Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Dougie]

another staight from bshoc was post number 911.
can't really be bothered to find the others i previously found, can we get on with the debate (or full blooded fist fight) now plz

 

[dagwoman]

It seems he's given up!

 

[bshoc]

bloody hard to find them all a second time, here's this one 1st...
"Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution that the state only recognizes as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families" (bshoc page 64) i should say from wikipedia.

No you've only presented one thing, which I quoted my source from

"Which argument aside from the pre-politcal institution argument where I noted my source was that?"

By the way wikipedia wasnt my source for that, it was

http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html

which I both noted and which wikipedia used as well

you've found 1 thing which was noted and you havent backed up any other thing you've said, the reason "you cant be bothered" is becuase you cant find anything, think before you say retarded things lefty, think.

 

[GoldenPorn]

oMg0rz, sIf h8t lezbeans bShoC m0zt st8t d00ds LuV uS

d03z dAt mEaN DaT uR gh3y? 0r do Joo waN m3 2 sHow U sUm lUv?

I'll sh0w U wat gh3y luv is All aBoUt......

 

[dagwoman]

bshoc, like I said before, can we move on from the irrelevant "who copied what" discussion and get back to the actual topic? What are your thoughts on my post about the history of gay marriage?

 

[bshoc]

It seems he's given up!

Even if I choose to end your tourment and stop tearing up your fantasy world with reality, it still doesen't change anything in terms of what reality is.

None of us can "win" or "lose" here, because there is no such thing as right or wrong in politics, only bills that get passed and those that dont, governments that get elected and those that dont.

If you're already resorting to making up imaginary wikipedia articles in order to attempt so online character assassination, it speaks volumes about how much success your kind of opinion is actually going to have in the real world, when I note things like natural law, societal structure and state stability and all you have as an answer is "OMG LOOK HOW MUCH GAY PPL LOVE EACHOTHER" or the classic one "you got all that from wikipedia even though I cant link the article and prove it" , its pretty clear who prevailed intellectually

another staight from bshoc was post number 911.
can't really be bothered to find the others i previously found, can we get on with the debate (or full blooded fist fight) now plz

Either provide the links, or admit you're a douchebag, I'm not going to let that fly.

 

[dagwoman]

HA!

"as the victor..."

"none of us can "win" or "lose" here"

 

[bshoc]

bshoc, like I said before, can we move on from the irrelevant "who copied what" discussion and get back to the actual topic? What are your thoughts on my post about the history of gay marriage?

I think you need to note some real history from proper academic sources, instead of pro gay agenda websites

http://oregonstate.edu/~blakena/cs195/final/Other/Writing/RomanHomosexuality.html

