So apparently Hack did a thing on this yesterday which I didn't hear, but JJJ news just mentioned this article:

Islamic leaders call for recognition of polygamous marriages

At least two senior leaders of the Islamic Community in Sydney are calling on the Federal Government to recognise polygamous marriage in order to protect the rights of women.

They know it is illegal in Australia but even so, the Islamic leaders say it is happening in their community and the Government should not turn its back on those who choose to do it.

The Attorney General's office issued a statement basically saying no f***ing way is this going to happen.

Pretty much everything I know about polygamy I learned off the awesome HBO series Big Love. I didn't even know it was part of Muslimism (although thinking about it some more I remember an American Dad episode where Stan goes to Saudi Arabia and gets another wife).

one wife is enough hassle, why the f*** would anyone want more than one?

that said, im a big believer in letting people make their own decisions, if you want to marry a harem of bitches, who am i to tell you, you cant:

go for it:

edit: im quite happy for teh gays to get married also

double edit: if the church is against it, its definately something im happy to support

last edited by Spook at 13:18:30 25/Jun/08

If the Government isn't going to allow same sex marriages, they could hardly allow polygamous marriages. That'd be committing even more "sins" than gay marriage in the eyes of the church etc

yeah i heard about it on ABC 612 this morning. i don't really care what anyone does as long as they are kind to other people and protect and provide for the children they produce.

if you want to have 3 bitches then so be it. the gangstas get to do it in the godfather etc.

As for Big Love, wow did series 2 go downhill.

I'm with Spook, if you want 1, 5, 10, hetero or homo marriages then you should be able to. Government needs to be seperated from religion particularly in Australia where we pride ourselves on being multi-cultural and accepting of everyones views and opinions (except on QGL where nobody is tolerant).

Honestly ... each to their own

As far as I can tell all legalising it would do is allow these relationships to be legally quantified and for legal protections for all parties to be put in place.

If anything it could reduce possible holes in the tax system where a polygamous relationship is in place you have married couple and a "housemate" ... you can write off half your mortage as a investment (and half your renovations etc). They might not work and stay at home and claim the dole and rental assistance and if they have enough kid single mums extras ...

One of the version of mormons are into polygamy too aren't they ? and hindu's definately were as were middle ages and earlier Chinese ?

One argument I got given once for validating poligamous relationships, for older /primative societies/cultures allowing and or encouraging the practice was that if life expenctancy was relatively low, it guarenteed a parent (and continuing care) for the collective families children.

I dont like minority groups trying to change the constitution. If we had a referendum on it tomorrow the answer would be 'no', anyway.

If they dont like it, go and live in a country that allows it.

I am all for getting a new super hot wife while keeping the old wife for cooking and cleaning purposes.

i think one of the issues for the government regarding polygamy are the financial aspects.

- tax benefits from having multiple spouses to split your income with.
- child welfare benifits

those kind of things aside, i have no problem with it. our government is becoming too non secular.

you should be able to trade 'em in like cars. this makes the most sense.

if a dude can actually pull off marrying multiple women without them driving him round the freakin twist with complaints about the other wives, more power to him. surely everyone has experienced how much ex's bitch about new partners & vice-versa... it'd be a freakin nightmare!

i met a few muslim blokes in singapore that had multiple wives... & they had that old school harem thing going where the wives were more like possessions than people. (also they had bags over thier heads so maybe they were being extra meek on account they were butt ugly :P ) good luck getting australian women to accept that!

in conclusion i really don't care one way or the other.

last edited by demon at 13:43:54 25/Jun/08

sunrise were on the phones on this one this morning:

when i walked out the door it was currently

3% dont mind
97% against

us sunrise watchers are a conservative lot

you could play them off against each other too
like 'hey wife1, wife2 said you're a fat cow and that you wouldn't even be able to lift that heavy load of groceries out of the car all by yourself'
etc

i can see some benefits, imagine if they all sync'd their period though
jeebus that'd suck

are mulim women allowed to have periods?

I dont like minority groups trying to change the constitution. If we had a referendum on it tomorrow the answer would be 'no', anyway.

Two points ...

The first one. Its got f*** all to do with the constitution.

