Nick Sowden argues that conservatives who value marriage ought embrace same-sex marriage:
Recently New York became the sixth State(not including Washington DC) in the United States to pass laws recognising Same-Sex Marriage. This produced the rather flamboyant celebrations from those who support it, and the more rather desperate arguments from those who oppose – the ubiquitous “one step away from marrying dogs, the earth will split in two, think of the children, etc.” In Australia it has again sparked debate encouraged further by the Western Australian and Queensland divisions of the Labor Party voting to support Same-Sex marriage.
I should from the outset note that I am of the opinion that Government should have nothing to do with marriage at all. Marriage should exist purely as a contract between two consenting parties without the interference of the State. Whether parties wish to include God (or any other Religious entity) in their marriage service or contract should be a standalone decision undertaken in discussion with the relevant religious body. Unfortunately, this position is not likely to ever feature in a Liberal Party manifesto, and as such realities must be dealt with. I have previously written about the deregulation of Marriage here: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41158.html but will focus now on the (big-C) Conservative nature of same-sex marriage.
The reality is that in 2009 the Australian Government in response to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s report, Same-Sex: Same Entitlements and an audit of Commonwealth legislation, introduced reforms to remove discrimination to enable same-sex couples and their children to be recognised by Commonwealth law. The reforms aim to “ensure that same-sex couples and their families are recognised and have the same entitlements as opposite-sex de facto couples. These reforms amended 85 Commonwealth laws to eliminate discrimination against same‑sex couples and their children in a wide range of areas, including social security, taxation, Medicare, veteran’s affairs, workers’ compensation, educational assistance, superannuation, family law and child support.”
It is difficult to think that if the Liberal party finds itself in Government in the future, it would be able to overturn these reforms, both through their lack of numbers in the senate, and through the poor response they would receive from the public for such a callous and vindictive undertaking. So if the Liberal Party is to then deal with the reality of same-sex couples living together as de-facto relations and receiving the same recognition that heterosexual couples receive on this basis, then it follows naturally that they should be encouraged to formalise their relationship in the same way as heterosexual couples are able to.
It is often a common occurrence for conservatives to argue with vigour the importance of marriage as an institution within our society – and with the exception of state involvement I tend to agree with them. It is important for many couples to receive formal recognition of their relationship with the support of their families and peers. If we are to include same-sex couples within our society, then we must also admit them to our institutions. Conservatives cannot argue that an institution benefits society and encourage the inherent moral value of participating in this institution only to deny it to a certain group of citizens they deem unworthy of involvement.
Further to this point, Conservatives tend to also suggest that marriage provides a more formal start to a relationship which is soon to involve children (the – “think of the children” argument) – once again, I find myself agreeing. It is important to realise (if for nothing other than the alleviation of ignorance) that many same-sex couples have children AND provide for these children in a safe and controlled family setting. Whether or not you agree with this family structure, if we are to indeed “think of the children” then we must do so away free from ignorance. If children are truly benefitted by heterosexual marriage, then children of homosexual parents would be equally benefitted by same-sex marriage.
The benefits from a conservative point of view of accepting same-sex couples into the wondrous world of marriage seem endless, and the drawbacks seem insignificant – especially when we start thinking of the children! However, I understand that many people do feel strongly about the word marriage and believe it be defined purely for heterosexual relationships. Whilst I disagree with this point, I do think that the Liberal party should attempt to compromise and aim to be as inclusive as possible.
Those who argue against same-sex marriage tend to do so with the aim of “protecting” marriage. If marriage is truly a Conservative institution, with the numerous benefits espoused by those aforementioned, then these benefits should be encouraged to spread throughout society. If Marriage is as worthy as those who support it say it is, then it shouldn’t be protected, it should be promoted - to as large an audience as possible, and for as many as are willing to participate.
Nick Sowden describes himself to Menzies House as a "one time twitter twit, some time student, long time homocon."
Did not read a word as the headline itself was enough to describe it SH*T. Gay Marriage is an evil disease which needs to be defeated and not celebrated!
End of Story!
Posted by: Mark Sharma | August 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM
You know Nick, the general movement of the liberal party is to decrease the welfare state, and increasing the access of de facto couples to welfare doesnt meet that aim, as does increasing the scope of the marriage act to include gay marriage.
You and I will find common ground in that the primary issue here is that the Marriage Act of 1961 was created in the first place to put into place a government subsidy on "the traditional family unit" as Conservatives put it. This is the real issue.
