Gay Marriage

[drsmith]

Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.

A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a broader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.

There should be no tax concessions for homosexual partners beyond what there is available for single people or two (or more) single people sharing a residence for the reasons given above.

 

[nioka]

Time to grow up and concentrate on things that really matter, education of women and controls on the worlds birthrate

Rubbish!. In our culture marrige is a union between a man and a woman. Why downgrade it because it doesn't suit some. Let "them" create their own "union". Why take over the true and original creation of marriage. Remember when to be gay meant to be happy. Don't do the same to "marriage" as was done to "gay".

A piece of paper and a ceremony wont really legitimise what is contrary to normal in the evolution field.

Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.

A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a borader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.

Yes!!!!! Agree.
Isn't it funny that those that use Darwin to knock religion aren't using his theories to back the cause of Gay marriage. Or "happy" marriage to use the right interpretation of the word.

 

[explod]

Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.

A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a broader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.

There should be no tax concessions for homosexual partners beyond what there is available for single people or two (or more) single people sharing a residence for the reasons given above.

Rubbish, more than half marriages end in divorce except in cummunities and cultures where men dominate.

A bit less presevation of the species would be helpfull to the planet.

Not talking of consessions to couples but individuals pay taxes and ought to receive equal recognition as citizens.

Raising children, agree on that and only biological opposites ought to have and raise children. However that has nothing to do with the right of all couples of all sexes to have equal State rights

 

[pedalofogus]

Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.

A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a broader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.

There should be no tax concessions for homosexual partners beyond what there is available for single people or two (or more) single people sharing a residence for the reasons given above.

I agree with drsmith 100% in relation to his comments about 'species preservation', and I believe that is the major reason why marriage should be restricted to hetrosexual relationships.

I would actually go a step further than drsmith (in relation to taxation) and say that hetrosexual marriages should be the only way to receive tax concessions for raising children.

ie - I believe that people having children out of wedlock is a side debate that needs to be considered when having a debate about tax concessions for homosexual couples.

 

[ghotib]

Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.

A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a broader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.

There should be no tax concessions for homosexual partners beyond what there is available for single people or two (or more) single people sharing a residence for the reasons given above.

My husband and I married knowing that we could not have children. Are you suggesting that our marriage is in some way less valid or less real because of that? Are you suggesting that our marriage is "nothing more than a friendship"?

My ninety-year old uncle married a 73-year old "child bride" early this year. The Anglican minister who presided in the traditional Anglican service (the bride even said "obey") said he'd had to get special permission to conduct the service outside a church. The service talks about children, but everyone including the archbishop knew that this marriage children were not an issue (pun intended - sorry).

Having and raising children cannot be the defining purpose of marriage. Too many marriages are childless, deliberately or otherwise, and too many children are born and raised outside marriage, for that to make sense.

Ghoti

 

[nioka]

My husband and I married knowing that we could not have children. Are you suggesting that our marriage is in some way less valid or less real because of that? Are you suggesting that our marriage is "nothing more than a friendsh. Ghoti

I am sure that if you decided to have children via adoption that those children would still have the benefit of the normal Mother father relationship.

 

[drsmith]

Rubbish, more than half marriages end in divorce except in cummunities and cultures where men dominate.

A bit less presevation of the species would be helpfull to the planet.

These are seperate issues which in themselves do not justify the elevation of homosexual rights.

Not talking of consessions to couples but individuals pay taxes and ought to receive equal recognition as citizens.

Raising children, agree on that and only biological opposites ought to have and raise children. However that has nothing to do with the right of all couples of all sexes to have equal State rights

Equal rights to do as they wish behind closed doors I have not disputed.

I think you'll find though that "public awareness" of homosexuality is increasingly being changed from the above towards greater access to the public purse and other rights that extend beyond the biological status of their relationship. Rights to raise children could be a future example, either by surrogacy or adoption.

 

[drsmith]

Having and raising children cannot be the defining purpose of marriage. Too many marriages are childless, deliberately or otherwise, and too many children are born and raised outside marriage, for that to make sense.

Ghoti

I'm not attempting to define marriage as a hetrosexual relationship in which there must be children.

Rather, I limiting its definition to hetrosexual relationships as this is the only biological means from which we can produce children.

