Gay Marriage

[Calliope]

Where I draw the line is when someone feels that their own view usurps everyone elses and should be enforced through legislation.

I agree. Like the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, presently before parliament, attempts to do.

 

[McLovin]

I agree. Like the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, presently before parliament, attempts to do.

That was poorly worded by me, but it was supposed to just be the same as I had said several times in this thread already. No religion controls the keys to marriage.

 

[Julia]

I don't consider their views any less important or relevant than any other Australian's. Where I draw the line is when someone feels that their own view usurps everyone elses and should be enforced through legislation.

Isn't this what the gay lobby is doing?

There are plenty of Muslims who would like to see the dress code for women in this country changed, I'm sure they're genuinely disturbed when they walk on a beach and see women half naked in front of strange men. Would you treat their views as important and relevant?

I would say that they have chosen to come to live in Australia and should therefore have no problem tolerating the customs and norms of this country. Personally I dislike seeing women covered up in the Muslim style, but I don't have any idea of preventing them from doing it.
I'm much more concerned about their growing numbers suggesting e.g. sharia law should apply in this country.

I can't be responsible for your grandmother's peculiar view. To compare that with mainstream churches believing marriage should be between heterosexuals is a bit silly and unworthy of you imo.

From reading your posts, I understand you were once married. How would you have reacted if at the time of you getting married you were told you could have all the same legal rights but you could not be married or have a ceremony? I'd personally feel pretty disenfranchised.

Would have been fine with me. Considering the later divorce it would have saved some money on legal fees.

Again, by raising such an example you are not comparing like with like. Heterosexual marriage has been around for ever. I'm a bit disappointed that - instead of your usual intelligent and sensible discussion - you're throwing out red herrings like the above, viz especially your grandmother's weird notion.

I'm still working on this...

Good.

 

[McLovin]

OK, let me get back on track, I seem to have drifted.

Let me ask you Julia, do you think homosexuals should be allowed to be married? I'd be interested to hear your opinion and reasoning either way.

On incestous relationships. First of all we need to seperate incest with inbreeding. Incest (and I'm talking about between two consenting adults), doesn't seem on the face of it to raise any serious issues, social taboos aside. I personally see no issues with two cousins or even a brother and sister being in a relationship, it's not my thing but if they're consenting adults it's not for me to say. Inbreeding does, however, raise some serious ethical issues. The more closely related the two parents are the higher the chance of mental or physical disabilities, or death of the child (for brother-sister relations the mortality can be as high as 30%). Inbreeding, IMO, should remain illegal. The problem then is how can you allow someone to have sex but make it illegal for them to become pregnant because of that intercourse?

I don't know the answer to the question. I have thought about it but can't reach a logical conclusion. If for example you made incest illegal because of the reason I gave above, then how would you argue that homosexual incestous relations should also be illegal? And then you'd be back at the same point of creating a double standard, no? I don't know the answer I'm afraid. Good question though.

 

[young-gun]

To compare that with mainstream churches believing marriage should be between heterosexuals is a bit silly and unworthy of you imo.

I haven't read back all the way, but is anyone in here religious, and are you able to shed some light on the churches take on what causes someone to be born with homosexual tendencies to begin with? It's something that is hard wired, it's not a choice (if it were you would think a man or women would be nuts to choose this path given the social implications).

So is it simply the work of the 'devil'? I am failing to see how someone that 'god' created with some incorrect connections upstairs(and i mean that in the nicest possible way) can then be condemned by religion. After all it is not meant to be, however it still occurs, so it needs to be catered for.

Do we tell disabled people that they can't get married because the heavenly father above didn't throw in the necessary chromosome?

1. They are not hurting anyone, any gay men or women I come across are usually more friendly than 50% of the other idiots I've endured.
2. They would probably be better parents than a lot that call themselves parents today, who will most likely end up divorced, custody battles carried out, leaving the child with one parent(wouldn't two of the same sex be better?)
3. If i was gay I'd tell the church to cram it, why would you wanna get married somewhere that doesn't accept you anyway. Discriminate away.

 

[Calliope]

2. They would probably be better parents than a lot that call themselves parents today, who will most likely end up divorced, custody battles carried out, leaving the child with one parent(wouldn't two of the same sex be better?)

So gay "parents" wouldn't get divorced? A custody battle by two male gays over an adopted son does not bear thinking of. I doubt that a court could award custody to either one.

 

[Tink]

What an absolute schmozzle -- and of course, the children are always the innocent ones.

