Advertisement

Same Sex Marriage – It’s none of my business

By 10 August 2014 22

wedding-arch-stock

For the record, I am in favour of same sex marriage. I don’t see why two people who love each other deeply can’t express that love in the way that society endorses those relationships.

Let’s get a couple of furphies out the way. There has to be a separation of religious and secular rules. Not all of us are religious or share the same notion of Christianity. I separate conversation with a deity and the secular.

This notion that marriage is all about procreation is unmitigated nonsense. Relationships between individuals who are not and never were married often result in offspring. It’s been the case since there were more than two people on this earth.

This nonsense that marriage is sacred and is for life has never really been the case. Divorces have been possible for centuries and we all have friends who have been in marriages and are not happy about it. This notion is a religiously imposed once given to us by a bloke who had never been married. That works, doesn’t it?

Secular marriage is about two things. It is about an expression of devotion (at a particular time of life, something to be celebrated and shared with others who hold both parties in affection.

The other is about legal equality, the right of inheritance, the right to shared estate ownership, the right of “next of kin” status.

At the end of the day, in terms of human relationships, religion gets in the way. Look at the imposed marriages in some Muslim and Hindu societies, look the outrage at marriages between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, look at the interference in birth control by the Catholics in recent years gone by.

I won’t be told who I can live with by some bloke in a dress who talks to an imaginary friend. Who I have as a life partner is none of anyone’s business except me and my partner.

All I need is the State to recognise that union for the purposes of legal equality. When I meet the Almighty, I’ll discuss the matter with Him/Her. Until then, He/She can get out of my face.

It seems that is too much to ask.

We’ll see when the Coalition, Labor and the cross-benches exercise their conscience votes in federal parliament. Although, it is a bit academic for us here in the ACT until we get true sovereignty.

Please login to post your comments
22 Responses to Same Sex Marriage – It’s none of my business
#1
joingler2:30 pm, 10 Aug 14

People keep trotting out the argument that if two people get married, it is no one elses business.

This is a load of bullocks.

When that couple gets divorced, have messy drawn out court proceedings that are so bad their children need therapy, it becomes my business as I in my occupation have to care for these children. Don’t get me wrong, I love my job but a lot of my time is unnecessarily spent comforting children whose parents spend more time bickering with each other than actually parenting.

Homosexual couples should not have the right to get married for this reason. Heterosexual couples should not have the right to get married either. Yes, this post here is supporting a ban on all marriage in Australia. Our society has become useless at honouring commitments so to commit your entire life to someone is just bull*****ing yourself.

At the very least, a license to wed or requiring couples to be aged 30 before getting married should be in order. Because having children born into families in todays society is going to have them traumatised for life.

I was at a play in New Zealand once and had the following quote:
Church Minister: “Why do you want to marry her?”
Man: “I love her. I’d happily die for her”
Church Minister: “Dying for someone is easy son. The question is will you live your entire life for her?”

Until people start realising that marriage is about dedicating your life to your partner, I do not think it should be a part of our society. Regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual, homosexual or polygamous.

End rant

#2
Maya1238:38 pm, 10 Aug 14

Following on from Joingle’s comments, how about a time limit on a marriage contract, which can be renewed if both parties wish. Say five years. When the contract ends, then the choice is move on, do nothing and stay together but now unmarried, or sign another marriage contract for five years. If the marriage is going well, imagine the great party to be had celebrating the new marriage every five years. Just a suggestion.

#3
joingler8:56 pm, 10 Aug 14

Maya123 said :

Following on from Joingle’s comments, how about a time limit on a marriage contract, which can be renewed if both parties wish. Say five years. When the contract ends, then the choice is move on, do nothing and stay together but now unmarried, or sign another marriage contract for five years. If the marriage is going well, imagine the great party to be had celebrating the new marriage every five years. Just a suggestion.

That’s a bit out there. But certainly worth a debate

#4
John Hargreaves Ex M9:40 pm, 10 Aug 14

joingler said :

Maya123 said :

Following on from Joingle’s comments, how about a time limit on a marriage contract, which can be renewed if both parties wish. Say five years. When the contract ends, then the choice is move on, do nothing and stay together but now unmarried, or sign another marriage contract for five years. If the marriage is going well, imagine the great party to be had celebrating the new marriage every five years. Just a suggestion.

