Quidgy... 
Daganev, you reiterate the same old arguments that Narsrim and others have already addressed. Do you really feel discriminated against by being told to use a male bathroom? Do you know how freaking insulting I find that analogy?
In our country recently, our laws and constitution were DELIBERATELY CHANGED to exclude same-sex marriage. Now, I'd never really given much thought to the fact that a committed same-sex relationship is not recognised by any authority, but that was a slap to the face. "Hey, we don't want any of you people to get the wrong idea and think that you could have the same rights as -real- families and -real- couples!"
So, at least in Australia's case, the onus was not on the people to show that the laws should change to embrace equality, it was on the government and religious right to show that gay marriage was bad. AND THEY WON.
This was last year, and I still remember the absolute dread at reading the final decision. Maybe I come from a privileged background, but I have never before had that experience. A government that says you are not worthy of the same rights as your brother, your neighbour.
Anyway, one of our Senators had some nice comments at the time that I thought I might share, since I'm not eloquent enough to contribute meaningfully myself.
Daganev, you reiterate the same old arguments that Narsrim and others have already addressed. Do you really feel discriminated against by being told to use a male bathroom? Do you know how freaking insulting I find that analogy?
In our country recently, our laws and constitution were DELIBERATELY CHANGED to exclude same-sex marriage. Now, I'd never really given much thought to the fact that a committed same-sex relationship is not recognised by any authority, but that was a slap to the face. "Hey, we don't want any of you people to get the wrong idea and think that you could have the same rights as -real- families and -real- couples!"
So, at least in Australia's case, the onus was not on the people to show that the laws should change to embrace equality, it was on the government and religious right to show that gay marriage was bad. AND THEY WON.
This was last year, and I still remember the absolute dread at reading the final decision. Maybe I come from a privileged background, but I have never before had that experience. A government that says you are not worthy of the same rights as your brother, your neighbour.
Anyway, one of our Senators had some nice comments at the time that I thought I might share, since I'm not eloquent enough to contribute meaningfully myself.
QUOTE(Sen. Brian Greig)
Same-sex marriage opponents argue that traditional marriage is a Christian instruction and that Australia is founded on Judeo-Christian values. Apart from the fact that Hindus, Muslims, Rastafarians and all other manner of non-Christian sects also embrace marriage, the fact is that parliament is a secular institution and that marriage is a civil contract and not a religious one. Same-sex marriage opponents say that marriage is a fundamental institution of civilisation and must not be redefined. But, as researchers and historians continue to point out, marriage is an evolving paradigm. Conservative social commentator Andrew Sullivan writes:
... for the first millennium after Christ, Christianity didn't even recognise marriage as a sacrament, it was regarded as a purely secular matter of property ownership. Marriage also once meant the ownership of women by men, it was once permanent, and no divorce was possible, it was once restricted to couples of the same race, the notion that it has never changed is simply untrue.
Besides, if marriage is the unshakable and rock solid institution that conservative MPs and religious leaders would have us believe, could they explain why 40 per cent of marriages end in separation and divorce and why more and more people are choosing not to marry? In truth, marriage is not a rock solid institution. In Australia it is growing weaker and less important to many people with each passing decade. Far from further weakening the institution, the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples brings added strength. Conservatives should embrace the fact that a new group of citizens want to be included in an institution that clearly needs reinforcing.
Opponents of gay marriage argue that the proposal is a threat to general society and that the traditional marriage needs to be protected. What exactly is this threat? As Andrew Sullivan said:
Are some people trying to break up other people's marriages? Are people proposing to abolish civil marriage? Are divorce laws going to be loosened further? The answer is that a small group of citizens, far from wanting to threaten marriage, actually want to participate in it.
Same-sex marriage opponents argue that marriage is about having kids and raising a family and that marriage is the best environment in which to do that. This is all well and good but it does not explain why gay and lesbian couples raising children should be denied marriage. If marriage is the best way in which to raise children, why would we as a parliament want to disadvantage children in same-sex families by refusing their parents the right to marry? But marriage is not about having children. Infertile couples are allowed to marry. Elderly couples are allowed to marry. Couples who do marry but decide not to have children are not then made to divorce. Being married and having children are not axiomatic. This cannot be used as a valid argument to deny same-sex couples the option of civil marriage. Many same-sex couples have children; many heterosexual couples do not.
