Posted: May 11, 2012 9:23 am
by stijndeloose

Croc has no access to a computer at the moment and has asked me to post his next contribution, which you can find below.

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:Q & A Round

Q. 4

My next question relates to the definition of marriage and why the State specifically decides to formally regulate
the function of a concept called “marriage,” (because of its ostensible connection to the stability of the family unit,)
but it does not EQUALLY do so for ordinary platonic or romantic friendships.

From the point of view of the State, I can’t think of any secular or civil difference between;

A) The same-sex marriage you envisage as being equally worthy of legalization and regulation by the State.


B) An ordinary, romantic association or friendship which the secular State effectively ignores as inconsequential to the otherwise vested interests of the State.

Could you please list a few perhaps? Two or three substantial differences would be enough. If they are rationally objective rather than subjective - based on anecdotes from your gay “friends and acquaintances” - that would be even better! :cheers:

I don't know if Lion is married or intends to be married one day, but if so I pity his wife because she will have married a man who admits he "cannot think of any difference" between the special relationship enjoyed by married couples and their families, and that of an "ordinary" friendship or romance such as you might have with a flatmate or a drunken work colleague at the staff Christmas do!

Poor Mrs Lion! She might as well just meet him down the pub for a drink and a quick grope every Friday night as waste her effort on formally declaring her commitment to him before friends, family and the law, as Lion can apparently see no difference between these arrangements!

Does Lion really need me to provide him with a list differences between marriage and a simple friendship?

If he insists I do, then perhaps he is not qualified to debate the merits of prohibiting marriage for those who do desire it, when he admits he can not think what marriage is actually for!


The Australian Marriage Act unequivocally defines marriage as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

Despite the complete lack of the mention of the word "children", Lion has convinced himself for some reason that the legal definition of marriage (which is, after all, what this debate is about) means "having children".

Lion is obsessed with enforcing this imagined requirement of his onto all couples who wish to marry...
A new biological family. We are starting the process over again. We repeat as necessary to avoid species extinction. How does it “work” asks the biologist? How do the biological/anatomical jigsaw pieces fittogether?

He opines that the state regulates marriage...
because of its ostensible connection to the stability of the family unit

So, my question to Lion is this...

Can Lion explain precisely how opposite-sex couples' ability to raise their own children will be affected if some gay people get married?