 

[young-gun]

So gay "parents" wouldn't get divorced?

did i say that?

A custody battle by two male gays over an adopted son does not bear thinking of. I doubt that a court could award custody to either one.

why.

 

[young-gun]

What an absolute schmozzle -- and of course, the children are always the innocent ones.

bad parenting has a hell of a lot to answer for imo.

 

[jersey10]

I don't consider their views any less important or relevant than any other Australian's. Where I draw the line is when someone feels that their own view usurps everyone elses and should be enforced through legislation. There are plenty of Muslims who would like to see the dress code for women in this country changed, I'm sure they're genuinely disturbed when they walk on a beach and see women half naked in front of strange men. Would you treat their views as important and relevant? My grandmother used to believe (and probably still does) that inter-racial relationships are wrong because God wouldn't have created seperate races if he had intended them to mix. Same question again, should her view be considered relevant and important.

It doesn't matter what anyone believes. What happens should only ever be determined through reason, logic and evidence.

 

[jersey10]

I am no evolutionary biologist, however, if gay people are given the exact same rights as heterosexual people (which they should be) won't gay people become extinct?

 

[Julia]

Let me ask you Julia, do you think homosexuals should be allowed to be married? I'd be interested to hear your opinion and reasoning either way.

I've already said that I don't care. I'd be entirely happy for the whole institution of marriage to be abolished. Then we wouldn't have this stupid hysterical fuss.

To suggest that any loving relationship stands or falls on whether or not it has occurred via some pretty ceremony just makes no sense to me.

From a legal point of view, as I've repeated ad infinitum, homosexuals already have the same rights as any other pairing.

No one has been able to explain to me what difference being 'married' makes.
Why can't they - and heterosexual couples too for that matter - just decide that they are deliriously in love, and that they want all their friends to say 'Fantastic, good luck to you' while they dress in expensive stuff and pay thousands for a fancy meal, at the end of which they can say "Well, whacko, now we're married".

What on earth difference does it make to how much they will love and support each other, how much loyalty they will provide in sickness and health etc etc whether they have any or all of the following:

1. no ceremony, just a mutual agreement that they wish to commit their lives to each other

2. a ceremony anywhere with friends and family to congratulate them on the immense wisdom of their choice

3. a $50,000 extravaganza where everyone drinks a lot of alcohol, the bride and groom (how does this work out in homosexual marriage?) get photographed a lot with big smiles, and everyone goes home poorer but thrilled.

It's all meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. So I'm just bored with all the fuss and herewith resign the role of trying to apply a little objectivity to the debate in terms of recognising the real distress that is apparently felt by religious people (and undoubtedly others) who strongly regard marriage as a union between a heterosexual couple for the purpose of creating a family, as an extension to the long ago reason of combining between families land and other interests.

I'm anti religion: think it's more a force for harm than good.
But I do understand that some perfectly decent people have grown up with what to them is the cornerstone of their existence and I've therefore simply tried to present this point of view as something to reasonably be considered.

That said, I will not be answering any further questions about my own circumstances, for example. It's none of anyone's business why I wanted to get married a very long time ago.

 

[jersey10]

No one has been able to explain to me what difference being 'married' makes.

I agree with a lot of what Julia says about the irrelevance of marriage.

According to the Relationships Indicators Survey conducted by Relationships Australia and CUA in 2008, the reasons why people get married are:

Love 91%
Companionship 88%
To signify a life-long commitment 82%
Security for children 79%
To make a public commitment to each other 77%
For legal status or for financial security 66%
Because of religious beliefs 62%
Response to Family pressure 50%
Desire for a special occasion 45%

http://www.relationships.org.au/relationship-advice/faqs/why-do-people-get-married

I have thoughts on the above "reasons" that i may comment on later.

Seems to me many people's desire for marriage may be due to psychological reasons more than anything else.

 

[sptrawler]

I haven't read back all the way, but is anyone in here religious, and are you able to shed some light on the churches take on what causes someone to be born with homosexual tendencies to begin with? It's something that is hard wired, it's not a choice (if it were you would think a man or women would be nuts to choose this path given the social implications).

So is it simply the work of the 'devil'? I am failing to see how someone that 'god' created with some incorrect connections upstairs(and i mean that in the nicest possible way) can then be condemned by religion. After all it is not meant to be, however it still occurs, so it needs to be catered for.

Do we tell disabled people that they can't get married because the heavenly father above didn't throw in the necessary chromosome?

