Gay marriage

[Russ]

Anyone else gonna attempt a crack at a non-religious argument against ssm?

Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval

Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded (ugh I need to read less feminist crap)

Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis

[thushan]

Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval

Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded (ugh I need to read less feminist crap)

Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis

Marriage is a social construct that comes with connotations of commitment and legitimacy that should be enjoyed by homosexuals too.
"Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded" - that may or may not happen over time, but in the meantime homosexuals should have the right to enjoy such a union.
Arguments with a religious basis are often based on axiomatic premises, of which many are flawed.

[Russ]

Marriage is a social construct that comes with connotations of commitment and legitimacy that should be enjoyed by homosexuals too.

Why? It's a social construct, it's the product of the entire society not of what you think it should be.

"Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded" - that may or may not happen over time, but in the meantime homosexuals should have the right to enjoy such a union.

That's completely sidestepping what I said.

Arguments with a religious basis are often based on axiomatic premises, of which many are flawed.

So we scrap them all from the start?

[thushan]

Why? It's a social construct, it's the product of the entire society not of what you think it should be.

That's completely sidestepping what I said.

So we scrap them all from the start?

If that's the case it's not a legitimate social construct and reflects, if your conclusion is correct, society's discrimination on homosexuals.

No it isn't. If you want to get rid of marriage, get rid of it altogether, don't allow it for one group and not another for an unfair reason - that's discrimination.

No, address the points on their merits, but don't take them as gospel simply because they are in a religious text.

[brenden]

Russ has a thinker.

Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval

I think this argument is weaker in a Western society with rights based on the individual and the importance assigned to the individual. If we accept there is a greater emphasis on an individual's rights in Western society (I really think you have to), then I'd argue the right to equality (even if that in itself is a social construct) supersedes disapproval from societal facets.

Also what's wrong with arguments with a religious basis

Well, many would assign religious principles to non-religious, which is just absurd. Let's inverse this. "As an atheist, I believe praying is absolutely useless and yields no results. Because of this, praying is a waste of time that could be used more productively. Therefore, praying is wrong and people shouldn't pray." -> And then an atheist group tried to enforce this principle on the religious. So; denying x from party G because of principle z should not apply when party G is not subject to principle z.
I guess the obvious rebuttal to that is "marriage is a religious ceremony" but I don't think you can say that statement with certainty. Non-religious African tribes used to jump over a broom to signify marriage, long before Western religion had raped their culture.

I have an argument for your second point but I'd rather think about it a little bit more before I make myself look like a dickhead.

[chasej]

Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval

Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded (ugh I need to read less feminist crap)

Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis

If you use a religious based argument and say this is why no one can ever do this then you are forcing your religious belief on others by saying. "My religion say this is a sin, therefore no one regardless of whether the follow my beliefs or not can partake in the practice". That's not fair.

[Russ]

If that's the case it's not a legitimate social construct and reflects, if your conclusion is correct, society's discrimination on homosexuals.

How on earth is it not a social construct? Because you say so? You're just repeating what you said before. The fact that you say it's not "legitimate" (what?) doesn't mean anything. Discrimination also doesn't mean anything, if you believe that there is a mandate to uphold what the most accepted form of a concept is.

No it isn't. If you want to get rid of marriage, get rid of it altogether, don't allow it for one group and not another for an unfair reason - that's discrimination.

Yes it is. You don't solve a problem by temporarily making it worse in the interest of "fairness". That's not relevant at all to the point, which is that marriage is not desirable. It's a cop-out to say that "we'll solve the problem eventually, but in the mean time lets do something unrelated and worse".

No, address the points on their merits, but don't take them as gospel simply because they are in a religious text.

So you agree then, that there can be religious objections, depending on what they are?
(also goes for the other two comments here)

I think this argument is weaker in a Western society with rights based on the individual and the importance assigned to the individual. If we accept there is a greater emphasis on an individual's rights in Western society (I really think you have to), then I'd argue the right to equality (even if that in itself is a social construct) supersedes disapproval from societal facets.

What makes marriage a civil/human right? It's something that evolved alongside society and humanity and the only value it has is the value society places on it; how can you, as an individual, decide to redefine it.

I guess the obvious rebuttal to that is "marriage is a religious ceremony" but I don't think you can say that statement with certainty.

Perhaps not with certainty, but it is undeniable that marriage and religion are intrinsically linked in Australian culture. Do religous organisations have to provide same sex marriages, irrespective of whether they are legalized?

[brenden]

What makes marriage a civil/human right? It's something that evolved alongside society and humanity and the only value it has is the value society places on it; how can you, as an individual, decide to redefine it.

Sorry, the point of my post was that equality is the right that is being denied and that as a Western society, individual rights supersedes communal views.

Perhaps not with certainty, but it is undeniable that marriage and religion are intrinsically linked in Australian culture. Do religous organisations have to provide same sex marriages, irrespective of whether they are legalized?

