Gay Marriage

Prospector · 15 June 2006

crackaton said:
What possible advantage could a gay couple gain by being married ? What would they get that they do not already have? Please enlighten me.

How about for a start - access to partners super on death/permanent disabilty, contribution to spouse's superannuation when one is a home maker; putting assets in lower income earner's name......get the idea?

They also have no say in things like organ donation, and family related issues like next of kin issues.

In SA, the gay partner of our former Premier Donald Dunston is currently fighting to get access to Don's Insurance and Super payout - but is being denied because it was a gay relationship, even though DOn had guaranteed this in his will. They had been living together for many years. Not fair!

(PS - I am not gay - just believe in equity!)

Smurf1976 · 15 June 2006

crackaton said:
What possible advantage could a gay couple gain by being married ? What would they get that they do not already have? Please enlighten me.

The right to have their own partner make critical decisions if they are unable to would be one key advantage. For example, medical decisions about treatment if one person is lying unconscious in hospital and there are options for treatment (or switching off life support). Heterosexual married couples have this right, gay couples can not get such rights.

For that matter, homosexual partners can't even get access to their partner under many such circumstances whereas for married heterosexual couples the partner walks straight in. Blatant discrimination against the wishes of the person in question.

crackaton · 15 June 2006

Which is exactly my point. I can see this being rorted big time. You'll have mum divorced from dad with 6 kiddies. Now gets married with same sex partner who also has kiddies from another marriage. Think of all the benfits they will get from the governement. Likewise dad with kids marry another dad with kids possibly to avoid mainteneance or whatever. This could be a real can of worms.

Next you'll be able to marry a pet rock, claim it as your partner and split your income with it lol The mind boggles.

Encouraging same sex marriages essentially is saying that anyone can do what they like. We may as well marry our way into extiction.

professor_frink · 15 June 2006

visual said:
So professor,is this your learned opinion,that gay people would`nt be trash. Or on the dole.

It was a rather broad generalisation I just made wasn't it
I would have to say that is more than likely that there are trashy gay people(what would a gay bogan be called? Anyone care to comment??) I guess I'm trying to say that they won't breed irresponsibly because, well, they can't! Having a child for a gay couple is a conscious decision that they at least have to think about first. Hence it being more likely that any child would be brought up in a somewhat better household. Well I hope anyway!

crackaton · 15 June 2006

professor_frink said:
It was a rather broad generalisation I just made wasn't it
I would have to say that is more than likely that there are trashy gay people(what would a gay bogan be called? Anyone care to comment??) I guess I'm trying to say that they won't breed irresponsibly because, well, they can't! Having a child for a gay couple is a conscious decision that they at least have to think about first. Hence it being more likely that any child would be brought up in a somewhat better household. Well I hope anyway!

I can not see how anyone can be brought up normally in a same sex relationship. I shudder to think what a boy with two female parents would end up like and conversely a girl brought up with two male parents. In my opinion there would be no balance and the child itself would be an outcast at school etc.
People can only act to an extent.
By granting gays the right to marry, you are essentially giving them the green light to bring up a child the way they think is fit, which can not possibly be the norm, otherwise humans would not have two sexes and we would all be asexual, like amoebas.
Besides which where are they going to get, in the case of woman, father sperm from, and in the case of males, a surrogate mother? Then there is all the legal technicalities, the physcological effects on the kids when they learn the fact of life etc etc etc.
All sorts of crazy **** will start happening.
Sorry I'm not anti-gay but I still don't see the need for gay marriages other than superficial legal technicalities that could be solved by other means.

Julia · 15 June 2006

crackaton said:
What possible advantage could a gay couple gain by being married ? What would they get that they do not already have? Please enlighten me.

Others have already pointed out the legal and medical reasons for a gay couple being married.

It's just possible that they would want to be married for the same reason as a lot of heterosexual couples, i.e. simply that they love each other and want to publicly record their commitment to the relationship.

It's a little out of date to suggest that heterosexual couples these days get married in order to procreate. For one thing, they surely don't need to get married to do this as the huge number of single parents demonstrates, and for another, more and more couples are electing not to have children.

As far as I'm concerned, gay people should be able to get married just as easily as straight folk. I'm really not interested in anyone's sexual preference but I am interested in fostering of loving, considered relationships.

Julia

Prospector · 15 June 2006

crackaton said:
Which is exactly my point. I can see this being rorted big time. You'll have mum divorced from dad with 6 kiddies. Now gets married with same sex partner who also has kiddies from another marriage. Think of all the benfits they will get from the governement. Likewise dad with kids marry another dad with kids possibly to avoid maintenance or whatever. This could be a real can of worms.

Next you'll be able to marry a pet rock, claim it as your partner and split your income with it lol The mind boggles.

Encouraging same sex marriages essentially is saying that anyone can do what they like. We may as well marry our way into extinction.

In your example, there won't be any change to the Government costs. Whomever cares for the children will have access to Government benefits if they qualify under income tests. You can't claim twice, and if care is evenly shared between original birth partner and then subsequent gay partner, then the payment is split 50/50!

crackaton · 15 June 2006

Julia said:
Others have already pointed out the legal and medical reasons for a gay couple being married.

It's just possible that they would want to be married for the same reason as a lot of heterosexual couples, i.e. simply that they love each other and want to publicly record their commitment to the relationship.

It's a little out of date to suggest that heterosexual couples these days get married in order to procreate. For one thing, they surely don't need to get married to do this as the huge number of single parents demonstrates, and for another, more and more couples are electing not to have children.

