Gay Marriage

[CanOz]

Perhaps, given the posts above, we should consider the morality of single women and men having children through surrogacy as well?

What you all seem to be saying, is that you believe if the children cannot have a "normal" marriage, they should not have children ?

CanOz

 

[Calliope]

Perhaps, given the posts above, we should consider the morality of single women and men having children through surrogacy as well?

What you all seem to be saying, is that you believe if the children cannot have a "normal" marriage, they should not have children ?

CanOz

There is little that can be done to prevent singles or couples of all stripes buying children through surrogacy. Where do you stand on the morality issue?

 

[johenmo]

So, can some of the gay marriage advocates perhaps explain why Civil Unions are not a satisfactory compromise?

+1. And without the use of inflammatory or emotive language please.

 

[sydboy007]

(My bolds)

All well and good I suppose, except that in Australia there is no shortage of traditional married couples "who tick all the boxes," wanting to adopt children. There is no shortage of "adopters" there is a shortage of "adoptees". I think you can rest assured that children available for adoption are not denied anything.

The waiting time is up to six years.

Just 333 children were adopted last financial year, the lowest number on record,

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...re/story-fnet08xa-1226536401261#ixzz2YEL5tih5

Seems to me that this would then really make children null and void as a reason to be against gay marriage?

If it's pretty much unlikely for a gay married couple to be able to adopt, then why worry about it?

 

[sydboy007]

Is the adoption/surrogacy question being exaggerated? My impression is that most homosexuals seeking to get married aren't doing it so they can have children which they seem to be able to do now anyway. viz Penny Wong and her partner.

There seemed to be pretty complete acceptance across our broader society when homosexual couples were granted equivalent financial rights, access to social security benefits as partners etc. It has just been since the actual word 'marriage' has been the focus that so much controversy has arisen.

Given the large numbers of marriages that fail, I'm a bit puzzled about the attraction of marriage as an institution anyway. Just can't see that it makes any difference to the quality of a relationship, the level of love and loyalty, if you have a bit of paper that declares you are married. As long as de facto couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have all the same rights as couples who are married, what is so essential about 'marriage'?
The whole equality concept is now even being extended to nursing homes where homosexual couples can access all the same rights as heterosexual. (I must admit I have no idea what this constitutes.)

So, can some of the gay marriage advocates perhaps explain why Civil Unions are not a satisfactory compromise?

Julia

you generally sum up my attitude. Since most laws have changed so as to acknowledge most interpdendency style relationships, marriage isn't really an issue for me as most of the old "benefits" of being married are now available to most in a relationship.

The only reason I can see it is still beneficial for gay marriage to be allowed is that words do have power. For those less accepting, or even opposed to homosexuality, they are able to maintain their prejudice by feeling they can belittle a gay relationship because the 2 people aren't married, cannot be married, so the relationship is in some way inferior to the gold standard heterosexual married couple.

TBH I think if we just wait a bit longer then the silent majority will win out. If you ever read some of the things said against the abolition of slavery, I'd dare say most of us just couldn't understand why anyone would think being able to see another human being as mere property to be sold or bought was OK, yet alone a corner stone of society. A major argument was that it slavery was condoned by the bible.

I'd say most people would find it sad we used to think Aboriginal people weren't capable of voting.

We have a very narrow view of what a "good" family structure looks like. Go to many poorer countries and I'd dare say they'd think the way most children are shuttled off to child care, don't spend that much quality time with their parents nearly a form of child abuse. In poorer countries you'll see older children providing a lot of care to their younger siblings, they'll walk or ride a bike to school rather than have parents driving them everywhere, stuffing them with high calorie nutritionally depleted food, wondering why over 1 in 4 children are overweight or moving into obesity.

 

[Calliope]

Seems to me that this would then really make children null and void as a reason to be against gay marriage?

If it's pretty much unlikely for a gay married couple to be able to adopt, then why worry about it?

Yes, I agree, and I can understand why parenthood would be so far removed your agenda. Your cynical view of parent's behavior is far removed from my experiences. You apparently saw my recounting my pleasurable experience at the supermarket as some sort of threat to gays, and others were upset that my attitude departed from the image that they shared of me. It doesn't pay on this forum to try to share a pleasurable experience. It goes over like lead balloon.

These days the task of parents in disciplining their children has been made harder by the nanny state. They need all the moral support we can give them.