That’s a bit out there. But certainly worth a debate

But it should apply to everyone, not just heteros

#5
gooterz12:30 am, 11 Aug 14

Just remove the notion of marriage and partnership from all the laws.

Why should sleeping together have different benefits in the eyes of the law. Then some other non-couples also sleep together but not in a relationship at all.

In 2014 what purpose is marriage in legal terms? Just replace everything with defacto. Make couples make up contacts for marriage that say what happens when things goto sh#t.

I don’t get why defacto laws just blindly apply to everyone. Why can’t couples decide what their marriage/relationship means?

It’d be like the government making a law that you have to have sex by the third date. Sure it might apply to some people but why would you want to make it a law?

Screw the whole lot and start again!

#6
milkman6:43 am, 11 Aug 14

“This nonsense that marriage is sacred and is for life has never really been the case.”

How sad.

#7
chewy148:17 am, 11 Aug 14

What John has presented here isn’t an argument for same sex marriage, its the argument repealing the marriage act and instituting a civil union Bill where anyone can register their relationship for legal purposes.

If marriage isn’t sacred or about children or any of the other reasons, then for what possible reason should the state be solemnising people’s relationships?

It’s a simple legal contractual issue. If you want to have a ceremony in front of your friends, go right ahead. But it’s got nothing to do with the government.

#8
KB19718:22 am, 11 Aug 14

joingler said :

People keep trotting out the argument that if two people get married, it is no one elses business.

This is a load of bullocks.

When that couple gets divorced, have messy drawn out court proceedings that are so bad their children need therapy, it becomes my business as I in my occupation have to care for these children. Don’t get me wrong, I love my job but a lot of my time is unnecessarily spent comforting children whose parents spend more time bickering with each other than actually parenting.

Homosexual couples should not have the right to get married for this reason. Heterosexual couples should not have the right to get married either. Yes, this post here is supporting a ban on all marriage in Australia. Our society has become useless at honouring commitments so to commit your entire life to someone is just bull*****ing yourself.

At the very least, a license to wed or requiring couples to be aged 30 before getting married should be in order. Because having children born into families in todays society is going to have them traumatised for life.

I was at a play in New Zealand once and had the following quote:
Church Minister: “Why do you want to marry her?”
Man: “I love her. I’d happily die for her”
Church Minister: “Dying for someone is easy son. The question is will you live your entire life for her?”

Until people start realising that marriage is about dedicating your life to your partner, I do not think it should be a part of our society. Regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual, homosexual or polygamous.

End rant

The problem with your argument is that a de-facto relationship is basically considered the same after 6 months so the whole bad break up scenario still happens anyway.

The other issue, it gives free licence for anyone to walk out at any time if was as easy as you make out. Think of the impact that would have on the children (I personally know a person who is like this and has three kids to two different fathers……..man its a mess). Maybe a licence to have kids rather than get married? If there are no kids then divorce would be easy.

I do agree people should wait until they are a bit older, in this instant gratification society we live in people with clearer heads getting involved in marraige would be a better outcome.

But people are people, it takes all sorts.

Homosexual marriage? Its non of my business either, I dont care either way. I just dont get why there is such opposition to it in this day and age of equality.

#9
VYBerlinaV8_is_back9:13 am, 11 Aug 14

chewy14 said :

What John has presented here isn’t an argument for same sex marriage, its the argument repealing the marriage act and instituting a civil union Bill where anyone can register their relationship for legal purposes.

This makes a lot of sense. Just have legally recognised civil unions, and let religious organisations deal with the spirituality of it on an opt-in basis.

#10
HenryBG9:48 am, 11 Aug 14

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

What John has presented here isn’t an argument for same sex marriage, its the argument repealing the marriage act and instituting a civil union Bill where anyone can register their relationship for legal purposes.

This makes a lot of sense. Just have legally recognised civil unions, and let religious organisations deal with the spirituality of it on an opt-in basis.