 

[Julia]

My instinctive response to this is that I don't care one way or the other.
Marriage as an institution seems to have lost much of its value for many reasons. Couples choose to live together, share everything, have children, but don't see any need to have any sort of ceremony around this.
The divorce rate is hardly a testimony to marriage of itself being binding if discomforts arise within relationships.

One of the claims I've seen several times now in support of marriage for homosexual couples alleges it should be 'the right of any couple who love each other to get married, regardless of their gender or any other factor'.

OK, if we accept this (and I'm not at all sure I do), are we not then also obliged to allow people involved in incestuous relationships to marry if they believe they love each other? Or a 60 year old paedophile to marry an 18 year old boy?

Why would there be any limits to what would become acceptable?

Homosexual people can, as far as I know, have a civil union ceremony. What actually do they consider is so different in a marriage ceremony? What would change for them? They already have access to each other's Super etc as I understand it.

If the strength of otherwise of a relationship depends on it being registered somewhere as a 'marriage', then it would hardly appear to be made of very strong stuff in the first place.

I reckon the nation and the parliament could be spending its time much more productively than this. Might be convenient for the government to deflect attention away from the non-scrutiny of the NBN.

 

[explod]

These are seperate issues which in themselves do not justify the elevation of homosexual rights.


Equal rights to do as they wish behind closed doors I have not disputed.

I think you'll find though that "public awareness" of homosexuality is increasingly being changed from the above towards greater access to the public purse and other rights that extend beyond the biological status of their relationship. Rights to raise children could be a future example, either by surrogacy or adoption.

I has nothing to do with homosexual rights, it is to do with equal rights for all persuasions. (all people are equal)

Traditions (and religion if you like) have no part to play in equality.


On the latter we are better served to forget that and unify ourselves in making sure that children are raised by a Mother and a Father.

To achieve the best overall result it may be better to conceed some points. Sure the marriage thing gives them leverage but once isolated I think the communiy will follow on the more important question.

 

[drsmith]

I has nothing to do with homosexual rights, it is to do with equal rights for all persuasions. (all people are equal)

Traditions (and religion if you like) have no part to play in equality.

It's not tradition or religion that determines that partnerships of the same sex cannot preserve the species.

If that's an unacceptable inequality, you'll have to take that up with whatever process is responsible for our existence.

I reckon the nation and the parliament could be spending its time much more productively than this.

Curse those Greens.

They've wasted a good portion of my day.

 

[nomore4s]

I would actually go a step further than drsmith (in relation to taxation) and say that hetrosexual marriages should be the only way to receive tax concessions for raising children.
ie - I believe that people having children out of wedlock is a side debate that needs to be considered when having a debate about tax concessions for homosexual couples.

I don't believe in marriage, it is an out dated belief that I have no interest in wasting my time or money on, yet my family should be discriminated against because my kids were born out of wedlock?

Why anyone cares whether homosexuals can marry or not is beyond me seeing as it has absolutely no effect on any other person besides the couple in question. If people of any persuasion want to get married or not I really don't see why/how that has anything to do with any one else and I really don't see why they should be penalised or discriminated against because of it.

 

[pedalofogus]

I don't believe in marriage, it is an out dated belief that I have no interest in wasting my time or money on, yet my family should be discriminated against because my kids were born out of wedlock?

I'm not saying you can't have children, I am just saying that the payment of support (such as baby bonus, FTB etc) should be restricted to married parents. A scheme like this would make it more of a disincentive for people to have children in bad situations:

1. It is too easy these days for teenagers to get 'knocked up', because the hard working tax payers of Australia are financing their bad decisions.
2. If there were bigger financial disincentives for people to get divorced, then people would firstly, think harder before having children and secondly, be less likely to divorce for trivial reasons.

My wife and sister are both teachers, and both of them swear that 95% of the 'horror students' that they encounter daily come from the 2 backgrounds i have listed above.

More incentives need to be given for people to bring children up in a stable environment, and the fact is that a responsible mother and father are the only ones who can do this. I agree that the 'old fashioned' marriage is a thing of the past, so I'm not saying you have to spend $20grand on a big hoohaa. But i think that there should be a binding contract on parents before they bring a child into the world, so that the best interests of that child are always put first.

