Gay Marriage

[Tink]

Bellenuit, they have Civil Unions which caters for Gays, and gives them all the rights they need.

The family unit, with a mother, father and THEIR child is different to a gay couple with two men and a baby that was bought.

How can you say that is equal.

The family unit is the foundation of society and should be strengthened and taught to all children in schools as Marriage.
I see no reason for it to be changed.

Giving rights to one, takes it from another, and this is the children.

Rinse and repeat, we have been through this many times.

 

[MrBurns]

Agree Tink for a few reasons mainly for the sake of the children. Though same sex adoption is legal in a few states. I don't agree with it but that's the way it is.

 

[luutzu]

It's not enough just to cuddle up for many. In the hetro world there's a tradition and peer pressure at play. The circus includes a try before you buy engagement which is supposed to take the couple off the market and out of temptation's way. There's even a conjugal rights clause in some instances that can nullify a marriage after a short warranty period.


I suspect in the homo world there is protest, recognition, destruction of norms, financial gain, etc that are major factors, because marriage is not a tradition for them and I suspect monogamy is also a sham given the different value systems that inspire the promiscuous homosexual behaviour in the first place.

The whole push for "equality" of a sect that is obviously different is ridiculous, simply because an apple is an apple and cannot be an orange, but there are obviously a lot of oranges in Ireland who can spot a green and shoot it, but mistake an apple for a citrus fruit.

I know that there is a load of poly waffle about declaration of love, rings that bind, God blessing and any other June Alllison mush factor and mockery that Hollywood can think up, but we lads know the never to be spoken truth on who generally wants the marriage thing and a ring on finger to show her GFss

I say that if the govts have historically written bills and legislation to financially encourage a nation of naturally conceiving families and they are now being modified to embrace impossible to naturally conceive couple, then why not just scrap the whole govt interfering in marriages and hand that back to Churches who thought up the idea in the first place for fun and profit:-.

No taxpayer incentives for people who are stupid enough to have kids, silly enough to get married and dumb enough not to write a will. No widows style pensions, no family tax concessions,....... nothing left but a level playing field and the love that apparently needs a population to appreciate via the ballot box, a love that will keep 'em together. Let's see how quick the bleeding hearts will give up their support of gay rights, let's see how the gay marriages evaporate .. it's basic child rearing tactics, but effective to get to the core of nonsense.

Think of the debt reduction if we did away with govt interference and incentives for married people.

You're a bit too optimistic about heterosexuals and traditional marriages.

There's the lying, the cheating, the mental and physical abuses between spouses and on to the children, the abandonment and chasing after skirts or chasing after prestige or wealthier partners...

Then there's the single hetero who sleeps around, sleeps with married co-workers and just shrugs it off like it's nothing.

As Sydboy implied above... there really isn't anything a homosexual could or would do that the hetero haven't.

Promiscuity and moral standards are not higher or lower between the two sexual preferences. God is quite fair that way, haha... keep us on our feet me think.


----

One of the ways to keep social order and higher tax revenue is to encourage marriage - gay or otherwise.

When a person is young there are no chain and ball attached so they move and quit jobs if it's not to their liking; take long holidays and time off to "find themselves" and other nice but tax-light activities. Put a ring around that finger and you know... no more protests and questioning of gov't policies... it's heads down and bums up to pay the bills and put food on the table.

 

[luutzu]

Bellenuit, they have Civil Unions which caters for Gays, and gives them all the rights they need.

The family unit, with a mother, father and THEIR child is different to a gay couple with two men and a baby that was bought.

How can you say that is equal.

The family unit is the foundation of society and should be strengthened and taught to all children in schools as Marriage.
I see no reason for it to be changed.

Giving rights to one, takes it from another, and this is the children.

Rinse and repeat, we have been through this many times.

Nothing beats teaching children that while all people are equal, some are just more equal than others.

 

[sydboy007]

Bellenuit, they have Civil Unions which caters for Gays, and gives them all the rights they need.

The family unit, with a mother, father and THEIR child is different to a gay couple with two men and a baby that was bought.

How can you say that is equal.

