Comments on: on civil ceremonies http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/ musings from those on the journey Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:11:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Greg the explorer http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149898 Greg the explorer Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:05:55 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149898 and therefore it is about control - controlling who gets the wealth. I realise that my theory is a bit conspiratorial - but hey - I don;t think thay really landed on the moon and I'm sure I saw JFK, Maralyn and Elvis down at the local pixi-foto booth getting wealthy off the smiles of babies! and therefore it is about control - controlling who gets the wealth. I realise that my theory is a bit conspiratorial - but hey - I don;t think thay really landed on the moon and I’m sure I saw JFK, Maralyn and Elvis down at the local pixi-foto booth getting wealthy off the smiles of babies!

]]> By: Sanders http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149841 Sanders Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:20:43 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149841 Are you sure that control aspect is really the case, Greg? I would like to think my own choice of marriage partner was not controlled by the state either by social convention or otherwise. Sure, the state has an interest in marriage because it is the accepted norm for producing future generations, and must therefore be supported in order to ensure the survival of the state itself. Why should the state have an interest in other forms of union, whether they receive an imprimatur of marriage or not? I would suggest the only reason that the state is concerned about other forms is because they may demand tax breaks but offer no benefit to the state in return. Are you sure that control aspect is really the case, Greg? I would like to think my own choice of marriage partner was not controlled by the state either by social convention or otherwise. Sure, the state has an interest in marriage because it is the accepted norm for producing future generations, and must therefore be supported in order to ensure the survival of the state itself. Why should the state have an interest in other forms of union, whether they receive an imprimatur of marriage or not? I would suggest the only reason that the state is concerned about other forms is because they may demand tax breaks but offer no benefit to the state in return.

]]> By: Greg the explorer http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149833 Greg the explorer Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:51:14 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149833 <blockquote>I would have thought that the real purpose of marriage is all about family and the relationship and experience that comes from that.</blockquote> The real purpose of marriage is so that the church and state can control relationships - it is so the underlings - <em>hoi poloi</em> don't get above themselves and think that they have complete self determination. It's about power and control and who gets to say who's in and who's out. It;s about maintaingin a system that thrives on division and having an <em>us</em> and a <em>them</em>. <blockquote>.. but they are also not compelled to give any union legal sanction </blockquote> Except that by virtue of the fact that gays can not have the same legitmacie given to their relationships as heteros they lose out on superannuation, spousal benefits in health plans, life insurance etc - all of which is provided by the legitimisation of hetero mariage through legal sanction of the state - despite you claiming they aren't compelled to do so. If they aren't compelled to do so for one but then go ahead and do so then they should do so for all. It's about natural justice - not religion and not morals. And if the institution of marriage si so powerful for good it can only benefit gay couples and should therefore be allowed to them. I say let gays get married - why should straights be the only ones to suffer!

I would have thought that the real purpose of marriage is all about family and the relationship and experience that comes from that.

The real purpose of marriage is so that the church and state can control relationships - it is so the underlings - hoi poloi don’t get above themselves and think that they have complete self determination. It’s about power and control and who gets to say who’s in and who’s out. It;s about maintaingin a system that thrives on division and having an us and a them.

.. but they are also not compelled to give any union legal sanction

Except that by virtue of the fact that gays can not have the same legitmacie given to their relationships as heteros they lose out on superannuation, spousal benefits in health plans, life insurance etc - all of which is provided by the legitimisation of hetero mariage through legal sanction of the state - despite you claiming they aren’t compelled to do so. If they aren’t compelled to do so for one but then go ahead and do so then they should do so for all.

It’s about natural justice - not religion and not morals. And if the institution of marriage si so powerful for good it can only benefit gay couples and should therefore be allowed to them.

I say let gays get married - why should straights be the only ones to suffer!

]]> By: abtruth http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149821 abtruth Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:49:41 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149821 good comment blestpickle good comment blestpickle

]]> By: abtruth http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149820 abtruth Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:48:52 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149820 Sanders "I am not really overjoyed by the idea of the state (or other people) controlling the private choice of citizens to any reasonable, peaceful lifestyle they so choose." they don't .. but they are also not compelled to give any union legal sanction Sanders

“I am not really overjoyed by the idea of the state (or other people) controlling the private choice of citizens to any reasonable, peaceful lifestyle they so choose.”