notice how its from a university, longer, and doesent make unbacked statements

Abstracthttp://community.boredofstudies.org/: The Roman Empire has often been portrayed as possessing a moral tolerance of homosexuality, and there is some truth in this. But, the Roman conception of same-sex relationships was very different than that of the modern West. The most important factors in the Roman view seem to have been the status and role of the partners.
The Romans did not consider homosexual or heterosexual identities as exclusive from one another. While bisexuality was common, strict homosexuality was all but unknown.
Unlike the modern view, social class mattered a great deal in the acceptability of homosexual relations. The upper classes were much more likely to indulge in homosexual acts, and masters had the sexual use of their slaves. But homosexual relations between freeborn Romans were regarded as disgraceful.
The role taken by the respective partners in homosexual acts between males mattered a great deal to the Romans. The measure of sexual manhood was to penetrate, while to be penetrated was regarded as effeminizing. The first was seen as an assertion of dominance, the latter as a degrading submission.
There was no equality between the sexes in regard to homosexual acts. While subject to certain strictures, male homosexuality was tolerated in many cases. Lesbianism, however, was much less common and seems to have been universally considered as reprehensible.
Finally, many of the differences between the imperial Roman view of homosexuality and the modern perception of it can be traced to the rise of Christianity. Christian views shaped the West for almost two millennia, suffusing the perspectives even of those who now reject its sexual morals.
Introductionhttp://community.boredofstudies.org/: It must first be noted that there is no all-encompassing Roman view of homosexuality, just as there is no universal view in modern times. Ramsay MacMullen writes that, “no one should speak of the Roman attitude towards male homosexuality, in the singular…The true picture must show all sorts of exceptions, contradictions, and tensions.” (MacMullen 341, italics original).
Currently there is great debate on homosexuality in American society; it would be odd indeed if the Romans were not also fragmented by the subject. But however divergent views on the subject may have been or may be, the nature of homosexual practices in both societies can be studied, and must be, if any further conclusions are to be drawn The pagan chronicler Suetonius regularly condemned homosexual acts, but it does not follow that his motivations or perceptions were similar to those of the modern Christian who attacks homosexuality as depraved.
In the modern conception, homosexuality can be substituted in lieu of heterosexuality, with bisexuality a rarity. Most people are heterosexual, sexually attracted exclusively to members of the other sex, and a small minority is homosexual, exclusively attracted to those of their own sex. Even fewer still are bisexual. No great distinctions are drawn between male and female homosexuality, and it is well distributed throughout the social classes.
In short, the modern view is that homosexual and heterosexual desires are generally exclusive. As illustrated by the movement towards gay marriage in the Western world, many view such relationships as the equivalent of heterosexual ones. Even those who are opposed to homosexuality generally accept the premise that homosexual desire and heterosexual desire rarely coexist in the same person. Also, the various roles played in homosexual acts are generally considered equal in the modern view.
Bisexuality vs. Homosexualityhttp://community.boredofstudies.org/: The first distinction between the Roman and the modern view is that of gendered exclusivity of sexual desire. Currently, it is generally held that one is attracted to only one sex. Heterosexual desire is far more common, but homosexual desire is generally seen as no less exclusive.
In contrast, while there were clearly many who committed homosexual acts in the Roman Empire; homosexuality in the modern sense seems to have been all but absent. Few, if any had sexual relations or attraction solely to members of their own sex. It has been noted that of the first 16 emperors, 15 were bisexual, but only Hadrian may be considered to have preferred homosexual acts.
Commenting on a passage from Lucretius’ poem “On the Nature of Things,” Craig A. Williams writes that, “The underlying assumptions are beautifully clear: men’s desires are normally aroused by boys and women” (Williams 28). He then argues that the acceptable sexual desire was defined less by the gender of a man’s partner than by relative status and the role played in the sexual act.
In his listing of the Emperor Nero’s vices, Suetonius excoriates him for sexual escapades with both males and females.
“Gradually Nero’s vices gained the upper hand…Not satisfied with seducing free-born boys and married women, Nero raped the Vestal Virgin Rubria…Having tried to turn the boy Sporus into a girl by castration, he went through a wedding ceremony with him…and treated him as a wife. The lecherous passion he felt for his mother, Agrippina, was notorious…Nero practiced every kind of obscenity…Doryphorus now married him--just as he himself had married Sporus--and on the wedding night he [Nero] imitated the screams and moans of a girl being deflowered.” (Suetonius 228-229).
With other emperors we see the same pattern, homosexual acts mixed with heterosexual ones. Tiberius in particular is lambasted by Suetonius for performing perverse acts with both sexes.
But despite the plentitude of bisexuality, there continued to be a great deal of debate upon the morality of such actions. Suetonius practically sputters with rage in the abovementioned description of Tiberius, “Some aspects of his criminal obscenity are almost too vile to discuss, much less believe…such a filthy old man had he become!” (Suetonius 132).
The partial importation of the institution of pedastry from the conquered Greeks was often seen as a motive force behind the decline of Roman morals. Cicero commented on increasing Roman depravity thusly, “For on our side fights modesty, on theirs effrontery; on ours pudicitia, on theirs stuprum…on ours decency, on theirs depravity; on ours self-control, on theirs lust.” (qtd. in Williams 99, italics original).
Despite the temptation, Rome never seems to have adopted pedastry as an accepted part of its bisexual repertoire. In contrast to Greece, where the sexual apprenticeship of adolescent males by their elders was a regular part of life, the Romans decided against the use of their sons in such a manner. The lex Scantinia proscribes the death penalty for those who would seduce freeborn boys and women.