The family unit is the foundation of society and should be strengthened and taught to all children in schools as Marriage.
I see no reason for it to be changed.

Giving rights to one, takes it from another, and this is the children.

Rinse and repeat, we have been through this many times.

The Tink family unit Scale

Gold - Mum Dad and kids

Silver - Single parent and kids

Bronze - Single people

Outside society - anything that doesn't fit into the above

At school ensure the kids know howe society rates their family. Would be like going back 50+ years.

Just exactly what rights do gay people need? Or, to phrase it a bit better, what rights do you believe they deserve? I often wonder if you were against the decriminalising of homosexuality?

Do you believe gay people are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals? There evidence of it.

 

[SirRumpole]

The Tink family unit Scale

Gold - Mum Dad and kids

Silver - Single parent and kids

Bronze - Single people

Outside society - anything that doesn't fit into the above

At school ensure the kids know howe society rates their family. Would be like going back 50+ years.

Just exactly what rights do gay people need? Or, to phrase it a bit better, what rights do you believe they deserve? I often wonder if you were against the decriminalising of homosexuality?

Do you believe gay people are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals? There evidence of it.

As far as consenting adults are concerned, do what you like but don't expect the rest of us to believe that's it's not weird. Where children are concerned, personally I believe they need BOTH biological parents in a happy relationship for the best upbringing.

The argument "yes but a lot of heterosexual marriages break down" doesn't cut it because the promiscuity rate among homosexuals has been shown to be a lot higher than for hets as evidenced by the rapid spread of HIV in gay communities.

There is no evidence that gays would necessarily be better, or as good parents than hets, all else being equal.

People offering "after market" parenting services like IVF or adoption should be allowed to discriminate against gays, after all Nature does. And I'm not talking about God, just evolution.

 

[jbocker]

Gday SirRumpole

... Where children are concerned, personally I believe they need BOTH biological parents in a happy relationship for the best upbringing.

Sadly not always the case.

... The argument "yes but a lot of heterosexual marriages break down" doesn't cut it because the promiscuity rate among homosexuals has been shown to be a lot higher than for hets as evidenced by the rapid spread of HIV in gay communities.

I agree with your view on the promiscuity rate, So let Gays get married who want to commit to a relationship.

... There is no evidence that gays would necessarily be better, or as good parents than hets, all else being equal.

Is there evidence they wont be? I believe that is down to the person themselves. Any man can be a great father if he chooses to be.

... People offering "after market" parenting services like IVF or adoption should be allowed to discriminate against gays, after all Nature does. And I'm not talking about God, just evolution.

I don't know what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting a man does not have a right to have his own biological child and raise it?
Don't know how far you want to swing the Nature argument but Evolution has created examples of where males look after the brood. It is not common but exists, and makes it 'weird'. There aint nothing weirder in nature than our own species.
Cheers.

 

[SirRumpole]

I agree with your view on the promiscuity rate, So let Gays get married who want to commit to a relationship.

I don't understand that argument. Promiscuity is a state of mind, a willingness to have many partners. Why do people need marriage to have a stable relationships ? If two people actually love each other they will be faithfull to each other whether they are married or not. Many unmarried people, gay and het have had long term stable relationships without marriage.

Are you suggesting a man does not have a right to have his own biological child and raise it?

What about children's rights to know and be raised by their biological parents ? The hereditary bond is so strong that many IVF children spend years searching for a biological parent. No loving parent would put a child through that.

We are also talking about the "rights" of two people to raise "their" children. Parenting is or should be a two person exercise. Relationships break up, but children usually have contact and access with both parents during their lives.

 

[Tink]

Syd, as I have said many times throughout this thread, I don't have a problem with gays.
This isn't pointed at you, but generally, this is the problem with this debate, we are all howled down as homophobic if we disagree.

There are many gays that have said exactly what I am saying now, that marriage shouldn't be changed away from the family unit, that a mother and father are important in a child's life.They love their parents and are grateful they were raised with them.
They were howled down for even voicing those opinions, and this is where this whole debate is wrong and hijacked by the PC hoardes.
All those countries that have allowed Gay Marriage are run by PC.
Every morning they get up and say, what are we forced to agree with today.

