Status of hetrosexual marriages and homosexual marriages
In our ongoing discussion on gay marriage, Nigel posed this question.
When our Australian Prime Minsiter was talking about this issue the other day on the ABC radio he used the word “status”. He was saying a married hetrosexual couple have a status that an unmarried homosexual couple do not have and should not be allowed to receive becasue they should never be recognised as ‘married’. What he didn’t spell out in great detail was what this status is.
I know one example being talked about is the ability to adopt children, but in what other benefits of this status are we being encouraged to discriminate between hetrosexual and homosexual people?
An interesting question. I must admit, the question got me thinking of how I am suspicious that those who argue (as John Howard does) that they have nothing against homosexual people but rather want to retain the institution of marriage, are not being entirely complete in their answer.
I need to think this through further and I am on the run.. I will come back to it but I would be interested in your comments.
June 2nd, 2004 at 8:50 pm
No only incomplete in their answer, but dishonest in their statement.
June 2nd, 2004 at 10:21 pm
What part do you think is dishonest? Incomplete doesn’t necessarily mean dishonest or wrong does it?
June 3rd, 2004 at 9:43 am
incompleteness to me reflects 1 of a few things:
*lack of desire to participate in an adult argument
*desire to mislead
*someone who hasn’t thourght the argument through on the merits of the question
June 3rd, 2004 at 8:30 pm
The argument that this Government is not biased against homosexuals in our society is as thin a wet tally-ho. If they weren’t discriminately biased, this society would already accept, let alone permit same-sex marriages. The Labor opposition is no better, fearing a back-lash from heterosexual voters should they challenge the Governments wedge attempt. Because homosexual voters are in a minority, it’s safer to offend them, then the heterosexual majority. This is what I call, dishonest, and both ideologies are as guilty.
June 4th, 2004 at 10:27 am
We are facing the same questions here in NZ where the Government plans to give same sex ‘marriages’ the same ’status’ as heterosexual marriage.
All law is based on someone’s moral framework or ‘word view’. Traditionally in western cultures our world view (and our law) has been shaped by our understanding of the Bible.
As the influence of Christianity has declined in the western world, we have seen a corresponding erosion of laws based on what could be called a ‘Christian world and life view’.
Is this good or bad?
Well our laws do send ’signals’ to the community as to what we generally consider to be acceptable and unacceptable behavior. If we throw out an historically formed Christian world view, what are we going to replace it with. Is there a better ideology out there?
There will be those who contest that discrimination of any sort based in law is a bad thing, and particularly laws that discriminate against homosexuality. There are many kinds of sexual behavior that the law discriminates against, necrophilia, pedophilia etc etc so it comes back to the question of ‘by what standard’.
The bottom line for me is that we should hold fast to what is good (which in my view is to discriminate in favour of heterosexual marriage) while at the same time show compassion for those who are in homosexual relationships. I’m sure we can form legislation that will allow them to visit their loved ones in hospital etc without having to abandon the current definition or legal status of marriage.
After all, marriage is not some good idea that mankind instituted. It’s God’s idea based on his desire for us to find mutual love and fullfulment, and for us to reproduce after our own kind. Only hetrosexual marriage is able to give a 10 out of 10 for each of those requirements.
For what it’s worth.
Blessings
Brendan
June 5th, 2004 at 11:51 am
I see a big case to splitting marriage into two seperate actions. Alow nearly any social group with a common idealology to marry to people, this act is to signify that the union is blessed by that institution. And a completely seperate action where the government/law acknowledges that a pair of people are elligable for all the rights and privledges that are currently given to people who are married.
to me this would be the perfect political solution, that is if politicans were seeking the best solution to everyone, where as their after the most votes they can get.
June 5th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
John Howard does not have the same view about homosexual “individuals” ( who are not discriminated against) and homosexual “couples”( who are).
Homosexual individuals have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual people - except when they get into couples, in that they cannot able to marry the person of choice. In New Zealand that is descrimination, but not a prohibited form of discrimination under law.
It is also linked you your comment on marital “status”. - but homosexual couples don’t have to have a married “status” to adopt children. They just need a law change.
In terms of adpotion - under NZ law at least - single gay men are not discriminated against compatred with heterosexual men - neither can adopt children.
June 7th, 2004 at 1:18 pm
So we are compiling a list of things in which the Australian government chooses to discriminate against homosexual people,
we so far we have:
* adopting children from overseas,
* accessing the Medicare safety net,
* being compelled to testify in court,
* being able to leave your estate to your partner.
and now to that we list we can add:
* appearing on the children’s TV program Playschool.
