Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[Sabbo]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
it protects the institution of marriage, and children from being brought up in families that will damage their upbringing

How will it damage their upbringing (considering the parents aren't abusive)?

The only damage done to their upbringing I could see is the prejudice/intolerance from their surrounding community.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Asquithian

IMO gay couples should be allowed to enter into a 'civil union' where they have the same legal rights as any other persons...mainly in relation to finance and wills.

Agreed, homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples - but i feel it has to be outside of an institution such as marriage - which is still religious based - so obviously civil unions are the way to go.

its understandable though that, in a country that is 70% christian and with a legal system that has been based on christian morality/ethics legislation will be passed that somewhat infringes upon the privelages of homosexual couples.

The adoption thing is of course, a much more contentious issue. Despite our more tolerant stance on homosexuals, I don't think Australian society can really readily accept the idea of homosexuals having children. Stands to reason though - as i said before, 70% of the population IS Christian.

Oh and just for the record, i'm an Aethiest

 

[Kwayera]

"The United Nations has made it quite clear that any and all marriages, despite their religious or ethnic qualities, are to be treated as legal and as binding as common law marriages. I quote James Kent who said that 'a contract of marriage per verba de presenti amounts to an actual marriage, and is as valid as if made in facie ecclesiae'. The Latin, once translated, means that 'a contract of marriage using whichever version of *I do* that is present or needed amounts to an actual marriage, and is as valid as if made in a church'."

Religion, in this case, has no relation to whether a marraige is legal or not - and so religion should not be cited as a reason to prevent same sex marriages.

Originally posted by crazyhomo
it protects the institution of marriage, and children from being brought up in families that will damage their upbringing

Bullshit! If that's so, it should be illegal for a child to a have a single parent (be it by death or divorce) - that damages their upbringing in some way, does it not?

Denying same sex couples the right to marry and adopt children is the same as denying any racial group a right - i.e. the right to vote, the right to marry if they do not belong to the Christian church - etcetera ad nauseum!

There is no good, logical reason to prevent same sex couples from marrying and adopting children (I'd rather a child have a same sex couple as parents than stuck in an orphanage with no parents at all) - only misguided, outdated fear and prejudice make this so.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Kwayera

There is no good, logical reason to prevent same sex couples from marrying and adopting children (I'd rather a child have a same sex couple as parents than stuck in an orphanage with no parents at all) - only misguided, outdated fear and prejudice make this so.

Yes there is.

Be it for better or worse, society is uncomfortable with the idea of gay adoption.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Kwayera
Religion, in this case, has no relation to whether a marraige is legal or not - and so religion should not be cited as a reason to prevent same sex marriages.

Marriage is a religious based institution. Don't you think its hypocritical to unite two people, in the name of something that condemns that very union?

However, legal entitlements come hand in hand with marriage - and this is what homosexual couples should have a right to - ie : a civil union...

 

[Sabbo]

So do homosexual couples just want the same rights as married hetrosexual couples or do they just want the same title/recognition?

 

[Kwayera]

Originally posted by neo_o
Yes there is.

Be it for better or worse, society is uncomfortable with the idea of gay adoption.

Uncomfortability is NO BASIS for denying these people their rights - who really gives a damn what hole they put it in?!

Excuse me for being so crass, but it really gets to me why society, even in our 'equality' stage, is so utterly bigoted.

 

[Kwayera]

Originally posted by neo_o
Marriage is a religious based institution. Don't you think its hypocritical to unite two people, in the name of something that condemns that very union?

However, legal entitlements come hand in hand with marriage - and this is what homosexual couples should have a right to - ie : a civil union...

OUR form of 'marriage', yes, was originally based on religion. But that's simply not the case anymore.

I'm not just talking about the Christian religion, either. How about Buddhists - they marry too, and yet it isnt based on religion! The idea that marriage is an institution of 'God' is old, outdated, and quite simply wrong.

 

[Kwayera]

Originally posted by Sabbo
So do homosexual couples just want the same rights as married hetrosexual couples or do they just want the same title/recognition?

Both, I think.


Anyway, argue away. I'm going to bed.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Kwayera
Uncomfortability is NO BASIS for denying these people their rights - who really gives a damn what hole they put it in?!

Excuse me for being so crass, but it really gets to me why society, even in our 'equality' stage, is so utterly bigoted.

Society is uncomfortable with the idea of someone running down the street naked.

Society is uncomfortable with you killing someone.

Society is uncomfortable with you raping someone.

Youll find that all our laws are based upon what society is comfortable with

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Kwayera
Uncomfortability is NO BASIS for denying these people their rights - who really gives a damn what hole they put it in?!

Excuse me for being so crass, but it really gets to me why society, even in our 'equality' stage, is so utterly bigoted.

Is marriage a right?

 

[Ziff]

This all comes down to the concept of how we construct reality and how we construct the structures which govern our existance. We've constructed marriage in a certain way and many people would find it difficult to change this and view it differently, This is why a form of "civil union" should be available - similar to a marriage but somewhere between a marriage and a defacto relationship.

