Fucking stupid people shouldn't be in Parliament

[Truck]

Well... a union is the same thing.

Discrimination by name is still discrimination.

Separate but equal is a flawed ideology. See: Apartheid South Africa for an example .

[paulsterio]

Firstly, I don't understand the argument where "Homosexuals = worse parents then heterosexuals". Homosexuals would be forced to adopt, which means they'd be taking kids from orphanages etc... and homosexual parents are most certainly better then growing up in an orphanage. So I think the point is moot? Unless we're talking about IVF or something with a woman carrying a homosexual couples child, which is something that is imo more private and the state can't have much to do with, which renders this whole argument rather useless in my opinion. The day when we have enough heterosexual couples to care after every child in the world, is the day homosexual parents would (ignoring IVF in this instance) be unable to obtain children, so as far as I'm concerned they present a perfectly good solution to todays problems.

I fully agree with this point, sexuality has nothing to do with how well someone can raise a child.

On the next issue @Paul, the slippery slope argument is inherently flawed because we draw the line at *consenting adults*. That is not an optional line people can take, it is immoral to have relations with children/animals because they cannot legally consent. Should polygamy be legal? Probably, in my opinion, yes. For as long as marriage is offered by the state, the state has no right to discriminate on the consenting adults it allows to marry. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques - they are private institutions and it is for those private institutions to decide on who they choose to marry or not - an orthodox synagogue will not marry a jew and a non-jew, and it is nobodys business (except for its constituents) to tell them that they should. However, for so long as the government offers marriage to citizens, it must do so to all citizens because the government CANNOT discriminate - it, by definition, should be impartial and uphold the rights of every citizen, irrespective of race, religion or gender.

Yes, the line can be drawn at "consenting adults" but what happens when a brother wants to marry a sister and they both consent? Should that be allowed?

Either way, you bring up a good point, "as long as government offers marriage to citizens". One of the ways in which this can be resolved is for the state to not have marriages in the law and just have "unions" - marriage should be relegated to private institutions such as churches...etc. because of the historical and religious value placed on the term "marriage" - how does that sound to you?

See: Apartheid South Africa for an example .

I responded to the issue of apartheid - apartheid = white people superior to black people - the notion of superiority is what is different here.

[ninwa]

it's not even saying that their "love" is different to hetrosexual "love"

we are just saying that they are two different things.

does not compute

[brenden]

Well... a union is the same thing.

Discrimination by name is still discrimination.

Separate but equal is a flawed ideology. See: Apartheid South Africa for an example .

Within context, that quote was directed at Paul saying we should have two different unions. I was meaning, what's the point in having different ones when we could just call them both a union or a marriage.

Makes more sense after my Edit.

Well... a union is the same thing.

Edit: If we insist on labeling irrelevant differences whilst providing the same legal rights, should we also separate the current definition of marriage into a classification system, Paul? We could have "interracial unions" and "same-colour unions". We wouldn't say that "same-colour unions" are above "interracial unions" - we would just say that they are two different things. But maybe we could call "same-colour unions" marriage for more convenience.

[Russ]

Yes, the line can be drawn at "consenting adults" but what happens when a brother wants to marry a sister and they both consent? Should that be allowed?

Tangent, but do you have a reason why not, assuming they don't have kids?

marriage should be relegated to private institutions such as churches...etc. because of the historical and religious value placed on the term "marriage" - how does that sound to you?

Isn't this just sanctioning discrimination?
"yes we have equal unions, but we also have a special type of commitment that only the heterosexuals can get"

[Truck]

Firstly, I don't understand the argument where "Homosexuals = worse parents then heterosexuals". Homosexuals would be forced to adopt, which means they'd be taking kids from orphanages etc... and homosexual parents are most certainly better then growing up in an orphanage. So I think the point is moot? Unless we're talking about IVF or something with a woman carrying a homosexual couples child, which is something that is imo more private and the state can't have much to do with, which renders this whole argument rather useless in my opinion. The day when we have enough heterosexual couples to care after every child in the world, is the day homosexual parents would (ignoring IVF in this instance) be unable to obtain children, so as far as I'm concerned they present a perfectly good solution to todays problems.

I fully agree with this point, sexuality has nothing to do with how well someone can raise a child.

On the next issue @Paul, the slippery slope argument is inherently flawed because we draw the line at *consenting adults*. That is not an optional line people can take, it is immoral to have relations with children/animals because they cannot legally consent. Should polygamy be legal? Probably, in my opinion, yes. For as long as marriage is offered by the state, the state has no right to discriminate on the consenting adults it allows to marry. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques - they are private institutions and it is for those private institutions to decide on who they choose to marry or not - an orthodox synagogue will not marry a jew and a non-jew, and it is nobodys business (except for its constituents) to tell them that they should. However, for so long as the government offers marriage to citizens, it must do so to all citizens because the government CANNOT discriminate - it, by definition, should be impartial and uphold the rights of every citizen, irrespective of race, religion or gender.

Yes, the line can be drawn at "consenting adults" but what happens when a brother wants to marry a sister and they both consent? Should that be allowed?

Either way, you bring up a good point, "as long as government offers marriage to citizens". One of the ways in which this can be resolved is for the state to not have marriages in the law and just have "unions" - marriage should be relegated to private institutions such as churches...etc. because of the historical and religious value placed on the term "marriage" - how does that sound to you?

See: Apartheid South Africa for an example .

I responded to the issue of apartheid - apartheid = white people superior to black people - the notion of superiority is what is different here.

If a brother wants to marry a sister, and they both consent, then a legitimate reason to not allow them to marry is the much higher risk of their children having genetic defects... although that same logic could be applied to a heterosexual couple, and would be deemed immoral, so I don't know. But this is a much more contentious area, in which I don't think we as a society are even willing to consider yet. Honestly, as much as it is repulsive, if they're both 18, I can't think of a good reason why we should stop them from being married - I just don't see it as something society would (or ever should) consider moral... however with that said, I don't think society should be infringing on their civil rights to get married anyway. Tough proposition.
EDIT: (enwiabe posted a good reason not to, thanks bro, I agree with him on this, so ignore that lol).

But ultimately, gay marriage is simpler, and Paul whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that the government should only offer civil unions, it is both impractical and comes with its own problems. Marriage is no longer simply something for religious people, it is also an entirely secular institution that is part of society, whether we like it or not. As such, we would never get support for not allowing the government to marry people, and I don't personally think we should (although that's not relevant to my argument). 

So with that said, my point is that we've come to the realization where we aren't going to stop the government providing marriage, in which case we are presented with two options: Allow gay marriage, or make the government a body which actively discriminates against homosexuals by not providing them with marriage. I think given the options we are provided with, the only moral thing we can do is to legalize gay marriage.

Well... a union is the same thing.

Discrimination by name is still discrimination.

Separate but equal is a flawed ideology. See: Apartheid South Africa for an example .

Within context, that quote was directed at Paul saying we should have two different unions. I was meaning, what's the point in having different ones when we could just call them both a union or a marriage.

Makes more sense after my Edit.

Well... a union is the same thing.

Edit: If we insist on labeling irrelevant differences whilst providing the same legal rights, should we also separate the current definition of marriage into a classification system, Paul? We could have "interracial unions" and "same-colour unions". We wouldn't say that "same-colour unions" are above "interracial unions" - we would just say that they are two different things. But maybe we could call "same-colour unions" marriage for more convenience.

Oops sorry, my bad then.

[paulsterio]

Tangent, but do you have a reason why not, assuming they don't have kids?

Well, my reason for being anti-incest is because of the whole having kids issue - that their chances of having a genetic disease is X times higher than non-incest. Something like that, I did it last semester in Molecular Biology/Genetics but I honestly don't remember the exact facts.

But kids aside - there might be those who abuse the system. As a crude example, person A wants to benefit from family welfare (which pays two INDIVIDUALS differently to a COUPLE - couple gets more) but he can't exactly "fake" a marraige with an outsider because if they divorce, he would have to deal with issues such as splitting their assets. So person A decides to marry his sister, B, instead, so they both can benefit from the family welfare payment system and they both trust eachother enough that when they "divorce" they won't run into issues.

Isn't this just sanctioning discrimination?
"yes we have equal unions, but we also have a special type of commitment that only the heterosexuals can get"

I think under the law, we should have one union (I am pro gay marriage - if there were a referendum I would vote yes), but I also think that churches...etc. should be able to do whatever the hell they want and hence, "marry" whom they please...etc.

Just like how the orthodox church only marries two people of a certain religion or something or rather, I can't remember, but it's discriminatory...etc.

[brenden]

Should just abolish marriage.

[paulsterio]

Honestly, as much as it is repulsive, if they're both 18, I can't think of a good reason why we should stop them from being married - I just don't see it as something society would (or ever should) consider moral... however with that said, I don't think society should be infringing on their civil rights to get married anyway. Tough proposition.

Yeah, "morality" seems to change quickly these days, remember that not that long ago, gay marriages were repulsive as well and most wouldn't consider it moral. But these days, most, including us, are accepting of gay marriages and don't find anything repulsive about them. But yeah, that's something to consider as well.

Should just abolish marriage.

Yes, under the law, just have unions! sounds good!

[charmanderp]

Abolish marriage simply because politicians are too homophobic and discriminatory to allow same-sex marriage? Sounds like a good idea...

[thushan]

I don't think it's fair to call Senator Bernardi stupid, in my eyes, he made a valid point.

We have to remember that marriage is an arbitrary concept, it's not something which is natural, it is a man-made concept. Thus, by nature, marriage is what we, ourselves, define it to be. Some will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman who are not related, a union between two consenting people who are not related, a union between n consenting people...etc. So this links back to aabatery's argument, that disagreement and discrimination are two different things.

Someone who defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not necessarily discriminate against those who are gay. For example, one of my teachers last year (we had this debate in class), believed that a union between a man and a woman should be called marriage and a union between two of the same gender should be called a civil union. He agrees that under law, they should be given the same rights, but they should be called different things. Now, I don't think that's discriminatory, because he has clearly stated, that they should be given the same rights, he might just have a different definition of marriage to some others, who then might label him as a bigot, while he's really not.

Anecdote aside, I think this raises three views to the situation:

1) Marriage is between a man and a woman who are not related...etc. anything else should be called something different
2) Marriage is between any number of consenting people (or even animals), regardless of other factors
3) Those who are in between

The truth, in my opinion, is that most people fall into those who are in between and the the issue with that is, there's obviously SOMETHING which has made them move from group (1) closer to group (2). What Senator Bernardi is merely saying is that this could be an issue because that means that OTHER THINGS could possibly move them even MORE closer to group (2) - leading to things such as incest and marriage to animals...etc.

That doesn't necessarily make him a bigot, nor does that make him stupid, he hasn't said anything that is clearly discriminatory, he merely disagrees with those who wish to change the definition of marriage and he has every right to, especially in a country where we should be allowed to express our honest views.

Paul - you forget that 'marriage' and 'civil union' will have connotations associated with them. And unfortunately if we adopted your model, given that 'civil union' is a new and...somewhat contrived term...there will be negative connotations associated with 'civil union.' This means that, unlike what you were assuming, assigning two different terms, one of which is already in use for 'a union between a man and a woman,' will never result in two terms with equal connotations.

And contriving another term for homosexual marriage, simply because bigots cannot accept gay marriage, is itself bigotry. Because it means sth along the lines of "oh no no no we can't call homosexual unions marriage because marriage is meant to be holy, pure, you can have a 'civil union' but marriage is just not for you"

[brenden]

Abolish marriage simply because politicians are too homophobic and discriminatory to allow same-sex marriage? Sounds like a good idea...

Well if it were one or the other I'd take no marriage. I just think marriage is a concept is silly. "I love you so much I'm willing to go through a shit load of legal hassle if we ever want to break up."

[enwiabe]

Incest laws are to protect the majority, much like age of consent.

It's very possible that a brother and sister could have a consenting loving relationship that hurts nobody. More often than not, however, incestuous relationships are the result of psychological or physical or emotional abuse. Consent is not objectively given and it's impossible to delineate it from years of extenuating circumstances. I'd say in the case of father-daughter it is almost impossible for the daughter to be giving proper consent given the position of power of the father.

And so, just like it is very possible that a 15-year-old girl is sexually mature enough to want to have sex with a 22 year old male, in most cases it isn't. And so we choose an age which we deem socially appropriate to reduce as much harm as possible. That's why it varies everywhere in the world. It does tell you something though that it is 16-18 in most developed countries. Nonetheless, it is still difficult to nail down such a dicey moral quandary.

Similarly, incest laws are to protect the vulnerable and silently suffering. In this case, the possibilities for abuse far outweigh the cases where it occurs positively and so this is a law to minimise harm.

[thushan]

That's an interesting and absolutely valid take on that point enwiabe. However, I'd like to raise the suggestion of incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters, where there would not be such a power imbalance?

[enwiabe]

That's an interesting and absolutely valid take on that point enwiabe. However, I'd like to raise the suggestion of incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters, where there would not be such a power imbalance?

I'd say an older brother is in a position of power. And like I said, it's murky. I don't doubt that some could be occurring abuse-free, but it's just impossible to legislate for it and it's better to protect the vulnerable in this instance.