“Whoever shall persuade a boy wearing the toga pratextaI to commit stuprum or any other offense…or who shall solicit a woman or girl to do anything for the purpose of corrupting her pudicitia; or who shall proffer a gift or give money in order to persuade her to do it: if the offense is actually perpetrated he is punished capitally; if not, he is deported to an island.” (qtd. in Williams 121, italics original).
Ironically, the morally conservative Suetonius was the private secretary of the Emperor Hadrian, who is perhaps the closest example of a pure homosexual among the leaders of the Roman Empire. While he engaged in sex with women also, his love was reserved for the youth Antinous. This is best seen in Hadrian’s excessive reaction to his lover’s early death: he had statues of Antinous erected throughout the empire, named a city in Egypt after him, and even had him deified.
But this sort of deeply romantic homosexual relationship was regarded as abnormal by the Romans, and it was also subject to social strictures. Yet there was no general outrage at Hadrian’s peccadilloes. Craig A. Williams explains that, “Had Hadrian taken up with a freeborn Roman, male or female, things would certainly have been different.” (Williams 60).
Social Statushttp://community.boredofstudies.org/: This is due to the fact that the Romans placed a much greater emphasis on the social status of the sexual partners than moderns do. While modern Western homosexuality is distributed throughout social classes, in Rome it was more confined to the top of the social ladder. This is no doubt a result of the much greater reality of class in Roman society. The differences between men and women, slaves and free, provincials and citizens were pervasive. Naturally, these translated into sexual roles and mores.
The higher one’s social status, the more leeway one had in indulging one’s desires. William Manchester wrote of Victorian England that, “the upper class had, as it had always had, a moral code all of its own.” (Manchester 62). This seems to have been even more pronounced in the Roman Empire. Generally, those with wealth, power, and leisure do not shrink from indulging themselves, and the elite of the Roman Empire were no exception. Ramsay MacMullen asserts that, “leaders in tolerance [of homosexuality] were men of fantastic wealth.” (MacMullen 353).
At the top of the social hierarchy was the Emperor, whose sexual proclivities were generally unchallenged. Augustus exiled both his daughter and granddaughter for their numerous adulteries, but he himself was untouched by the lex Julia de Adulteriis which he passed into law. Suetonius writes that, “Not even his friends could deny that he often committed adultery” (Suetonius 85), and claims that Augustus enjoyed deflowering girls even as an elderly man.
Even the far more flagrant perversions of emperors such as Gaius Caligula and Nero were unchallenged. Such practices aroused disgust and contempt, but it was hardly prudent to publicly denounce the morals of an autocrat.
Such distinctions of rank permeate the sexual activities of the Romans. Slaves were subject to the sexual urges of their masters, and prostitution was common. Indeed, prostitutes (both male and female) even had holidays set aside for them. While not respected, they were accepted as a necessary part of society.
In one of his satires Horace writes in praise of the use of a “slave-girl or homegrown slave-boy ready at hand” for the release of sexual desire, “I like sex that is easy and obtainable.” (qtd. in Williams 32) Discussing the warnings about content Martial included in his writings, Craig Williams asserts that, “G-rated poetry in Martial’s world included the celebration of men’s love for their male slaves.” (Williams 33). He argues that Roman masters had an unquestioned right to use their slaves for sexual gratification. This overstates the case, though it is legally correct. There also seems to have been a relaxing of moral indignation towards such acts during the course of Roman history, with the city of Rome as the center of the adaptation of permissive Greek attitudes towards homosexuality. This is in keeping with the more general historical trend for cities to be more liberal than rural areas.
Not everyone accepted such sexual freedom; there were those who morally condemned such licentious behavior. The Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus argued that, “If one is to behave moderately, one would not dare to have relations with a courtesan, nor with a free woman outside of marriage, nor, by Zeus, with one’s own slave-woman.” (qtd. in Williams 55).
Also, several emperors considered the expulsion of male prostitutes from the city of Rome, though no one followed through with this scheme during the zenith of the Empire. Thus, for several centuries at least the use of prostitutes of both sexes was considered acceptable, provided that moderation was observed. In one instance in Horace’s satires Cato the Elder commended a young man for going to prostitutes to sate his lust, rather than committing adultery. However, upon later observing the same young man routinely frequenting the place he condemned him, complaining that his previous indulgence was granted on the supposition that the fellow merely visited the place occasionally, rather than living there.
While this sort of lubricious culture seems at odds with the strict penalties found in the lex Scantinia and the lex Julia, the two can be reconciled by recollecting the role of social caste. Male citizens were legally allowed to enjoy the favors of their slaves and of prostitutes, but the pursuit of freeborn women and boys was forbidden, in law if not always in practice. Moral debate was common over the amount a man should indulge himself, and moderation, rather than outright chastity, appears to have been the general standard of virtue.
The Importance of Sexual Roleshttp://community.boredofstudies.org/: Relations with men belonged to a category separate from others. Seductions of women and boys were considered roughly equivalent (girls being included with women), but sexual encounters with men were governed by a different set of rules. The central factor was the role which a man took in such instances.
The preservation of a man’s masculinity was dependent upon his taking the penetrating role in all of his sexual encounters. As has been noted previously, men were allowed to use male slaves as well as female slaves for sexual pleasure. There were many who had no objection to male-male sexual acts themselves, the slur was to have taken on the woman’s role in such acts.
Suetonius gleefully recorded such accusations leveled at Roman emperors. Julius Caesar was rumored to have submitted to anal sex when in Bithynia, a charge which was constantly used by his enemies. His frequent affairs also exposed him to criticism. To quote Suetonius, “to emphasize the bad name Caesar had won alike for unnatural and natural vice, I may here record that the Elder Cutio referred to him in a speech as, ‘Every woman’s man and every man’s woman.’” (Suetonius 26). Augustus was likewise accused of assenting to play the woman’s role in sex; in this case it was rumored to have been the price he paid for his adoption by Julius Caesar.