The liberal party shouldn't be promoting gay marriage, because they shouldn't be promoting marriage. There essentially should be no legal difference between marriage and any other type of contract entered into between people (whether they be individual or groups).
The ideal situation, for the liberal party (if they are to stick to their guns on the issue of shrinking the size of government) is to target the elimination of the marriage act of 1965, and leave it to individual states to determine the best case scenario for marriage to their constituents.
Posted by: Vikas Nayak | August 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM
*Marriage act of 1961.
Although the fact that its in section 51 of the constitution means any future government could come in and drive it up to a federal issue again.
Posted by: Vikas Nayak | August 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM
^ Mark Sharma *facepalm*
Nick, from my experience as a gay guy who leans to the right of center there are really two forms of conservatives in Australian politics.
The first are conservatives who believe in preserving the western liberal democratic tradition. They believe in a strong rule of law, basic civility amongst men, a tough stance against all forms of brutality and limited government. This group believe in the four cardinal virtues of Christianity and many of the Roman virtues. Although many of these conservatives are religious, they are willing to accept difference in religious belief as long as there are certain shared values required to be good citizens. This group are likely to view marriage as a sacred institution because it binds couples within a ceremony celebrating life-commitment, sacrifice and independence. For this group marriage develops the character of men and women, AND this is what makes this relationship best suited for children. This kind of conservatism may have some objections with the left-flank of the 'gay rights movement' but will have no objection to homosexual individuals or gay marriage. When they do, they usually have an articulated response regarding natural law. An objection I have had no problem in engaging with and it is usually quite easy to convince such conservatism to at least accepting civil unions.
The second type of conservatism appears to borrow more from a populist, US brand of conservative thought which is heavily centered around preserving Christian values. This side borrows heavily from 'gung-ho' patriotism, wedge issues and moral panic. Lorenzo at Skeptic Lawyer has called this 'pomo conservatism' [ http://tinyurl.com/42unf5u ] for its preference for emotional or nominal rather than historical appropriations of the 'conservative' label. This group tends to have a narrow conception of marriage as simply "between a man in a woman" by definition. The group is more likely to see gay men and women as 'activists' from a particular strand of sexual liberation rather than people. They are also more likely to repeat blank "good and evil" rhetoric [see Mark Sharma above] rather than engage in an intellectual justification. This tactic borrows heavily from the black and white presentation of left wing activists. There is no arguing with these people.
My only hope is that younger people tend to prefer the former brand of conservatism. This is not only because young people tend to have a greater understanding of sexual orientation [although this helps]. But also because this "think of the children" form of conservatism also commits many of the nanny-state nonsense which gets kids interested in the right anyway. See: internet filter.
Hopefully you get more of a positive response!
Posted by: Jarryd | August 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM
It is time for Australia to allow the freedom of marriage for gay and lesbian couples. If you are opposed to gay marriage, then don't get married to a gay person. Simple solution.
Posted by: Brian McInnes | August 14, 2011 at 12:33 PM
"the general movement of the liberal party is to decrease the welfare state"
if only that were the case, Howard presided over a massive expansion of middle class welfare.
"increasing the access of de facto couples to welfare doesnt meet that aim"
Would you endorse abolishing welfare entitlements for non-whites only (as a stopgap of course)?
If entitlements exist, they should be across the board.
Posted by: cameron | August 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM
>Gay Marriage is an evil disease which needs to be defeated
Bwhwhwhaaaaaaahahaha!!!! Get out there with your puritan hoards and start burning married homos at the stake - is that the solution you big crusader you?
Posted by: pk | August 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM
if only that were the case, Howard presided over a massive expansion of middle class welfare.
Howard left in 2007, if you wanted to debate the direction of Howard's liberals, you should have spoken to him then. I'm not Howard, and he isn't leading the libs now.
Would you endorse abolishing welfare entitlements for non-whites only (as a stopgap of course)?
It would be beneficial for non-white groups to be excluded from things like the minimum wage and other entitlements actually. It increases their marketability in employment (think about it, if you had two equally qualified people but you could price discriminate to pay one less, which would you hire).
The removal of welfare entitlements for non-whites hurts whites, unless there are jim crow like laws put into place specifically to harm non-whites.
If entitlements exist, they should be across the board.
interesting idea. I would love to pay concession rates on everything. Theres a large range of equality promotion programs i'm excluded from i would love to be applied "across the board".