As far as I know the only reference to marriage in the Australian constitution is

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to marriage (and) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants.

slightly edited to be natual English (ie. removed paragraph numbers and added (and)).. but go check s51(xxi) and s51(xxii) of the Constitution.

The second one. 8 out of 44 referendums have been carried in Australia. Bob Menzies called it a herculean task to get an affirmative vote ... or something like that.


And spook as for you sunrise poll. Its not a random sample. Its a sample of people who care enough to be bothered voting. ie. poligimists and people firmly against it... The "I don't care" voters don't vote!

I think it's an absurd idea and I really don't think the idea would ever be passed. As someone said earlier, if you want 3493285042 wives, go somewhere where you can.

What's wrong with having 3493285042 wives anyway?

As someone said earlier, if you want 3493285042 wives, go somewhere where you can.

That'd be a great attitude if the majority of the people were against it for good reasons.

I suspect most people against it would be against it for the usual religious reasons. The rest of us normal people would either be apathetic, or outright entertained by the thought of people crazy enough to get multiple wives/husbands.

I can't think of any non-religious reasons why it'd be a bad idea (aside from the crazy factor). What ara said are the only things that really make sense to me, but I'm sure there's others.

Actually, if it was made legal, I would find some extremely rich bastard, get a bunch of my girlfriends together and we could all marry him and then divorce him and collectively take him to the cleaners and split the cash. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

^^ thx minxy for confirming what women are after from a bloke :)

What's wrong with having 3493285042 wives anyway?

Feeling emasculated next to your friend 3493285043 wives.

Also, no way. If you want multiple wives, live somewhere that allows it.

Minxy, what is wrong with having it here?

The whole argument about stopping minority's cultures because they differ from our own is stupid. What culture was here before Europeans arrived? One that differs greatly from the culture of today.

If it doesn't effect you then why do you care? To many people these days want to be in everyone else's business, whether it be sexual orientation, marriage desires, web browsing habits or even computer gaming habits.

Oh yeah, lets allow another minority group to do whatever the f*ck they like.

Its like that bitch that petitioned to be allowed to have her ID photo taken with the full on burka covering her head and face.

Is it just me or does this COMPLETELY defeat the purpose of photo identification?

Laws are created to help protect people. In this case, a law against polygamy is there to protect guys from being hounded by more than one woman ;)

To me, allowing polygamist marriages is basically saying it's okay to cheat on your partner and so shouldn't be allowed. Nobody really likes a cheat, and so allowing these types of marriages would do more harm in our society than good.

So as long the majority don't do it ... it should be banned ?

Doesn't bother me, and I see no reason (other than religious) for it to be illegal.

EDIT:

To me, allowing polygamist marriages is basically saying it's okay to cheat on your partner and so shouldn't be allowed.

Cheating on your partner isn't illegal, nor is having a polygamous relationship outside of marriage, so I don't really see it sending messages like that.

last edited by Midda at 14:36:44 25/Jun/08

To me, allowing polygamist marriages is basically saying it's okay to cheat on your partner and so shouldn't be allowed. Nobody really likes a cheat, and so allowing these types of marriages would do more harm in our society than good.

Exactly.

What about the fact that women generally want children, if you have 7 wives and all of them want to have babies.. what the hell is that gonna do to our society? Sure, Australia likes to say it's multicultural, that's just too far. Marriage is seen in Australia to be a union of two people who love each other. Why on earth do you NEED/WANT multiple wives anyways. That's hardly promoting safe sexual health either.

Edit: yay for stds

last edited by Minxy at 14:41:41 25/Jun/08

Is it just me or does this COMPLETELY defeat the purpose of photo identification?

Agree totally on this point, however I feel this is completely different to this issue. Polygamy is contrary to the legal definition and historical understanding of marriage.

To me, allowing polygamist marriages is basically saying it's okay to cheat on your partner and so shouldn't be allowed.

Well the whole point of it is so you can "cheat" in a consensual manner. So it's not cheating under the classic definition because your partner is completely aware of it and prepared to tolerate it.