The focus of sexual manhood was to dominate others by penetrating them with one’s penis. Effeminate men who succumbed to penetration were derided with the scornful label of cinaedus. Maud Gleason notes that in this culture, “A man who actively penetrates and dominates others, whether male or female, is still a man.” (Gleason 65). But men who had taken the woman’s role were by law barred from acting as advocates in Roman courts. Homosexual acts themselves were not always considered disgraceful, provided that one asserted his masculinity in them by penetrating, rather than being penetrated by, his partner.
This view stands in direct contrast to the modern conception, where partners in homosexual acts are regarded equally. Of course, today homosexual partnerships tend to be based on a mutual exchange of favors, rather than the strict dominant/submissive role of Roman homosexual relationships.
It must be remembered that opinions on the subject varied, especially as the time and area of interest spans centuries and continents. But despite these difficulties, it seems that it was always regarded as more disgraceful to have been penetrated. To quote again from Craig Williams, “First and foremost, a self-respecting Roman man must always give the appearance of playing the insertive role.” (Williams 18).
Regarding the legality of the act, the age of his partner mattered a great deal. Seducing a freeborn adolescent could result in the death penalty, while penetrating an adult male would not. A lad who was penetrated would be regarded as a victim, a man who was penetrated merely as perverted and feminine. Men regarded as effeminate were held in contempt, and Roman men sought to avoid even the appearance of being so. Since being sexually penetrated was the ultimate proof of effeminacy, to be called cinaedus was a grave insult, and to be considered one was mortifying.
Interestingly, performing oral sex was also seen as degrading, regardless of the sex of the person one serviced. Romans viewed committing fellatio and cunnilinctus as defiling of the mouth, and as incompatible with proper masculinity. This provides a strong contrast with modern sexuality, where oral sex is often viewed as an act of lesser importance than intercourse (i.e. President Clinton’s insistence that oral sex does not constitute adultery).
Lesbianismhttp://community.boredofstudies.org/: The modern position is that same-sex sexual relationships are not morally distinguished by whether they are between males or between females. Someone opposed to homosexuality will hold that male and female homosexuality are equally wrong, while one who did not object to homosexuality would believe them to be equally tolerable.
The Romans, however, considered lesbianism to be utterly atrocious, and it seems to have been all but non-existent among them. This is a stark contrast with the current position. Indeed, two-thirds of the homosexual couples recently married in Massachusetts are female.
The greater Roman opposition to lesbianism over male homosexuality was no doubt related to the different standards of sexual permissiveness which governed males and females. Cato states it simply, “If you caught your wife in adultery, you could kill her with impunity and without a trial; but if you committed adultery, or if you were adulterated, she would not dare to lay a finger on you, nor is it legally permitted.” (qtd. in Williams 51).
Tribadic women, or lesbians, are almost unmentioned in Latin literature, and when they are, it is with revulsion for such immorality. Furthermore, most of these references represent lesbianism as something far removed from Rome, both temporally and spatially. One of the few that does not is a poem by Martial, in which he attacks a woman for the monstrous act of lesbianism. Although this piece acknowledges that lesbianism is present in Rome, it regards it as a moral stain that must be expunged. Judith Hallett notes that,
“Clearly these Latin literary sources, and the culture they come from, did not sort out, systematize, and rank their thoughts and feelings about the phenomenon of tribadism in the way that they did their reactions to male same-sex love…To them, female homoeroticism was an undifferentiated, unassimilated conglomeration of alien and unnatural Greek behaviors.” (Hallett 193).
Christianityhttp://community.boredofstudies.org/:This adds an interesting dimension to Paul’s attack on homosexuality in the opening chapter of the book of Romans. The assault opens in verse 26b with, “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” (Holy Bible 1425). He then continues with a condemnation of male homosexuality in verse 27, but the effect of this comparison should not be underestimated. Christianity seems to have introduced to the Roman world the notion that sexual vice applied equally to both sexes, unlike the double standard which Cato noted.
Perhaps the modern conception of all homosexual acts united as equally moral or immoral can be first found in Paul’s invocation of tribadism in his epistle to the fledgling church of Rome. While Judaism also held that sexual virtue required equal restraint from both sexes, it had no interest in propagating that view. As Christianity spread, its position infused the Western world. Christianity held both sexes and all social stations equally to account, condemned homosexual participants irrespective of their role in the act, and its strict sexual standards doubtless decreased the incidence of bisexuality.
By the fifth century, homosexual acts were outlawed, ending pagan permissiveness. When homosexuality emerged openly again in the West during the twentieth century, views on it had been thoroughly molded by the Christian perspective.
Conclusionhttp://community.boredofstudies.org/: Though the modern West has drawn comparisons to the Roman Empire for its tolerance of homosexuality, the parallels are deeply flawed. The view each society has of homosexuality is quite different. The Romans held homosexuals acts to be an addition to, not a substitution for (as is generally held now), heterosexual ones. Roman homosexuality was confined within the upper class, while in the modern world it is not restricted by class boundaries. Also, in the Roman view, there was a great distinction between each partner’s role in male-male sexual acts, and lesbianism was thought a rare monstrosity. Today, little to no distinction is made between partners or the sex of homosexual couples. Many of these differences can be traced to the influence of Christian views on Western culture.