Posted by: Vikas Nayak | August 14, 2011 at 01:06 PM
Mr. Sharma, whilst I don't agree with the general thrust of this article...generally it's a good idea to read something before condemning it as "s**t"...
Just sayin'...
TVA
Posted by: Tim Andrews | August 14, 2011 at 01:28 PM
Nick Sowden argues that conservatives who value marriage ought embrace same-sex marriage:
Hell will freeze over first before I embrace same sex marriage....does that answer your question? ;-P
Posted by: bluebell | August 14, 2011 at 01:34 PM
Nick, you strike me as someone who doesn't understand the arguments against same-sex marriage. Your argument that marriage is good so everyone should have it is ridiculous - if we applied that principle consitently marriage would recognise every conceivable relationship. The intitution of marriage would mean anything and therefore mean nothing.
The reason we have marriage is for the social good. Heterosexual relationships make unique contributions to society, through procreation and providing stable homes for children to grow up with their natural parents. Governemnt and society in general has a strong interest in preserving/encouraging this. Marriage is a recognition of this, which would be completely compromised if we allowed same-sex marriage.
For more detail in regards to these points, read these articles:
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/07/abcs-qanda-and-the-weak-case-for-gay-marriage.html
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/its-all-about-the-children-not-selfish-adults/story-e6frg6zo-1226099613917
Posted by: Tommy | August 14, 2011 at 01:35 PM
I have a gay nephew and he doesn't agree with same sex marriage....do you 'embrace' his right to disagree with his militant gay counterparts? Or will he be labeled as 'intolerant' and 'backward thinking' as the heterosexuals that agree with him.
Civil unions are ok with me for legal purposes like superranuation, wills and burials.....but the full traditional marriage thingy isn't. That was clearly designed for a union between a man and a woman, and to cement the family unit. Stay OUT of our territory, ok?
Posted by: bluebell | August 14, 2011 at 01:41 PM
Good post, and I wish that some other commenters here had actually read it before attacking it.
I think you're wrong though overall. I agree with your ideal about removing state sanctioned marriage, but by expanding the power of the state like you're proposing will just make it worse...
Posted by: Pete | August 14, 2011 at 01:52 PM
The liberals haven't been in power for years, this is true, talk in opposition is affordable.
"It would be beneficial for non-white groups to be excluded from things like the minimum wage and other entitlements actually."
It would only be 'beneficial' for those who have no qualifications, and are competing for minimum wage jobs, price discrimination already exists for anyone earning more. The majority would be left relatively poorer; stigmatized.
Regardless, nothing about the present discussion involves any major expansion of the welfare state. De facto couples are currently basically equal to married couples in all significant financial respects afaik. That ship has sailed. I would like to see people treated as individuals, entitlements for couples and families abolished, but this debate is about culture rather than finance.
Posted by: cameron | August 14, 2011 at 02:04 PM
I do respect his view against gay marriage. He doesn't need to get married. You say you support civil unions, a reasonable compromise, but there will be plenty who see that as marriage by another name. I think the definition argument doesn't hold to scrutiny as the legal institution of marriage already differs much from a religious perspective. For example someone can be legally divorced but not 'in the eyes of the church'. The major wrong with banning gay marriage is that a legally recognized contractual arrangement (that carries with it social significance to all *gay and straight* people) is being denied on the basis of a minority view. Governments should not bow to special interests and should remain blind to unchangeable characteristics including race and sexual orientation. Religious groups certainly have a right to define marriage however they wish, but civil institutions should not.
Posted by: Jarryd | August 14, 2011 at 02:43 PM
I'm a little bit confused as to how recognizing gay marriage is meant to 'damage' the child raising element of marriages. There are already many couples who are married but choose not to have children. Can't marriage have more than one social purpose? Keeping in mind that the gay marriage issue remains separate to gay adoption in the eyes of most voters.
Posted by: Jarryd | August 14, 2011 at 02:51 PM
Jarryd, what I'm saying is that the purpose of marriage is to recognise the communal significance of heterosexual relationships, and therefore gay marriage is nonsensical, so we shouldn't have it. I also note that you could apply your argument to support marriage recognising every conceivable type of relationship.
Other types of relationships involve love but marriage is far more than love - it is about a certain type of love which produces children and provides stable homes for them.
So whether individual married couples have children or not, they are still heterosexual relationships with the in principle possibility of procreation, and the state has an interest in recognising them.
Posted by: Tommy | August 14, 2011 at 03:55 PM
Jarryd said in reply to bluebell...