As far as I'm concerned, gay people should be able to get married just as easily as straight folk. I'm really not interested in anyone's sexual preference but I am interested in fostering of loving, considered relationships.

Julia

But you don't need marriage for that!! I know people who live together for years and never get married. The only possible reason for gays to get married is for financial gain. Heterosexuals get married to have a family. Am I missing something here?

Bobby · 15 June 2006

How about posters state their sexual preference.

Got the Guts ! :sheep:

I'll start then, I'm heterosex'ual .

Bob.

visual · 15 June 2006

Bobby,I`m heterosexual,
but did claim to one of those annoying telemarkerters that I lived in a lesbian household

It's Snake Pliskin · 15 June 2006

Bobby said:
Well said mista,

What I don't like is the word Gay this was a nice name or feeling once, Lets use the term Homosexual !

Bob.

I agree Bobby.

It's Snake Pliskin · 16 June 2006

I love women and their body parts. I also love their ways. Why? Because I am a man. It is natural for me to think that way.

Marriage is for a man and a woman. The sooner we realise this we will be a better nation.

Two women having sex is good for visual stimulation, but should not be confused with unions or marriage. Two men having sex is pure disgusting and self degrading. Once men cross this line they have no soul left.

I have gay friends and show them consideration as a human, but thats where it stops. Beyond that they make me vomit with their cheek pecking and filth talk and straight bashing.

Snake

visual · 16 June 2006

Prospector said:
How about for a start - access to partners super on death/permanent disabilty, contribution to spouse's superannuation when one is a home maker; putting assets in lower income earner's name......get the idea?

They also have no say in things like organ donation, and family related issues like next of kin issues.

In SA, the gay partner of our former Premier Donald Dunston is currently fighting to get access to Don's Insurance and Super payout - but is being denied because it was a gay relationship, even though DOn had guaranteed this in his will. They had been living together for many years. Not fair!

(PS - I am not gay - just believe in equity!)

Prospector,
why is he fighting through the courts if it was left to him in Don`s will.And if the will can be argued over,what kind of legal advice did he get?Should`nt his lawyer have forseen these difficulties and advised accordingly.

P.S googled him and it says that he was married twice but only mentions a male friend in relation to a restaurant,is he the one?

Sean K · 16 June 2006

Shame you're not gay Prospector, I might have wanted to marry you....

This is a very difficult question. No?

The question we, here in the good old land of Oz need to answer is: 'what is the best for us right here, right now?'

I reckon we need to change the name of marriage to 'union' or something else that better reflects how we exist right now for a start. The traditional thought of 'marriage' is long gone. People are getting 'married' on the beach, or under water! Or, not at all. Or, 50% are doing it a second time! Like me.

Let's just make it a legal agreement to some degree. Not very romantic, but the practicalities outweigh the fuss of whether someone is male or female.

The Government (particularly a Gov led by Abbott and Costello - how embassing that will be!) will certainly maintain the old Christain values, perpetuated through the centuries by men fearful of losing their dominance in the world!

Bobby · 16 June 2006

visual said:
Bobby,I`m heterosexual,
but did claim to one of those annoying telemarkerters that I lived in a lesbian household

Good to hear Visual

Bob.

visual · 16 June 2006

Bob i`m glad you approve :

Sean K · 16 June 2006

Well, Prospector will do for a start.....

visual · 16 June 2006

kennas said:
Shame you're not gay Prospector, I might have wanted to marry you....

This is a very difficult question. No?

The question we, here in the good old land of Oz need to answer is: 'what is the best for us right here, right now?'

I reckon we need to change the name of marriage to 'union' or something else that better reflects how we exist right now for a start. The traditional thought of 'marriage' is long gone. People are getting 'married' on the beach, or under water! Or, not at all. Or, 50% are doing it a second time! Like me.

Let's just make it a legal agreement to some degree. Not very romantic, but the practicalities outweigh the fuss of whether someone is male or female.

The Government (particularly a Gov led by Abbott and Costello - how embassing that will be!) will certainly maintain the old Christain values, perpetuated through the centuries by men fearful of losing their dominance in the world!

Kennas,you not starting a harem are you?

Bobby · 16 June 2006

kennas said:
Shame you're not gay Prospector, I might have wanted to marry you....

This is a very difficult question. No?

The question we, here in the good old land of Oz need to answer is: 'what is the best for us right here, right now?'

I reckon we need to change the name of marriage to 'union' or something else that better reflects how we exist right now for a start. The traditional thought of 'marriage' is long gone. People are getting 'married' on the beach, or under water! Or, not at all. Or, 50% are doing it a second time! Like me.

Let's just make it a legal agreement to some degree. Not very romantic, but the practicalities outweigh the fuss of whether someone is male or female.

The Government (particularly a Gov led by Abbott and Costello - how embassing that will be!) will certainly maintain the old Christain values, perpetuated through the centuries by men fearful of losing their dominance in the world!

Hey kennas,

Like your thoughts about religion But what are you ? tell us please ?

Bob

Sean K · 16 June 2006

I'm unemployed, living off my girlfriend.

Now, needing more Shiraz. Or my bed.

I choose vino.

Gay Marriage

Prospector

Not a scaredy cat anymore

Smurf1976

crackaton

professor_frink

Moderator

crackaton

Julia

In Memoriam

Prospector

Not a scaredy cat anymore

crackaton

Bobby

visual

It's Snake Pliskin

It's Snake Pliskin

visual

Sean K

Moderator

Bobby

visual

Sean K

Moderator

visual

Bobby

Sean K

Moderator

Similar threads

Gay Marriage

Not a scaredy cat anymore

Moderator

In Memoriam

Not a scaredy cat anymore

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency