Homosexuality in Australia (15 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

It's a marriage that has nothing to do with religion.

Civil marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion, I know.

But what is it?!! Can anyone answer? What is it's purpose in society, past and present?

 

[zaxmacks]

Civil marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion, I know.

But what is it?!! Can anyone answer?

I just told you. It's a marriage, which isn't performed by a religious organisation.

 

[Name_Taken]

I just told you. It's a marriage, which isn't performed by a religious organisation.

You haven't told me.

1. What defines a civil marriage, basically; what it is (other than it has nothing to do with religion).

or

2. What its purpose in society is?

 

[zaxmacks]

You haven't told me.

1. What defines a civil marriage, basically; what it is (other than it has nothing to do with religion).

or

2. What its purpose in society is?

Have you had a stroke or something? It's exactly the same as any marriage, just done by non-religious dudes. That's what defines it.

...

 

[meeatu]

But what is it?!! Can anyone answer? What is it's purpose in society, past and present?

What precisely is Mariages purpose in society?
Since when did such things require a purpose anyway?

As for what it is...
It's a sign, nothing more.

A sign to the individuals, that they love eachother.
A sign to the people as a whole that they are accepted
A sign to religeous gays that god is one that is understanding and caring and the sort of god that they could feel a true love for and accept as part of their lives.

Myself...?
I'm more pessimistic.
I'm not going to fassion a god to suit my likings, I'm not going to reserve my love unless a god fits the resume'.
Fuck god.
Spirituality needs not stem from a deity.
And personally, I don't want the approval of your god or the 'privelige' or marriage (or even civil union) There is much more beauty in simply celebrating love as it is.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Civil marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion, I know.

But what is it?!! Can anyone answer? What is it's purpose in society, past and present?

i have stated this many times now. the reason why people want to get married is to:
1) solidify their commitment
2) to declare their love for one another to the world
3) to celebrate their relationship

4) to have children? i think not. otherwise, god would've made it physically impossible for people to have sex unlesss they are married.

 

[Graney]

2. What its purpose in society is?

I can think of half a dozen things it may mean to different people, but the answer is sure as hell not children, since they are not a requirement nor an expectation of marriage.

It doesn't have a 'purpose in society', it has a purpose to individuals, usually the formalization of property agreements between partners, and as a public celebration of relationship. However it doesn't have to mean either of these things. With prenuptual agreements, it may not be about property rights. Couples may not wish to publicly celebrate their relationship.

It means different things to different people. It doesn't have any single purpose.

 

[meeatu]

Awwww no more Christians: Forum dead.

New topic:
Can homosexuals as a collective only define themselves in relation to heterosexuals as a collective.
Are we indeed (on a litteral level) nothing without them?
And of course, Vice-Virsa

 

[Helena Cecilia]

One of my close friends is gay and her girlfriend is pretty hot. I think having kids down the track would be good, that would be a reason I am not gay.

Comments??

 

[supercalamari]

Gays can have kids too... lol.

 

[hsb39]

Let's see if I can try to define civil marriage.

Whilst it shouldn't be a requirement, it is generally for the people involved used to declare their love for one another. Then we move onto why they would have it. The definition is never going to be as important for why we need it. And it's summed up by "legal rights", I once skimmed through a 100 page document on the rights differences between gay and strait couples. You see that its mostly financial. There are worse rights for house buying, wills, loaning, pretty much everything. Kids is the main non financial one. It is much harder to adopt when gay, I would say this applies to non-married parents as well, in that there are also going to be problems like these along a child's life, if people want that document I may be able to find it somewhere, someone emailed me a link a couple of years back.

Now, after some thinking, I'll see if I can come up with a clear definition, try: "the official recognition of a relationship."

 

[Ice Cream Man]

You have a point 0bs3n3

 

[0bs3n3]

You have a point 0bs3n3

Thanks, just speaking from the heart.

 

[Slidey]

But seriously; anyone, what is civil marriage?

We know what religious marriage is (more or less, varies between religions) the ceremony whereby two people are united by God to commit to each other forever etc etc.

False. Marriages exist in most societies and cultures and most have nothing to do with the Christian god, and many have nothing to do with any god or gods.

The civil union should be the only marriage recognised by the state, with all marriages (gay, straight Christian, gay Christian, Hindu, Pacific Islander) being civil unions on an official level.

The Christian marriage should have no official place in law.

 

[Readaholic]

Many people believe that this move goes against the grain of Australia’s commitment to a fair go for all. They also believe that it is a violation of religious freedom and a form of discrimination. Supporters believe that marriage is needed to give homosexual partners the legal authority that married partners do in times of emotional stress, medical emergencies, insurance and Will claims, deaths, disabilities, adoption, parental disputes, and joint ownership (both financial and property).
The same supporters judge that homosexuality doesn’t hurt individuals or the community. They also maintain that it encourages people to focus on family values, not on damaging sexual lifestyles. Many see homosexuality as a biological component that cannot be denied. Another positive aspect of legalising homosexual marriage is that while unable to procreate with each other, many of these couples would adopt given the chance. With an estimated one hundred and forty-three million orphans in the world this surely would be a positive chance to give those children a better life.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee are currently reviewing a same-sex marriage bill introduced in August 2009 by the Australian Greens. Let's hope it gets passed!