A few countries have said no because of the children and I congratulate them for being honest and saying it as it is - I am thinking of Germany here and her speech.

In society there is much that is legal that I don't agree with personally, but that is humans and they are free to do as they please.
Changing it to marriage because of discrimination is wrong, or because they pay taxes.
That is not what marriage is.

Standing up for traditional marriage is standing up for the family unit, and children being with their mother and father.

Trainspotter put up an article of two men that met by accident and didn't know they were brothers, this is the problem we create, where we have children everywhere that don't even know they have the same parents.

Marriage is about keeping families together, mother and father, and taking responsibility to raise their children.

 

[Tisme]

Marriage is about keeping families together, mother and father, and taking responsibility to raise their children.

At least that is the goal for many. It seems failure to launch by the few is grounds enough for chameleons to fill the voids left by that failure.


It seems to me (and bear in mind I mainly think marriage is worthwhile to legitimise children's self worth as part of a galvanised family, not a social experiment or tilt at windmills) that the old "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck" is enough for people to agree that we are all ducks with the same duck value systems and therefore any man made lake is a great place to sh!t3 in even if it starves the oxygen, pollutes and kills the food source.

 

[Value Collector]

Bellenuit, they have Civil Unions which caters for Gays, and gives them all the rights they need.

The family unit, with a mother, father and THEIR child is different to a gay couple with two men and a baby that was bought.

.

Where in the marriage laws does it say marriage has anything to do with children?

If a straight couple that can't have children can get married, then a gay couple should be able to.

Every marriage is different, you are just trying to push your personal views onto others.

If your son or daughter can't have and didn't plan to have children, would youwant them to have a "civil union" rather than a marriage?

and who says gays can't have children any way, the science exists that would let an embryo be produced using the DNA of two eggs, rather than a sperm and an egg.

So a lesbian couple have two wombs, and two egg sources, in the future they will be able to produce biological children. What would your argument be against them getting married then?

 

[Tisme]

If a straight couple that can't have children can get married, then a gay couple should be able to.

So you are saying that couples should have fertility and compatibility tests before their marriage is legally recognised? Isn't that discriminating against hetrosexuals?

I'm still quizzical what it is that drives your crusade to promote homosexual marriage? It's not like you are a bleeding heart or even approaching socialism.

 

[sydboy007]

So you are saying that couples should have fertility and compatibility tests before their marriage is legally recognised? Isn't that discriminating against hetrosexuals?

I'm still quizzical what it is that drives your crusade to promote homosexual marriage? It's not like you are a bleeding heart or even approaching socialism.

What is the difference between the arguments against interacial marriages in say the USA 50+ years ago and against gay marriage now?

As VC has stated, marriages can occurr without children. Sometimes that is by choice, sometimes because of biology.

Would you deny a retired couple to get married because it's likely they can't have children? Isn't marriage more about the two people getting married, and the way society views their relationship? Civil unions don't carry the same "respect" within society, let alone defacto relationships. There's till a negative view from some int he community against sex outside of marriage.

Some slogans from the USA against interracial marriages:

• Race mixing is communism
• This type of legal marriage must be forbidden simply because natural instinct revolts at is as wrong (republican senator)
• God disapproves - The fact he separated the races shows the he did not intend for the races to mix
• The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results
• The underlying factors that constitute justifications for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages
• The progeny of a marriage between negro and cuacasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races
• Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration."

Do you believe any of the above is true?

 

[Tink]

If they don't have a referendum on this and let the public talk, this will always be an issue.

NINE POLL - Majority oppose Same Sex Marriage

Yes – 47% [41,387]agree to change to Marriage Act
No – 53% [46,498] OPPOSE change to Marriage Act

@ 5PM WST 28 May 2015


http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...u-readers-have-their-say-on-same-sex-marriage

 

[Value Collector]

So you are saying that couples should have fertility and compatibility tests before their marriage is legally recognised? Isn't that discriminating against hetrosexuals?

.

