Gay Marriage

[overhang]

So you think that anyone who accepts this definition is a religious bigot. I think we know who are the bigots.

No I think anyone that opposes this definition "Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship" is a bigot as what logical reason could you have to object to gay marriage?

 

[Whiskers]

This is further evidence that church and state are anything but separated in Australia, keep your religious ideology's out of politics.

First things first... religious ideology, or at least some sort of faith (as in basic principles of living) ideology, is the cornerstone of every civilization whether it's Christian, Muslim, Hindu, communism etc. It's that basic faith that formulated the early common and statute law of the land.

So, to be clear, the gay marriage movement is all about 'Law'. There is nothing to stop gay people living together defacto atm, sharing property or even adopting children.

What I think many people don't understand is the complexity of changing (if at all possible) the marriage act to recognise and protect the child's rights, which would necessitate changes to a number of other statutes not the least of which would be the child support act [the financial liability on the paternal parents] and flowing through the child welfare laws and inheritance, because paternity does factor into custodial issues and estate [Last Will and Testament] law despite some attempts to override paternal rights.

There is nothing to debate, this has no negative effect on anyone but bigots so
just give them their gay marriage

So, give me an example of how the laws would be framed and changed to preserve and protect the paternal legal rights and best interests of the child and paternal parent.

I emphasis this has nothing to do with the quality of individual people or the care (or lack of) they demonstrate toward children, BUT the inherent systemic rights, the LAW that would preserve and protect the child's paternal as well as personal comfort and support interests in a gay marriage if it were deemed to be equal [the same thing] (which in fact it can never be) to a heterosexual marriage.

How are the children brought into the 'Gay Marriage' to be treated by law?

For example some have children via illegal (or overseas) surrogate mothers which have an egg of one of the gay couple fertilised by the surrogate, or someone else and carried by the surrogate, may still have child support payment claims against the paternal parents when the gay 'marriage' breaks down, ie the Child Support Agency usually seeks out the 'PATERNAL' parents to pay for the support of the child in a broken relationship.

already so we can move onto more compelling social issues such as
euthanasia.

WHAT!!!... are you advocating legalising euthanasia is more important than promoting and protecting the best interests of our children to grow into well adjusted and by default more healthy adults with good family support units that by definition won't ever or at least far less frequently will need to even consider euthanasia.

If I may throw a bit of a thorn in the works here... too many people advocate for more rights, such as (legalised) gay marriage, abortion, open all hours pubs/clubs and euthanasia etc, without considering or accepting the responsibilities and consequences that go by 'natural' law with their so passionately sought 'rights'.

Have a look at the overall social and economic health of some of the so called leading free rights countries/states and tell me what you see.

 

[Calliope]

Thanks Whiskers. An excellent response to some of the thoughtless drivel that has appeared on these pages.

 

[gav]

So Whiskers, because it would be "hard" to change the law, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? If it was "hard" to change the law to allow women to vote, or to allow black people to work, does this mean we should not bother?

You are right that religion and government are very similar. Both aim for more control over people, and neither want an individual to think for himself/herself (or act for his/her own interests).

If I may throw a bit of a thorn in the works here... too many people advocate for more rights, such as (legalised) gay marriage, abortion, open all hours pubs/clubs and euthanasia etc, without considering or accepting the responsibilities and consequences that go by 'natural' law with their so passionately sought 'rights'.

Have a look at the overall social and economic health of some of the so called leading free rights countries/states and tell me what you see.

I suppose you support the plain packaging of cigarettes, and limiting the amount people can gamble too? Thousands of people are assaulted/injured every year due to drunken violence, so I guess we should ban everyone from drinking more than 2 drinks per day... Let those who do not consider the responsibilities suffer the consequences. Why should those (who do consider the consequences) be punished because some people are dumb?

If giving people more "rights" is such a bad thing, then why don't we just take all "rights" away?

 

[sails]

Excellent post Whiskas, well said

Agree, has to be some boundaries for our children and future children.

Agree Tink. I worry about the kids in this situation. There seems to be something instinctive in kids to need a mum and a dad.

Yeah hetrosexual families are all perfect loving environments with no abuse or poor parenting issues.

Couldn't agree more and I would think that not all gay 'parents' will offer children a perfectly stable homelife either.

