That's a really weak argument. Hetero's gettign civil unions, big deal; multiple civil unions, take care of them in the same way that people aren't allowed to be married to multiple people.

There is no reason to limit current marriage to one person other than we think it should be and it's less messy legally.

Moral reasons are why Marriages are limited to one person. It has nothing to do with legality. Plenty of societies have multiple marriage partners and do just fine with the paperwork.


Our society places a moral importance on having a monogomous relationship.

Civil unions have nothing to do with morality of relationships as its purely an economic business deal and has nothing to do with Child rearing. (non married couples can allready adopt so thats not really and issue)


Why would a civil union be limited to only one person? Whats the rational for that? Is there only one person in my life who I would trust with my future and fortunes? No, I can think of 5 people off the top of my head who I would like to give authority to in such emergencies.

However, if my guess is correct, the real issue is some sort of moral legitimacy of a marriage that people are looking for from society when people in the society do not morally agree with that legitmacy.

I'm all for civil unions, but I don't think they should be restricted to homosexual couples, or even monogomous couples as its purely a legal statment linking individuals in economic assets.

If I wanted to, I could do that by making myself a corporation and enlisting my friends as my board. (its scary that thats possible)

Dag, get a clue. Civil union = marriage, for all intents and purposes. It's just a different word.

Marriage is about child-bearing? News to me. I think you need to step into the current era Daganev and leave your religious-based predjudices behind.



And what is wrong with that? I'm sorry if I don't enjoy having discrimination enshrined in law against me because I don't sleep with the same sex that a book says I should.

Marriage has always been about child rasing.

Go to a divorce court, the battle is always over who raises the children and whats best for the children.

Make yourself a corperation and you can have more rights than a married couple.

You also have to go to a hospital and get health checks to make sure your bloodtypes are compatable to not make deseased babies.

I'm all for Civil Unions, cause it will give all the college bachelors and single parents a good method to help them buy a house and get tax breaks and stuff. But I'm fairly certain that the LGBT community would get insulted if civil unions were not monogomous.


And the point is that your making economic arguments when the economics really isn't at stake.


edit: I find it VERY VERY VERY insulting that you would say that my personal beliefs are not somehow not part of the modern era. Show some respect.

I find it VERY VERY insulting that I am discriminated against based on who I choose to f**k, but we don't care about that do we?

Marriage is about loving another person and spending your life with them. Marriage USED to be about raising children.

I'm not looking for a girlfriend/wife based on who I think will raise the best children, I'm looking for one based on who I love the most.

Your not discriminating against because of who you choose to sleep with.

Thats like saying Single people are being discriminatied against because they can't hold down a steady relationship, or single parents are discriminated against because they got a divorc and are no longer married.


Sylphas, you may choose to marry because of love, but in the court of law, love means nothing, and if you tried to have custody of your children because you love them you will lose.

You have to show that you are a capable parent able to raise your child.

If you don't get custody of the child, you lose more money in the divorce.


Also, if your not married does that mean you don't love the person your close to?

There is a really simple test for this. Can I get married? No. Do I risk the chance of not getting a job at a job interview if they know I'm gay? Yes. Can I adopt a child from overseas? No.

There are many more things I could use as an example and no matter what the reasoning it is stil discrimination based on sexuality, something explicitly outlawed in one Act and enshrined in another - in Australia.

How would you like it if you couldn't get married because you are Jewish or you have dark hair?

I was really disappointed with the Australian government recently when they redefined our constitution so that the term 'marriage' refers exclusively to a man and a woman. Kudos to New Zealand for sounding like at least one bastion of ethical governance in the modern world.

I really think the debate about having civil unions vs marriage is really rather pointless. Either you discriminate against a couple based on their gender or you don't. You can either choose to acknowledge that love, fidelity and union are wonderful things that deserve to be celebrated and acknowledged for all people, or you don't.

My personal view is that the term 'civil unions' are preferred so that society can look on them as a purely financial arrangement, much less than a 'real' marriage, and the same respect accorded to married couples need not be applied unless forced by law.

Daganev, what if you get divorced and don't have kids? Kids have nothing to do with this.

That is such B.S.

A. Child adoption laws from overseas, are the jurisdiction of the country that is overseas, so I'm not sure how that is relevant at all, and its probabbly there to reduce Child slavery.

B. You only risk losing a job if your gay if the person who is hiring you is breaking the law.

C. There is nothing stopping you from getting married. Find some imigrant looking for a quick visa from the opposite sex and presto your married. The only way you would be stopped from getting married was if a law existed that said a gay person can not marry a heterosexual person. And thank god no law such as that exists.


All I'm saying is you have to stick to your arguments, are you looking for economic equality or are you trying to force social acceptance into law? Economic equality is important for everybody, but I do not feel like living in a dictatorship where my personal beliefs and moral feelings are dictaed by some amorphious governement.

If you get divorced and don't have kids the laws are different and its much easier to get the divorce. The State obviously doesn't care much about keeping people who don't have children together in such a bond.

There are no anti-discrimination job laws in Australia for sexual orientation, I'm fairly sure.

Marriage gives you more than economic rights, Daganev.

And why the hell does it matter if a gay person can marry a straight person? The government shouldn't give a damn about your gender or your sexual orientation.

Well our Prime Minister certainly managed to ban it.



Discrimination none-the-less, something that doesn't happen to heterosexual people.



That is such a bloody ridiculous argument. Why the hell should I settle for marrying someone I don't want to marry?



Social acceptance has been forced into law many times before. A lot of people (moreso in the past) diagree with laws regarding sexual harrasment and equality for women. Does that mean women should have had to stay at home in the kitchen until -all- men were good and ready to let them have a somewhat more equal footing?

Here's a simple question: Do you believe that the love between two members of the same sex is any different to the love between members of the opposite sex?

If not, then I don't see a problem in acknowledging the union of two people irrespective of gender.

WTF?

Not quite sure where that came from but yeah ... right. I'm definitely gonna go hunting for some strange heterosexual man from another country to marry me because I'm a lesbian.

Editted for I was too harsh on the poor stupid man.

I can't be bothered quoting the quote where you stated that you can get multiple civil unions. In the way that our civil union has been structred, you cannot get multiple civil unions. Civil Union is just a alternative to getting married, it holds the same economical and political status to a marriage.

Daganev if you think that marriage should be viewed quite strongly as a economical thing, why can't same-sex couples get married. I mean it is just economical so why should there be anything holding samesex couples from getting married for the same economical reasons that hetrosexual couples marry for. I mean if you believe that buisness partners will get married just to get tax breaks or whatever, can't a female and male buisness partner get married just to get tax breaks.