Thread: Marriage equality? - a new one - Marries herself

Originally Posted by carjunkieanon

At the risk of getting too political (and no, I'm not going to tell you which way to vote), marriage has always had boundaries around it. There have always been people who can't get married. You can't marry a close relative, you can't marry someone underage, you can't marry someone without consent, you can't marry someone already married, you can't marry more than one person (in Australia), etc. The current marriage question is about whether to widen those boundaries a little further to say you can marry someone of the same sex. What intrigues me, and I think this is a reasonably sensible question to ask, is 'what's your basis for widening the boundaries, and, does that same argument also widen the boundaries for other 'marriages' that aren't now allowed?'. If the new basis for marriage is two people who love each other, then...can't brother and sister claim they should be allowed to marry? I'd like to know where Australians think the boundaries lie.

*ducks for cover*

The difference being all those things you mention are illegal, whereas it's legal to live in a consenting relationship with someone of the same sex, and its legal for them to have children.

Big difference.

At the moment couples in a same sex relationship don't have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples, let alone the social and public acknowledgment of that union.

Originally Posted by rick130

The difference being all those things you mention are illegal, whereas it's legal to live in a consenting relationship with someone of the same sex, and its legal for them to have children.

Big difference.

At the moment couples in a same sex relationship don't have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples, let alone the social and public acknowledgment of that union.

Yep. I realise that some are legal while other illegal. I'm curious as to the reasons why we say some are legal and some are illegal. What are the grounds/the logic for the boundaries we place around relationships?

Only have to look at the Royal Family to see why you really shouldn't marry your cousin.

Pi9tty, my cousin was/is quite attractive.

One thing people forget in this argument, until little johnny pushed through the changes to the marriage act, same sex couples could marry overseas and there marriage would be valid in Australia... Then little Johnny with all his wisdom and religious backing, pushed the change so the gays/lesos/queers, had no rights...

The way I see it, we should just go back to the white australia policy, with all the bull going on in this country, its got too far out of hand with this restrict one and give the other a golden handshake...

Originally Posted by carjunkieanon

Yep. I realise that some are legal while other illegal. I'm curious as to the reasons why we say some are legal and some are illegal. What are the grounds/the logic for the boundaries we place around relationships?

It's only in recent times is homosexuality is legal, remember they used to get locked up in prison for it.Tassie was the last state to remove it as an offense.

Originally Posted by carjunkieanon

Yep. I realise that some are legal while other illegal. I'm curious as to the reasons why we say some are legal and some are illegal. What are the grounds/the logic for the boundaries we place around relationships?

So, just to give some examples (and mods, please let me know if I'm straying too far away from Land Rover related discussion),

- I think the consensus on the forum is (what a risky phrase to write) that we think it ridiculous to marry ones self. One boundary we place around marriage is that it has to involve more than one party.

- I think I've read that there's consensus that it's ridiculous to marry an animal (or a tree, or the earth). So another boundary we place around marriage is that it must be between humans.

- I suspect we agree that marriage has to involve consent. So consent is another boundary. Animals/trees/nature can't give consent. Can I assume people wouldn't be happy about someone marrying an unconscious person. Probably consent is why we say minors can't marry. A 9 year old girl can't give consent to be married to a 40 year old man. My 5 year old can't marry his 5 year old friend at Preschool.

- In Australia (and most parts of the world) we have a boundary that says "two people only". Why do we historically have this boundary? Is it to do with two people being required to make kids and it gets complicated if more than two people? Is it religious? Is it because we know a man would be crazy to have more than one wife?

But...some people would like polygamy. On what basis to we say "no, we don't permit that" or "sure, we can expand the boundary to include that"?

- The existing definition of marriage has a boundary that says, 'male-female'. Why do we have this boundary? Is it because it takes male-female to have children (though not every married couple will)? Is this a worthwhile boundary to keep?


People are now arguing that boundary should be expanded to include same-sex couples. On what basis? Their love is equal? Their faithfulness is equal? Their relationship is equal? They are equally valuable? Does changing this boundary also have consequences for other boundaries?

It's blinking complicated is what it is. Doing my head in...going to go to bed as its midnight. Best of luck everyone.

There is no longer any real legal trauma to having children outside of a "traditional" hetero marriage, so the idea that marriage must be between one man and one woman no longer has any relevance. Kids can come from a one night stand, a previous relationship, IVF procedures, whatever, they don't become second class citizens because of their origin. Marriage is a legal contract with the State and confers a small number of benefits to the couple not available to unmarried couples. So I can't see that there is any good reason to deny any pair of suitably informed people tying the legal knot. As to a non binary number of people getting married, that's a distant future concern once the current battles have been won or lost.

Originally Posted by carjunkieanon

At the risk of getting too political (and no, I'm not going to tell you which way to vote), marriage has always had boundaries around it. There have always been people who can't get married. You can't marry a close relative, you can't marry someone underage, you can't marry someone without consent, you can't marry someone already married, you can't marry more than one person (in Australia), etc. The current marriage question is about whether to widen those boundaries a little further to say you can marry someone of the same sex. What intrigues me, and I think this is a reasonably sensible question to ask, is 'what's your basis for widening the boundaries, and, does that same argument also widen the boundaries for other 'marriages' that aren't now allowed?'. If the new basis for marriage is two people who love each other, then...can't brother and sister claim they should be allowed to marry? I'd like to know where Australians think the boundaries lie.

*ducks for cover*

Actually for many centuries in Europe's royal families kept marrying close relatives right up until Queen Vikky's mob spread haemophylia througout Eurone including the Romanoffs. In Egypt it was the practice for siblings to marry and 1st cousin marriage is still common in the middle east ant they continue the practice here with all the genetic consequences it entails. In the west it has only been since the understanding of genetic inheritance that marriage to close relatives has been banned.