Interesting take on the gay issue found on Andrew Bolt's blog:

A friend, “Wilde Oscar”, writes:

As a Gay man in a long term relationship (20 years) neither I, my partner and our friends in similar relationship agree with this marriage nonsense. Civil partnerships, yes, “Marriage” no. However, I will tell you how they will attack churches who refuse to “marry:” Gays. First, a same sex couple will go to a church and ask if they can be married in the church, when they are refused they will then go to the media and there will be stories with TV pictures or photos of them looking dejected and standing outside the church. The story will be about how much they love each other and want to have their union blessed. Then there will be a demonstration by Gays and Gay marriage supporters outside the church with attacks on the “intolerant” attitudes of Christians who will be describes as homophobic bigots. Just you wait to see
​

Read more: Gay, but not happy about this “reform”

I think there will be ripple effects from this. What about churches who don't agree with homosexuality? Will they be forced to marry people like this? Will marriage celebrants who are uncomfortable be forced to do so? Will there be penalties?

And then will those wanting more than one wife want laws changed for them? Maybe women will want more than one husband? Where will this end?

Link found on Bolt's blog: Plural Marriage is Waiting in the Wings

 

[sails]

Whiskers, great posts...

 

[Whiskers]

So Whiskers, because it would be "hard" to change the law, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? If it was "hard" to change the law to allow women to vote, or to allow black people to work, does this mean we should not bother?

Allowing women and 'black' people equal rights to work and vote was hard for some people philosophically, but it was not hard for the law to accommodate it.

I have no problem with gay relationships per se, my problem is in properly overcoming all the 'legal' framework (some of the main sections mentioned in previous post) so that especially the full rights of the child are not compromised by superficial attempts to fudge certain parts of the law, usually the marriage act, to allow gay 'marriage'... but also that there is no come back on the paternal parents for the likes of child support if the gay relationship breaks down, but at the same time protecting the child's birth right to sooner or later know their paternal parents for social family history, medical diagnosis of hereditary disease reasons etc that they would ordinarily have the right too.

Often when surrogate mothers in particular are involved ( but sometimes in adoption) there is an initial overwhelming desire for one's own desire to have a child, a very possessive feeling. This often involves various legal instruments across international boundaries to try to disenfranchise the paternal parents and the child.

Research of children, teens and even adults who have been adopted or conceived from 'outside' relationships, shows large numbers of them are left shattered to find their 'parents' are not really their paternal parents, that they have been living a lie for the convenience of other 'adults'.

I suppose you support the plain packaging of cigarettes, and limiting the
amount people can gamble too? Thousands of people are assaulted/injured every
year due to drunken violence, so I guess we should ban everyone from drinking
more than 2 drinks per day... Let those who do not consider the
responsibilities suffer the consequences. Why should those (who do consider the
consequences) be punished because some people are dumb?

I think you are focusing too much on the wrong end of the cause and effect equation.
The politicians who make the law and the licensee's who serve the alcohol have responsibilities to go with the rights to trade long hours. Many a case law has found the licensee wanting in terms of limiting alcohol to over indulgent drinkers. In fact many licensees provide the 'fun' atmosphere to get you in, then keep you hooked on the tap once you start losing sobriety to plough more cash out of your pocket. Just a few nights ago I went out for tea with some people to a rather upmarket restaurant and we were surprised how much this one 'pushed' alcohol consumption.

The same story with gambling. Many establishments run sophisticated schemes to 'entice' people to open their wallets as opposed to promoting responsible gambling habits.

The parents in the alcohol, gambling issue are the licensees and politicans. Some of them abuse their responsibilities to the law and their patronage. If they kept their house in order perfectly, the children, the future potential drunken and broke patrons you mention, would tend to learn better socioeconomic behavior.

If giving people more "rights" is such a bad thing, then why don't we just

take all "rights" away?

Basically we are born with the right to do numerous things as per the Common Law of the land. That is we basically have the right to do anything that does not intentionally or negligently cause harm to anyone else. Statute law is more about providing consequences for the lack of responsibility in excessing your rights.

To get back on track with the gay marriage issue, it's not so much about denying gays the right to live together in a formal relationship, but the responsibilities and consequences of being treated equal to heterosexual 'marriage', that come with those rights. Remembering this agenda is all about changing the Law.

