paulry

It's no more discriminating than having Ladies and Gents toilets or TAFE and University. The reality is every single one of us are different. The reality is we all belong to several identifiable groups making some man-made structures more or less suited to some groups of people. It's NOT discrimination. We are not a bunch of clones with no identifiable differences requiring identical solutions for all.

Pollyana

I think you need to insert the word "some" between "that" and "pro".

GarryP

Waaaaaayyyyy ahead of you. If you look back in this very thread, I say that I'd prefer that you didn't lump any more people into marriage as currently defined - because it was a mess of contradictions, cross purposes, and legal leftovers that caused great suffering through not actually being fit for purpose.

I'd prefer people actually worked out what marriage was for, who could be allowed to sign what, when, that the tax fiddles were removed and that the idea of 'till death us do part' didn't then make divorce a sexist battleground with bodies cast everywhere.

Of course, that fundamental reexamination and reconstituting of marriage wouldn't leave your "framework they know and trust to be left as is" - mainly because it's already 'turned to shite'.

paulry

Well the one I signed up to is still going strong 21 years later. You're making me wonder if I've been missing out on something - what tax fiddles are you talking about?

Your bit about people working out what marriage is all about is an interesting one. I wonder how many people these days attend pre-marriage counselling sessions?

GarryP

What I was referring to is everyone implicitly says they 'know what marriage is for' (akin to your 'traditional marriage'). However when you actually get down to it what they describe has a different shape for each.

For instance, some see it as a 'public professing of love' - ignoring that its both narcissistic and better achieved by facebook today.

Some see it as a 'partnership' - in which case it should have a purpose written contractual agreement between the parties, with the terms in black and white.

Some see it as a basis for having children and providing a stable upbringing - which doesn't work half the time and would preclude those not having kids getting married.

Then there are the god botherers, who say it is a holy undertaking before god - ignoring that many don't have the same beliefs or follow them (and they are usually included in that number)

Or maybe it's for the tax benefits and monetary advantages - better served by Mr&Mrs Plc (limited liability being key).

Some truly think it's forever, whereas most think it's 'for now'.

In short, when you say 'marriage', you can be almost certain that the other person doesn't understand the term the same way you do - a complete mess that then creates a bigger mess when those worldviews inevitably clash.

paulry

The inconsistency of opinion about what marriage means could be a contributing factor to it not being so popular these days. Plus over a relatively short time modern society has lost many of the systems that prepared people for and supported marriage. Your "for now" remark is sad if it is indeed true. It might amaze you but my wife and I believe our marriage is forever. And I'm not sure I could bring myself to marry another if my wife "went" before me.

Lion in Winter

Indeed. My two gay friends here - finally recognized in the same way as everyone else as two people who wish to formalize their love and commit for life.

It's simply a rational step to take, in the US, finally.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-21943292


And these two lovely gents, in their eighties - how long have they waited? If that is not love and commitment, what is it? Why should marriage require anything else? Who would be harmed?



What possible harm is there to any heterosexuals in allowing gay people the same marriage rights?

knockoff nige

I think that is a dumb post. People are different, yes. So are every couple. Are you suggesting that every couple should have their own word for being married? Making people who have been denied marriage until recently use a different word for it is a bit like allowing black people to vote as long as they write it on a different coloured voting slip. It's discrimination and also pointless. Show us why there is a point to protecting the word 'marriage' beyond your reason of tradition.

paulry

All can use the word marriage. It's not an alien concept to have multiple kinds of marriage running side by side and having equal value. Take for example Jewish marriage, Sharia marriage, Christian marriage, marriage in community of property and marriage out of community of property - to name just a handful. Why should one group of people (heterosexuals) be bullied and cajoled into accepting the beliefs of another (the LGBT movement)? If the LGBT movement feel united enough to want one marriage then let them bloody well create one for themselves!

knockoff nige

In many countries now, the definition of marriage is not 'between a man and a woman'. Soon, Australia will be the same. Your definition will actually be wrong, regardless of your belief. Why would gay people look to create a new word (and it is quite ridiculous that you're still insisting on that) when the existing one will change for them, whether you like it or not? Marriage is marriage. If two gay people say the same vows, live by the same laws and beliefs as two straight people, how is the marriage different? The wedding will surely be very different but the marriage will be based on the same idea that your marriage was.

kimilseung

I give it two years, and there will be no male and female toilets. It makes as much sense as toilets based on race.

paulry

You're kidding

Beoz

Absolutely. And that's space in the building you can't rent out.

Beoz

But you could have a different term ..... why not? It might be a good compromise so those who wish to achieve a union can do so. You may not agree with it, but the many out there with Paulry's opinion who don't agree with you. Compromise could be the way forward.

kimilseung

There is pressure in a number of American cities to make toilets gender neutral. I see it as something that will gain traction. I never had a problem when I have experienced it when I live in Korea, where it was quite common. Here is a link to a student thesis on the subject (picked because it is from Washington - where I am, but linked to from an Australian site)