polygamist marriage

madanthonywayne said:
Only if you think children are an anachronism. There's plenty of data to support the idea that a two parent stable family is best for children (ie marriage).
Click to expand...

Does a piece of paper signed by both parents automatically make them better parents? Or do people that live together without getting married bring their kids up just as well?

Marriage does nothing to improve the relationship between the parents. I have been with my partner for 14 years, but we are not married. We don't have kids either, but that's besides the point, many marriages don't last 14 years, when they have kids. Getting married is no guarantee that the relationship won't come off the rails, is it, so where do you get the idea that marriage implies stability? Divorce rates disagree with you somewhat.
 
phlogistician said:
Look noob, there is nothing sacred about a civil union. It's just paperwork. It's still considered 'marriage' though.

Marriage is an anachronism.
Click to expand...

this is what i was saying in the first post, read it again. to me marriage just implies a kind of contract, but to others it has religious significance. why not let them have the word? as long as civil unions have the same legal consequences, who cares?
 
codanblad said:
this is what i was saying in the first post, read it again. to me marriage just implies a kind of contract, but to others it has religious significance. why not let them have the word? as long as civil unions have the same legal consequences, who cares?
Click to expand...

Because the religious side of 'marriage' isn't binding. It's the paperwork at the end that is. The mumblings vary, but the final binding act is a legal one, not a religious one. Vicars are just agents of the state in this matter.

That said any agent performing a ceremony is of equal standing, as is the contract. Religious whacknuts trying to prevent others from doing what they want should beware, or we might start looking at the tax exempt status of their hobby.

It's the 21st century, we really should over religious zealots trying to control things.
 
Yeah, as an atheist, I'm surprised they aren't pissed that I got married. Why doesn't that offend god?
 
there are 2 other reasons codanblad that a seprate word isnt an acceptable solution

The first is symbolic, ie the message that sends that you can have the rights but we dont REALLY think your "marrage" is as valid as a hedrosexual one

The second is that if you make a new term for this even if its just purly in order to apease the religious right, then its to easy down the track to change the rules

For instance lets say that insted of making aborigionals "citizans" under law, the goverment had decided to apease the red necks by making a provision in law called say "first australians"

This would mean that some goverment down the track (say howard and his intervention) wouldnt have to worry about the common law rights that are aforded to citizans, he could just vary the act relating to first australians without any judical challange being possable.
 
Asguard said:
there are 2 other reasons codanblad that a seprate word isnt an acceptable solution

The first is symbolic, ie the message that sends that you can have the rights but we dont REALLY think your "marrage" is as valid as a hedrosexual one
Click to expand...

doesn't equal legal consequences imply equality? aren't we saying 'marriage and civil unions are equal, just for different gender combinations'? i suppose recognising gay marriage would be a big step in righting other wrongs towards gays (and maybe other minority groups).

The second is that if you make a new term for this even if its just purly in order to apease the religious right, then its to easy down the track to change the rules

For instance lets say that insted of making aborigionals "citizans" under law, the goverment had decided to apease the red necks by making a provision in law called say "first australians"

This would mean that some goverment down the track (say howard and his intervention) wouldnt have to worry about the common law rights that are aforded to citizans, he could just vary the act relating to first australians without any judical challange being possable.
Click to expand...

you're saying if we fight hard enough to have gay unions fall under marriage laws, their right to marriage is better protected? why is it harder for the bigots in power to make changes to one law compared to another? i don't know the system well enough.

i was also suggesting that some people have the right to 'own' the definition of marriage, its of religious significance and part of tradition. you can't just demand to possess something when you don't meet requirements. i understand how marriage is anachronous, but i think we can avoid a lot of hassle by acknowledging its concrete definition in the eyes of some people.

i guess what is central to my argument is: will the people preserving 'sanctity of marriage' oppose gay or polygamous unions rather than marriages? is their motive to harass gays, or protect marriage? why are we allowed to take the name of an institution that is dear to them?

edit: looking back, saw phlogs point of 'its 21st century, too many religious zealots controlling things.' good point, i'm still undecided whether they have that right with marriage though. tempted to say they don't, just to facilitate gay rights, but still unsure.
 
Last edited:
ok i will explaine it to you

Marriage is defined in the marrage act which is an act of the federal parliment which enstoys certain rights and responcabilities, the main purpose of the act however is to define what IS marrage. Thats the easy part, the complexity comes in when you get into the associated common law and other pieces of legislation (state and federal) which link to that act. Take an example of the evidence act which links into the marrage act where it relates to compelling spouses to give evidence against eachother.

Now the way things are currently the federal goverment wishes the STATES to recognise gay relationships rather than forming them in federal law. One thing this does SPECIFICALLY is remove the right to deal with disputes in the family court which is defined under the family court act and the marrage act. Property disputes would have to be delt with by the surpreem courts of the states rather than a consistant (and MUCH cheeper) system of the family court. Then there is the fact that this means you would have 8 sepreate pieces of legislation dealing with the recognision of gay relationships which would mean that potentually you could be recognised in one state but if you move across the border its not recognised simply because of slight differences in the laws.

Thats how things stand currently (well if rudd gets his way anyway, currently there is NO recognision). Now lets say that Rudd changes his mind and decides to FEDERALLY recognise same sex unions but as a seperate act rather than in the marrage act. Every single piece of legislation that deals with marrage would then have to be varied to include "civil unions". Besides being a HUGE expence at both the federal and state level but it also means there are chances for legislation to be left out if only by acident. This also leaves the opotunity for some future federal goverment to modify these perifery pieces of legislation without there being a huge uproa simply because no one happens to notice.

Now lets see what happens if the marrage act ITSELF is varried. It automatically changes all the common law, state laws, federal laws with no aditional public expence because its a simple change of definition. It ALSO means that if a future goverment wanted to descriminate in a specific area on this they would have to make a bill to ammend the marrage act and this wouldnt be overlooked by the media or the comunitity.



codanblad said:
doesn't equal legal consequences imply equality? aren't we saying 'marriage and civil unions are equal, just for different gender combinations'? i suppose recognising gay marriage would be a big step in righting other wrongs towards gays (and maybe other minority groups).
Click to expand...

Now as to your first point equal but seprate doesnt nessarly mean EQUAL. Aside from any leglisitve fuck ups by the goverment, it also leaves open the opotunitive for non goverment discrimination. One example would be say a company asked you to put an emergency contact in case you get injured. Now say that your injured at work and they open that file and see that you dont have a "spouse" but rather a "civil partner". He\she happens to be a biggot and choses not to recognise that person as your TRUE partner.

now yes this could happen anyway but its much more likly when you try "seperate but equal" as black americans could atest. Do you think they were TRULY equal by being segragated and having black and white only schools, shops ect?. Then there is the purly pyscological effect of saying to 10% of the community that "we recognise you because its politically experdiant but dont you DARE use the word married because its OURS, however we arnt discriminating against you at all so what are you complaining about"

As orleander said there was a time when athiasts and the non religious couldnt get married. This has nothing to do with being married in a church, hell I cant get married in a church because im offically "non practicing" (though this is because i belive its a load of crap) and my partner has never been baptised. Its about having the STATE say "yes this commitment is AS VALID as that one over there"
 
thanks asguard, very helpful, both the legal stuff and argument. i agree with what you said, and i guess gay rights at the cost of possibly offending a few people will do a lot more good than bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top