Paul1405:

“Hi phanto, cannot agree, voting yes or no is participation. and that implies from the voter that government has legitimacy in the determination of what constitutes a marriage.”

But it depends why you are participating. If you participate to stop the rot then all you are saying is that governments cause the rot. You are not legitimising the rot. If you are taking the opportunity to stop things from getting worse isn’t that saying something about the current situation? Why wouldn’t you take that opportunity? How can that be read as affirming the current situation of government involvement?

Hi Leoj,

Yeah, that puzzles me: unless one partner more or less stays home to mind the kids and do the housework, why can't each party to a divorce simply take what's theirs and be done with it ? Obviously, in the past, when that role was almost exclusively women's, there was a need to calculate who got what, and marriage itself gave perhaps the illusion of some sense of security to women. I don't know how that works in the case of liaisons involving homosexual partners. It's interesting though, that we come back to the core rationale for marriage, i.e. to raise kids and to take care of the home.

Clearly, in the case of homosexual couples where children are not involved, much of that rationale falls away, to be complicated further by the factor of divorce.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear phanto,

Marriage in this country is a legal contract
presided over by the government - whether
we want to recognise its legitimacy of not
is a different issue.
That's the way that it currently is. And by voting yes -
all people are doing is giving the
right to be legally married to same-sex couples.

Foxy:

It is not a different issue it is entwined in your vote for YES. Can you vote YES for SSM and vote NO for government involvement? Then the two things are all part of the same issue.

You can, however, vote NO for further government involvement. This is the opportunity that a citizens vote has provided which would not have been available under a parliamentary vote.

You can vote to make a better society. One where no one has to marry in order to gain rights which should be available to every couple. This is the best outcome and SSM makes the situation worse. Same-sex couples should fight for what is best for society and not just for themselves.

Hi Phanto,

You've got it in one: " .... a better society, one where no one has to marry in order to gain rights which should be available to every couple."

i.e. a society in which relationships are strengthened and treasured regardless.

Joe

Dear phanto,

I fear you may have presented us with another false dilemma. There is a third possibility: one may disagree with government involvement in marriage, but want there to be equality for same-sex couples for so long as there is.

Unfortunately, your false dilemma appears to assume that having the government involved with marriage is a bad thing, and that it is worse than having greater equality. Both are assumptions that I regret to inform you have not yet been justified.