Apparently there is something outrageous about showing a family with children and lesbians in it on a television show segment about children in diverse families. John Howard described it as “intruding” - so it must be a privilege that only heterosexual people in families with children have enough status to enjoy.
June 7th, 2004 at 2:45 pm
A quick point of clarification about the estate question for gay couples. The categories of people that can challenge a will is very broad, anyone who can establish that there is some responsibility on the part of the deceased to provide for the claimant. So heterosexual people are just as likely to have their testamentary wishes interfered with.
However, if you die without a will as a gay person in a committed relationship, then your partner will not automatically receive your estate (which would happen with a heterosexual de facto).
June 11th, 2004 at 9:23 am
John Howard is a homophobic.
i would like to see what his opinion would be if his son or daughter were homosexual.
Every time you define a group of people out of something, you are in a way marginalising that group of people and saying to the majority that these people aren’t worthy of being part of whatever you’ve pushed them out of.
i shall be voting for the green party.
June 16th, 2004 at 7:21 pm
Does anyone know, did God (aka the Bible) instiute marriage, or was it something created by humankind and given a religious slant… one of those olden day things where the religious authorities tried to maintain control?
And on another point:
Most government law reform is currently promotting the position that once you live together for a certain length of time, you are ‘given’ many (maybe even most) of the rights and responsibilies of marriage. To me this goes all against the whole marriage thing. Should a couple who have decided to not get married be forced to take the rights and responsibilites of being married. In the end I think this is the most critical thing which is eroding the institution of marriage.
And to Dan, regarding homosexual inheritance. If the heterosexual couple were married, and the gay couple not - then it is a legally simpler case to successfully challenge the gay persons will than the heterosexual’s.
Issues where gay people are discriminated against.
- employment in independant schools
- employment in small business
- employment working with children (?? I think)
- allocation of superannuation to partner (John Howard reckons he will remove this soon), gays pay more tax on it.
- partner rights in employment
- immigration, gay people must wait longer and prove their relationship more than heterosexuals.
- access to the family court when relationship breaks down
…that’s all I can think of for now.
June 17th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock seems to want it both ways (snigger, snigger).
First he says some gay people may be suitable parents but they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt anyway because we should discriminate in favor of hetrosexual couples: “This is a question of judging amongst those who are suitable, when you have a limited pool, who ought to be given priority.”
But then he insists that the bill was not designed to discriminate against gay couples.
June 18th, 2004 at 9:01 pm
When it comes to it, no gay people in Australia expect to be apoptin kids other than those of related partners etc because there is such a shortage of children (sorry to sound so economic rationalist). But when it comes to overseas adoptions there are thousands of children in India and China desperate for parents, and I think it would be better for them to have homosexual australian parents than no parents at all.
June 19th, 2004 at 7:42 am
I agree - much better to have an australian parent than none at all…
Steve
June 20th, 2004 at 12:26 am
doesn’t the shortage of children availble for adoption just point to the problems with contraception and the easy of availbility of abortions?
(random trolling/devil advocating for the day done)
July 6th, 2004 at 5:23 pm
This is a very interesting discussion,
What is the problem with gaining easy acccess to abortion or for that matter contraception?
I believe that John Howard knows the deal with haivng a parent better then having no parent at all. But the thing is…
a child learns the most from his/her parents..Jonny is just scare that the ‘gay germs’ will spread and what is a minority now, will be a majority.
This is the same with the play-school lesbian, she is an educator…although i really dealt she will teach the children about her sexuality, so it doesn’t matter. But the hetersexual parents is putting the pressure on, in fear of their child being ‘abnormal’. If that is not on… then gay-marriages is definitly in for a hold-off.
July 7th, 2004 at 10:52 am
Hey Phil and Dan, Cansis got me to wonder about what your position is on the abortion issue.
Is it a woman’s right to choose?
Can you share what it might be or can you direct me to a post where it has been discussed before?
Thanks in advance.
July 7th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
I think for a multicultural society we can sometimes be quite close minded about certain issues.
We all just need to accept that everyone is different and that homosexual couples should have the right to choose whether they want to be married or have kids or whatever.
Prime minister Howard needs to stop living in the dark ages and accept that nowadays EVERYONE is considered equal.
