The real issue behind gay marriage that no-one is mentioning.

[Sextus]

All the language used in the gay marriage debate is emotive, and so people are getting bogged down arguing in those terms.

In fact the issue isn’t emotive at all. People might feel emotive about it, but they are arguing back and forth under an overiding principle that is entirely dispassionate.

Because the issue isn’t about love, it isn’t about personal rights, it isn’t about prejudice, it isn’t even about religion.

What it is actually about is intellectual property, ie, branding and marketing.

Marriage you see, is an heterosexual brand. And it predates all other brands.

It pre-dates even this very early example of a marketing brand from Roman times – one of the first symbols used as a global trademark.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l5/waveflows/sign%20of%20the%20fish_zpsfezvkhaq.gif (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/waveflows/media/sign%20of%20the%20fish_zpsfezvkhaq.gif.html)

This "sign of the fish" simplified the complex Christian message to a single symbol and made it much easier to sell.

If Saatchi and Saatchi had been around in Roman times they would recognised this and heartily approved. Hell, if even just one Saatchi had been there he would have approved. (He could have later told the second Saatchi all about it.)

Whoever did create this Christian logo branding was way ahead of modern commercial practice - by almost two thousand years.

But the marriage brand is even older than this Christian brand – preceding even civilisation itself. It is the oldest commercial and economic brand in existence. It doesn't have a symbol, a ring is too generic for that. It's symbolism lies in its very name.

And like all powerful commercial brand symbols it is highly prized and valued. Think, for example, of the Apple symbol, the Nike swoop, or the Mcdonald’s Golden Arch. Can you imagine how much these would cost to purchase? Open up Fort Knox for mere entrée! Even quantitative easing might struggle to pay for them! But the marriage brand, through practice and longevity exceeds even the value of these brands by orders of magnitude.

And yes, it is just the fact that it has developed this power as an heterosexual brand.

Now gays obviously desire it because they recognise its potency. But the hetero owners of the brand, just like the owners of Apple, McDonalds, Nike or Gucci don’t want to sell it (well, some of those companies might be persuaded to sell in return for, say, the entire west coast of California.) And giving these logos away for free? – ha! ha! ha!

Then as a close analogy, consider Coca-Cola. This is the only symbol to come close to rivaling the sign of the fish in its long lived ubiquity. (And why shouldn’t it, both are mere commercial marketing tools, and both almost equally ritualistic.)

Imagine if, say, Bert’s Soft Drinks of Taren Point desired to acquire the Coca-Cola logo to put on its own bottles for the matchless cache’ it would give them. And assume, just for argument, that Bert is gay.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l5/waveflows/Berts%20soft%20drinks%202_zps5rudhf4b.jpg (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/waveflows/media/Berts%20soft%20drinks%202_zps5rudhf4b.jpg.html)
(There he is in the shorts and long socks - so I might not be too far wrong)

Now Bert also wants to acquire the Coke logo for free as their right.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l5/waveflows/Coca-Cola-logo%202_zps9ltvyvid.jpg (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/waveflows/media/Coca-Cola-logo%202_zps9ltvyvid.jpg.html)

Well, if by some miracle that happened that might still be ok if Bert’s filled the resulting drink bottles with Coca-Cola. But no, instead (being gay) they necessarily filled the bottles with a different formula, a hybrid formula, but still under the Coca-Cola logo. The contents would look different, taste different, smell different, and in fact, be different. It would be called Coke, but that is all.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l5/waveflows/Berts%20soft%20drinks%201a_zpsfj8fggpz.jpg (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/waveflows/media/Berts%20soft%20drinks%201a_zpsfj8fggpz.jpg.html)

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l5/waveflows/Berts%20soft%20drinks%203a_zps21vigdnh.jpg (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/waveflows/media/Berts%20soft%20drinks%203a_zps21vigdnh.jpg.html)
(Bert celebrating the decison with a parade.)

And Coca-Cola from then on would have to fill their own bottles with that hybrid formula. Because to describe Bert’s and Coke as being the same then one of them would have to change. And so it would be Coca-Cola no longer.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l5/waveflows/coca-cola-logo%203_zps0wmhdudd.jpg (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/waveflows/media/coca-cola-logo%203_zps0wmhdudd.jpg.html)
(She's reaching for the last bottle of hetero Coke)

Many would say that Coke would have suffered a big loss. The loss of everything in fact.

So really, this marriage debate is just a matter of intellectual property. But no-one is seeing it that way or arguing it in those terms. (Until now.) There is nothing emotive about it folks - it is a mere copyright issue, with just one extra element, the use of the copyright alters it dependng on who uses it.

[Starved]

I think you have stopped taking your medication

[typhoon150]

Whatever drugs you're on, I want some.