We hear a lot about wanting the right to be treated equal' to heterosexual 'marriage', but again I ask, where is the detail about the change in 'legal' responsibilities and consequences with the children that come into gay relationships always from at least one outside paternal parent, that some want to equate to a heterosexual marriage?

 

[Julia]

I suppose you support the plain packaging of cigarettes, and limiting the amount people can gamble too? Thousands of people are assaulted/injured every year due to drunken violence, so I guess we should ban everyone from drinking more than 2 drinks per day... Let those who do not consider the responsibilities suffer the consequences. Why should those (who do consider the consequences) be punished because some people are dumb?

Good lord, that's a peculiar extension of the argument!

If giving people more "rights" is such a bad thing, then why don't we just take all "rights" away?

Gav, that's not worthy of you. Just silly.

If homosexuals already have access to Civil Unions which confer all the rights of a married relationship in financial and legal terms, why is it imperative that they also demand 'marriage' which in the eyes of many people will never mean anything other than that union between a male and female, primarily designed to provide a stable environment for children?

 

[Wysiwyg]

From original post in 2006 ....

Bob Brown was in parliament today arguing that gay marriage should be accepted because it is natural and just and should be a legitimate way for two loving, caring people to express their desire to live together for the rest of their lives, under the full legal auspices of the Australian constitution.

So another promise Julia made to Bob Brown. I was wondering who brought this stupid talk up in government. I mean why even discuss this stuff when there are thousands of more important matters to deal with.
Let those who prefer fondling the same genitals do so and drop the marriage stuff because it is simply an "immoral victory" (for Bob & Co.) rather than an important or responsible piece of governance.

 

[Tink]

Again great posts Whiskas

Children need a mother and father and thats the way it is. Two gays cant have children without help.

People seem to be becoming very selfish about their own rights that they forget about the children.

We have the laws in the state as a standard otherwise where does it stop, and we owe it to our children and all future children to keep it that way.

I dont have a problem with gays being together and adopting and whatever else they choose to do, which they have already, but we need to keep the standard for all future generations that all children need a mother and father and thats the way it should always be.

 

[nomore4s]

I dont have a problem with gays being together and adopting and whatever else they choose to do, which they have already, but we need to keep the standard for all future generations that all children need a mother and father and thats the way it should always be.

This paragraph confuses me a bit.

You have no problem with gays being together and adopting children but you don't want to grant them the right to get married because of the children? TBH I'm not sure what the difference is, according to your statement above the children still need a mother and father but in either case they don't have that.

How is being married or not have any effect on the children if they are being raised in the same family by the same people? This question also applies to hetro couples.

What about all the couples that don't want to have children but want to get married?

Also what about the thousands of children out there that are born of heterosexual relationships/marriages without either a mother or father for whatever reason, the majority seem to cope okay.

To me marriage is an outdated concept being upheld by outdated views from outdated churches and I really don't know what all the fuss is about, if they want to get married let them get married. It's not as though they don't have access to everything marriage provides already so why not let them have their bit of paper it's not going to hurt or affect anyone else, so why worry about it.

 

[PinguPingu]

Again great posts Whiskas

Children need a mother and father and thats the way it is....


..that all children need a mother and father and thats the way it should always be.

I suppose then we should just confiscate the children of single parents and widows.

 

[Tink]

Nomore4s, what happens behind closed doors and probably has for years, there is not much you can do about it, but doesnt mean you have to change the law.
I am not even sure if they can adopt here in Australia, I was just saying.

If you see marraige as an outdated Churchy thing, then good, leave it alone.
The standard should stay the same for our children and all future generations.

 

[overhang]

So, to be clear, the gay marriage movement is all about 'Law'. There is nothing to stop gay people living together defacto atm, sharing property or even adopting children.

What I think many people don't understand is the complexity of changing (if at all possible) the marriage act to recognise and protect the child's rights, which would necessitate changes to a number of other statutes not the least of which would be the child support act [the financial liability on the paternal parents] and flowing through the child welfare laws and inheritance, because paternity does factor into custodial issues and estate [Last Will and Testament] law despite some attempts to override paternal rights.

How are the children brought into the 'Gay Marriage' to be treated by law?

Whiskers this is absolute nonsense, it's a bit of misdirection to try and change the issue from marriage equality to children's rights. There are legal issues regarding adoption and children from previous relationships, but this is true for all unmarried couples so why single out same sex couples?

