As a couple a same sex couple have all the protections under law the same as any de facto relationship. That's a good thing as it protects the weaker (financial) of the partners in a relationship breakdown. It protects people in the event of death, etc. So the 'legal protection' of marriage idea is moot. A de facto couple of 22 years have basically the same legal rights as a same sex couple of 22 years as they do of my marriage of 22 years.
Which leads us to this line of thought.
Originally Posted by
le Pingouin
You're using the idea that SSM fails to meet an ideal to say it's unsuitable when the reality is a large majority of opposite-sex marriages also fail to meet the ideal. You're holding those who want SSM to a higher standard than you do heterosexual marriage.
That some traditional marriages can't uphold the ideal doesn't mean that we subsequently 'trash' what the ideal should be. I'm holding up all traditional marriage to the same standard ideal.
When a traditional marriage breaks down people are normally 'making the best of a crap situation'. That's a bit different to setting up from the outset what will likely be a 'crap situation'- at least when it comes to families.
A same sex 'marriage' will not ever be able to conceive of a child and have that child raised by it's father and mother as part of a marriage relationship- the ideal that we should be aspiring to. From the outset, a SSM deliberately, overtly, and explicitly excludes one of the parents of the biological child from being in the loving relationship the child has a right to. This is quite a distinct issue from the situation where many single parent families make a great go with their kids despite the family breakdown. A mate of mine is a loving father and husband but he has always regretted not knowing his dad as well as he'd like to because of family breakdown when he was young.
SSM doesn't 'make the best of a bad deal', it sets out with the 'best of a bad deal' being part of the inherent structure of involving children and being the absolute best that can be hoped for.
Originally Posted by
le Pingouin
Most Australians weddings are civil not religious so how is the Christian ideal relevant to those people? It's certainly not relevant to me as I'm not Christian and neither is my wife. I apply my own standards to my marriage.
Sure. By all means apply your own standards. Personally I'd love to see kids only being born to families that have made a life long commitment to each other. I'd like to see husbands supporting their wives and giving up of themselves for their wives. i'd love to see wives doing the same for their husbands. I'd love to see kids growing up with both of their biological parents. I'd love to see that family unit and 'ideal marriage' championed and fought for. I'd don't want to see that 'ideal' deteriorating further where people view kids as accessories to their personalities or worse. You're asking me though to change what I picture as an 'ideal marriage'. If the picture of what an 'ideal marriage' is malleable, changeable and variable then it becomes a meaningless institution- which many people already view it as. Heck, if SSM gets up I'd tend to agree with them. This is how SSM impacts on my marriage to Mrs Keg? It turns marriage into a variable, malleable, whatever you want it to be institution. How sad for all of us.
"Equality" isn't about anything goes - it's about giving someone access to the same rights and privileges as others have. Opposite-sex marriage is between two people, not three or more, nor does it involve animals. That's all those who seek SSM are asking for. The polygamy gambit is a joke.
How so? Is polygamy not the same principle? Why should you be free to marry someone of the same sex but someone else not be permitted to marry two, three or more people? What gives you the right to tell them who or how many people they can marry? Does all this sound familiar?
The SSM advocates do their best to avoid the polygamy angle and claim SSM is not a 'slippery slope'. On the final point I agree, it's not a slippery slope. It's actually the exact same principle. Only the wilfully blind or the deliberately misleading don't acknowledge that point. They avoid the principle and try and shout it down because they know that once people comprehend it, SSM is dead in the water.
Anyway, it's nice to be able to discuss this without some of the heat that High and Flighty brought to the discussion.