I do respect his view against gay marriage. [He doesn't need to get married. You say you support civil unions, a reasonable compromise, but there will be plenty who see that as marriage by another name.]
Civil unions can be viewed as marriage by another name, fine, so be it - traditional marriage sanctifying a union between a man and a woman is entirely different. As much as gays want it, they can never be man and woman. The Marriage Act was based around that premise.
[I think the definition argument doesn't hold to scrutiny as the legal institution of marriage already differs much from a religious perspective. For example someone can be legally divorced but not 'in the eyes of the church'. The major wrong with banning gay marriage is that a legally recognized contractual arrangement (that carries with it social significance to all *gay and straight* people) is being denied on the basis of a minority view.]
Prove to me that it is indeed a minority view....many people will not own up to the deep seated views they hold in public, this being a classic example. I have heard people in private say things they would never say in public. This is why many politicians want a secret conscious vote on the issue.
[Governments should not bow to special interests and should remain blind to unchangeable characteristics including race and sexual orientation. Religious groups certainly have a right to define marriage however they wish, but civil institutions should not.]
Gay activists are a special interest group....and therefore governments should NOT bow to the wishes of a minority group. Muslims also come under that category for their wishes for Sharia Law. But that is another discussion for another day.
Gays should be happy with civil unions that protect their civil rights.
Leave traditional marriage to the heterosexual couples that build family units.
As a parting shot I am vehemently against gay couples having children. That is a wilful breach of a child's basic human right to be raised & nurtured by a mother and a father. In fact it's bordering on pure evil. It's selfishness in the extreme.
Posted by: bluebell | August 14, 2011 at 04:19 PM
This is what confuses me though. Your arguement is that heterosexual coupling should be the definition of marriage because heterosexual relationships are (by an large) procreative and marriage acts as a means to support raising children. This is either an instrumental arguement or a definitional (or natural law) one; both of which fail to argue against gay marriage.
Instrumentally you could argue that marriage provides the best environment to raise children. No arguments here. But an instrumental position does not necessarily cut out people marrying for other reasons. You say that marriage cannot have any other purpose but procreative. Basing marriage on 'love' alone would encompass a whole manner of relationships. This arguement fails because we are clearly talking about romantic love and the kind of 'till death do us part' sacrifices that are involved with binding romantic love in marriage. Romantic love encompasses many strong relationships, but is clearly distinguished by eros or 'erotic love' which is directly related to sexual orientation. Instrumentally allowing marriage to all couples would give both a stable environment for raising children AND a means for expressing romantic love no matter what sexual orientation. This is not a zero-sum arrangement.
A natural law or'purpose' based objection to gay marriage has to tiptoe around many land mines.
It usually begins with the prominent Catholic objection to homosexual sex going back to Aquinas (and secularized by John Finnis) that our sexual organs have a specific purpose -that is procreation - and only through heterosexual sex are these organs put to their proper use. This has been objected to by many non-Catholic natural law jurists because it simplifies the telos of sexuality and fails to see homosexuality (like infertility) as limited by nature and unable to provide the opportunity for alternative expressions of erotic love. It also seems an attempt (at least in Finnis' version) to bring secular ethics in line with scripture. Nevertheless since marriage is required before sexual relations this 'purpose' arguement extends to the marriage debate. The purpose of marriage is procreation and therefore anything non-procreative (or without the 'potential' of procreation) cannot be marriage.
My main arguement against this religious-derived approach to public policy is why not simply outlaw homosexual or non-procreative sex altogether? If law is to follow and foster relationships in accordance with natural law there is no real objection to this.
The liberal arguement against 'sodomy laws' are that people should be able to do what sexually. Clearly this is at odds with a 'purpose' view of sex and marriage.
Either religious convictions on the rightness or wrongness of homosexual relations are able to be used as a basis for legislating relationships or they are not. An awkward in between is just inconsistent politics. Essentially you are saying it should be legal for gays to have sex, but law can't sanction such relations by allowing marriage. However these relationships are already sanctioned by making them legal?
By trying to tackle via policy what is really a matter of scripture, there is an inconsistent approach. This is why government should take an 'equally before the law' standard to the issue. This leaves Churches to decide on morality.
Posted by: Jarryd | August 14, 2011 at 05:01 PM
We are in somewhat of an agreement but you don't seem to want to be.
I mention it because I know people sometimes have really basic instinctual responses to the idea of gay couples [sometimes disgust, sometimes anger], which makes it difficult to understand the issues involved.