The mother child interaction is what you believe happens everywhere or if not, what ratio? Having been out to visit my brother in the western suburbs a few times I can attest that your description of parental interaction was generally NOT what I saw, and NO I wasn't looking for bad people, but it's hard to not notice a mother and or father screaming four letter words at their child / children

I also suspect that the "fathers" screaming obscenities at "their children" are not the fathers at all but the current live-in lover.

 

[sydboy007]

Yes, I agree, and I can understand why parenthood would be so far removed your agenda. Your cynical view of parent's behavior is far removed from my experiences. You apparently saw my recounting my pleasurable experience at the supermarket as some sort of threat to gays, and others were upset that my attitude departed from the image that they shared of me. It doesn't pay on this forum to try to share a pleasurable experience. It goes over like lead balloon.

These days the task of parents in disciplining their children has been made harder by the nanny state. They need all the moral support we can give them.



I also suspect that the "fathers" screaming obscenities at "their children" are not the fathers at all but the current live-in lover.

I don't think I'm cynical. Just found your post very Utopian, and certainly as others have commented, not something that gels with the personal reality we have experienced.

No I didn't see your post as a threat to anyone.

Possibly your pleasurable experience was just too perfect. I just find it hard to believe in a shopping centre all the children were perfectly behaved and all the mothers were joyously imparting knowledge to the little rug rats. Could by my cynicism creeping in eh.

I have no problem with a parent disciplining their children. Heck we need more of it. The no smacking culture is probably why i hate going to shopping centers on a weekend, or really anywhere a large amount of children are. i know one of the main reasons i never got too out of line was because i didn't like the consequences if I did. These days no internet or tv for a day just doesn't seem to have the same impact as a quick smack on the bum. Worse if it happened in public because then there was the embarrassment factor too.

As for the male partner screaming at the children, you could be right, but seems you still feel that is a superior situation for the child than having them live with a couple of same sex parents who would probably be closer to your shopping center experience than what they currently get

 

[Calliope]

As for the male partner screaming at the children, you could be right, but seems you still feel that is a superior situation for the child than having them live with a couple of same sex parents who would probably be closer to your shopping center experience than what they currently get

No. I feel the child is much better of with parents in a monogamous and stable relationship. But as you said above, it's a non-issue for you.

The book Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by authors Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, cites a study of homosexual male couples conducted by gay researchers.

The couples who participated had been together between 1 and 37 years.

Findings were as follows:

100% (all) of the couples experienced infidelity in their relationship within the first 5 years.
Couples who remained together past the 10-year mark were able to do so only by accepting the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship.
More than 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems center on issues related to outside relationships.
NOTE: Data from the Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census shows that only 29% of gay/lesbian relationships last more than 7 years.

http://www.examiner.com/article/inf...ian-couples-recently-united-same-sex-marriage

This begs the question doesn't it..why the hell do they want to get married when they play around so much?:screwy:

 

[Julia]

This begs the question doesn't it..why the hell do they want to get married when they play around so much?:screwy:

Perhaps because in the biological surge of the hormones of lust one can be deluded into thinking it's all that matters and that such intense ecstasy will last for ever.

When it doesn't, and there's nothing more substantial underneath, the search is on again for the mythical perfect partner.

Imo marriage is an institution that was once relevant and necessary for multiple reasons. But those reasons, mostly financial and legal, are no longer a consideration.
I don't think it would be a bad idea if the whole institution was just wiped and both heterosexual and homosexual relationships were registered as Civil Unions if the couples felt compelled to announce their intentions to all and sundry.

I can't see that it will ever save a rotting relationship to be 'married'.

 

[Calliope]

I have to admit that becoming a widower years ago freed me from the guilt complex that promiscuity can confer on you in marriage. In gay marriage I doubt that a guilt complex exists. It is quite normal to have extra-marital partners.

 

[sydboy007]

I have to admit that becoming a widower years ago freed me from the guilt complex that promiscuity can confer on you in marriage. In gay marriage I doubt that a guilt complex exists. It is quite normal to have extra-marital partners.

No, I suppose along with an attraction to the same sex, for some reason they also don't have a conscience.

What's better:

A marriage where infidelity occurs behind the back of the other partner

A marriage where the partners have negotiated what they are comfortable with, what are the "rules" of the relationship, and sex with someone else is not done behind the back of the other partner

I've never had any respect for cheaters.

TBH I think marriage causes more problems than it's worth. How many miserable couples are out there still together "for the kids"? Best to accept the relationship is over, move on, be happy and the kids will surely be a lot happier than be stuck around parents in a loveless marriage and all the stress that brings with it.

 

[Calliope]

TBH I think marriage causes more problems than it's worth.