August 4th, 2004 at 9:45 am
one thing i would like to point out, after reading all the arguments here:
marriage was created by, basically, the church(es). Gays and lesbians have not exactly been welcomed into these churches now have they? So why would they want to join in with an act that was created against them in the first place?
August 5th, 2004 at 9:16 am
Could you please pos up more information concerning the religious, social, moral, cultural and government issues that face homosexual marriages in Australia. Thanks.
August 5th, 2004 at 9:16 am
Could you please post up more information concerning the religious, social, moral, cultural and government issues that face homosexual marriages in Australia. Thanks.
September 13th, 2004 at 4:35 pm
I HATE THE PRIME MINIATURE AND I LOVE ALL OF YOU!
September 14th, 2004 at 2:35 pm
I was just reading on marriage.about.com that, well, I have included it…
“Some believe that the first people in the world to make marriage laws were the ancient Egyptians. During the New Kingdom period, a contract was drawn up between the husband and the bride’s father, ensuring the property rights of the wife and children. During the Third Intermediate Period, the contract was between the husband and wife. They did include clauses such as a provision for the payment of alimony if the husband later insisted on a divorce. A woman who failed to give her husband a son might be divorced. Or the husband would take a concubine and have children by her, the wife would then adopt these children as her own”.
Interesting…it also talks about how rules re witnesses of marriage etc (a priest and two witnesses) was introduced in the 1500’s by Pope Nicholas 1.
Apparently, the Hebrew marriage, was quite different to any other marriage ceremony etc in the world. Which is where, based on the church’s interpretation throughout history, we get our Western idea of marriage.
September 15th, 2004 at 3:25 am
Biblical marriage was based on a whole different system than we in the West are accustomed to. “Love” was something that came later if at all. What was important was the family connections that were made that would be favorable to both families, not just to the bride and groom.
So if we want to really uphold “Biblical marriage,” we’d best go back to the system they used. It is not necessary that the bride and groom have ever seen each other much less be acquainted. it is necessary that the bride’s family produce enough of a dowry to make connection with their family a plus rather than a minus. It is necessary that the groom’s family produce a sufficient bride price that th bride’s family feels it is worthwhile to associate themselves with the other family. The bride will move in with the husband’s family and will be subject to the husband’s family, not just the husband. This means the husband’s father can kill her if he so chooses. He has the ultimate familial authority unless *his* father is still alive. There is no “wedding ceremony” with white dresses, tons of flowers or matching dresses on the bridesmaids. No honeymoon at some exotic resort (or even a plain trip somewhere for a week or so). The bride moves to the groom’s home and he throws a party for his friends and neighbors. The less visible the bride the better because women did not mix freely with men, particularly those outside her immediate family and sometimes not even then. So she would be tucked away somewhere out of sight and safe.
Yeah! Let’s hear it for the Biblical concept of marriage!
September 15th, 2004 at 11:36 am
A theory of what ‘biblical’ marriage is without any biblical references.
Very spongish!
September 15th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
The statue of homosexual marriages compared to hetrosexual marriages is very unreasonable. this is because they are they same they are a couple, whether it be male and female, male and male or female and female. They are all the same they are together they are people who are deeply in love with each other and a recklessly being discriminated.
Gay and lesbian marriages should be accepted throughout the Australian community as they are all the same. The churches need to realize people can love somebody else of their same sex.
So why discriminate against one party, when we allow the other one to marry and divorce. Yet we only allow gay and lesbian couples to have a committment ceremony.
Thankyou and i hope you think about what i have stated .
Lindsay
September 15th, 2004 at 3:45 pm
Homer,
Which book of Bishop Spong do you think doesn’t use biblical references?
I understand that you disagree with Bishop Spong, but I do fail to understand why you would think that Bishop Spong does not address scripture.
September 16th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
One that comes to mind was his belief it was unreasonable that people in the 20th Century to only have sex with one person. This was a ‘cultural’ condition of ‘biblical’ times.
Can’t think of the book but obviously it was pre2000.
It is the only book I read of his and is the only one I will read.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
hey i looked on this site findin information for an english assignment i am doing in year 12
i wanted to tell my class about gay marriages and how i dont understand y they cannot get married
wat is so wrong about it we r all people and if u r deeply in love thats all that matters
who was the one who made up the law in the first place
who got to decide wat marriage is and exactly wat sex must marry it is not fair
i am not homosexual and think that we r all equal if john howard seriously did not discriminate against gays then y wont he let them marry