 

[Name_Taken]

What precisely is Mariages purpose in society?
Since when did such things require a purpose anyway?

As for what it is...
It's a sign, nothing more.

A sign to the individuals, that they love eachother.
A sign to the people as a whole that they are accepted
A sign to religeous gays that god is one that is understanding and caring and the sort of god that they could feel a true love for and accept as part of their lives.

Myself...?
I'm more pessimistic.
I'm not going to fassion a god to suit my likings, I'm not going to reserve my love unless a god fits the resume'.
Fuck god.
Spirituality needs not stem from a deity.
And personally, I don't want the approval of your god or the 'privelige' or marriage (or even civil union) There is much more beauty in simply celebrating love as it is.

i have stated this many times now. the reason why people want to get married is to:
1) solidify their commitment
2) to declare their love for one another to the world
3) to celebrate their relationship

4) to have children? i think not. otherwise, god would've made it physically impossible for people to have sex unlesss they are married.

I think both of you are just listing reasons why people get married, not why the state bothers to regulate civil marriages as something specific and not any other private relationship.

People may not get married to have kids (although it definately is important to some couples), but it is because kids result out of so many marriages, that marriage itself is regulated, to provide a legal framework to support the natural insitution which creates and raises the next generation. All the financial support and priveldges given to married couples over every other union are not for the benefit of the parents, but for the sake of the children. Speical status is given to marriage becuase it is darn important for soceity that people not only have children, but raise them to be upstanding citizens. Marriage and the family is not something defined by society, but something recognised by society.

This is in the US, but is still relavent if you just read through it, it is to do with the role of government and legal framework, not religion;

***

Justice Cordy, in his dissenting comments to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling on Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003), made some valuable remarks regarding the purpose of civil marriage:

Paramount among its many important functions, the institution of marriage has systematically provided for the regulation of heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized. … The institution of marriage provides the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other.

The partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations, with children the probable result and paternity presumed. … The marital family is also the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children. Children learn about the world and their place in it primarily from those who raise them, and those children eventually grow up to exert some influence, great or small, positive or negative, on society. The institution of marriage encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow, thereby encouraging a stable venue for the education and socialization of children.

Justice Cordy made it clear that there is only one reason the government has promoted and protected marriage: they produce the next generation of society. Apart from a concern for children the government has no reason to regulate private relationships. If there are no children involved, there is no reason for the government to regulate and protect the relationship (which is why the government does not regulate friendships).

What compelling reason, then, would the government have for regulating same-sex relationships? Based on the government's purpose for sanctioning civil marriage, frankly there is none. Homosexual relationships have nothing to do with the purpose for which civil marriage is enacted; therefore, homosexual relationships are not entitled to the benefits of marriage. While both homosexuals and heterosexuals can make the same personal commitments to each other, they are not entitled to receive the same social privileges because homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual relationships in this defining area. Homosexual relationships only benefit homosexuals, whereas heterosexual relationships benefit society at large because they create and nurture the next generation of society. That is why government has always sought to promote and protect heterosexual relationships of the sexual kind, but not homosexual relationships of the sexual kind.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

mate, nowadays, people don't need to get married in order to have children.

 

[Name_Taken]

mate, nowadays, people don't need to get married in order to have children.

They never did...

 

[Graney]

I think both of you are just listing reasons why people get married, not why the state bothers to regulate civil marriages as something specific and not any other private relationship.

You're completely 100% wrong, the state involves itself in any legal contract formed between two individuals. A business contract is a kind of private relationship, that the state is certainly involved in. The state involves itself in homosexual civil unions and de facto relationships.

Anywhere there is a financial and taxation interest, the state chooses to intervene.

but it is because kids result out of so many marriages, that marriage itself is regulated, to provide a legal framework to support the natural insitution which creates and raises the next generation.

The state involves itself in marriage because it involves the negotiation of property rights and entitlements. Anything else you want to assert, without reference to legislation or any other actual evidence, is to be held as utter bollocks.

All the financial support and priveldges given to married couples over every other union are not for the benefit of the parents, but for the sake of the children.

Name one benefit that is given to married couples that isn't available to de facto couples. Turn your brain on before you apply fingers to keyboard.

 

[Name_Taken]

You're completely 100% wrong, the state involves itself in any legal contract formed between two individuals. A business contract is a kind of private relationship, that the state is certainly involved in. The state involves itself in homosexual civil unions and de facto relationships.

Anywhere there is a financial and taxation interest, the state chooses to intervene.


The state involves itself in marriage because it involves the negotiation of property rights and entitlements. Anything else you want to assert, without reference to legislation or any other actual evidence, is to be held as utter bollocks.


Name one benefit that is given to married couples that isn't available to de facto couples. Turn your brain on before you apply fingers to keyboard.

I wans't aware of the de-facto equality in financial beenfits to married couples thing, I read a lot of US stuff, so IDK its probably much different over there.

Anyway, moving on.

My point is that marriage is a legal contract, but why should it be so, if not for the benefit of the children, i.e. to promote stability in the relationship and in the case of a divorce, to ensure that their needs are met, both parents getting enough to support them etc. (obviously division of assets is done on a case by case basis, for couples without children for example or w/e, just talking on broad terms).