If I were the lawmaker and wanted to keep things fair, I'd give individual churches (Church of Narre Warren, not Catholic Church) the option to opt out of marrying gay couples.

[availn]

Perhaps not with certainty, but it is undeniable that marriage and religion are intrinsically linked in Australian culture. Do religous organisations have to provide same sex marriages, irrespective of whether they are legalized?

Separation of church and state is kinda a thing here. The government should not be able to force the church to recognise gay marriage. Likewise, the church should not have any say when it comes to the law. Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia states that "The Commonwealth shall not make any law... for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion"

Religion is pretty irrelevant in this argument. Usually when discussing this, I just use "civil union" to mean a legal, non-religious marriage, as it makes it easier to convey whether you are talking about a religious or secular marriage. Pretty much, I believe that gay couples should be allowed civil union, and they would considered just as married as a straight couple who also had a non-religious marriage. Of course, the church doesn't have to pay heed to any of this, and I doubt that it is even possible to make them do so if we tried. They have their rights to maintain their views, just as much as we have to ours, and we cannot impose our views on each other.

[thushan]

How on earth is it not a social construct? Because you say so? You're just repeating what you said before. The fact that you say it's not "legitimate" (what?) doesn't mean anything. Discrimination also doesn't mean anything, if you believe that there is a mandate to uphold what the most accepted form of a concept is.

Yes it is. You don't solve a problem by temporarily making it worse in the interest of "fairness". That's not relevant at all to the point, which is that marriage is not desirable. It's a cop-out to say that "we'll solve the problem eventually, but in the mean time lets do something unrelated and worse".

So you agree then, that there can be religious objections, depending on what they are?
(also goes for the other two comments here)

What makes marriage a civil/human right? It's something that evolved alongside society and humanity and the only value it has is the value society places on it; how can you, as an individual, decide to redefine it.

Perhaps not with certainty, but it is undeniable that marriage and religion are intrinsically linked in Australian culture. Do religous organisations have to provide same sex marriages, irrespective of whether they are legalized?

Okay...I guess I'm just stupid :/ I'll leave this conversation.

[BubbleWrapMan]

I'm somewhat ambivalent about this, mainly due to the issue of what marriage actually means these days. I'm all for homosexual couples being allowed to be together, but the current issue is somewhat removed from this, which is kind of sad.

When I think of marriage, I don't necessarily think of it being something that's entirely good. Not that it isn't a beautiful thing at times, but it has been abused to no end. I also think of whether this kind of status actually matters. It is of course an artificial construct and so has no inherent meaning, so I feel that if the world were exactly the same as it is now, except without marriage having introduced, homosexuals and their proponents would be exactly where they want to be.

This is a farfetched scenario, but it's more for illustrative purposes. Marriage is somewhat erroneously placed on a pedestal, despite its abuse and subsequent weakened meaning. This glorification, in somewhat crude terms, makes gay couples think 'I want that', when it wouldn't necessarily be an improvement on their life or relationship. It feels like it's more that they want it just because others have it.

That said, there's still no point in going out of our way to prevent it, but there's still no point in going out of our way to introduce it. Obviously religion is heavily tied into it, and the Bible isn't being rewritten anytime soon, so legalising it's just going to be more trouble than it's worth. I feel this is the only deterrent; if religion weren't an issue, there wouldn't be a legitimate reason to not introduce gay marriage at this point.

The religious connotations contradict the motive for gay marriage to an extent, since I would imagine anyone (or at least a majority of people) who would enter into a gay marriage would not be religious, and would therefore have no interest in religious ceremonies. A civil union seems to be what is actually sought, but I guess it doesn't have the same ring to it.

This is more just me, but I don't feel that external recognition is important in a relationship. I understand that feeling like you have to (and actually having to) hide your relationship can be difficult. But our society is mostly past that point now; it's only really a legal barrier rather than a social barrier, at least from my experience. If a guy can hold a guy's hand in public without anyone batting an eye, then that's about as much acceptance as you'd need. Well, maybe I speak for myself. I care more about internal recognition of love. External recognition is just a bonus in my eyes. I understand not everyone feels that way, but if internal validation is lacking then I don't know how many problems getting married will solve.

If I love someone, I'd be happy to live with them, and have, or adopt, children with them. Marriage just happens to exist, so it shouldn't really affect something that is so innate as love. If someone's last thought, on their deathbed, was 'I wish we got married', then that would be a little depressing. I would question how much their relationship really meant. This goes for a member of any couple.

But, for sure, the situation could be improved upon. There are many issues surrounding it that are a long way away from repair (e.g. religious involvement), but there are also many other issues in this world that might be more deserving of our attention.

[chasej]

What makes marriage a civil/human right?

The United Nations Human Rights Declaration

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

[ninwa]

Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded (ugh I need to read less feminist crap)

Not desirable according to who? And why does this mysterious person(s) who does not desire marriage have the right to be the ultimate arbiter of who gets to access this "undesirable entity"?