Agreed.

And on the scale of important things we need to do, it comes roughly at the very bottom. So can we move on and stop allowing the national discourse to be hijacked by a marxist-leninist sociopathic fringe intent on creating conflict?

#11
dtc12:53 pm, 11 Aug 14

chewy14 said :

What John has presented here isn’t an argument for same sex marriage, its the argument repealing the marriage act and instituting a civil union Bill where anyone can register their relationship for legal purposes.

If marriage isn’t sacred or about children or any of the other reasons, then for what possible reason should the state be solemnising people’s relationships?

It’s a simple legal contractual issue. If you want to have a ceremony in front of your friends, go right ahead. But it’s got nothing to do with the government.

The state solemnises relationships for plenty of reasons, such as inheritance, abiity to make decisions affecting other peoples health and so forth. There is definite power (rights, obligations etc) in being ‘married’.

Thus there is a need to recognise relationships in some way, although it doesnt have to be formal (everyone could be de facto), but there is obvious considerable history in formalising a relatiohship and that is never going to go away in the near to medium future

The issue is

(a) should this be done by getting rid of marriage, just having civil unions for everyone and let churches operate on the side but with their ceremonies having no legal implications whatsoever (ie even if you get married in a church, you arent ‘unioned’ by the state, you have to do that seperately)

or
(b) including within the scope of marriage gay people.

I’m not religious at all and am in fact not married despite being ‘de factoed’ for over 20 years, so its neither here nor there to me.

But, looking at society and history and so forth, option (b) actually seems to be the less disruptive option. Either abolish marriage or expand what it covers

#12
Holden Caulfield12:55 pm, 11 Aug 14

KB1971 said :

If there are no kids then divorce would be easy.

Oh yeah, it’s a piece of p*ss!

#13
Matt_Watts1:31 pm, 11 Aug 14

Glad to see John supports the position I took to the 2012 ACT election :)

#14
HiddenDragon4:44 pm, 11 Aug 14

Let’s hope (in a nice, mature way) that this won’t be an issue in the 2016 ACT election. There are many other issues which are worthy of, and inevitably will be, the subject of partisan debate – in this day and age, this issue should not be used for political purposes, particularly at the sub-national level.

#15
John Hargreaves Ex M1:19 pm, 12 Aug 14

Matt_Watts said :

Glad to see John supports the position I took to the 2012 ACT election :)

Glad to see your sense of humour is intact after losing the election, something I never did. I have always held these views and have found that they are shared in my Party. Not so in the Libs. Nice to hear from you though.

Interesting it is that I have been criticised for taking a biased view of the world into my comments. Guilty as charged. But I don’t hide my allegiance nor do I shy away from expressing my views in any way I like. Always been like that and ain’t gunna change.

Over to you Matt.

#16
Matt_Watts3:57 pm, 12 Aug 14

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Matt_Watts said :

Glad to see John supports the position I took to the 2012 ACT election :)

Glad to see your sense of humour is intact after losing the election, something I never did. I have always held these views and have found that they are shared in my Party. Not so in the Libs. Nice to hear from you though.

Interesting it is that I have been criticised for taking a biased view of the world into my comments. Guilty as charged. But I don’t hide my allegiance nor do I shy away from expressing my views in any way I like. Always been like that and ain’t gunna change.

Over to you Matt.

I don’t know what bias claim you’re talking about; I didn’t make such a claim in relation to your same sex relationship comments.

I *do* note the shift in your support for light rail, which is infrastructure I have been on the record as supporting in-principle since 2008. The concern has always been, and still is, cost, which is why in 2008 I convinced the then-Liberal transport spokesman to announce a fully-funded engoneering study into potential light rail routes; we still don’t have such a study, despite the government’s commitment to light rail, and you opposed light rail for many years.

Well done on – finally – seeing the light. I only hope your long-held concern about cost has been conveyed to your former colleagues, and that you stay true to at least some of your convictions.

[On a completely different topic - it's funny how support from the Transport Workers Union can help win elections, isn't it?]

I think you will find there are different views about same-sex relationships within any political party.