 

[dagwoman]

Jesus, think you could have synthesised that a little?

I was asking for a discussion, not another lump of unsourced text, speaking solely about the Romans.

 

[Dougie]

gotch now. i took those links as extra readings of interest, not you're actual reference (secretly now knows why lecturers want consistent referencing!). i'll even go as far as saying if wikipedia thought it was good enough to use then it's a fairly valid source. want me to delete/edit the posts?

but what I'M not gonna let fly is your opinion that gays just want to get maried to have sex, if that is in fact what you are saying

 

[goldendawn]

Hey everyone - I think this is starting to degenerate again. Any posts which are merely jibes or which are filled with polemic will most likely be deleted by ur_inner_child.

I made a post a while back about various cultural understandings of gender and sexuality - which might provide some extra things to consider when dealing with notions of 'natural' and 'unnatural':

'Western marriage has been defined as the reproductive union between a man and a woman. But this is unsatisfactory. Many Western marriages do not produce children. Western marriage is therefore better understood as a ritualised union meant to enact notions of 'natural law'.

Western 'natural law', which has its roots in Christianity and antiquity, states that a persons biological sex must necessarily correspond to sexual role and also to cultural gender. This is not a universally shared notion - and cultural gender and sexual role are, in anthropology and sociology, distinct categories from biological sex.

Asia and Africa certanly did have marriage. Much of the pre-modern world simply didn't share Western notions of 'natural law', and in many places, sexuality was much less inhibited. In pre-modern China, for example, whilst Confucian law placed emphasis on the continuation of the family line, as long as a man had children he was free to take as many male lovers as he pleased. In the Sepic region of Papua New Guinea, it is believed that all children are born female. Male children must be made - and this is achieved in various ways, including exclusive homosexuality from puberty to adulthood (the individual may also continue to have homosexual relationships for the rest of his life). Also, among the Gheg speaking Albanians of Northern Albania, an individual who is biologically female may assume a male cultural gender. Among native North Americans, 'the two-spirit people' are men who assume a female cultural gender and marry warriors of the tribe.