Marriage is a social concept, not an owned brand. And like every social concept, marriage has undergone a range of reforms and evolutions. No-fault divorce being be the most obvious recent example - by your logic heterosexuals forfeited their "intellectual property" when they made material changes to it anyway.

[Sextus]

Whatever drugs you're on, I want some.

Marriage is a social concept, not an owned brand.

Thanks for your thoughtful response typhoon150.

I think marriage is much more than a vague, airy-fairy "social concept." It is a powerful and valuable intellectual property - a brand. That is why I put it in detailed context with all the brands associated with commercial value and matchless cache'.

Proof that gays also see the word "marriage" in this way is their desire to own it too. After all, there are already binding legal partnership arrangements that allow all rights already existing within a marriage contract. Gays or heteros are equally free to avail themselves of these existing arrangements.

But gays want the word "marriage." And why? Solely for their recognition of it as a powerful brand. They don't see it as a mere vague and arguable "social concept" - instead they see thousands of years of history and heritage that they want to own a piece of too.

But as my analogies explained above, their use of the word changes the formula of it for those who currently own it. Coke becomes Bert's Soft drinks, in all but name.

I make no judgement about this myself, I am only stating the facts for others to weigh whether they see this as fair or not. However, if a registered international brand was at stake, it would be lawyers at ten paces big time.


marriage has undergone a range of reforms and evolutions. No-fault divorce being be the most obvious recent example - by your logic heterosexuals forfeited their "intellectual property" when they made material changes to it.

I can only address the no-fault divorce reform as it is all you have mentioned and I can't think of any other of the "range of reforms and evolutions."

I think that reform you mentioned is the result of the welcome removal of the heavy hand of religion from marriage (which predates religion by millennia anyway.) This reform is a recognition of human nature - people have intractable arguments and develop unresolvable differences. No-fault divorce takes the church out of the equation by recognising the reality of basic human behaviour.

If anything therefore, this reform enhances the integrity of the marriage brand by keeping it to those marriages that actually work out. So rather than the change "forfeiting the intellectual property" of marriage it arguably enhances heteros' existing (thousands of years old) ownership of it.

[CunningLinguist]

Sextus must have a fever ...

[wilisno]

Sextus must have a fever ...
Infected by the poet flu ! ;) ;) ;)

[Sergaent Brody]

Ever considered running for Parliament? I will campaign for you, your skills will undoubtedly do Australia good, unlike those wankers in the Liberal Party these days

[harmony]

Sextus. Thanks for your topical and thoughtprovoking thread !

I personally don't mind if gay people get marriage
But I would prefer we go to a referendum, since this is a such a fundamental change to our society

My humble opinion is that sexuality is a very broad attribute, some people are heterosexual, some are homosexual, some are bisexual
And some other see themselves as the opposite gender to which they were born

Therefore I don't think its straight forward allowing anyone to get married, there do have to be some groundrules laid out

I hear a lot of the "marriage equality" lobby stating "its all about love. If you are in love, you should be allowed to get married"

IMHO, marriage was a convention set up by the church, and the main advantage of the institution of marriage, is creating some sort of structure for bringing up children

Now some would argue that three women who choose to live together (two of them marry, then divorce, and then the third marries one of the divorcées) can bring up children well
I don't know that there is a lot of research to say what is good and what is bad in terms of child rearing

Lets discuss these issues, on a national basis, before holding a national referendum
Not a decision based on lobbying in Canberra and an MP vote

Again, I don't mind if Australia eventually votes YES for marriage equality. But can we discuss all the issues, including the above issue of polyamory, and what is best for the children ?

[Sextus]

Whatever drugs you're on, I want some.

Thanks typhoon150! I was completely straight when I wrote that piece - or at least as straight as it is possible for me to be. (Which isn't very.)

I do appreciate your input, and I apologise for some prejudicial language I used in replying. I labeled your term "social concept" as "vague and airy-fairy." I did this without evidence or support, and in the opening thread I was determined to stick entirely to facts, to support any claim I made with corroborating analogies (and a light touch so it doesn't read too ponderously.)

A social concept by definition doesn't have to be "airy-fairy." What I was getting at was just the contrast between a "social concept" and the idea (which I demonstrated) as hetero marriage being a powerful marketing brand. When viewed in that light, "social concept" doesn't have the same substance.

I think I am a fair arguer in that I welcome flaws in my argument being pointed out - and in the absence of that I am happy to provide them myself. :shout:

I've just got this theory that if people truly addressed all the points other people make, rather than cherrypicking what to argue with and ignoring that which they can't argue with, then true communication might be possible. Eg. If I cannot refute a flaw pointed out in something I say, then the other person's position, by default, then becomes my own.

