This is not the definition of marriage. Marriage is not one ubiquitous concept. Marriage is merely social convention subject to change. Your definition of marriage is the most dominant one because of the dominance of religions such as Christianity and because of arbitrary laws such as those in China (I may add on an unrelated note that polygamy was not seen as an issue in Ancient China and neither does Buddhism regulate it). In Islam, you may have up to four wives and in Islamic Law that is perfectly fine. In many micro religions and cultures, polygamy and polygyny are accepted... Now which one is the best definition of marriage?
Is it the Christian one, or the Islamic one? Or the Chinese one? Or the Mormon or FLDS one? I don't know and frankly, I don't care because in my eyes, no one religion and its doctrines is more legitimate than the other.
Firstly, I will let DrSoccerball comment on whether your potrayal of the Islamic view of marriage because I don't think it is; so I will ignore that potential strawman. Marriage is hardly a social convention subject to change; in fact SSM is a major change, certainly the first of its kind.
What you find, is most cultures (especially non-Western) and also in Western cultures (although less common, with the decline of faith generally speaking); is that most people hold to a more ""traditional"" (how the term is often used in this debate, not its implicit meaning). It tends to be less faith based anyway, the justification for the existing position for marriage historically (as in 10 years ago). As your discussions with others on the thread should tell you; that one does not have to be Christian (as I would be), to hold to such an understanding. When I gave my response I was explicited devoid of the typical Christian attachments for your benefit (although that could be arbitrarily disputed), because it reflects a view that the agnostic/unchurched would hold to.
So is that a good thing...?
Well strictly speaking "love" is a word that has many meanings, such as philos, agape, eros. If it is erotic love than the government really should have no say (but this would contradict the consitution). So the government never legislates marriage on the basis of love. The purposes of marriage include the raising of children.
Sexist, no. Racist, no. Homophobic, yes. Prejudice against homosexuals is called homophobia. When you don't bake a cake for somebody purely because they're gay, you are doing exactly that, whether you accept/see or not.
Sorry this the only thing I will take any slight offence to. To call the existing definition of marriage, prejudice?
Again, that is assumed your presumptuous claim that marriage is something that can be dished out (ironically like a piece of cake). It doesn't have to and that isn't how some (I won't say most) see it. I.e. it is assumed to be RIGHT or ENTITLEMENT to any two people. It isn't, it is a gift, and I already mentioned my reasons. And that is an issue, because this rhetoric is being swung around.
How on earth is it homophobia? It says nothing about the morality of homosexuality or on homosexuality at all; although some do find it questionable? When did since expressing sentiment with a view that is current in law, quantify uncritically as homophobia. I am sorry, but I will have to disagree on your conclusion. I am opposed to homophobia; and I find it incredibly, how do I put this, kinda of close to intolerance.
I would even comment that marriage law kind of is "agnostic" towards homosexuality (it doesn't care for or against it). It doesn't comment on it. It comments on what marriage is; not what it is. It doesn't single out gays as some group that therefore society should look down upon, shame, lock up or kill.
2. Positive discrimination or differentiation is a good thing. Consider the example of the USU who recently went on an anti-discrimination campaign (if you like) against faith-based groups that required for members to agree with a statement of faith. There was right criticism of such actions (even though they hadn't gone ahead with); because it jeopardises the freedom to associate (a form of discrimination in the eyes of some). If you analyse for instance the positive discrimination that is used for specific groups, for instance Indigenous Australians; or discrimination that means that men use men's bathrooms and women use women's bathrooms (or in sport for instance); such discrimination is permissible because it discriminates in favor of that. I would argue the same with marriage on a similar, but modified basis.
So it comes down to one word: DEFINITION.
If a faith-based group, political party, or interest group (e.g. the queer group; maths society) can restrict themselves, reasonably to those who faith, or that political view. Why cannot marriage be (in a lesser sense of course)?