It's difficult for alot of us in the West to fathom, because we are taught from a young age what are 'appropriate' behaviours for the respective sexes. To many, any variations of these roles are met with anxiety, disgust, fear or condemnation'

 

[dagwoman]

That's merely a comparison between ancient Roman and modern day American views of homosexuality, probably written by some college student. I don't really see what argument you're making.

 

[bshoc]

Jesus, think you could have synthesised that a little?

I was asking for a discussion, not another lump of unsourced text, speaking solely about the Romans.

Well its all there, except the part where Augustus had gays executed, right down to how much the romans found it disgusting and reprehensible, live with it, its history and its not changing.

If you have a problem with the historical scholarship, take it up with the department of history of the University of Oregon.

 

[goldendawn]

Well its all there, except the part where Augustus had gays executed, right down to how much the romans found it disgusting and reprehensible, live with it, its history and its not changing.

The Romans were not the only historical people. And as the Greek saying says (rather ironically) - τὰ πάντα ῥεῖ, οὐδ*ν μ*νει - 'everything is in flux, nothing stands still'.

I quote, again:

In pre-modern China, for example, whilst Confucian law placed emphasis on the continuation of the family line, as long as a man had children he was free to take as many male lovers as he pleased. In the Sepic region of Papua New Guinea, it is believed that all children are born female. Male children must be made - and this is achieved in various ways, including exclusive homosexuality from puberty to adulthood (the individual may also continue to have homosexual relationships for the rest of his life). Also, among the Gheg speaking Albanians of Northern Albania, an individual who is biologically female may assume a male cultural gender. Among native North Americans, 'the two-spirit people' are men who assume a female cultural gender and marry warriors of the tribe'.

 

[bshoc]

but what I'M not gonna let fly is your opinion that gays just want to get maried to have sex, if that is in fact what you are saying

I'm not saying that, but thats what marriage would essentially have to be written down to if we were to allow some form of "gay marriage" (oxymoron), since we cant measure the presence or lack of "love" (its intagible), and gays cant reproduce, a gay marraige would relegate marriage to nothing more than a freedom to have sex.

Once some fantastic technology allows to same gender indaviduals to concieve children or one of those two men can crap out a baby to justify tax benefits, then you can start talking about "gay marriage."

Gay marriage would also create inequality in the sense that a man in this new form of marriage would get tax benefits not accorded to non-married, non-gay hetro males, same for females.

 

[withoutaface]

I'm not saying that, but thats what marriage would essentially have to be written down to if we were to allow some form of "gay marriage" (oxymoron), since we cant measure the presence or lack of "love" (its intagible), and gays cant reproduce, a gay marraige would relegate marriage to nothing more than a freedom to have sex.

Once some fantastic technology allows to same gender indaviduals to concieve children or one of those two men can crap out a baby to justify tax benefits, then you can start talking about "gay marriage."

Gay marriage would also create inequality in the sense that a man in this new form of marriage would get tax benefits not accorded to non-married, non-gay hetro males, same for females.

Which is why abolishing the institution altogether as a legislative entity is the only way to ensure noone's discriminated against. Keeping the status quo discriminates against single people just as much as allowing gay marriage and/or civil unions.

 

[kami]

I'm not saying that, but thats what marriage would essentially have to be written down to if we were to allow some form of "gay marriage" (oxymoron), since we cant measure the presence or lack of "love" (its intagible), and gays cant reproduce, a gay marraige would relegate marriage to nothing more than a freedom to have sex.

Well people are already legally permitted/sanctioned to have sex so thats an irrelevant point. If you're talking about religious freedom well there are religions which sanction it as well and if the religion doesn't then its the person's own decision to stick with such a religion. So I'm not sure what you're on about with the 'freedom to have sex' angle.

Once some fantastic technology allows to same gender indaviduals to concieve children or one of those two men can crap out a baby to justify tax benefits, then you can start talking about "gay marriage."

