Gay Marriage

[Tink]

I think we know what Tink is on about. The prospect of forced politeness is aggravating. There are already vilification laws in place where they weren't required for multiple generations before, but for the very few who couldn't care less about being pinged in exchange for hurling abuse.

We all know that the marriage act will be changed, merely by the onslaught of the opinion leaders. It's only right those who put great importance in marriage should be able to put in the good fight and go down screaming. Any negatives and failures on future generations will be the responsibility of future generations....probably thuggery Muslim the way we are giving them guest treatment.

That is exactly what I meant, Tisme.

As you said once, the untouchables.

Syd, I don't know how many times I have said, everyone has a story to tell that arrived in this country.

Everyone yelling out, discrimination, is becoming a joke.

I am standing up for Marriage, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

 

[overhang]

Why to you continue to connect two utterly unconnected issues? It seems extrordinary to me that you would advocate continued discrimination on one issue, unless new discrimination was introduced on an entirely different issue.

How is that justifiable?

Gay people have always been able to have children, and realistically no change to the law could possibly prevent them from having children. It would likewise be impossible to prevent gay couples using surrogacy.

Perhaps you need to start another thread to discuss what appears to be an important issue to you, maybe its much broader than whether gay couples should be able to adopt or access IVF, there are plenty of straight parent and single parent families where the kids are in an unsuitable family environment. It really isnt an issue for discussion about marriage though, given that whether or not people are married has nothing to do with having kids.

+1. I'm so sick of hearing this is all about the children on this issue when it's a complete separate one.

Go and ask many high school kids if there parents are still together and about a third to half are going to tell you their parents are divorced. There is no sanctity of marriage and hasn't been for a long time, people need to stop trying to cling on to this as to avoid progress.

 

[Tisme]

Railing against the ubiquitous machine that has replaced God and w4ores itself as Democracy. The world is bored stiff and looking for things to champion.

 

[SirRumpole]

+1. I'm so sick of hearing this is all about the children on this issue when it's a complete separate one.

Go and ask many high school kids if there parents are still together and about a third to half are going to tell you their parents are divorced. There is no sanctity of marriage and hasn't been for a long time, people need to stop trying to cling on to this as to avoid progress.

If there is no sanctity of marriage as you put it, then what is the fuss all about ?

People who love each other will stay together regardless of whether they are married or not. Why are gays so insistent on having something of such little value ?

Hets get married and break up, and so will gays. It all seems so pointless if people don't bother keeping their marriage vows.

 

[overhang]

If there is no sanctity of marriage as you put it, then what is the fuss all about ?

People who love each other will stay together regardless of whether they are married or not. Why are gays so insistent on having something of such little value ?

Hets get married and break up, and so will gays. It all seems so pointless if people don't bother keeping their marriage vows.

As far as I'm concerned if this helps one of the most marginalized groups in society feel more accepted then I'm all for it. These people are still executed in some non-western countries and in western countries gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth.

Perhaps this might help the sanctity of marriage as it may reduce the number of men and women that hide in the closet for years, get married start a family only to realise that they can't hide something they were naturally born with and subsequently ruin that family when they come out.

 

[SirRumpole]

As far as I'm concerned if this helps one of the most marginalized groups in society feel more accepted then I'm all for it. These people are still executed in some non-western countries and in western countries gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth.

Perhaps this might help the sanctity of marriage as it may reduce the number of men and women that hide in the closet for years, get married start a family only to realise that they can't hide something they were naturally born with and subsequently ruin that family when they come out.

Why bring up a straw man of what happens in other countries ? It's totally irrelevant to this debate.

Gays are not marginalised in this country. They are judges, politicians, scientists, journalists, artists, musicians, businessmen and anything else you care to name. So the marginalisation argument is a straw man.

Marriage does not guarantee fidelity. Legal considerations can be covered by civil unions. Marriage defines a family structure, mother, father, children ; something that is not applicable to SS couples.

 

[overhang]

Why bring up a straw man of what happens in other countries ? It's totally irrelevant to this debate.

Gays are not marginalised in this country. They are judges, politicians, scientists, journalists, artists, musicians, businessmen and anything else you care to name. So the marginalisation argument is a straw man.

Marriage does not guarantee fidelity. Legal considerations can be covered by civil unions. Marriage defines a family structure, mother, father, children ; something that is not applicable to SS couples.

It's relevant because it shows that society as a whole collective still has trouble accepting them.