I've always thought of it kind of like when you see someone with a severe physical disability. It raises a lot of uncomfortableness because bodies are 'wrong' or are being used 'wrong'. But there isn't any morally relevant information in such a reaction about the person or their values.
'Gay activists' aren't the only ones affected by gay marriage -all gay people are.There is legislation which distinguishes citizens based on sexual orientation. This is different from Muslim concerns because although religion is strongly related to ethnicity, it is not an "intrinsic" characteristic like sexual orientation.
Posted by: Jarryd | August 14, 2011 at 05:16 PM
Jarryd - conservatives tend to let things grow organically. That means gays will have to wait until people like myself pass on. We were bought up in a conservative society....not the one that stands before us today. Australia is still basically a conservative country....and seeing that we are bringing in Muslims by the shipload I tend to think they will have a big influence on the political agenda in coming decades. Gays might want to rethink how far they go on these issues. Muslims are not known for their tolerance.....in more ways than one.
Posted by: bluebell | August 14, 2011 at 07:08 PM
Maybe if you read more, your comments wouldn't be so ridiculous.
Posted by: Nick s | August 14, 2011 at 07:40 PM
Do people really believe this sort of ridiculous stuff? The Liberal Party in Australia is a populist party of the centre. They are part and parcel of the problem when it comes to the welfare state. Sure John Howard, who massively expanded middle class welfare, is gone. So let's look at the current mob. Tony Abbott wants to introduce universal paid parental leave funded by a tax on big business. He brags about how it is a more genereous handout than what the ALP has offered in the way of parental leave. He is not looking to trim the welfare state but is eager to find new ways to expand it.
Posted by: TerjeP | August 14, 2011 at 08:29 PM
So Nick redefines conservatism and marriage? This is Newspeak. It’s as coherent as attacking the Tea Party when you’re caught likening Obama to a monkey.
It’s textbook elitism too, because it’s about what’s theoretically best for Nick. No wonder he doesn’t want to address the issue of designer fatherless families.
By the way, Mark Sharna’s instincts were right, although I’m more comfortable with the term, regurgitated political correctness, or ABC-PC.
Posted by: Ben | August 14, 2011 at 09:31 PM
Count me in as a conservative in favor of same-sex partnerships recognized by law. As I've said here before, I've seen too many very decent people in long-term relationships suffer through lack of legal status -- a man barred from the intensive care unit by an angry family while his partner breathed his last; couples forced to separate as citizens of different countries (I'm on a heterosexual spousal visa myself, so the latter one is particularly meaningful).
I think for a lot of people the word 'marriage' is the big issue, and many conservatives wish to preserve it as a cultural or religious institution. Part of me understands their point... sort of. I say let the government provide a boilerplate partnership contract available to anyone, and participants decide what to call it after that. Religions can deny their own official recognition if they wish, but legally there won't be any difference.
Posted by: Marksouth | August 14, 2011 at 09:42 PM
Why should there be any legal recognition of any marriage, other than the means of enforcing a contract if it exists? It would be better to get government out of "traditional" marriage rather than let them intrude into another area (gay marriage).
Organisations such as churches are entitled to endorse, or not, any type of marriage they like. But the state has no role in the private relationships between people. Adults should be entitled to enter any type of relationship they like, provided all parties consent to the arrangement.
Posted by: Anton | August 14, 2011 at 09:57 PM
Ideally there shouldn't -- but there are probably still some cases where legal endorsement of a relationship is necessary; immigration being a major one but also rules governing inheritance rights, custody of children, power of attorney if one partner is unexpectedly incapacitated, etc. All of these could possibly be handled with individual contracts but it could get messy.
Posted by: Marksouth | August 14, 2011 at 10:44 PM
I think individual contracts could be a lot less messy than what we currently have. If both parties were catholic (or whatever) they could get a default catholic endorsed contract.
Currently a "state endorsed" marriage contract is nothing more than a piece of paper to put in the wedding album. Either party can end it at any time without repurcussion. Why gay people think this is of any value is beyond me.
In many of the former British colonies individual marriage contracts were the norm, my parents had one. It is just an agreement between two people.
Posted by: Anton | August 14, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Nick,
Some of your points are contradictory.
You correctly point out that the current government has granted same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples and hetero sexual couples.
You also state that the Government should have nothing to do with marriage. I agree with this view.
But this whole debate is all to do Governments defining marriage. The reality is at the moment same sex couples can get married, it is just the state won't recognise it.