This site is basically 100% hetero, (with the slightly worrying exception of some rare ladyboy fiddlers :surprise: :burn: ) so I guess it wasn't realistic for me to expect much by way of argument here. Maybe I should post it on The Sydney Star Observer and see what happens then! I mean, there are some really smart people on that paper, and I'd like to see just how they would deal with what I believe to be an impregnable argument.

On the other hand, the few hundred people that have read this, may now be nodding and saying "mmm" because of the heretofore unbrought up perspective of the gay marriage debate being one fundamentally only about intellectual property and copyright.

[Mr Bastard]

Just let em get married, there's worse things going on in both religion and politics ,And dont get me started on branding...........think of the cows for once.....

[wilisno]

On the other hand, the few hundred people that have read this, may now be nodding and saying "mmm" because of the heretofore unbrought up perspective of the gay marriage debate being one fundamentally only about intellectual property and copyright.
Haha ! You sound more and more like the poet troll now ! No matter how many people spoke against his idea, he still claimed he's got the majority approval ! ;) ;) ;)

[illidanstormrage]

I think we should rethink what marriage is about. Because whatever it is in it's current state does not benefit men.

There is absolutely no reason to get married in 2015 and I don't think it will be any different in future unless some changes are made to the laws.

Typhoon has touched on it and that is NO FAULT DIVORCE. Marriages don't mean much if at the drop of a hat you can file for irreconcilable differences and get a divorce and all the goodies that come with it if you were married to someone with any semblance of wealth.
If kids are involved then let's not forget about the family court system which is inherently bias against fathers..

Marriage is a joke. Heterosexual, homosexual, transgender you name it. Marriage definitely isn't about love I think the Chinese culture has it right when they say the most important part of marriage is economics.

I don't have to be married to a girl to love her. If we stay together long enough than we will be married de facto and all the same legal bullshit still applies.

People are spun this fairy tale about marriage. The concept of marriage is that it's supposed to be this "life long" commitment but how can that be so when no fault divorce applies or when people that are getting married haven't been seeing each other more than a year and haven't developed any substantial level of friendship required to maintain a long term relationship for better or worse.

If you just want to play the field indefinitely you can be a punter or bachelor but somehow we as a society need to rethink the concept of marriage and make it more ironclad or just scrap it altogether.

My view is that a marriage is about or definitely should be about making children and being a family. That's why you truly partner up with someone for the most part.

If you don't want to do that then that's fine but for the people who do we need a better system to protect future mothers, fathers and the kids that result from that union.

[Mr Bastard]

"Part Quote from above"

"My view is that a marriage is about or definitely should be about making children and being a family. That's why you truly partner up with someone for the most part."




Their are plenty of people out there abusing the concept of marraige and starting families for no more than obtaining economic benefit with no concious desire to protect and serve the ideoligy which marraige may be, family and a solid social foundation, all types get married, drug addicts, child abusers, thiefs, politicians, why say no to homesexuals....

If such a large percentage of the current crop of heterosexuals partaking in the act of marraige are readily giving up such a sacred act at the drop of the hat, why not include the homosexuals, what does it matter............hypocrycy reigns...........

[SpankyTheMonkey]

If you look at the history of marriage, it was not something that was created by the church. People were getting hitched in some form or another way before Christianity was around. The early church actually looked at celibacy as a higher form of devotion, and looked down on marriage back in the early centuries AD. Its a fallacy to cling to the definition of marriage as decreed by the Church in recent decades. It is an institution that people are free to do whatever they wish wrt to conception - have children, have no children, adopt, have a dozen, have only two, have separate beds - all kinds!

If gay people want to get married, how would that affect *your* marriage in any way? How would that affect your church marriage - when they only want civil matriages? No church is being forced to have gay weddings. Its the full civil recognition of the relationship that is more important.

[illidanstormrage]

Did you even read what I said.. who cares who can get married as what is so good about being married? Gays can get married congratulations more power to them. I don't give a fuck about marriage in it's current form it's a raw deal for men in your typical hetero relationship as for gay couples that will remain to be seen.

The bigger question is what is marriage? Who does it really benefit? What is the point of it in this day and age?

[harmony]

"the few hundred people that have read this (thread)"

Brother Sextus, don't get me started on my pet peeve, which is that the world is full of takers, and not many givers
So many lurkers on AUS99, none with the consideration to be involved in discussions

[harmony]

"the Chinese culture has it right when they say the most important part of marriage is economics"

Please discuss further
Sounds like a very pragmatic way of looking at things

[harmony]

The history of marriage probably did occur outside the religious institutions

But the discussion of marriage is very interesting ....

Polygamy therefore in some cultures is an acceptable version of marriage

So is polygamy going to follow, if "all love is equal", and we change the tradition of marriage to allow any number of persons to marry ?

eg a man and two women ?