Gays certainty feel marginalised in this country-

LGBTI people have significantly poorer mental health and higher rates of
suicide than other Australians

LGBTI people have the highest rates of suicidality of any
population in Australia.Same-sex attracted Australians have up to 14x higher rates of
suicide attempts than their heterosexual peers.
17
Rates are 6x
higher for same-sex attracted young people (20-42% cf.
7-13%).
1

https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/...lth-and-suicide-2013-2nd-edition.pdf?sfvrsn=2


Marriage doesn't define children at all or mother and father, I don't know where you get that from, the current definition of marriage is "Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia"
Your welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

[SirRumpole]

Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia"

So what legal rights IN AUSTRALIA are available to marriages BUT NOT Civil Unions ?

 

[overhang]

So what legal rights IN AUSTRALIA are available to marriages BUT NOT Civil Unions ?

The legal right to have their loving relationship named the same as a loving heterosexual relationship. This all comes back to feeling marginalised. Again I can't see how this will impact any normal person in a negative way but goes someway to the gay and lesbian community feeling more equal in society as clearly right now as my stats have shown they have difficulty feeling accepted.

 

[sydboy007]

So what legal rights IN AUSTRALIA are available to marriages BUT NOT Civil Unions ?

In your mind if a heterosexual couple said they're civil unioned, would you immediately think they're married, or would you ask them to clarify?

Prove that society would equate the two equally and you might have a decent argument against SSM.

I doubt the top answer on family feud for a word to describe a relationship is going to be civil union.

You cannot be married and have a civil union.

130 years ago the definition of voting was what men decide. If you exclude a group from a process, then claim it has been this way all the time, it's not a particularly strong argument against change.

Australian law already severs marriage from its historical basis in legitimising sex and having children, and is so manifestly not interested in protecting families from real ravages (i.e. by banning gambling, alcohol, adultery etc.). But the state will give the benefits of marriage to anyone except same-sex couples. One can only conclude that the ban on same-sex couples is discrimination against homosexuals as homosexuals.

It's not sentimental to say that a right to equal treatment is a guiding principle of our liberal society - discrimination needs good reason to be legitimate. Mere moral disapproval, even by a majority, is not grounds to forfeit this equality - ice-addicts with criminal records can wed with the state's blessing, and I'm sure they enjoy less public approval than Penny Wong and her family.

Maybe a way forward for our secular state is how France has moved forward on the issue.

France in 1999 developed its system of civil unions as a way of allowing same-sex couples to have a formal, legally-recognised relationship with the same legal and taxation rights as a marriage.
It is known as the "Pacte civil de solidarite" or PACS.

Marriage in France was restricted to heterosexuals until May 2013, and French-style civil unions cover both heterosexual and homosexual couples .

Since 2000 France has witnessed more heterosexual couples taking up civil unions - as opposed to marriages – and relatively fewer same-sex couples taking up civil unions.

In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 percent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples, the New York Times reported on December 15, 2010.

"That trend has only strengthened since then: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 percent were between heterosexual couples," the New York Times reports http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/europe/16france.html?_r=0

Let the people choose how they want to describe their relationship. Might make for an interesting statement on the debate if we saw a strong uptake of civil unions by heterosexuals, even if doing so limited their ability in terms of surrogacy and adoption.

 

[SirRumpole]

Prove that society would equate the two equally and you might have a decent argument against SSM.

If marriage and civil unions are equal in law, then I see no reason why society would not say one is as good as the other.

 

[sydboy007]

If marriage and civil unions are equal in law, then I see no reason why society would not say one is as good as the other.

so social constructs are to be view only on a legal basis? That's not how any society has worked at any time in history.

Words have connotations and history.

Not even the religious right would try the argument that civil unions and marriages are viewed as the same by society.

But leets follow the French example. Make civil unions available to all, give them the exact same rights as under the marriage act, and lets see how individuals choose to make their way forward. No need for a plebiscite. No need to have ongoing debate. Just make civil unions exactly like a marriage as viewed by the state, make the formal process as similar to marriage as possible, and be done with it. Wont surprise me if you find the more secular will happily trade the archaic term of marriage.

 

[SirRumpole]

Make civil unions available to all, give them the exact same rights as under the marriage act, and lets see how individuals choose to make their way forward.

Fine, but if this is the case, what reason has the gay lobby got left to force their way into the marriage business ?

 

[sydboy007]

Fine, but if this is the case, what reason has the gay lobby got left to force their way into the marriage business ?

I suppose that's a question to be asked when it happens.

Some may still want to fight for it, others might wait and see.

Hiopefully it stops the fear mongering by those against SSM that gays are a danger to children that must be protected against. I'm sick of being told I'm having a detrimental affect on children. Religion has done more harm to children than gay marriage ever will.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm sick of being told I'm having a detrimental affect on children.