Which brings us back to the question...Why do you advocate and defend gay marriage when you have a cynical view of the relationship and fidelity in marriage?

 

[Calliope]

I've suddenly realized Syd that you are I are on the same side. I was working under the assumption that you thought that refusal to accept same sex marriage was discrimination, when of course you oppose gay marriage and any other form of marriage for that matter.

I remember discussing the issue with a gay friend of mine. One of my best friends actually. He is dead now as are most of my old friends. He was living in a stable relationship with his partner. I asked him if he felt discriminated against because they couldn't marry. "No' he said "just the opposite. If we were married we would get the married rate of pension instead of two single rates.

 

[Julia]

I've suddenly realized Syd that you are I are on the same side. I was working under the assumption that you thought that refusal to accept same sex marriage was discrimination, when of course you oppose gay marriage and any other form of marriage for that matter.

I remember discussing the issue with a gay friend of mine. One of my best friends actually. He is dead now as are most of my old friends. He was living in a stable relationship with his partner. I asked him if he felt discriminated against because they couldn't marry. "No' he said "just the opposite. If we were married we would get the married rate of pension instead of two single rates.

If they were living together they would not be eligible for two single rates. Couples living together, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are assessed on the partnered rate.

 

[Calliope]

If they were living together they would not be eligible for two single rates. Couples living together, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are assessed on the partnered rate.

Wrong again. They were eligible until July 2009. You will be pleased to know they had both passed on by then.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/centrelink-sympathy-for-fearful-gay-couples-20100113-m71f.html

 

[sydboy007]

Wrong again. They were eligible until July 2009. You will be pleased to know they had both passed on by then.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/centrelink-sympathy-for-fearful-gay-couples-20100113-m71f.html

And it is that ype of changes to laws that DIDN'T recognise any for of same sex relationship that has me not that interested in gay marriage. I understand why some people are fighting for it, but it's not something I will devote a lot of energy to.

 

[sydboy007]

Which brings us back to the question...Why do you advocate and defend gay marriage when you have a cynical view of the relationship and fidelity in marriage?

Because a lot of the Christian right, and non Christian right, like to believe that because same sex couples can't get married their relationships are inferior to a herterosexual marriage.

As I said before, words have power, words are symbolism, and if you can exclude a group of people the power of particular symbolism within society, then you're able to far more easily exclude them from other areas of society as well.

Savage garden had a beautiful song called Affirmation. Below is my favourite verse of the song. It seems very apt for a right lenaing financially based forum.

I believe you can't control or choose your sexuality
I believe that trust is more important than monogamy
I believe that your most attractive features are your heart and soul
I believe that family is worth more than money or gold
I believe the struggle for financial freedom isn't fair
I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires

Have a read of this SMH article - http://tinyurl.com/mthxl4j

A couple of the more interesting paragraphs:

Marriage is an institution thousands of years old, designed largely to protect hereditary property (via monogamy), ensure "someone for everyone" in small, sparsely populated rural communities and to produce children to work the farm.

So we blame promiscuity and divorce on 'bad' morals, rather than a once good idea gone bad ... or at least near obsolete.

 

[Julia]

Wrong again. They were eligible until July 2009.

I was referring to the current situation. In years gone by, I don't think any bureaucracy actually seriously considered homosexual de facto relationships. It was only after all the activism of wanting equal rights in everything that the then government decided OK, if you're going to have the benefits, you can have the downside as well.

You will be pleased to know they had both passed on by then.

?? Why would I be pleased or otherwise?

 

[Calliope]

I was referring to the current situation.

You said;

If they were living together they would not be eligible for two single rates

I made it quite clear I was talking about the situation some years ago and they were eligible for two single rates.

?? Why would I be pleased or otherwise?

Because they can't rip off the taxpayer any more.

?? Why are you nitpicking?

 

[Zedd]

So, can some of the gay marriage advocates perhaps explain why Civil Unions are not a satisfactory compromise?

Heart of the debate IMO, at least for those who recognise that homosexual partnerships are valid in the first place.

If marriage had of stayed as a religious term and those getting 'married' outside of a religious context were referred to being in a civil union it would be sufficient recognition. But, as unions, outside of a religion are still referred to as a marriage, then it is drawing a line and making a distinction based on sexuality alone. That to me is offensive, in the same way as if mixed raced unions had different terminology.

Two roads, equally valid IMO:
1. Change terminology so all unions outside of religious setting are referred to as civil unions.
2. Allow homosexual unions to be referred to as marriages.