Lolz at the people saying it should be illegal because of religious views when it's accepted as part of other religions!@%@

silly ticman:

obviously the people who have religious issues with this, are people who have the correct relgion, not some silly pretend religion or a flat out wrong one

dont you know anything about religion!

Also saying the only reasons against it would be for religious reasons is quite silly. It's more to do with the way our society is and the reactions we have with certain situations. Things like jealousy (murder suicides anyone?), huge changes to systems and infrastructure to handle more than one recognised partnership for one person, etc. It could also quite easily make things very unfair on children and families in general. People these days barely have time to manage one family let alone multiple families. Say dad has 3 families to look after. Due to work and other commitments he would barely get to see and spend any decent amount of time with his children.

Well the whole point of it is so you can "cheat" in a consensual manner. So it's not cheating under the classic definition because your partner is completely aware of it and prepared to tolerate it.

That's true, but it's not really how people in our society or most western societies see (or want) things, religious or not. I may be generalising, but chances are if you asked anyone (again, religious or not) most would say they wouldn't really like the idea of their partner being with someone else .. consensual or not.

last edited by Saint at 14:53:17 25/Jun/08

Polygamy is contrary to the legal definition and historical understanding of marriage.

Historical ? You mean western christian historical ... right ? In fact if you go looking multiple main characters from the old testment had multiple wives eg. Job, Jacob, Jideon, Soloman, Herrod.

ps. concubines... The poligamy you have when you don't have poligamy
And its ok cos Abraham had one ... And several popes did ...

What Saint said. Our society's values would collectively never accept this idea. We have grown to believe that marriage should be between two people, and those two people only. Children should be raised in loving, well balanced homes etc etc. Jealousy and rage would be huge issues to consider, and as Saint said, murders and suicides would play a big part in it all too.

but chances are if you asked any one woman (again, religious or not) most would say they wouldn't like the idea of cheating

for guys it would like being the only rooster in the chicken coup

i get teh feeling that what women want doesnt really figure into polygamist relationships

That's true, but it's not really how people in our society or most western societies see (or want) things, religious or not. I may be generalising, but chances are if you asked anyone (again, religious or not) most would say they wouldn't really like the idea of their partner being with someone else .. consensual or not.

Right; I definitely would say that if someone asked me, but we're not asking me. It's people that actually want to live like this that are asking for it, so if you ask them they'd obviously be all like "bring on the multiple partnerz, bitchez".

It could also quite easily make things very unfair on children and families in general. People these days barely have time to manage one family let alone multiple families. Say dad has 3 families to look after.

People manage to neglect their children just fine in monogamist relationships. I'd argue that with multiple parental units they're MORE likely to get better treated, not less!

Due to work and other commitments he would barely get to see and spend any decent amount of time with his children.

Clearly you haven't seen Big Love!@#

Marriage is seen in Australia to be a union of two people who love each other.

In Australia there is very little difference between being in a defacto relationship and being in a marriage. People can swap in and out of marriage with very little legal wrangling.

Marriage was around long before Christianity adopted it and well before Europeans came to Australia. So why should the christian definition be the one that is enforced on everyone?

Why on earth do you NEED/WANT multiple wives anyways.

Who cares why they need/want to do it. It is none of your or my business. It doesn't effect you in any way yet people like yourself feel compelled to assert their opinions and beliefs on others for "the good of society" or "moral standards".

... so what you're saying is.. you cannot see the problems it would cause? The uproar it would cause in our society?

..only from close minded people who want to control how everyone else lives their lives..

... so what you're saying is.. you cannot see the problems it would cause? The uproar it would cause in our society?

I can see uproar from religious newbs, but I posted this thread specifically to see what people thought of it - so far most people that have commented have said they couldn't care less.

What uproar are you expecting?

Anyway, just because there's uproar doesn't mean its a bad thing - you're letting people do something that they're going to do anyway regardless of the laws. It's like allowing homosexual marriage... who gives a s***, really?!

..only from close minded people who want to control how everyone else lives their lives..

the world will not end if some guys start having two wives. it's just a misogynist urge that some religions feel they need to symbolically devalue women by assigning more than one woman to each man.

but hey if they feel they need to do that, then let them, it's doesn't affect me.

Infi's post ^^ makes sense.

If the law was "someone could marry multiple people as long as there is consent amongst all parties involved" then perhaps that would be a good middle ground?

What if multiple men married a single woman? Or multiple homosexuals married a single homosexual male OR female?

I'm apathetic to the whole thing, but it could create some serious headaches for well established database schemas and the suckers who have to manage them >:p

Would also make parent teacher night a bloody good laugh

last edited by icewyrm at 15:25:28 25/Jun/08

wasnt there some couple in the UK that they did a doco on
how he had two wives and two sets of kids, they lived next door to each other

basically he went to a different house when he felt like a change of scenery?

that'd be awesome, also if your woman was all like 'i've got a headache', you could just go next door

Interestingly there are/were cultures where women took on multiple husbands.

Also saint under Australian law at every marriage ceremony you are currently required to say a bunch of stuff including
"Marriage, according to law in Australia , is the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"

Key point saint ... "voluntarily". It's already there.

At the moment "union of a man and a woman" is the anti gay bit and "to the exclusion of all others" is the anti poligimist bit.

not that I've given it a lot of thought (when do I ever?) but I can't see anything wrong with it myself as long as all involved parties are aware of it and happy with the arrangement before signing on the dotted line

haven't seen a single reason for not allowing it in this thread - the ones given were either outright silly, or if not silly, still arguably invalid imo

im fine with it... how would it work though? it would have to be more of a 3-way marriage then a husband with 2 wives, or else a normal married bloke could marry again without the first one knowing, and that would be legal? it would have to be a marriage agreement between 3 ppl.. or 4 or whatever you want! but i think everyone would have to be in on it.

nfi how it would work for tax purposes tho..

but seriously the government should butt the f*** out of stuff that really doesn't matter.. why make rules for the sake of rules?

i can see some benefits, imagine if they all sync'd their period though
jeebus that'd suck

There is evidence that women who live in the same house may have periods that sync (due to pheromones) - would prolly depend on the amount of time they all spent together though.


Also, did you know that girls who don't have a father in their life (i.e. passed on or family is separated), then the girl will get her periods at an earlier age (related to pheromones also - apparently the dad's pheromones delays the daughter becoming fertile/"a woman").

Anyways.

i don't care if people want more than 1 husband/wife, whatever floats your boat.

setting up the legal/tax framework for it could be complicated though.

Yeah, it wouldn't be hard for a 3 person 'Household' to go over the min earning threshold so their kids get Jewd out of AusStudy and what not.

But hey you'd have 3 incomes (or Free Childcare).

I'm ok with it.

i'm going to go with the opposite of whatever obes said. cause it was probably all wrong.

i was under the understanding that when muslim guys have more than one wife, they have more than one house, so it's kinda like having 3 families and travelling between the three homes to visit children etc

Yet another inciteful oops insightful post from nF ... post count +1

Was listening to the muslim guy on 612abc this morning, and he was asked if men can have 2 wives, then can the women have 2 husbands, he danced around the question for a bit and then said no they cant.

I wonder if they want the laws changed to allow men to have 2 wives but not women.

i was under the understanding that when muslim guys have more than one wife, they have more than one house, so it's kinda like having 3 families and travelling between the three homes to visit children etc

Like in Big Love.

last edited by Triamks at 20:39:12 25/Jun/08

I have nothing against it in principle, but I'd love it if the Islamic leaders weren't handed a victory. They're a bit Borg-like, moving somewhere and then trying to push many of their values and opinions on everyone as if it's their God-given right (which they probably believe) ... you know, instead of fitting in like most other immigrants do (say from Europe, etc).

Having been born in a mostly Islam-dominated country, I can say that they are backwards in almost every aspect.

I rather like the idea of having two bisexual wives..

parabol you ever been to those tehran things? I found it quite fun to watch

What things?

i dont know what it was but a demonstration of some kind, about millon people yelling different things

the problem with it is it can be an abusive relationship for the wives. Just like many teenage girls who've never lived outside Saudi Arabia say they don't think women should be permitted to drive a car, women in these marriages will claim it's a loving relationship and is what they want because it is what they are exposed to and believe is normal - just like in the polygamist cults in the US and Japan.