Are we opening Pandora's Box ??

Because if we allow "Equality of Marriage", I am sure a lot of men will be asking the laws to be expanded to allow a man to marry several wives, as is seen in other cultures today

See the below link ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/tony-abbott-incorrect-history-marriage/5053844

Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history and family studies at Evergreen State College in the United States, told ABC Fact Check that the most obvious example of how marriage has differed from Mr Abbott's definition is the long-standing practice of polygamy.
"The most culturally preferred kind of marriage through the ages was between one man and several women – and this is the kind of marriage that is most often referred to in the first five books of the Bible," Professor Coontz said.
"Polygamy was prevalent throughout the world – and even occurred among the nobility of Christian Europe, requiring a long campaign by the Christian church to wipe it out."
Specialists in the field of marriage and relationship history contacted by Fact Check all had examples of relationships that did not fit Mr Abbott's definition, but were at some time in history an accepted form of marriage.

[uglyphil]

"the few hundred people that have read this (thread)"

Brother Sextus, don't get me started on my pet peeve, which is that the world is full of takers, and not many givers
So many lurkers on AUS99, none with the consideration to be involved in discussions

Or post reviews ;)

[CunningLinguist]

Or post reviews ;)

He he he :)

[Sextus]

"the Chinese culture has it right when they say the most important part of marriage is economics"

Please discuss further
Sounds like a very pragmatic way of looking at things

You learn just as much about this watching "If you are one" on any random night. That said, I've still been amazed when very wealthy guys (eg partner in international law firm) leave empty handed. Go figure (it out.)

I guess my thesis about marriage being desirable only for its intelectual property value can only go so far as a discussion / debating point. But I don't have to be the great Hermanrommelgoring to claim the validity of what I said in the absence of argument against it! :shout: But that is all it may be - a mere small debating point, while everyone else has raised much weightier social aspects around this issue.

And the observations about marriage made here generally have been instructive. Some guys sure sound like they have been burnt by it!

[harmony]

I was talking to some of my male friends this week

A few stated it would be an interesting life to be married to two women

Good and bad points

Many cultures in the world accept polygamy as a way of life

If you can afford the upkeep of two women, and their children, it is a perfectly viable form of marriage

So why accept same sex marriage, and not accept polygamy

What do you guys think ?

[uglyphil]

Alright let's dispel some bullshit right here:

1. "Branding"

Sextus, what do you mean by this? If you mean "copyright" (as per your mention of intellectual property), then who owns the copyright of marriage? It isn't churches, they are just one of the facilitators (think itunes). As marriage is a legal concept and not a religious one (no matter what the zealots may think) then the "copyright" is owned by the government. What do you do with copyright? You sell it. This could be what happens when you buy a marriage licence. If this is what you are referring to, then by not allowing same-sex couples to marry the government is in breach of anti-discrimination trades practives laws. So you are actually arguing in favour of same-sex marriage. Well done :)

However the examples you give are of "trademarks" (Coke etc). If this is what you mean then the government owns the "trademark" and can allow its use to anyone it chooses either for free, for a fee or even by paying them a fee on the hopes the trademark will be displayed as a promotional exercise. But something tells me that marriage does not need to be promoted :P

Both arguments are, however, incorrect. Marriage is neither copyrighted, nor a trademark. As evidenced by the fact that there is no little c in a circle or superscipt TM after its mention... or maybe you think "Marriage" should now look like: Marriage© or Marriage™

Nice use of satire though....

2. Referendum

Marriage is not a part of our constitution. Therefore a referendum is costly, unnecessary and not required, as referendums are to do with changes to our constitution, not the laws. If we had a referendum everytime a law was changed we would basically have anarchy as there would be very few laws...

Which some may actually prefer.

3. Polygamy

Well done Harmony for being the Cory Bernardi of this forum in this discussion. As stated by many others marriage is an evolving concept and has gone through many changes including, as you pointed out, that the concept of polygamy was removed in most western concepts. Marriage changes, adapts and evolves according to the social constructs of the time. AT THIS CURRENT POINT IN TIME there is virtually no widespread support for polygamy, child marriage or bestiality, no matter how many times people try to muddy the waters by throwing in different screwball concepts.

The current discussion is about ONE thing: same-sex marriage. All other issues are not within this current discussion and can be talked about later, in which case if the current views about them still stands at that time they will be dismissed because they do not have wide-spread community support. Pretty simple really.

[Sticky Date]

It's a fucking pleasure to read so many well thought out and written posts :-) from most of this threads contributors. This is IMHO is one of the standout threads in terms of the quality of thinking on display.

As for the detail on this one, I wasn't aware that the issue of same sex marriage was not of legal relevance. I had thought, perhaps incorrectly, that same sex partners were still at a legal disadvantage and not universally recognised in this country in the eyes of the law in comparison to heterosexual partners.