There is a reason that humans were created to produce with a male/female relationship, and that is why homosexual relationships can never expect exactly equal rights.

 

[disarray]

part of the problem is calling it "marriage". "marriage" has all these religious and cultural associations that have been around a lot longer than homosexuals have been prancing around in the streets in gay outfits making a spectacle of themselves. calling it "civil union" or something would probably ease some of the butthurt.

and on the topic of gays, the united nations has been massively trolled by an arab and african alliance to allow the persecution and execution of homosexuals. go democracy!

For the last 10 years sexual orientation has been included in a list of discriminatory grounds for executions – gay rights activists say the vote to remove that listing is “dangerous and disturbing.”

The UN resolution urges countries to protect the right to life of all people, calling on them to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. Sexual orientation was previously listed as one of these forms of discrimination, alongside ethnicity, religious belief and linguistic minorities.

Others protected by the resolution were human rights defenders (like journalists, lawyers and demonstrators), street children and members of indigenous communities.

But now sexual orientation has been taken out of the list. The amendment was supported by Benin in Africa on behalf of the African Group in the UN General Assembly. It passed on a narrow vote of 79 for, 70 against , 17 abstentions and 26 absent.

Some of those voting to remove sexual orientation were countries where gays are known to be or thought to be executed or summarily killed including Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iraq.

The UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and many European countries voted in favour of gays.

Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, said: “This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development. It essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people – a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalise homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalising homosexuality.”

 

[pedalofogus]

part of the problem is calling it "marriage". "marriage" has all these religious and cultural associations that have been around a lot longer than homosexuals have been prancing around in the streets in gay outfits making a spectacle of themselves. calling it "civil union" or something would probably ease some of the butthurt.

and on the topic of gays, the united nations has been massively trolled by an arab and african alliance to allow the persecution and execution of homosexuals. go democracy!

butthurt ?? haha

I agree on the use of the word 'marriage'. Marriage in its religious and cultural forms has a lot of flaws and problems. However, the idea of a 'civil union' where people agree to 'honour and obey' is an excellent idea, but only if there are penalties for breaking the contract. It is too easy for people in our society to come and go in the current format of marriages, without many penalties.

I don't know why the homosexual community want to be able to share in the heterosexual form of marriage anyway, why not just create their own union where they can form their own rules. The fact is that they are two different types of relationships.

 

[Calliope]

And why should it be confined to Gays?

 

[nunthewiser]

Im all for it.

whatever floats ones boat.

I have a few friends that like to putt from the rough and they are topnotch partying assets to my circle.

Be a rockin party of a reception

 

[pedalofogus]

hahaha, love the cartoon calliope.

I have a few mates that are excited about these laws being passed. They are hoping that it opens the door for them to start pushing for the law to be changed so they can marry their cousins.

 

[drsmith]

2. If there were bigger financial disincentives for people to get divorced, then people would firstly, think harder before having children and secondly, be less likely to divorce for trivial reasons.

Couples seperate for a variety of reasons, in some cases physical violence. Once children enter this world, they can't exactly be put back in the womb.

Disincentives as such therefore need to be considered in this context.

 

[Julia]

However, the idea of a 'civil union' where people agree to 'honour and obey' is an excellent idea

What? Obey??? Is this tongue in cheek or are you actually serious?

, but only if there are penalties for breaking the contract. It is too easy for people in our society to come and go in the current format of marriages, without many penalties.

The only result of this that should matter is the welfare of any children of the marriage. AFIK, no one has definitively shown whether children emerge more emotionally healthy from an intact marriage where the partners continually fight and tension is rife, than from a single parent household where they regularly spend time with the other parent.

Whichever option a couple chooses, the kids are the casualties.

I have a few mates that are excited about these laws being passed. They are hoping that it opens the door for them to start pushing for the law to be changed so they can marry their cousins.

That's actually a quite serious point that I brought up earlier, i.e. where will it all end if we do not confine 'marriage' to a man and a woman?
The likelihood of genetic defects in a union between first cousins is considerably increased. And if that relationship were to be sanctioned, what would be next? Siblings being allowed to marry?