If you want to be a sister wife, go live in a culture that supports it. It's not like there aren't countries that are welcoming to this type of lifestyle.

Should we allow every single quirk of every culture in the world in Australia? What about when it replaces our own because it conflicts with some of our own principles? People come to this country because we have a good quality of life built on certain practices and mindset. Multiculturalism shouldn't be about ripping those principles up as we absorb every aspect of every culture no matter how extreme, it should be about adapting the things we like about other cultures in to our own as we welcome people from different cultures to join us as citizens.

But we get to choose what those things are. Burritos and tacos, hell yes. A 33 hour week + afternoon siesta - Bring it on. Pizza, pasta and soccer - yes please. Gridiron, no thanks. Stoning to death the promiscuous and hanging homosexuals off cranes, no thanks. A publicly broadcast call to prayer 5 times a day. Uh uh. Criminalisation of "blasphemy", f*** no.

can I get a touchdown for democracy natslovR

Should we allow every single quirk of every culture in the world in Australia?

Why not? As long as no one gets hurt, what's the problem?

This idea of quarantining a culture and arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be a part of it seems kind of silly to me. Things evolve and change all the time, and the pace is getting quicker as the world becomes flatter and smaller every day. May as well run with it. No one sheds a tear because the Roman empire doesn't exist anymore.

it would suck being married to a girl who was also married to 4 other dudes.

Why not? As long as no one gets hurt, what's the problem?

Because fundamental rights need to be protected.

Women's equality under our laws is one of them.

Sure, no one gets hurt immediately but that's not the point. It's taken a long time to establish some of them, to throw them away on a whim seems irresponsible.

Because fundamental rights need to be protected.

Women's equality under our laws is one of them.

I would have regarded violations of that nature as "getting hurt", but I should have been more specific.

Case in point: polygamy. If no one is getting hurt or having their rights impeded, no problem? Replace "polygamy" with "x" and repeat.

do go back a few points

obes:

The first one. Its got f*** all to do with the constitution.

you say its got f*** all to do with the constitution and then two lines afterwards state that the constitution says "blah..." You realise that it is the constitution that gives the Federal parliment the power to enact laws that are constitutional?

trog:

you said something about most people on this forum said they dont care hence "some rediculous generalisation based on this population" !! WTF... 90%+ on this forum would be male (or at least participating in the discussion) hence our views maybe a little bias!? but no f***ing way, would any woman (or fem group) view this as a "whatever" type topic /law to be passed...

BTW... Were the muslimites proposing that the law would work both ways Male to multi women / Woman to multi male???

I have nothing against it in principle, but I'd love it if the Islamic leaders weren't handed a victory. They're a bit Borg-like, moving somewhere and then trying to push many of their values and opinions on everyone as if it's their God-given right

that's the thing, they're not actually trying to do that, they just want to be allowed to live how they want to live. there's no notion of forcing other aussie men to have 3 wives or wanting to take young australian boys from their families and put them into muslim missions in a sandy australia policy

twat (and you are) ... there is no need for a referendum to change the law (as was being suggested).

I rather like the idea of having two bisexual wives..

+1

changes to the constitution must be put to a referendum.

Correct nF ... but all the constitution says is the government can make laws relating to marriage and divorce. It says nothing about how many or what sorts of people.

So if we were to have a referendum it would be to say the government can't make laws about marriage and divorce.

its just one more step for australia becoming an Islamic nation...

http://photo.gangus.com/d/26788-2/ackbar.jpg

There are lots and lots of concessions given to a couple that are married. The ability to imigrate one partner in, is one of them. The whole centre link system for married/defacto couples is set up for that, couples. You can say it doesn't affect you so what do you care, go ahead and do it. Yeah, it's a huge societal issue, it's got alot do with our cultural history. But it's also got alot to do with laws that are already in existence, you'd pretty much have to review every single one of them.

And the next time you bring up the catholic church being against it obes, you should realise that in many islamic religions (actually most of them, as far as history goes) women were no better than possesions.