The fact that children have to have a mother and a father in order to turn out fine is a myth. Children
in same-sex parented families do just as fine, and occasionally even better, as their peers in heterosexual couple families. Comparatively, they also experience a high quality of life and happy childhoods (There has been a lot of research done on this). The one problem that these kids experience is bullying and I am fairly certain that's not the parents' fault... At least not the gay parents' fault...
Childhood experiences differ across homosexual couple and heterosexual couple families but that's due to the personality of each parent, not their sexual orientation.
I will comment on that last statement, and say most of the negative experiences of the former I have heard, have mainly been due to mother/father leaving their spouse in a marriage (i.e. man-woman marriage that is), for a same-sex partner.
But please note I did not comment on whether gay parents cannot parent, and I am sure that they can and sometimes (not always) can do a better job especially when you are talking about foster kids or adopted kids. Gay parenting is a bit mixed; and I suspect the research is a bit mixed, if you account for bias that goes both ways. Strictly speaking, a child should have an access to their mother and father (biological) where possible and with ease without all the legislative process and all that. I think even the UN recognizes the importance of a child having a mother and father (although does not mandate it that strongly if I remember correctly)
Secondly, as I mentioned, which is probably the core of our disagreement, is males and females or more strictly to avoid ambiguity men and women are not just different anatomically but also in other ways.
Thirdly, the whole issue of surrogacy is a loaded one too. Groups like the ACL; raise it but in a poor fashion (or at least how the media sees it). It is an issue that needs to be discussed.
Fourthly, as a summary statement, the current laws recognize the foundation of the family, and recognize the importance of the raising of children to be done in such context, to reduce "children of the state".
If it exists among animals today, it has existed for a very long time in our history. But do not make a mistake as to the purpose of that paragraph. We're talking about our recent history. Homosexuality was dismissed as an illness! They had it right in front of them and they still could not accept that something that has existed in reality and literature for hundreds of years and something that still exists could be research-worthy... It wasn't deemed normal so it was chucked in the bin. Now... why wasn't it normal? There are a lot of reasons, some of which are more well-known that the others.
Yea, but before that time a widely-accepted religious definition of marriage didn't exist and neither did organised religion. The gays were not (at least in major parts of the world) prosecuted back then in the name of a deity or a belief... or a definition.
In addition, up until 300-500 CE we have a very rich history of gay literature. From philosophers writing about the sanctity of gay relationships and lustful nature of relationship with women to drawings from even before that time. Then, society suddenly begins to shut down homosexuality.
I find it curious as to why you chose 300 CE... because, now I am not saying this to upset you, that's around the time Rome started to adopt Christianity, which at the time was treated as cult. A century later, we see large scale prosecution of gays where they were burnt alive.
I'd rather not talk about the gores of paganism in this thread really. There is some good in our society not holding to the Ancient religions where children would be sacrificed and slaughtered in the name of some deity of the soil etc. I will comment that even pedophilia was a thing up until 300-500 CE, just because the ancients did it, certainly does not justify it.
Yeah there are the pros and cons, of have religion involved in politics which is why I picked 300CE ish for the very reason you stated. Normal could be classified as acceptable. What you find today, is most people don't care about personal live (in terms of sexual life), but do care about marriage.
Marriage until recently was closely linked with reproduction & sex, so historically I think the basis was because for most species, include humans to reproduce, a man and a woman are required.
What I would comment and say is what happened at 300CE ish is the same as what is happening today:
a new "religion" replacing an old religion. In the 300; it was a "Christian" (and for the Middle East, you could say Islamic) religion. Today it is Christianity that is on the out; and some new thing (haven't thought of a name) that is coming in. (This is why many argue on a slippery slope basis, whether misguided or not).
Finally I think a "binding" plebisicite is a good idea. While in 2004, it was clear what the Australian people generally wanted on this issue and what the general consensus is; because of Australia's diverse community, both in terms of views of this issue and cultures; in 2016, it is not clear-cut what Australia wants on this issue. Because it is a massive issue.
