Gay Marriage and Gay Couples having children (through surrogate, adoption etc) (2 Viewers)

What are your views?


  • Total voters
    84

Spiritual Being

hehehehehe
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
3,054
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Uni Grad
2018
Stated in terms of the connotation/denotation distinction, the implication of this passage is that it may well be the case that the 1901 meaning of marriage as identified by Justice McHugh captures merely the denotation of the term at that time (that is, that to which the term was then applicable), rather than its connotation or core meaning. The connotation, or core meaning, of the term (that is, that which renders marriage the distinctive thing that it is) may well be more abstract and may not include any different-sex requirement at all, thus allowing the current denotation of the term to include also same-sex unions. Justice McHugh did not go on to address the question of what exactly the connotation of the term marriage is, but his implicit suggestion that it may not include a different-sex requirement is plausible, however contested the precise concept of marriage may remain. Thus, while I would argue that any plausible understanding of the core meaning, or connotation, of the constitutional term 'marriage' would need to appeal to ideas of romantic love, commitment and solemnisation, the case for including the different-sex requirement among the essential features of marriage is rather less strong. In particular, the fact that the drafters of the Constitution would automatically assume that people who marry are of different sexes does not necessarily make the different-sex requirement a part of the term's connotation.

If we could establish that the drafters' minds specifically addressed themselves to the question, and rejected the possibility, of SSM, then we would probably have to conclude otherwise. But there is no evidence that the drafters did so. On the contrary, the very inconceivableness of SSM in 1900 opens up the possibility of legitimately considering any different-sex element attaching to the meaning of marriage as used at that time a matter of mere contingency rather than necessity. The immutable core meaning, or connotation, of the constitutional term 'marriage' is likely, therefore, to be something like a sexually intimate adult relationship between people who have made a public declaration of their commitment to each other in a ceremony (call this 'constitutional marriage' — CM). But because of cultural shifts, the denotation of the term, that is all the things existing in this world to which CM is applicable, has changed over time (as denotations — unlike connotations — can do without doing violence to the constitutional text). It may well be argued that by 2007, the change in denotation has come to include same-sex unions.

If 'marriage' for the purposes of the marriage power includes SSM, then questions of inconsistency between State legislation on SSM or civil unions and the Marriage Act can logically arise.


Not said by me, said by an overworked 45 year old natural lawyer who hates his job. GG
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I agree wholeheartedly that gay parents, especially gay men, can often be much more supporting and caring of children. HOWEVER the effect is internally in the child's mind, it grows up lacking fundamental components of its gender development.
How would you know? you got nothing to back it up.
 

jmk123

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
26
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
How would you know? you got nothing to back it up.
I know ive got nothing to back it up. Its just an informed opinion with the loss of the information. I mean, surely all you people read NewScientists and random science magazines like that? Its not like ur gonna remember the exact location of every single fact/article youve ever read. Human memory is associative, certain things trigger vague memories, just like this thread triggered a memory of mine about some article regarding gay parents influencing psychological development of a kid. I have no back up, though I encourage you to research it yourself.
 

pscecelia

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
150
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
I support gay marriage and their equal right to have children 10000% ....I don't believe children are disadvantaged in any aspect of having gay parents, ...... yes there may be cases of children with mental patches however that is the cause of a prejudice society, society should be embracing diversity and individualism....I Why do people use reasons of science to go against gays ??? Science is science and Love is LOVE, I find it ridiculous that people use religion as a justification to oppose the gay concept altogether, eg. preist are not perfect! they are essentially a connection with god and the people here, why do they go around preaching 'what is right in society' when they totally contradict themselves and sexually abuse children behind scenes. and also might I add that to constantly use the bible as a reason to go against gay marriage is a dimwit...please do not go around regurgitating scriptures written 1000yrs ago by MAN...please update yourself with modern context CUNTS who oppose gay marriage for ???? I hope in our generation we will be allowed to marry the same sex and raise children!
 