So if Sextus you are correct on that, then it seems to me that your thoughts on the marriage "brand", carry some weight.... more than an interesting thought :-)

While I have a general interest in this topic, as do I suspect a majority of adult Australians, I particularly enjoy what seems to me to be high quality thinking...and consideration .. exploring both sides of an issue..... trying to avoid doing the normal thing of citing evidence to support your existing view while simultaneously ignoring evidence that challenges your existing view...... I think it's awesome when people can come to an issue with a truly open mind and genuinely explore both sides.... that my friends....is very rare in my observations... and is why so little progress is made.... most people have no interest whatsoever in moving towards a more enlightened understanding on anything!
Most just want to consolidate their own position and feel threatened and defensive and often ridicule or counter attack contrary positions. It reminds me of the two very different legal systems. Our system, unfortunately in my view, like the British and American system is an adversarial one whose function is to find a winner... whether that be the crown or defence in a criminal case.... or one of the litigants in a civil case. This contrasts with the European system, an inquisitorial system, which in theory, has the judge setting out to find the truth..... rather than a winner. An entirely different approach.

[Bigfoot]

here is one for you.

The greens are in effect the Gay and lesbian and environmental party. Yet - when they had a chance to have ETS for green future. They chose no.? Because according to some in political movements, they then would have only one real issue to stand on. A issue that in conservative country like Australia - (must be we keep voting them in ? ) They would have nothing else to hold any thing accountable.
Some say that if either items came to through, the other would loose out.
So the greens would have little to stand on. Basically get support from the Gay movement for climate change. Climate change movements get support for the gays.

But I agree with Sextus- why are they not happy with just a Legal union with same rights. because they want that word, they want to say they are married. To me married is a Church thing and I don't care but as long as they are never ever allowed in a church to get married it's all cool. The moment they start demanding to be married in church, they show how stupid they get.

[uglyphil]

It's a fucking pleasure to read so many well thought out and written posts :-) from most of this threads contributors. This is IMHO is one of the standout threads in terms of the quality of thinking on display.

As for the detail on this one, I wasn't aware that the issue of same sex marriage was not of legal relevance. I had thought, perhaps incorrectly, that same sex partners were still at a legal disadvantage and not universally recognised in this country in the eyes of the law in comparison to heterosexual partners.

So if Sextus you are correct on that, then it seems to me that your thoughts on the marriage "brand", carry some weight.... more than an interesting thought :-)

Sextus is not correct on this point. The legal status of same sex partners differs considerably from state to state, and even in the states where their rights are approaching those of heterosexual partners there is still several gray areas. And in any case while the rights may be present, there can be the burden of proof that the couple were in a relationship in the first place, should someone choose to challenge these rights.

This burden applies to all de facto relationships by the way. The difference is that heterosexual couples have the right to ultimate proof of a relationship should they so choose.



But I agree with Sextus- why are they not happy with just a Legal union with same rights. because they want that word, they want to say they are married. To me married is a Church thing and I don't care but as long as they are never ever allowed in a church to get married it's all cool. The moment they start demanding to be married in church, they show how stupid they get.

Exactly right, they want to be able to tell people they are married. "Allowing" them to use another term is kind of like saying:

"Sure, you can ride on the bus, but only at the back."

And no one is arguing that same-sex couples be allowed to marry in a church. This is yet another furphy. Churches already have the right to not allow people to marry, be they same-sex or hetero. For example, the Roman Catholic church may not marry people of different faiths. People are arguing for the right to marry, a legal concept, not a religious one.

[jediknight4ever]

The main thing I'm against gay marriage is because of adoption or surrogacy.
The social convention dictates that a child should have a father and mother figure.
Well I've been brought up that way and it just seems wrong and unfair for the child
if gays are ever allowed to adopt, also when it's time to talk about the birds and bees
I wonder what the gay parents would say.

Anyway homosexuality is sort of like an anomaly that you see in the matrix,
99% of people accept heterosexuality as their basic instinct.
The other 1% rejects it and is attract to the the same sex.

[wilisno]

Personally, I have no problem with same sex couples. As a matter of fact, I have lots of friends that are homosexual, so much so that I noticed some colleagues were whispering behind me that I was one of those, they might change their mind if they knew who I am on the forum ! :miao:

In the modern society, many heterosexual couples live together without getting married. They even have kids together. So apparently the word " Marriage " is not such a big deal after all !

So I don't understand why the gay and lesbian community is pushing so hard for their marriage status to be recognized. For social benefit ? First of all they won't have children of their own anyway, even if they adopt children, they still can get social benefit as single parents, so what else is there to fight for ?

For social recognition that they are a married couple ? If their friends don't like gay or lesbian, they still won't like them even if they display their marriage certificate anyway !