But what do these people care about the law on it, if they love each other? it's a religious and lifestyle thing so go ahead, have your religious ceremony and be done with it, kids won't be removed from that siutation unless it's abusive or the like. You can still change your name, live in the same house, and all that jazz, nothings stopping you sharing your income between everyone.

The only reason you hear bad things about the polygimist cults from america is because they all ended up being abusive to children, but thats got more to do with the cults views (and the f'd up people running them), than the marriage set up.

I personally don't care if a woman chooses to have 5 husbands, one for each hole and each hand, thats their choice, and go for it. And no one is going to stop them either.

Because fundamental rights need to be protected.

Women's equality under our laws is one of them.

well there's probably more women in Australia in abusive marriages with a single partner than there are women in Australia in abusive plural marriage situations

you said something about most people on this forum said they dont care hence "some rediculous generalisation based on this population" !! WTF... 90%+ on this forum would be male (or at least participating in the discussion) hence our views maybe a little bias!? but no f***ing way, would any woman (or fem group) view this as a "whatever" type topic /law to be passed...

So women would go out of their way to stop other women from doing something they want to do?!

Of course they would trog because the women stopping the other women are all for womens rights except when those rights don't match the women stopping the other womens point of view!@

I can't understand why some of you are saying it's okay if the people involved agree to it. Do you not understand that the women in the situation HAVE NO SAY. That culture has nothing to do with womens rights in any way, in fact, they have NO f***ing rights. I've worked with refugees and migrants and the girls/women I have dealt with have had to flee their countries to escape all of that. They come to our country because it's a place they can be safe. Where they can have rights as a woman. Polygamist marriages don't consider the beliefs or wants of anyone but the men involved

Forgetting the mooslims, but what about those women who do want a polygamist marriage? It seems their rights and what they want doesn't matter because the government says polygamist marriages are illegal.

Do you not understand that the women in the situation HAVE NO SAY

Well, we're not talking about those people - we're talking about people that actually genuinely want to do it. Obviously if they don't want to be in a marriage, poly or mono, they shouldn't be there

It says nothing about how many or what sorts of people.

The term marriage is defined elsewhere, but its accepted by the majority of people in Australia to be between 1 man and 1 woman. I can't see polygamy ever being accepted in Australia, we just don't have enough of a Muslim population and I'd suggest that the number of Muslims supporting polygamy is a fraction of that again.

Same sex marriages won't happen without changing the constitution. Civil unions maybe, but probably not without doing the same.

^^ It doesn't need a referendum. See Obes post. It would involve change of the Marriage Act, an ordinary Act. Not a constitutional Amendment.

However I don't think a Government will have the balls to do this for a while, Give them civil unions or something, just don't call it marriage.

Nah nF ... marriage is not defined in the constitution.

The constitution says the govennment can make laws regarding that is it. Nothing more or less.

Marriage is then defined in various documents like the Marriage Act and Family Law Act.
Infact .... it was a piece of legislation from 2004 that actually defined marriage

ie. John Howard brought in an amendment to the 1961 definition to specificaly forbid same sex marriages

Further to that Senator StottDespoja tried to get an amendment or new bill as a private members bill in 2005 or 2006 that would have allowed it.

This is not a constitutional issue... It does not need a referendum.
If the pollies really wanted to give it to the public to vote on it would be called a "plebiscite".

^^ It doesn't need a referendum. See Obes post. It would involve change of the Marriage Act, an ordinary Act. Not a constitutional Amendment.

No. When the constitution was drafted the term marriage had as now the meaning of 1 man and 1 woman, the marriage act just formally defined it as such. The marriage act in its current i think propped up the constitution, where as redefining it to include same-sex relationships (as specifically a marriage i mean) would likely be seen as an undermining of it.

Specifically including civil partnerships (as opposed to relationship registers) would require a constitutional change, and therefore a referendum.

spooks first post was the best.. haha +rep for spook!!

Marriage is then defined in various documents like the Marriage Act and Family Law Act.
Infact .... it was a piece of legislation from 2004 that actually defined marriage

Thanks wikipedia.

Marriage was not defined by John Howard 4 years ago. It was defined by common law long before that. Look up precedent on wiki.