#17
Holden Caulfield11:50 pm, 12 Aug 14

Oh goody, a he said, he said, John v Matt public slanging match.

The custodianship of the public’s general low opinion of politicians, former or otherwise, is in good hands. Well done lads!

#18
Matt_Watts9:31 am, 13 Aug 14

Holden Caulfield said :

Oh goody, a he said, he said, John v Matt public slanging match.

The custodianship of the public’s general low opinion of politicians, former or otherwise, is in good hands. Well done lads!

Was that a slanging match?

No – it’s a conversation, and sometimes people don’t agree. Nothing wrong with holding people accountable for their views (which you have done yourself). Nothing new here, especially on the RiotACT. As I’ve said before, if you don’t like the candidates, get involved yourself.

You should note, Holden, that we agree on the point of this thread.

#19
watto2311:40 am, 13 Aug 14

HiddenDragon said :

Let’s hope (in a nice, mature way) that this won’t be an issue in the 2016 ACT election. There are many other issues which are worthy of, and inevitably will be, the subject of partisan debate – in this day and age, this issue should not be used for political purposes, particularly at the sub-national level.

The reason it remains an issue is because one side of politics won’t acknowledge it. Political parties go to an election with many many policies. Gay marriage is one of those, and obviously enough people are either happy for it, or don’t care as much to change their vote because of it.

This applies at all levels, not everyone who voted for the coalition federal government, agrees with stopping the boats, axing the carbon tax etc. Even less agree with the coalition policy on the NBN. Still you have to give and take regarding policies and vote on the set of policies that appeal most to you.

While gay marriage was found unconstitutional the way it was done in the ACT, it would not even be an issue if the politicians stopped listening to groups with vested anti-gay agenda. In fact many politicians have changed their mind in support of it.

I agree its a waste of time debating this, it will happen eventually, it doesn’t affect me, but I just can’t understand why a selfish minority feel the need to interfere in someones life. The census shows the number of christians/catholics are diminishing in this country and its probably due to antiquated views of families and life in general that forms part of the reason.

#20
Masquara1:39 pm, 13 Aug 14

The fact that Julia Gillard prevaricated on gay marriage support means there must be a lot of anti-gay marriage sentiment in the ALP.

#21
VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:49 pm, 13 Aug 14

Masquara said :

The fact that Julia Gillard prevaricated on gay marriage support means there must be a lot of anti-gay marriage sentiment in the ALP.

That’s right. Politics, despite what many would like, is still a conservative business.

#22
HiddenDragon6:15 pm, 13 Aug 14

watto23 said :

HiddenDragon said :

Let’s hope (in a nice, mature way) that this won’t be an issue in the 2016 ACT election. There are many other issues which are worthy of, and inevitably will be, the subject of partisan debate – in this day and age, this issue should not be used for political purposes, particularly at the sub-national level.

The reason it remains an issue is because one side of politics won’t acknowledge it. Political parties go to an election with many many policies. Gay marriage is one of those, and obviously enough people are either happy for it, or don’t care as much to change their vote because of it.

This applies at all levels, not everyone who voted for the coalition federal government, agrees with stopping the boats, axing the carbon tax etc. Even less agree with the coalition policy on the NBN. Still you have to give and take regarding policies and vote on the set of policies that appeal most to you.

While gay marriage was found unconstitutional the way it was done in the ACT, it would not even be an issue if the politicians stopped listening to groups with vested anti-gay agenda. In fact many politicians have changed their mind in support of it.

I agree its a waste of time debating this, it will happen eventually, it doesn’t affect me, but I just can’t understand why a selfish minority feel the need to interfere in someones life. The census shows the number of christians/catholics are diminishing in this country and its probably due to antiquated views of families and life in general that forms part of the reason.

My point was essentially about the High Court decision – the message of which seemed to be that this is a legislative issue for the federal parliament. If that is the case, then I am not overly impressed with any State or Territory politician who – however they dress it up and present it – try to use the issue for the purposes of product differentiation, particularly when this involves making an emotional appeal in order to distract voters from issues which are clearly the responsibility of the relevant State or Territory legislature.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.