they don’t .. but they are also not compelled to give any union legal sanction

]]> By: Sanders http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149816 Sanders Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:29:32 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149816 If children, and the extended family, is the primary reason for marriage, then by my logic it is marriages formed for this purpose that should be given the most support including by the taxation system. That doesn't mean I object to any couple marrying - that was not part of the logic. I am not really overjoyed by the idea of the state (or other people) controlling the private choice of citizens to any reasonable, peaceful lifestyle they so choose. What reasonable objection can be made? Kids leaving home means the end of marriage? That doesn't follow either. That could mean your input and experience could be invaluable in the growing extended family. If children, and the extended family, is the primary reason for marriage, then by my logic it is marriages formed for this purpose that should be given the most support including by the taxation system. That doesn’t mean I object to any couple marrying - that was not part of the logic. I am not really overjoyed by the idea of the state (or other people) controlling the private choice of citizens to any reasonable, peaceful lifestyle they so choose. What reasonable objection can be made?

Kids leaving home means the end of marriage? That doesn’t follow either. That could mean your input and experience could be invaluable in the growing extended family.

]]> By: bec http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149812 bec Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:15:08 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149812 that's beautiful blestpickle... that’s beautiful blestpickle…

]]> By: blestpickle http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149811 blestpickle Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:04:59 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149811 Sanders, by your logic older people (where women are past menopause) would not be getting married. Couples who get married already knowing that one of them is infertile, would not constitute marriage. Our kids have grown up, our marriage isn't "perfect", by your logic we would just walk away from 30 years of commitment and look for greener pastures. For some of us absolute commitment is the only paradigm in which we give ourselves sexually. And I know people whose love, irrespective of whether they have children, is a growing, whole of life experience. Stable marriages not only avoid the many traumas of divorce, they sow qualities like commitment and loyalty and fidelity and integrity (eg keeping your promises) back into a community. they witness to the fact that love is so much more than desire and doing what feels good right now. Sanders, by your logic older people (where women are past menopause) would not be getting married. Couples who get married already knowing that one of them is infertile, would not constitute marriage. Our kids have grown up, our marriage isn’t “perfect”, by your logic we would just walk away from 30 years of commitment and look for greener pastures. For some of us absolute commitment is the only paradigm in which we give ourselves sexually. And I know people whose love, irrespective of whether they have children, is a growing, whole of life experience. Stable marriages not only avoid the many traumas of divorce, they sow qualities like commitment and loyalty and fidelity and integrity (eg keeping your promises) back into a community. they witness to the fact that love is so much more than desire and doing what feels good right now.

]]> By: bec http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149809 bec Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:35:05 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149809 Sanders, you say "Any form of marriage in which children cannot be a natural outcome, seems to be artificial and pales into insignificance in comparison." I really strongly disagree with this - and I say this as a woman who's mother says her children are her greatest achievement, and as a woman who hopes to have children herself one day! I think marriage offers stability to the broader community - we have all seen the impact that a divorce can have on friends, not just children. I see marriage as an opportunity to be committed to one person, to being committed to a unique relationship, to being committed to working through our differences, supporting and sustaining one another. I hope that my partner and I can offer a "safe space" to people, that we can be community-builders - those things would be damaged if we ever broke up. Dan and Phil do not have kids, but in my very limited knowledge of them, they are fantastic community builders, and if they ever broke up, the effects of that would be felt by many. These things apply to gay couples also. So, you asked, "who cares?" I would say many people do. My partner and I would not need to have children for a break up to have horrendous consequences for our parents, our siblings, our friendships, our communities... Sanders, you say “Any form of marriage in which children cannot be a natural outcome, seems to be artificial and pales into insignificance in comparison.”

I really strongly disagree with this - and I say this as a woman who’s mother says her children are her greatest achievement, and as a woman who hopes to have children herself one day! I think marriage offers stability to the broader community - we have all seen the impact that a divorce can have on friends, not just children. I see marriage as an opportunity to be committed to one person, to being committed to a unique relationship, to being committed to working through our differences, supporting and sustaining one another. I hope that my partner and I can offer a “safe space” to people, that we can be community-builders - those things would be damaged if we ever broke up. Dan and Phil do not have kids, but in my very limited knowledge of them, they are fantastic community builders, and if they ever broke up, the effects of that would be felt by many.

These things apply to gay couples also.

So, you asked, “who cares?” I would say many people do. My partner and I would not need to have children for a break up to have horrendous consequences for our parents, our siblings, our friendships, our communities…

]]> By: Greg the explorer http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149803 Greg the explorer Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:58:27 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/10/30/on-civil-ceremonies/#comment-149803 <a href='http://www.glumbert.com/media/women' rel="nofollow">Women really should konw their place!</a> Women really should konw their place!

]]>