btx3

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
385
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2018
I support gay marriage and their equal right to have children 10000% ....I don't believe children are disadvantaged in any aspect of having gay parents, ...... yes there may be cases of children with mental patches however that is the cause of a prejudice society, society should be embracing diversity and individualism....I Why do people use reasons of science to go against gays ??? Science is science and Love is LOVE, I find it ridiculous that people use religion as a justification to oppose the gay concept altogether, eg. preist are not perfect! they are essentially a connection with god and the people here, why do they go around preaching 'what is right in society' when they totally contradict themselves and sexually abuse children behind scenes. and also might I add that to constantly use the bible as a reason to go against gay marriage is a dimwit...please do not go around regurgitating scriptures written 1000yrs ago by MAN...please update yourself with modern context CUNTS who oppose gay marriage for ???? I hope in our generation we will be allowed to marry the same sex and raise children!
what proof do you have? what proof does anybody have at this current stage in time for or against it? if someone already stated something from a decent source i cbf reading through this all so post it again.
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
what proof do you have? what proof does anybody have at this current stage in time for or against it? if someone already stated something from a decent source i cbf reading through this all so post it again.
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

Siegel, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, coauthored a report, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics the week before the court case, arguing that three decades of research concur that kids of gay parents are doing just fine.

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Your egotistic self probably couldn't care less about what happens to the world in the future - but with the continuum of time, the population base will decrease profoundly with continued and increased unnatural reproductions
That's fortunate, you wouldn't want exponentially increasing population forever.

4. They do highlight the importance of having both parents (that is, the parents with differing genders not same-sex)
No, they explicitly say lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents.

'they' being; American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, Canadian Psychological Association, etc.

6. Of course the proposed hypothetical has never transpired, because statute is not in the favor of same-sex marriage.
Discrimination on the basis of a persons sexuality is already illegal under the Sex discrimination act 1984;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5026

You can currently be prosecuted if you refuse to rent a house to someone on the basis of their sexuality, try it and see what happens. Changes to the marriage act will 100% not affect this. I already said this, it's annoying to repeat myself.

Similar to what you were alluding to, society has become very litigious; we sue at the drop of the hat. Let's increase this, right? That is extremely positive, right? But we should increase the amount of crimes we can be falsely convicted of, right? Is that the situation you want? So you desire?
So we shouldn't ever legislate against any more crimes, because of the risk of false convictions? Should we decrease the number of crimes that are currently on the books simply to reduce false convictions?

Lets get down to the nitty gritty, you don't actually think discrimination against people on the basis of sexuality is immoral or unethical, and shouldn't be a crime on this basis. Why else would you be concerned about false conviction for this edict, and not for every other crime?

You should straight talk, and just say 'homosexuality is immoral', and not make these convoluted arguments about 'risk of false convictions'.

9. No, because it is supportive of the moral code; murder is immoral.
You initially proposed one strict moral edict: "inhibiting the brimming expression of religion is a violation of human rights".

Now, under some religious codes, the murder of adulterers/apostates/homosexuals, is not immoral - so if you disagree with this, you must change your previous statement, which must now read:

"inhibiting the brimming expression of religion is sometimes acceptable"

I suspect a more accurate statement would be:

"inhibiting the brimming expression of religion is okay when it is not the religious principles I personally adhere to"

Since you are concerned with activity outside of the narrow scope of religious behaviour, such as the personal lives of homosexuals, we can summarise your personal philosophy and moral principles as:

"Anything I disagree with should be inhibited"
 

soloooooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
3,311
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
I don't support it although am a realist and know that both it and gay marriage will be legalised eventually in our lifetimes.
 

Frostbitten

Active Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
426
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
I don't support it although am a realist and know that both it and gay marriage will be legalised eventually in our lifetimes.
Reasons? Or is it just a decision based purely on emotions? It seems to be a common theme amongst those that are on the against party.
 

soloooooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
3,311
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Reasons? Or is it just a decision based purely on emotions? It seems to be a common theme amongst those that are on the against party.
I just don't think the marriage law needs to change.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top