Nowadays, people are very tolerant towards the same sex issue, I don't normally think about it when I associate with them as friends. I only notice it when they bring up this issue and put themselves on the headline.

[uglyphil]

The main thing I'm against gay marriage is because of adoption or surrogacy.
The social convention dictates that a child should have a father and mother figure.
Well I've been brought up that way and it just seems wrong and unfair for the child
if gays are ever allowed to adopt, also when it's time to talk about the birds and bees
I wonder what the gay parents would say.


Gay couples are already allowed to adopt and many have. If it is unfair to the child not to have a mother and father, what do you say about single parents?

There is zero evidence that children raised in homosexual relationships are at a disadvantage. In my job I come across many disadvantaged children. Unsurprisingly, the majority are from "traditional" families. Evidence suggests that the main issue is the child is loved and cared for.

As to the "birds and the bees" - I think that even same sex couples know how this stuff works ;)

[Sextus]

1. "Branding"

Sextus, what do you mean by this? If you mean "copyright" (as per your mention of intellectual property), then who owns the copyright of marriage?

I stated in my opening paragraph who weren't the relevant parties to all this - and religion was one of the irrelevants (however much they might think otherwise.) I answered your question in my OP:


the hetero owners of the brand

Of course this ownership isn't based on any modern contract you'd find in the patents office. As my OP also detailed, it is based on thousands of years of inherited ownership. It predates by millenia even the oldest marketing brand still used - the ancient Christian brand of the symbol of the fish.

Inherited property, even for just one generation, is held pretty dear, so the ante is upped along with the generations of inheritance - and in this case the ownership amounts to almost uncountable numbers of generations. In this sense the ownership precedes and rises above the modern dissections of legal argument. (The best I could do therefore was to use modern branding analogies to put it in a modern context.)

That is what gives it its unique heritage value and desirability (and I apologise for merely repeating myself with all this.) However by changing the definition of it - or in Coke terms changing the highly prized formula so Bert's Soft Drinks can have their branding too - it changes not the contents of Bert's soft drinks, but of Coke's. Their logo suddenly has a different meaning.

I think that is the primary fact. It is the consequence. I'm trying to simplify the debate under this overiding heading.

Is it for good or ill? Coke would say it is ill. And a consequence must have ripple effects that others are arguing about - that in fact are arguable. But a fact, by definition, is not arguable.

Whatever tinkering at the edges of marriage by remote tribal societies and extreme closeted religions with polygamy, they have never come under the definition of the millenial old (Coke) formula. So I don't believe these practices are relevant to raise to describe marriage as having "changeable definitions" - to use King Kahanawoona's seraglio as being relevant to the current debate! :smile: (For the same reason I can't see multiple wives as realistically being a consequence of any change.)

StickyDate brings up another point that goes to the heart of it, and I confess a lack of specific knowledge here. But all I have read and heard about civil unions is that they have all the legal protections that marriage has. Logic tells me that legislators would have no motivation whatsoever not to have exactly the same protections in civil unions. Uglyphil, you described "gray areas" that dispute this, but you didn't state what they were, so I can't comment on them. This is probably just an oversight on your part, but if we are to adhere to the high praise that Stickydate has given the argument style in this thread you can't rely on things that are not in evidence. :D

But if the legal protections are exactly the same, then as Stickydate summarised, my thesis as to the issue being one of brand desirabilty holds true. If it is only about brand desirability and yet it changes the brand, the formula of Coke to Bert's, then is that justified?

(Thanks uglyphil for your thoughtful contributions. There may be points you raised I can't get to at the moment.)

[uglyphil]

As my OP also detailed, it is based on thousands of years of inherited ownership. It predates by millenia even the oldest marketing brand still used - the ancient Christian brand of the symbol of the fish.

The fish is not the oldest marketing brand, not by a long shot. Ancient symbols are being used and appropriated all the time (think the Egyptian Ankh, for example). In fact, the Ichthys is older than Christianity, and (like many things in the Christian religion) is an appropriation of ancient religious symbols.

So by using that as an example, you are, yet again, arguing against yourself as this symbol is now used for a purpose in addition to its original intention. Especially seeing as that particular symbol itself has changed (it was a circle with Greek letters at one stage) and the symbol we know today as the fish has recently become popular again.


Inherited property, even for just one generation, is held pretty dear, so the ante is upped along with the generations of inheritance - and in this case the ownership amounts to almost uncountable numbers of generations. In this sense the ownership precedes and rises above the modern dissections of legal argument.