Obviously you as an individual don't have a detrimental affect on children unless you are a pedophile and I doubt that very much, however you have said that you would not have chosen to be gay so I can't see why you are trying to force gay parents onto children who are not gay. Is this some form of reverse revenge ?

 

[Tisme]

It's relevant because it shows that society as a whole collective still has trouble accepting them.

.

But that will never change. It's just natural to identify differences and apply the herd or pride prejudices, certainly subliminally if not overtly. It doesn't mean there is hate or disgust involved, but acceptance is something that cannot be legislated.

 

[sydboy007]

Obviously you as an individual don't have a detrimental affect on children unless you are a pedophile and I doubt that very much, however you have said that you would not have chosen to be gay so I can't see why you are trying to force gay parents onto children who are not gay. Is this some form of reverse revenge ?

So obviously my straight parents were out to do me harm. Are biological parents on some nasty trip sometimes making their children gay? Sexuality is such a small part of who a person is. I'd like to call it trivial, but too many people make it out to be otherwise for that to be true yet.

Seriously, this debate is about as far from the topic as one can get.

How about you get some evidence from the countries that have had same sex marriage and the civil union equivalent for 15-25 years.

Surely that is long enough to show some harm to children and society at large. Surely if there was any harm to be reported the religious right in the USA would have been shouting it from the roof tops. Denmark has had civil unions since 1999. So before you make more unsubstantiated claims, do some research and see what their experience has been and report back on it. Or not, because you might end up having your bigoted views challenged by facts, and as the debate on this topic has show, facts and reality are not part of the anti SSM lexicon.

We have heterosexual politicians proclaiming it's all about the children, yet they force the scourge of pokie machines onto the public, destroying the lives of how many tens of thousands? Same politicians who fight against needle exchanges and safe injecting rooms, increasing risks and the spread of disease. The same heterosexual people who fight against any drug policies that could save the precious lives of youth.

As for not choosing to be gay, well if we'd had a liberal society that didn't have homosexuality still illegal when I was born, didn't think pooftah bashing was a national sport and pastime during my early into teen years , where even today queers are still targets of violence, then I'd never had to even think about whether I'd choose to be different from the majority. Certainly life is much easier for younger gays in many ways, but when they have to hear some of the crap sprouted by those against SSM, well you know you're still viewed as an outsider.

 

[Tisme]

LGBTI people have the highest rates of suicidality of any
population in Australia.Same-sex attracted Australians have up to 14x higher rates of
suicide attempts than their heterosexual peers.
17
Rates are 6x
higher for same-sex attracted young people (20-42% cf.
7-13%).
1.

I recall going through the numbers on this on another discussion board. Coming of a very small base the suicide rate was something like 1 and a bit people per year after the natural rate across all sectors was taken out.

 

[Tisme]

So obviously my straight parents were out to do me harm. Are biological parents on some nasty trip sometimes making their children gay? Sexuality is such a small part of who a person is. I'd like to call it trivial, but too many people make it out to be otherwise for that to be true yet.

Seriously, this debate is about as far from the topic as one can get.

How about you get some evidence from the countries that have had same sex marriage and the civil union equivalent for 15-25 years.

Surely that is long enough to show some harm to children and society at large. Surely if there was any harm to be reported the religious right in the USA would have been shouting it from the roof tops. Denmark has had civil unions since 1999. So before you make more unsubstantiated claims, do some research and see what their experience has been and report back on it. Or not, because you might end up having your bigoted views challenged by facts, and as the debate on this topic has show, facts and reality are not part of the anti SSM lexicon.

We have heterosexual politicians proclaiming it's all about the children, yet they force the scourge of pokie machines onto the public, destroying the lives of how many tens of thousands? Same politicians who fight against needle exchanges and safe injecting rooms, increasing risks and the spread of disease. The same heterosexual people who fight against any drug policies that could save the precious lives of youth.

As for not choosing to be gay, well if we'd had a liberal society that didn't have homosexuality still illegal when I was born, didn't think pooftah bashing was a national sport and pastime during my early into teen years , where even today queers are still targets of violence, then I'd never had to even think about whether I'd choose to be different from the majority. Certainly life is much easier for younger gays in many ways, but when they have to hear some of the crap sprouted by those against SSM, well you know you're still viewed as an outsider.

Not trying to dilute your anger at poofta bashing and the like (which is a low act), but there have been many posts here that, for example, use the deep south black suppression as example for Australia's refusal to accept gay marriage. Applying the same logic it we could say that bashing of ginger headed people around the night club precincts is predicated on the hate for gays?

 

[SirRumpole]

We have heterosexual politicians proclaiming it's all about the children, yet they force the scourge of pokie machines onto the public, destroying the lives of how many tens of thousands?

Poker machines ? That's more off topic than children in this debate.