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.
There is a third option.
Since marriage was originally a civil institution, shouldn't we use the word "marriage" for all civil unions regardless of sexuality. Then let the religions go find their own word.
Thankyou for your excellent posts Dawson, and I agree.
More child psychologists should be involved in this.
The best interests of the child is paramount, and I am actually offended that they want to drop the standards for our children in changeing the marraige act, that mothers and fathers are not important in a childs life.
The marraige act should not be changed as a standard by law for future generations.
The natural process of a mother and father having children and being with their children is of utmost importance. Each parent is valuable in a childs process.
Every child wants to know their identity.
As we have seen by the last couple of posts, the gay couples arent doing any better in that department so saying that we are doing a bad job with children does not give them the right to want to change the law.
Marraige is about parents being with their children.There are plenty of parents, mums and dads, that a doing a fantastic job with thriving children in loving homes
We have all grown up with the GOLD standard, and it should NOT move down any levels for our children.
By law means everything will change, as it gets told in schools, the whole scenario, and thats wrong for our children
Marraige is not about paying someone to have a baby.
to add to my post, I suppose its how you define marraige.
Marraige was always about keeping children with their original parents, so that children were raised in a loving environment and to this day is still told in schools that way.
Thats the gold standard - mum and dad love each other get married and have a baby.
Even child psychologists have done all in their power to make sure children spent time with each one.
This is a complete turn around.
I dont know why religion keeps getting mentioned as I see it more about children than religion.
It seems that adults just want to destroy their little world.
There is a third option.
Since marriage was originally a civil institution, shouldn't we use the word "marriage" for all civil unions regardless of sexuality. Then let the religions go find their own word.
Hall and Bohannon's work effectively created the myth of the socially inept and bratty only child.
Oh my goodness, Knobby. I'm an only child. I shall now sulk and worry.It's a myth??Not from my life experience.
Mr Abbott's gay sister and Sydney City Councillor, Christine Forster, has bought into the debate, calling for federal Liberal MPs to be allowed a conscience vote on the issue if legislation comes before the Parliament.
Revealing that she and her partner have been engaged since March, Ms Forster said she hoped the new Liberal Party room would regard the issue as a matter of conscience.
"Marriage is about love, it's about people's feelings, it's a matter of the heart," she told Channel 9.
"That for me means it should be a conscience decision, rather than a policy decision."
She said she wanted to get married in Sydney, "ideally" under a federal marriage act.
"We want to get married here and have our marriage recognised here in Australia," she said.
Ms Forster said her brother congratulated her and her partner on their engagement and said he would be "there at the wedding".
Mr Abbott has left the way open for the federal party room to decide if there should be a conscience vote on the issue.
In September 2012, laws legalising same-sex marriage failed to pass Parliament.
Labor MPs were allowed a conscience vote but Coalition MPs were not.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...lenge-over-act-same-sex-marriage-laws/5037674
On face value when they say "Marriage is about love, it's about people's feelings, it's a matter of the heart"... it's all seemingly harmless enough and well intentioned... BUT when the criteria is " it should be a conscience decision, rather than a policy decision", the conflicts of interest and Pandora's box arise.
Polygamy meets all her criteria for such people... so why do we legislate against it in the modern world?
Conscience: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives... is hardly an accurate logical barometer of what is right, let alone what is fact.
Our 'inner sense of what is right or wrong' can be affected by influences beyond our knowledge and control. That ought to ring alarm bells.
My greatest fear is though that marriage will be devalued at a great cost to children.
gg
I think you are over analysing what Christine Foster said.
Why have you defined "conscience" when all she was referring to was a "conscience vote".
I fail to see any alarm bells ringing.
Polygamy Hits Australia
The Australian reports 20 July 2011 that Muslims in Australia are right now forming polygamous marriages:
A system of "legal pluralism" based on sharia law "abounds" in Australia, according to new research by legal academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadiq.
They have found that Australian Muslims have long been complying with the shadow system of religious law as well as mainstream law....
The latest research has found that while polygamy is unlawful, mainstream law accommodates men who arrive in Australia with multiple wives and gives some legal standing to multiple partnerships that originate in Australia.
"Valid Muslim polygynist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas, are recognised, with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits," they write.
Changes to the Family Law Act in 2008 meant that polygamous religious marriages entered into in Australia could also be recognised as de facto marriages. "It means a second wife can be validly married under Islamic law . . . and be a defacto wife under Australian law with the same legal entitlements as any other de facto relationship," they write.
I don't see why proponents of polygamous marriage couldn't put up the same "equal rights" argument as gays.
True, I can't see how that you could argue against it. I personally wouldn't want it though.
Adoption is only one of the problems. There is also the surrogacy issue. The Marriage Act is based on biological truth. There are perfectly sound reasons why one would not want to allow adoption or surrogacy by gay people. Placing a child in a situation where the child will learn that it is OK (and if the marriage act is changed, sanctioned by government) and entirely natural for two woman or two men to sexually cavort when it has no foundation in biological truth is grossly irresponsible and ultimately a backward step for society.
If men and woman choose to behave like this it needs to be a private matter as it is now, with the individuals dealing with the morality of that as they see fit.
It seems from some of your comments that you agree with the view that heterosexual relations are entirely in keeping with biology in its natural form, and as you say, children would be better off in an heterosexual traditional marriage environment for that reason. That really is the end of the story. It is not just about love, it is about what is true. Depriving a child the right to a father and a mother is negligent and should never be enshrined in law.
?..My greatest fear is though that marriage will be devalued at a great cost to children.
gg
Agree with you, GG.
I often wonder the ones that advocate for these children, if they have ever been in the position themselves.
Also a great post by dawson
I agree, GG. How adults choose to live is their choice but children have no choice.
Syd, I have already said my views in here, and its to do with marraige and changing the law, thats it.
I think the standard should stay the same for future generations for our children.
Its nice that you talk about your mum, your dad, your nan, your pop, your uncle and who ever else, family to me is important...and that is the essence of this whole thing, the family unit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?