Even if you're trying to play Devil's Advocate (which I sincerely hope you are), this is a ridiculous argument.

Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis

Nothing, just don't force that shit onto those who aren't religious

Why? It's a social construct, it's the product of the entire society not of what you think it should be.

And support for same sex marriage is growing more every day. What's your point?

Arguments with a religious basis are often based on axiomatic premises, of which many are flawed.

So we scrap them all from the start?

Uhh yes? If they are flawed, scrap them.

How on earth is it not a social construct? Because you say so? You're just repeating what you said before.

Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval

It IS a civil right, see UN quote above

The fact that you say it's not "legitimate" (what?) doesn't mean anything. Discrimination also doesn't mean anything, if you believe that there is a mandate to uphold what the most accepted form of a concept is.

I believe what Thushan was saying is that it is no longer a legitimate social construct if the state of marriage is no longer viewed as acceptable by the majority of society.

Discrimination doesn't mean anything? Are you serious? What the hell is that supposed to mean? There was a time when it was "most accepted" to see black people as inferior. Try telling a civil rights fighter that "discrimination doesn't mean anything because there was a mandate to uphold the most accepted form of that time". Good luck not getting punched in the face.

Yes it is. You don't solve a problem by temporarily making it worse in the interest of "fairness". That's not relevant at all to the point, which is that marriage is not desirable. It's a cop-out to say that "we'll solve the problem eventually, but in the mean time lets do something unrelated and worse".

"Marriage is not desirable" is not exactly a great point either. You keep trumpeting this, but you have not bothered to explain at all why.

So you agree then, that there can be religious objections, depending on what they are?

He didn't say there can't be religious objections. He said they should not, generally, be taken as determinative of the matter, because religious viewpoints on same sex marriage are inherently bigoted and founded on a set of beliefs which not everyone subscribes to and which should not be imposed on a secular society like ours.

What makes marriage a civil/human right? It's something that evolved alongside society and humanity and the only value it has is the value society places on it; how can you, as an individual, decide to redefine it.

Again, see UN quote

Again, it is a fair bit more than "an individual" that wants to reform it. You're the one arguing that it's a social construct. You can't then turn around and deny society the ability to change it as societal views progress.

Perhaps not with certainty, but it is undeniable that marriage and religion are intrinsically linked in Australian culture.

[citation required], we are a secular state and have been since the Constitution was first devised

edit: not to mention the concept of marriage has NEVER been a strictly religious construct

[QuidProQuo]

The religious connotations contradict the motive for gay marriage to an extent, since I would imagine anyone (or at least a majority of people) who would enter into a gay marriage would not be religious, and would therefore have no interest in religious ceremonies.

Well, there are emerging homosexual movements in several religions, including Judaism. Check out the film 'Trembling Before God' - it documents the plight of a group of gay Orthodox Jews struggling to find acceptance in their respective communities, and the ways in which they attempt to retain their religious connection in light of this. As stated previously, homosexuality is involuntary. So, those who enter same-sex relationships and seek SSM marriage aren't necessarily irreligious; in recent years, the Reform movement has offered a safehaven for gay couples who would otherwise be forced to repress their sexuality, remain celibate (thereby contradicting the fundamental tenet of Genesis 2:6), or abandon the religion entirely, condoning SSM but allowing individual synagogues to formulate their own policies on this. Unfortunately though, those brought up in staunch Orthodox communities often find themselves unable to embrace the Reform movement as equally legitimate to Orthodoxy, and as a consequence, many end up removing themselves from their religion altogether, "to salvage a sense of dignity and to build a life" - as noted by Rabbi Steve Greenberg, the first openly gay Orthodox (and disputedly so) rabbi.

[Professor Polonsky]

Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval

Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded (ugh I need to read less feminist crap)

Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis

I completely agree with your first point, actually. There is absolutely no civil right for marriage in Australia (nor in any other country as far as I'm aware). We are talking here about whether same-sex marriage should be legalised, not whether it has to be legalised.

In the US, the Constitutional argument in favour of same-sex marriage is that it treats a class of people differently without a strong enough reason (Google "heightened scrutiny"). While in Australia, we don't really (and certainly none of them are relevant) have any Constitutionally-protected rights, equality under the law should be a moral guiding force behind our legislation.

As to your second point, it's a bit of a farce. If you want to limit marriage, then do so; but don't discriminate in the process. This is not a reason to specifically prohibit one group of people from marrying. I actually said before that I completely understand people who want to abolish civil marriage, but until you have done so, at least treat everyone equally and fairly under the current system.

Religious arguments are fine for your own conscious, but won't be persuasive to those who don't share your faith. Furthermore, as Brenden pointed out, subjecting others to your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is quite problematic. People should be free to practice their own religious beliefs, but leave it out of legislation which will affect everyone.