Ziff, old boy, you make a good point, but as you already know i dont agree.
Firstly, eviltama, thank you for your well aimed, emotional critisism. I will not respond to you however, because I find you purely emotional about the topic rather than at least partially objective. Besides, your arguement is flawed and hinged on remaining political correct at all costs, and I will have no time for that. I think you are far too vicious for this thread, take a breather and come back when you're willing to listen to opinions.
Excellent model, Ziff! [Oops, I agreed!]
BUT!
There are many people who still believe in marriage and what it stands for. Marriage has always been property of the Church, and so it should remain (albeit regulated and protected by Government). I will not accept that Government controls marriage, but I will conceed that the Church (including any religious sects) does not control marriage anymore either. My point is, we should not remove something so institutionalised as you suggest, Ziff. Since I was old enough to understand anything I understood the importance of marriage. In any walk of life it is EXTREMELY important. It is abused often, yes, but that is more a product of our society rather than the importance of marriage [NB: I believe so totally in marriage because I had to see my father have an affair, my concept of reality and my #1 role model collapse, only to be rebuilt out of the rubble that was their marriage and my life. Like the phoenix rising from the ashes... and as such I believe marriage to be so real and so important] Cartoons had weddings on them often, I used to speak to my parents about theirs, I went to my Aunt's wedding and I have seen the results of marriage and the happiness they bring about (Children, compassion, happiness support etc) and it is for these reasons that marriage should remain.
The rest of his points are extremely just, equitable, fair and in the best interests of the community. I do still believe that marriage deserves a special place in our community, as it is what brought many all of us into the world today. I accept the social change that has brought about legal recognition of defacto relationships, and I understand why that recognition came about and as such I welcome those changes. I ALSO welcome the recognition of homosexual couples, as per the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act, but we cannot push legal recognition too far.
Now, to the heart of this debate. Should homosexuals marry? [Perhaps I should tell you all something before i start... I am EXTREMELY biased. Why? I was sexually assaulted by one of them. I'd rather it was not referred to again, but let it be known that is the reason for my seemingly extreme policies.] Ms Katie Tully had a point, although she failed to articulate it very well, nor offer alternatives. She is right in that marriage has always been for heterosexual relationships. While I understand the need for legal change on the basis of changing social values, the whole concept of marriage is destroyed if homosexuals can marry as well. The point of marriage has almost always been, with some exceptions, to procreate with an individual of the opposite sex within a mutual relationship of committment and love.
- Perhaps one of the most important points in this is the issue of procreation. Homosexuals CANT procreate. Perhaps if they were to be able to, it would be accepted.. but they cant and they will never be able to.
- Perhaps they think they 'love' one another, but I say that a majority of their friends were girls and they grew up surrounded by girls and thus identified themselves with females, ergo they almost believe themselves to be girls, but they're not.
So, for those reasons I believe homosexuals should not marry, as it is the basis of everything marriage stands for.
I know this all leads onto birth technologies, which I am similarly against for the 'best interests of the child'. That is not a issue in this thread and as such I will not go into it here.