Gay couples can already adopt children in several states so I don’t see how marriage will exacerbate children’s rights. By your logic all single parents, widows, unmarried couples should have their children removed from their care. Children with married parents have no additional rights that unmarried couples children obtain. The "children" issue is a simple smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact that there is no solid argument against gay marriage.

WHAT!!!... are you advocating legalising euthanasia is more important than promoting and protecting the best interests of our children to grow into well adjusted and by default more healthy adults with good family support units that by definition won't ever or at least far less frequently will need to even consider euthanasia.

If I may throw a bit of a thorn in the works here... too many people advocate for more rights, such as (legalised) gay marriage, abortion, open all hours pubs/clubs and euthanasia etc, without considering or accepting the responsibilities and consequences that go by 'natural' law with their so passionately sought 'rights'.

Have a look at the overall social and economic health of some of the so called leading free rights countries/states and tell me what you see.

Well you completely misconstrued what I said, how exactly did I imply that euthanasia is more important than children's rights? But since you must obviously read the ACL newsletter you would know that children's rights are always prevalent issue and always will be. Children's rights will never be perfect and are generally a subjective nature so does that mean we should sweep every other social issue under the carpet as to appease the religious nutjobs?

 

[Miss Hale]

I suppose then we should just confiscate the children of single parents and widows.

Of course not, just because there are circumstances where the ideal situation doesn't prevail doesn't mean we should set out to create less than ideal circumstances. Children of single parents had a mother and a father at some point as did children of widows (or widowers for that matter). Children brought up by gay couples are denied a mother and a father right from the start.

 

[gav]

Good lord, that's a peculiar extension of the argument!

Not really. Whiskers stumbled down the path of people wanting "too many rights", and claiming those rights were not given because they could not handle the responsibilities/consequences. My comment was merely to illustrate that by preventing those who cannot handle the responsibilities/consequences, you unjustly punish everyone else.

If homosexuals already have access to Civil Unions which confer all the rights of a married relationship in financial and legal terms, why is it imperative that they also demand 'marriage' which in the eyes of many people will never mean anything other than that union between a male and female, primarily designed to provide a stable environment for children?

Well if they already have all the financial and legal terms, why is it imperative that you deny them a piece of paper that states they are married?

As for the second part, are you claiming that a homosexual couple cannot provide a stable environment for children?

 

[wayneL]

I don't give a fat rat's @ss either way.

I don't understand it, but don't pretend to understand the issues either.

As a libertarian, as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's liberties, I say let 'em have their piece of paper.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I don't give a fat rat's @ss either way.

I don't understand it, but don't pretend to understand the issues either.

As a libertarian, as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's liberties, I say let 'em have their piece of paper.

Agree totally Wayne,

The argument amongst the proletariat is what it detracts from "Marriage".

Most would agree with Gays having equal rights.

And this will destroy the ALP in the coming election, whenever it comes.

gg

 

[sptrawler]

Agree totally Wayne,

The argument amongst the proletariat is what it detracts from "Marriage".

Most would agree with Gays having equal rights.

And this will destroy the ALP in the coming election, whenever it comes.

gg

I don't know why the gays are chasing marriage.
Half the blokes I know say it isn't everything it's crapped up to be.

 

[Julia]

Well if they already have all the financial and legal terms, why is it imperative that you deny them a piece of paper that states they are married?

As for the second part, are you claiming that a homosexual couple cannot provide a stable environment for children?

I honestly don't know, gav. I've never known a homosexual couple who have brought up children so I'm not in a position to comment.

What I'm conscious of is the way children are discriminated against in school and generally as they're growing up if they're 'different'. But perhaps being in a family where both your mother and your father are female or both male is no longer unusual and the kid will not be bullied and laughed at as a result. I simply don't know.

I couldn't give a stuff one way or the other re homosexuals being married, but I can see that the ramifications (e.g. churches suddenly obliged to marry people of the same sex totally against all they believe in) might be far reaching and cause much angst to those who feel strongly that marriage is between a male and female.

My main point in all this is that imo it's a totally minor issue and I'm immensely irritated that the Labor Party - in the face of global financial chaos and so much that needs to be fixed like border protection - is so utterly focused on this issue.
I find such a focus to be a gross dereliction of their duty to the country.