The elderly, the infertile and the plain disinterested members of opposite sex couples don't need to 'crap out a baby to justify tax benefits', therefore its debated as to whether any couple (gay, straight or otherwise) must provide a child to be worthy of said benefits.

You also seem to forget that the appropriate processes for same-sex couples to have children exist - children from failed hetero relationships, from IVF, from surrogate mothers and from adoption - so I don't see why you'd exclude same-sex couples if your platform is reproduction.

There is also the idea that alot of unmarried couples procreate and the government supports them and will continue to support them so clearly marriage is not just about procreation - people do it anyway.

Gay marriage would also create inequality in the sense that a man in this new form of marriage would get tax benefits not accorded to non-married, non-gay hetro males, same for females.

Yes. Married same-sex couples would have greater rights than the unmarried, just as married opposite sex couples have greater rights than the unmarried right now. This implies an equality in the marriage ceremony in that everyone has a greater faccility to exercise this right.

So unless you're saying marriage at large creates inequality between people then again I don't see your point.

 

[bshoc]

Which is why abolishing the institution altogether as a legislative entity is the only way to ensure noone's discriminated against. Keeping the status quo discriminates against single people just as much as allowing gay marriage and/or civil unions.

I can respect the libertarian outlook, however tax concessions for likely child producing marriages and payments for the children themselves is positive for the economy and state as it encourages birthrates, removing it would have a negative effects on birthrates and the economy down the line, as well as state power (ie. number of military age indaviduals) and so forth. Having neither would make it more expensive for families to birth and raise children, and thus the most negative impact on human capital imaginable - it makes sense for government to create institutions which benefit the economy and society, such as HECS and marriage tax breaks, child benefits.

 

[bshoc]

Well people are already legally permitted/sanctioned to have sex so thats an irrelevant point.

Well since a gay marraige would relegate marriage to this, I don't see why gays want marriage at all, senseless compulsion probably.

The elderly, the infertile and the plain disinterested members of opposite sex couples don't need to 'crap out a baby to justify tax benefits',

True, but most marriages concieve children, as do most of the elderly and infertile before their conditions - like I've said, highlighting the few negative exceptions does not create any grounds to allow even more negative exceptions, thats stupid.

therefore its debated as to whether any couple (gay, straight or otherwise) must provide a child to be worthy of said benefits. You also seem to forget that the appropriate processes for same-sex couples to have children exist - children from failed hetero relationships, from IVF, from surrogate mothers and from adoption - so I don't see why you'd exclude same-sex couples if your platform is reproduction.

They're not appropriate, IVF is nothing more than indirect intercourse, the child lives with a father they dont know, and it should be illegal for all those without medical reasons to use it (which I'm pretty sure it is). IVF also fails the perpetuity test, e.g. if the electricity grid goes out, no more IVF. There is only one real way for people to reproduce, thats they way nature intended. Also IVF works very poorly and creates increased fetal flaws

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sushi-das/the-case-for-cutting-ivf/2005/04/28/1114635687132.html

gays dont have the right to IVF, chosing an incomptible gender is not a debilitating medical condition, also there are some more problems ..

* The bypassing the natural method of conception.
* The Creation of life in the laboratory.
* Fertilisation more embryos than will be needed.
* Discarding of excess embryos.
* Unnatural environment for embryos.
* Use of untested technology.
* Not affordable for many.
* Misallocation of medical resources.
* Creation of embryos, then freezing them, and keeping them "in limbo".
* Exposition of embryos to unnatural substances.
* Destruction of embryos in research.
* Potential to create embryos for medical purposes.
* Potential to select embryos (PGD).
* Potential to modify embryos.
* Facilitation of the idea that embryos are commodities.
* Financial rewards for IVF doctors dissuade them from recommending other methods to couples.
* Infertility is treated as a disease and not as a symptom of underlying medical problems.

Yes. Married same-sex couples would have greater rights than the unmarried, just as married opposite sex couples have greater rights than the unmarried right now. This implies an equality in the marriage ceremony in that everyone has a greater faccility to exercise this right.

Except they would have nothing to justify the benefits, unlike normal married couples. Even the potential for children is a justification.

 

[bshoc]

BShoc do you only respect the institution of marriage, and do you see people in de-facto relationships as not deserving the same accords?

Both, granting the second one would violate the first.