Odd, I don't remember "marriage" being one of the things that my parents bequeathed to me in their wills :what:




That is what gives it its unique heritage value and desirability (and I apologise for merely repeating myself with all this.) However by changing the definition of it - or in Coke terms changing the highly prized formula so Bert's Soft Drinks can have their branding too - it changes not the contents of Bert's soft drinks, but of Coke's. Their logo suddenly has a different meaning.

I do see what you are getting at. You are saying that marriage will have a different "meaning" if we allow same-sex couples to have it. However as stated by myself and several others, marriage has had many different meanings over the millennia. While couples have been getting together since time immortal, marriage was most likely first used as a means of linking families and improving political power. In other words children were used as pawns in order to increase their parents (usually kings and rulers) land and influence.

Surely you are happy we have moved beyond this?

Then in more modern times (several years BC-mid 20th C) when countries/faiths needed to expand and breed, it was used by the church and the government as a means, yes, of creating a bunch of kids.

Again, a little unnecessary given we are now facing overbreeding.

Most recently with more and more couples choosing civil ceremonies over "traditional" weddings, marriage has come to simply symbolise two people who are in love and want to celebrate this with family and friends **shrugs**

I know which of these three definitions I prefer.


I think that is the primary fact. It is the consequence. I'm trying to simplify the debate under this overiding heading.

With all due respect, you are not. You are taking a simple argument (should two people who love each other and are not engaged in illegal activity by doing so be allowed to celebrate this love with official wedding) and (trying) to turn it into some stupid, nay ludicrous debate equating it with the original recipe of Coke. I have read truly some stupid arguments in this discussion, but yours goes down as the dumbest.


Whatever tinkering at the edges of marriage by remote tribal societies and extreme closeted religions with polygamy, they have never come under the definition of the millenial old (Coke) formula. So I don't believe these practices are relevant to raise to describe marriage as having "changeable definitions" -

Ummm, you do realise that the most common form of marriage in the bible is polygamous, right? So... closeted?

And the fact that the people mostly arguing against same sex marriage have changed its definition themselves, kind of negates this version of their argument. Clearly the definition of marriage HAS changed in the past. Many times.



StickyDate brings up another point that goes to the heart of it, and I confess a lack of specific knowledge here. But all I have read and heard about civil unions is that they have all the legal protections that marriage has. Logic tells me that legislators would have no motivation whatsoever not to have exactly the same protections in civil unions. Uglyphil, you described "gray areas" that dispute this, but you didn't state what they were, so I can't comment on them. This is probably just an oversight on your part, but if we are to adhere to the high praise that Stickydate has given the argument style in this thread you can't rely on things that are not in evidence.

LOL. Like your "evidence"?

Actually he was agreeing with a point you had made, so you brought it up. And I have already described the grey areas (reread my paragraph about de facto relationships). But there is one area where same-sex couples clearly DO NOT enjoy the same legal rights as everyone else.

They can't get married.



(Thanks uglyphil for your thoughtful contributions. There may be points you raised I can't get to at the moment.)

You are welcome. And I apologise for the length of this post to everyone who cares to read it. Let me summarise in three simple paragraphs.

The argument that marriage is somehow a "birthright" of heterosexual couples is nonsensical. Will the definition of marriage change if we allow same-sex couples to marry? Yes!

Will it matter? No! Because the definition of marriage is ever changing, as it should be.

Will it be better? IMO yes! Marriage will mean what it is meant to mean. No funny worded legislation will be necessary for same-sex couples to truly enjoy the same rights as other couples, it will simply be there.

[Sextus]

You are taking a simple argument (should two people who love each other and are not engaged in illegal activity by doing so be allowed to celebrate this love with official wedding) and (trying) to turn it into some stupid, nay ludicrous debate equating it with the original recipe of Coke. I have read truly some stupid arguments in this discussion, but yours goes down as the dumbest.

I'll probably have something to respond to with other things, but quickly, thanks for this big laugh you gave me! :shout: :shout:

[uglyphil]

I'll probably have something to respond to with other things, but quickly, thanks for this big laugh you gave me! :shout: :shout:

You are welcome.

I wish I could return the compliment. I honestly originally thought your OP was satire. I am quite disappointed that you seem to actually believe the BS you are writing.

Respond all you like. I have no reason to respond to you any further as your "arguments" have been shown to be null and void, and not just by me, in this thread. You have not presented facts, merely opinions. You should classify them as such.

I suggest your time would be better spent tilting at other windmills.

[uglyphil]

Did you even read what I said.. who cares who can get married as what is so good about being married? Gays can get married congratulations more power to them. I don't give a fuck about marriage in it's current form it's a raw deal for men in your typical hetero relationship as for gay couples that will remain to be seen.

The bigger question is what is marriage? Who does it really benefit? What is the point of it in this day and age?

All good points and questions, although I tend to think that your view of marriage may be a little "tainted" by bad experiences?