Marriage was not defined by John Howard 4 years ago. It was defined by common law long before that

You can credit wiki all you like, but I actually found out about it cos my uncle (a barrister) who got married 2 years ago wrote his own vows and thought it odd that 3 phrases had to be said at a wedding and one of them specifically was "marriage was between a man and a woman".

ie. its the english common law you are refering too (right?) and the poms have actuall legalised same sex marriages. So I don't get the point of your random waffling about common law.

You miss the point and are getting all bitter and twisted cos you were wrong and can't get beyond that. Under our constituion, the govenrment can actually make a law that'd legalise it ... with out the need for a constitutional change.

Poligamy is probably a felony for all I know. Doesn't change the fact I don't actually care how many wives the dude down the road has, except to say they are probably doing all sorts of dodgy tax rorts.

And it doesn't change the fact its not a constitutional issue.

Spot on Obes.

It was defined by common law long before that

Its taken from an 1866 case called Hyde v Hyde. Lord Penzance defined marriage as 'the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others' and that definition has been followed in the Marriage Act. However before you blame John Howard, the High Court has repeatedly affirmed this definition throughout Australian history (For example in The Queen v. L (1991)). Even IF England's legislature has amended their definition by statue, the Australian law (Common Law and Statue) has always defined in as such.

last edited by fade at 12:59:19 26/Jun/08

I don't necessarily think that a polygamous arrangement is unworkable with both women having kids.

I wuold mean the women could take turns looking after the kids and in the rest of the time work/pursue their own interests. With the father working a fulltime job the kids would get alot better care then being plonked in a childcare joint 8-6 every day while both parents work to pay off a mortgage.

I personally think it would be pretty sweet.

1 woman 2 dudes, I don't have a prob with that either, though i personally wouldn't want to share with another dude, though if they were cool with then then good on em!

Thanks wikipedia.

I find it funny when people accuse the other of being wrong because they look up Wikipedia or Dictionary.com....generally the only reason you know it's on Wikipedia or Dictionary.com was because you looked for info there yourself.

I find it funny when people accuse the other of being wrong because they look up Wikipedia or Dictionary.com....generally the only reason you know it's on Wikipedia or Dictionary.com was because you looked for info there yourself.

Wut?

Wut?

I probably didn't explain my point very well...and really can't be f***ed trying to...just ate lunch...need a snooze...but probably should get back to work. Bye.

ie. its the english common law you are refering too (right?) and the poms have actuall legalised same sex marriages. So I don't get the point of your random waffling about common law.

common law is the system we use here too retard, which is based on the brit one. (you can also cite precedents from common law cases in other countries even i believe.)

and the uk has civil unions, which is the equivalent but not marriage. so in order for australia to have the same it would require an amendment to the constitution to allow the commonwealth to make those laws. which is what i've been saying all along.

Disappointed to see the link Dictionary.com....generally goes nowhere. That's clearly blatantly false advertising, I demand nukage.

so in order for australia to have the same it would require an amendment to the constitution to allow the commonwealth to make those laws. which is what i've been saying all along.

so if that is true, which i don't think it is, please explain how gay marriage was possible in the ACT till the Federal Government put laws in place to over rule the laws the ACT had passed to make it legal.

I guess being the ACT they can just make changes to the constitution whenever they want, huh?

and the uk has civil unions, which is the equivalent but not marriage. so in order for australia to have the same it would require an amendment to the constitution to allow the commonwealth to make those laws. which is what i've been saying all along.

It still wouldn't. By Virtue of s51 xxi and xxii of the Constitution the Commonwealth can make any law with respect to marriage, divorce and matrimonial causes. It's likely the HC would interpret the Constitution laws regarding civil unions to be respect to marriage and thus no amendment required.

If the High Court did textually interpret the Constitution and narrowly read civil unions outside Marriage and therefore outside the Commonwealths powers, Civil Unions would just fall into State legislative jurisdiction and could be enacted by the States. However this isn't a likely outcome anyway.

so if that is true, which i don't think it is, please explain how gay marriage was possible in the ACT till the Federal Government put laws in place to over rule the laws the ACT had passed to make it legal.

I guess being the ACT they can just make changes to the constitution whenever they want, huh?