This is about the Government giving the tick of approval for something that is a personal matter between two adults. The essence of conservatism is promoting individual liberties, not waiting for government to take action or give the thumbs up for something you do in your private life.
Yes, Howard did pass the marriage act and based on my arguments above that should be repealed. But this is different from specifically endorsing gay marriage. Leave it up to individual religious institutions to decide whether they want to marry same sex couples.
“Don’t leave it to Government” that is the essence of conservatism.
Posted by: Richo | August 15, 2011 at 11:06 AM
To "Long time homocon" I guess you are not talking about your poweress, I guess you are talking about being a homosexual with political leaning to those of a conservative. You being a conservative and all will quickly understand why Conservatives who value family do not promote homosexual marriage. The "Family" is the strongest bastion against socialism. A husband and wife with common purpose are not one + one equals two. Husband and wife are 1 + 1 = 11 Two people with a joint purpose have the power of up to eleven individuals. That is the power of Family. The desire to buy a home together and raise a family together. This family is the spinal cord of the backbone of Small Business owership in Australia. Socialists have for attacked the Family, family values and family continuance for ever. Rub the family out and rubbing out home ownership and Small Business ownership becomes easier. Anything whatsoever that weakens Family must be very carefully considered as to the perceived value of what that attack may acheive. The stimulation for family come from the female. The desire to forward her genes promotes the male to become efficient enough to claim the capacity to care for her an future family. The home ownership Nations are the Nations that fight the best. Planing the demise of a society has to include the demise of the Family. The familyman and his wife live in constant fear for the well being of their children. As do de-facto parents. (I have been both. They also encourage normal sexual developement in their children. They do not generally encourage homosexual behaviour as the core issue of perpetuation of ones own genes is not compatible with homosexuals. I don't go into a homosexual bar (I lived on Oxford St for years) and demand my own straight corner or toilet or understanding or right to call myself gay. I don't attempt to convert a homosexual to accepting that I am equal to them. So I do protest when a homosexual says that I should grant them normality and let them marry and adopt children and set an example for a way to behave that is different from the expectations that I have for my own chilren and many grandchilden. Homosexuals that demand equal rights to marriage can do so as soon as I find a word that will satisfactorally replace the import of the word MARRIAGE. Until that time you will have to find another word for you to use as Marriage. Try UNIAGE.
Posted by: James Darby | August 16, 2011 at 07:09 PM
Gay marriage, gay adoption, surrogacy and donor sperm......will be fertile ground for courts and lawyers well into the future. The poor child however will be the one to suffer. We reap what we sow...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sperm-donors-who-helped-lesbian-couple-has-name-stripped-from-birth-certificate/story-e6frg6nf-1226116649813
Posted by: bluebell | August 17, 2011 at 11:40 PM
There will be more...
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8286643/us-doctor-stabbed-family-100-times-court
Posted by: bluebell | August 18, 2011 at 12:06 AM
Rename the marriage act to civil union act. Marriage is then left out of the law, and we dont nave to politicize this whole issue
Posted by: phill parker | January 28, 2012 at 09:00 PM
phil makes a valid point
Tim Wilson has written some superb articles on this issue as a homocon!!q
Posted by: sam | April 10, 2012 at 09:28 AM
Here we go again. Lets destroy another pillar of western society. Lets turn it into something that it never was but call it the same thing.
It has been an organisational tool of our society and many of its predecessors to insist on marriage. Marriage serves many functions within our society. Classic examples include passing on of inheritance to the " correct " offspring ( admittedly with a small error percentage here ) and the provision of a stable economic unit. A stable home environment is also essential to the successful raising of children. A succession of " uncles " coming and going is not likely to produce a stable society or stable offspring. The breakdown of the family is essentialy at the root of black poverty in the USA according to a number of commentators.
This stability has always been in the interests of the State and I would suggest why marriages have been formalised by the State.
What benefits Homosexuals expect to gain from marriages can be legislated in other ways. Inheritance rights can be legislated to recognise a relationship and so on.
Homosexuals can continue to do whatever they do but to expect a wedding ceremony is too far a reach. The wedding and marriage are steeped in a history of hetrosexual relations and carry religious overtones. Homosexuals can just suck it up and realise that marriage is an institution that defies redefining.
Homiosexuals aren't gay, they are Homosexual and attempting to redefine another word just isn't on. eave marriage to those who own it.
Posted by: ThePhilosopher | April 10, 2012 at 01:39 PM