It reminds me of my brother, unhappily divorced, when he told me:

"I support gay marriage. They have just as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us." :miao:

Although I am fairly sure he stole that line from someone else...

[Sextus]

I honestly originally thought your OP was satire.

Yes, my OP is satire. The very definition of it in fact - using a laugh to make a point.

So now it is time for a summary.

Civil unions - legislated unions that gives identical rights and responsibilities to those of marriage.

De facto relationships (this must be where the grey areas lie.)

Marriage - legislated unions that gives identical rights and responsibilities to those of civil unions.

Therefore the one difference is the marriage "brand".

Hence my analogies to Coca-Cola et al, and whether Coke would or should be keen on changing its flavour to accommodate Bert's Soft Drinks of Taren Point - and becoming not one or the other, but a third flavour entirely.

I'm not trying to be unkind or ungenerous - I'm just pointing this out!

[harmony]

So now it is time for a summary.
Civil unions - legislated unions that gives identical rights and responsibilities to those of marriage.
De facto relationships (this must be where the grey areas lie.)
Marriage - legislated unions that gives identical rights and responsibilities to those of civil unions.
Therefore the one difference is the marriage "brand".


Well summarised

[CunningLinguist]

Infected by the poet flu ! ;) ;) ;)

He is starting to sound like one ... :)

[uglyphil]

He is starting to sound like one ... :)

Ain't he just?

Finally, after cutting through all the BS and "humour" we get to the gist of sextus' arguement...

That marriage is meant to only ever "be between a man and a woman gosh-darnit!"

An "argument" that simply does not hold water for the reasons stated elsewhere in this thread that don't need repeating.

However one thing holds true: If homosexuals are engaging in a consenting relationship that is not illegal (which the VAST majority of Australians believe to the case) then not allowing them to "marry" is discrimination. Pure and simple.

I will repeat myself this once. If we call it anything else for "them" then it is exactly the same as segregation. A policy that most fair-minded adults now KNOW was wrong.

Like a meercat says..."simples"

[harmony]

I have no problems with same sex marriage

As long as we carefully define what a marriage is

A marriage is a union between TWO PEOPLE, who love each other, and commit to each other, ideally for life

The problem is that for marriage in general, monogamy is an all or none principle

I just don't want to see too much of the following ...

http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/


https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/masstrio.jpg?w=720&h=480&crop=1

Here come the brides!
Three Massachusetts lesbians claim they got “married” to each other and are now expecting their first child.
Doll, Kitten and Brynn Young exchanged vows in a commitment ceremony last August, with all three brides wearing white and traditional wedding veils.

http://nypost.com/2015/02/27/thai-throuple-believed-to-be-worlds-first-gay-married-trio/

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/thai4.jpg?w=840

It was a case of “I do” times three.

A trio of gay men from Thailand got married on Valentine’s Day in Uthai Thani Province, Thailand, according to Caters News Agency.
Joke, 29, Bell, 21, and Art, 26, are thought to be the world’s first gay threesome to get hitched.
The happy “throuple” have become Internet famous (https://www.facebook.com/jokebellartfc), as photos from the “happiest day of their lives” quickly went viral and Thai media outlets shared their unusual love story.



So once again, I have no problems at all with same sex marriage
As long as we define carefully what the limits and boundaries of marriage are

[Sextus]

The gays are letting slip their agreement with me that the whole thing is nothing more than a branding / marketing / logo exercise.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l5/waveflows/brands-1_zpslyb6mljp.jpg (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/waveflows/media/brands-1_zpslyb6mljp.jpg.html)

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l5/waveflows/brands-2_zpsydxfspvp.jpg (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/waveflows/media/brands-2_zpsydxfspvp.jpg.html)

The above brand would be a top one to define their ceremonies.

It isn't my opinion that marriage is an hetero brand - it is just the fact. And pinching it destroys that particular logo.

Gays otherwise spend all their time and resources self-identifying as a separate community. So all they have to do is continue doing that and knuckle down and continue to develop their own equally valuable traditions. That is what cultural diversity is all about! And I celebrate that diversity! So stop being so lazy! You are overall a really creative lot - get with the programme! :D :D

[harmony]

Hey !
That heart symbol has been around a long time before this current same sex debate

I remember seeing a lot of famous singers using that symbol during their concerts

Not only is the same sex marriage lobby wanting to have marriage brand, but they also will take any symbol as their own

Is it possible that same sex marriage can create their own original brand, and an alternative brand to marriage ?

Just a thought

[Dougtod]

I had a few stiff drinks and was just casually surfing this forum. Mate you have written some excellent and deep stuff. I will have to revisit when my head is clearer. Well done. I sure wasn't expecting that on this venue.

[CunningLinguist]

I I sure wasn't expecting that on this venue.

Neither were we :)