppose we should give the issue the attention it deserves.

There.

Now, back to other issues to do with marriage, more palings in the fence to be kicked in. Why is adoption so difficult for married couples ?

Less than a thousand adoptions are approved each year in Australia, but we know that there must be many times more children at risk with useless, neglectful parents - and surely most of us know of some of those - yet those children are condemned, through no fault of their own, to be shuffled back and forth between short-term foster-parents, back to natural parents, back to foster-parents, off to relations, back to foster-parents.

Surely cut-offs for neglect and/or blatant mistreatment of children, as well as less exploitation of foster-parents, should mean many more children being adopted and being raised in steady, loving homes ?

Just asking.

Love,

Joe

Fox, "Gays are first-class taxpayers but 2nd class citizens"

They may be something else to Centrelink after the Gillard government's back door law changes that broadened the definition of de facto partners and included homosexual relationships.

Speaking of that, has the number of gays registering their relationships with Centrelink increased? There was that lag in expected numbers after Gillard shifted the goalposts on de factos partners.