...
The other thing we can point to is that every single doomsayer prediction, every criticism of same-sex marriage that is thrown up by the religious Right and other conservatives, can be proved wrong simply by looking to Canada, the US, Denmark and those countries where same-sex marriages have been allowed for a year or more. The sky has not fallen in in those places. Traditional marriage has not been undermined. There has been no negative impact on society. I was delighted to see that the most recent poll in Canada showed that a clear majority of Canadians who were initially opposed to same-sex marriage now support it. That only happened because leadership was shown by their political parties. The political parties argued, in the face of controversy, to support same-sex marriages. Now that those marriages have been seen as being viable, workable, legitimate and acceptable, they have a place. That, for most gay and lesbian people, is the issue—it is about inclusion.
... for the first millennium after Christ, Christianity didn't even recognise marriage as a sacrament, it was regarded as a purely secular matter of property ownership. Marriage also once meant the ownership of women by men, it was once permanent, and no divorce was possible, it was once restricted to couples of the same race, the notion that it has never changed is simply untrue.
Besides, if marriage is the unshakable and rock solid institution that conservative MPs and religious leaders would have us believe, could they explain why 40 per cent of marriages end in separation and divorce and why more and more people are choosing not to marry? In truth, marriage is not a rock solid institution. In Australia it is growing weaker and less important to many people with each passing decade. Far from further weakening the institution, the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples brings added strength. Conservatives should embrace the fact that a new group of citizens want to be included in an institution that clearly needs reinforcing.
Opponents of gay marriage argue that the proposal is a threat to general society and that the traditional marriage needs to be protected. What exactly is this threat? As Andrew Sullivan said:
Are some people trying to break up other people's marriages? Are people proposing to abolish civil marriage? Are divorce laws going to be loosened further? The answer is that a small group of citizens, far from wanting to threaten marriage, actually want to participate in it.
Same-sex marriage opponents argue that marriage is about having kids and raising a family and that marriage is the best environment in which to do that. This is all well and good but it does not explain why gay and lesbian couples raising children should be denied marriage. If marriage is the best way in which to raise children, why would we as a parliament want to disadvantage children in same-sex families by refusing their parents the right to marry? But marriage is not about having children. Infertile couples are allowed to marry. Elderly couples are allowed to marry. Couples who do marry but decide not to have children are not then made to divorce. Being married and having children are not axiomatic. This cannot be used as a valid argument to deny same-sex couples the option of civil marriage. Many same-sex couples have children; many heterosexual couples do not.
...
The other thing we can point to is that every single doomsayer prediction, every criticism of same-sex marriage that is thrown up by the religious Right and other conservatives, can be proved wrong simply by looking to Canada, the US, Denmark and those countries where same-sex marriages have been allowed for a year or more. The sky has not fallen in in those places. Traditional marriage has not been undermined. There has been no negative impact on society. I was delighted to see that the most recent poll in Canada showed that a clear majority of Canadians who were initially opposed to same-sex marriage now support it. That only happened because leadership was shown by their political parties. The political parties argued, in the face of controversy, to support same-sex marriages. Now that those marriages have been seen as being viable, workable, legitimate and acceptable, they have a place. That, for most gay and lesbian people, is the issue—it is about inclusion.
Why doesn't it make sense? 
Edit:
From that 'strawman' argument that didn't answer any of your arguments:
Edit:
QUOTE(Daganev)
Please show me when the definition of marriage was different than 1 man and 1 woman. I have seen the definition of man change, and I have seen the definition of woman change, but I have not seen the definition of marriage change.
From that 'strawman' argument that didn't answer any of your arguments:
QUOTE(Avaer)
Conservative social commentator Andrew Sullivan writes:
... for the first millennium after Christ, Christianity didn't even recognise marriage as a sacrament, it was regarded as a purely secular matter of property ownership. Marriage also once meant the ownership of women by men, it was once permanent, and no divorce was possible, it was once restricted to couples of the same race, the notion that it has never changed is simply untrue.
... for the first millennium after Christ, Christianity didn't even recognise marriage as a sacrament, it was regarded as a purely secular matter of property ownership. Marriage also once meant the ownership of women by men, it was once permanent, and no divorce was possible, it was once restricted to couples of the same race, the notion that it has never changed is simply untrue.