The Commonwealth impliedly repealed the ACT law by virtue s109 of the Constitution. Where a State and Commonwealth law are inconsistent, s109 provides the Commonwealth law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. Also s122 allows the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to the territories.

The ACT, like the States have 'ample and plenary' powers to legislate. Unlike the Commonwealth they can legislate for any reason (except for the exclusive heads of power of the Commonwealth found in s52 of the constitution). They don't need a constitutional amendment either.

last edited by fade at 14:58:49 26/Jun/08

so if that is true, which i don't think it is, please explain how gay marriage was possible in the ACT till the Federal Government put laws in place to over rule the laws the ACT had passed to make it legal.

it was taken by the howard government (and then later by the rudd government) as an erosion of the commonwealth's constitutional powers. plus it was pretty much marriage but with a different name, as if that was going to get through.

since when does it have to be exactly the same to not be discriminatory. if you consider descrimination to be being made worse off, then the relationship register should as far as i can tell solve all those problems. there should be no financial, tax or welfare issues with a register as far as i can tell. you just don't get a ceremony. oh and you can't call your man a husband (or wife).


last edited by nF at 15:33:22 26/Jun/08

plus it was pretty much marriage but with a different name, as if that was going to get through.

so what is so offensive to the religious right about gay marriage? or gay civil union. it is just another case of people trying to tell others how to live their lives.

as said previously, marriage was around well before christianity yet now the religious right in this country feel it is their job to stop it being used by people that don't follow the bibles fictional writings.

the relationship register should as far as i can tell solve all those problems. there should be no financial, tax or welfare issues with a register as far as i can tell. you just don't get a ceremony. oh and you can't call your man a husband (or wife).

how is a register different from civil union? it is just another name for something that already exists. you can't stop people from having a ceremony and calling their partner whatever they want. to try to is just stupid pandering to the religious right who have too much influence in this country.

labor have done the biggest back down in this issue yet. after beating up Howard for years they have then turned around and done the exact same thing to try and keep the churchies on side.

they have then turned around and done the exact same thing to try and keep the churchies on side.

and that's what bothers me with England being okay with this (if you were already married with two wives before you emigrated there).

Holland is a country that has seen a boom in Muslim population these days. anyone got their 20c worth on the subject?

if you marry two sisters is it incest?

so what is so offensive to the religious right about gay marriage? or gay civil union. it is just another case of people trying to tell others how to live their lives.

as said previously, marriage was around well before christianity yet now the religious right in this country feel it is their job to stop it being used by people that don't follow the bibles fictional writings.

its not just the religious that are against it and plenty of the religious are for it anyway.

its essentially political correctness going to the extreme. the merging of minorities into the mainstream by saying they are identical. i'm all for removing true discrimination (like employment, the right to manage the estate of a dead or invalid partner, tax, etc) but i don't see why there is this need to have the exact same rights as a heterosexual couple. cause there clearly are differences.

so i counter with whats so important about gay marriage? why does marriage have to be extended to homosexual couples? whats the big gain for society to have it happen? and why not isn't an answer.

why invent a new name for something that already exists to appease a religious lobby?

if it has all the properties of marriage or civil union in the eyes of the government, why does the government need another name for it?

by creating a register you specifically target a minority to be treated different to everyone else based on their sexuality and that is wrong.

but why do Gays want to be part of institution that has never permitted gays. Surely they don't want to be part of an institution, a religious tradition where they're not wanted. Surely the name is not that important if they receive the same welfare, tax, financial rights.

edit to clarify

last edited by fade at 20:12:20 26/Jun/08

I say ban all marriage.

It's the only way to be sure.

thats because no one will marry you after that photo.

why invent a new name for something that already exists to appease a religious lobby?

if it has all the properties of marriage or civil union in the eyes of the government, why does the government need another name for it?

by creating a register you specifically target a minority to be treated different to everyone else based on their sexuality and that is wrong.

why after centuries of suppression for being different is there suddenly a requirement to conform? whats wrong with being treated differently if the way you are treated isn't unfair?

and it isn't just the religious lobby who are against it, the religious lobby are just against gays in general unless they want to join the ranks of their clergy.