I am not saying that, I am happy for anyone to marry any other consenting adult regardless. Tink and others here are saying marriage is about children, and saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage is about raising children, by that logic we should be excluding anyone who can't or doesn't plan to have children.

I'm still quizzical what it is that drives your crusade to promote homosexual marriage?

Simply because I believe it's the right thing to do, a society that treats people as equals is a better place to live. If I have children that turn out to be homosexual or lesbian, I want society to treat them no differently as anyone else.



I also don't think it's right to ban things that can't be shown to be harmful, I honestly can not see a single reason why a homosexual or lesbian couple can not be married just as any other couple can, I mean it doesn't affect me, it won't affect you, so why ban it?

It's not like you are a bleeding heart or even approaching socialism

No. I am not a bleeding heart, But I do like to do the right thing, and I have no idea what socialism has to do with gay marriage.

 

[Value Collector]

If they don't have a referendum on this and let the public talk, this will always be an issue.

NINE POLL - Majority oppose Same Sex Marriage

Yes – 47% [41,387]agree to change to Marriage Act
No – 53% [46,498] OPPOSE change to Marriage Act

@ 5PM WST 28 May 2015


http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...u-readers-have-their-say-on-same-sex-marriage

that's pretty close, but anyway a poll of less than 100,000 can't be taken as a representation of the country, I mean I think a greater portion of the older generations probably are represented there.

When it's younger people surveyed, the results are enormously in favour of gay marriage. So you are on the losing side tink, by the day your support base are dwindling and ours is growing, trying to stop gay marriage will be as futile as trying to stop the tides.

I just think we may as well get it done asap, so more people can benefit from it, rather than let it drag on.

Support for gay marriage among Generation Y, also known as the Millennial Generation, has reached 70%, according to a poll released Thursday (21 March) by The Pew Research Center. Not only is this level of support among those 18-32 far higher than the support among older generations, it has grown dramatically from 51% 10 years ago. This is particularly significant since 'Millennials' make up 27% of the adult population today compared to 9% in 2003. Overall, support is at 49% compared to 33% in 2003. Generation X, people born between 1965 and 1980, are at a 49% acceptance rate of gay marriage - up 8 percentage points. - See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...iage-rapid-pace-us220313#sthash.gRNXi386.dpuf

 

[Hodgie]

When it's younger people surveyed, the results are enormously in favour of gay marriage. So you are on the losing side tink, by the day your support base are dwindling and ours is growing, trying to stop gay marriage will be as futile as trying to stop the tides.

I would have to agree there, I'm Gen Y as are the major portion of my friends, I see huge support for gay marriage coming from the people I know, especially from young females.

 

[McLovin]

that's pretty close, but anyway a poll of less than 100,000 can't be taken as a representation of the country, I mean I think a greater portion of the older generations probably are represented there.

Umm...It's a web poll. It's for novelty purposes only.

 

[Boggo]

If they don't have a referendum on this and let the public talk, this will always be an issue.

NINE POLL - Majority oppose Same Sex Marriage

Yes – 47% [41,387]agree to change to Marriage Act
No – 53% [46,498] OPPOSE change to Marriage Act

@ 5PM WST 28 May 2015

Bear in mind that a portion of the vote in Ireland was a direct message of opposition to the Catholic church as a result of its arrogant approach to the Irish public in ensuring that its criminal pedophiles were protected at all costs.

You will find that the church here will adopt a neutral stance in this debate as any opposition to same sex marriage might result in a similiar effect especially while the likes of Pell etc were moving their criminals around and now they have had to "promote" him away from the problem he has left behind.

 

[Junior]

I'm in my early 30s. My social media feeds are a constant stream of very strong support for gay marriage...and none opposing.

If support is say 70% for people under 40 years old now, how strong will support be in 10 or 20 years? I'm not saying younger folks opinion matter more, I'm saying the majority of marriages are amongst younger individuals, it's absolutely inevitable, so let's just get it done and we can stop hearing about it, and debate other important issues.

For those opposed, consider the fact that legalisation of gay marriage will not impact on your life or anyone you know.

It's yet another area where this country is living in the past, and lagging other developed economies.