1. They are not hurting anyone, any gay men or women I come across are usually more friendly than 50% of the other idiots I've endured.
2. They would probably be better parents than a lot that call themselves parents today, who will most likely end up divorced, custody battles carried out, leaving the child with one parent(wouldn't two of the same sex be better?)
3. If i was gay I'd tell the church to cram it, why would you wanna get married somewhere that doesn't accept you anyway. Discriminate away.

So how many unusual or socially irregular behaviours that are hard wired, do you cater for?
Can all irregular human behaviour, just be catered for and if so where is the line drawn between tolerance, promiscuity and decadence?
Not that I have a strong belief about the issue, just sick of being hijacked by minorities deciding what is best.

 

[CanOz]

I agree with a lot of what Julia says about the irrelevance of marriage.

According to the Relationships Indicators Survey conducted by Relationships Australia and CUA in 2008, the reasons why people get married are:

Love 91%
Companionship 88%
To signify a life-long commitment 82%
Security for children 79%
To make a public commitment to each other 77%
For legal status or for financial security 66%
Because of religious beliefs 62%
Response to Family pressure 50%
Desire for a special occasion 45%

http://www.relationships.org.au/relationship-advice/faqs/why-do-people-get-married

I have thoughts on the above "reasons" that i may comment on later.

Seems to me many people's desire for marriage may be due to psychological reasons more than anything else.

No, you can start another thread on that subject, thank you!

There are plenty of us that would be happy to debate the value of marriage, and other traditions such as Christmas if you like!

CanOz

 

[bellenuit]

Julia,

I agree 100% with your statements about the significance of marriage and the actual relevance of going through the procedure probably means as little to me as it apparently does to you. But not all feel like us.

But I do understand that some perfectly decent people have grown up with what to them is the cornerstone of their existence and I've therefore simply tried to present this point of view as something to reasonably be considered.

And this could be the crux of why gays also want to marry. If religious types and perhaps some heterosexual secularists want to put the institute of marriage on some sort of pedestal because it is the embodiment of their love and commitment to their spouses and is the cornerstone of their existence then why should they say to gays that their (the gays') relationships with their partners are somehow less special that they do not deserve the same recognition. I cannot see how homosexuals marrying could in any way demean the marriages of heterosexual couples, unless heterosexual couples believe that gays cannot have the same love and commitment to their partners that they do and by marrying are making a mockery of the institution. If they believe gays cannot love and want to be loved as they do, then they need to learn more about gays.

It's time to listen to what this brave girl below is saying: "that we want a chance to live our life and fall in love without being discriminated against, because that's what's right and you know in your heart that's what right. It's time..."

 

[Tink]

bad parenting has a hell of a lot to answer for imo.

So if you think its due to bad parenting that this has all come about, how are the next generations going to understand about families, mummy daddy and children.
The children have no choice but to always be in broken homes.
Is this what we want children to grow up with?

As for the religious side of things, I have already said that its about procreating.
Its not about sitting there googly eyeing each other.

I can understand what you are saying that gays should have the right to marry, but I dont think they should hijack the word marraige.
Marraige and children go hand in hand
Marraige is a word about families and thats how it should stay for future generations.

Interesting how many have said they dont care if they marry, just no children.
Well, sorry they go hand in hand.

I am thinking of the children here, not the adults.

 

[explod]

I know a gay couple who have two foster children in their care.

The Brother (of one of the gays) and wife were killed in a car accident 11 years ago and the two boys taken in by him. His partner of 9 years and he have done a very good job, the eldest is doing HSC the other is in year nine. The two lads play football and from my observation are macho and heterosexual.

I did a unit at uni years ago called "Sex gender and society". In that I learned that homosexuality is something genetic so is stamped in before birth.

I do have no doubt from observations in my former career that the homosexual side has become more prominent due to the open way society has become. It is well recorded in Ancient Greece that the upper classes of married men kept boys for the purposes of alternate sex.

We can stomp around the issues all that we like but at the end of the day some men and women just like to indulge in sex regardless of gender.

Any or all being in a proper union and married would be much safer for society as a whole in my view.

 

[Calliope]

Any or all being in a proper union and married would be much safer for society as a whole in my view.

That's a new twist Mr Plod. It would make society safer. For whom? Children perhaps? Fabulous!

 

[MrBurns]

That's a new twist Mr Plod. It would make society safer. For whom? Children perhaps? Fabulous!

Well it would be safer, I for one am terrified of marauding gangs of unmarried Gays.