If parents can show that they can look after, care for, love and provide for their children then they should be allowed to care for children. I still maintain that in adoption etc that if parents of equal standing apply but one is homosexual and heterosexual should get it simply because it reflects what occurs in reality - a man and a woman conceive a child and the woman gives birth to the child. Other than that, there should not be limitations. This is not because of the "way it's always been", it's because it's something that is true - a sperm fertilises an ova which in turn (over a period) creates a child. Technology has changed this, yes, but the moral and ethical implications of this are still emerging and until we have determined the effects this has on the child the old methods should be acknowledged and used. Even now only a female can give birth to a child.

In society today, legally, there is no discrimination due to sexuality. This is stipulated in both Federal and State legislation. What we do have, however, is discrimination based on the form of relationship. This is what people are afraid of, the form and the nature of the relationship and who it is between. It seems ironic that whilst there is general acceptance of the right to be of a certain sexuality it doesn't extend to the right to be engaged in a relationship due to that sexuality but anyway.

Simply, it shouldn't be marriage because of the connotations of what it is. Creating a new legal institution will not create discrimination. De-facto relationships are accepted in society and are not condemned as being "immoral". These types of relationships, under state laws, have a large degree of protection for both heterosexual and homosexual couples (as under the legislation in NSW they are treated equally).

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Sabbo
How will it damage their upbringing (considering the parents aren't abusive)?

The only damage done to their upbringing I could see is the prejudice/intolerance from their surrounding community.

exactly. why not wait awhile until homosexuality is more widely accepted?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Kwayera
The idea that marriage is an institution of 'God' is old, outdated, and quite simply wrong.

well obviously, if you say it is. how about telling us why?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Ziff
Simply, it shouldn't be marriage because of the connotations of what it is. Creating a new legal institution will not create discrimination. De-facto relationships are accepted in society and are not condemned as being "immoral". These types of relationships, under state laws, have a large degree of protection for both heterosexual and homosexual couples (as under the legislation in NSW they are treated equally).

while de-facto relationships are not considered immoral by most, these are usually only applied to straight relationships. it just seems to me that, even though a marriage and whatever the same-sex/non-married form ends up being are essentially the same, many people will see gays as being treated differently. it is similar to having a toilet for the whites, and a toilet for the colours. even though they are still just toilets, it instills the idea in the minds of the masses that if you have to use a certain toilet then you must be different. i believe a similar situation will occur if same-sex relationships will have to obtain a legal status other than marriage in order to have the same legal rights as married couples

everything i haven't quoted, while i do not necessarily agree with, i feel are valid points, and have nothing against you holding those views

 

[Ziff]

The NSW Property (Relationships) Act 1984 :

For the purposes of this Act, a de facto relationship is a relationship between two adult persons:

(a) who live together as a couple, and

(b) who are not married to one another or related by family.

There are many cases in newspapers especially Howard v. R (1998) where the public and the law supported the rights of the same-sex couple or person in such a relationship. All legal things I refer to are applicable to NSW only and are probably different elsewhere.

Your analogy is not similar to that of the African-American. They were discriminated against because it was clear to all that they had a different skin colour. They were overtly and in all aspects of life treated differently. Homosexuals are only treated differently (in theory) in regards to their ability to enter into a marriage and to adopt children. Persons of another race were treated differently becuase people were afraid of them and believed they were inferior from what they could clearly see. Homosexuals are being treated differently in this regard because they lack the ability to do something which heterosexuals can: procreate naturally and uphold the laws of nature in this regard. Also, people still do not trust the ability of a same-sex couple to raise a child in the same way a heterosexual couple could (in the same circumstances etc).

This is why a distinction is applied.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Damn, someone beat me to mentioning defacto relationships...

Anyway, as it is there are more than enough orphans or homeless kids or foster kids that need a family. Same sex couples want a family. Why not bring them together.

The biggest problem though is going to be the school situation for the kids. School is hard enough, but when your parents are gay you're going to cop the worst shit from the arseholes.

As for marriage it is supposed to be something between a man and a woman. It ought not be tampered with.

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
exactly. why not wait awhile until homosexuality is more widely accepted?

Waiting does not achieve anything. Did people 'wait' for gender equality? No, people acted as catalysts to achieve that right.

 

[santaslayer]

You may all like to have a look at the De Jure relationship that is accepted into international law.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Ziff
The NSW Property (Relationships) Act 1984 :



There are many cases in newspapers especially Howard v. R (1998) where the public and the law supported the rights of the same-sex couple or person in such a relationship. All legal things I refer to are applicable to NSW only and are probably different elsewhere.

Your analogy is not similar to that of the African-American. They were discriminated against because it was clear to all that they had a different skin colour. They were overtly and in all aspects of life treated differently. Homosexuals are only treated differently (in theory) in regards to their ability to enter into a marriage and to adopt children. Persons of another race were treated differently becuase people were afraid of them and believed they were inferior from what they could clearly see. Homosexuals are being treated differently in this regard because they lack the ability to do something which heterosexuals can: procreate naturally and uphold the laws of nature in this regard. Also, people still do not trust the ability of a same-sex couple to raise a child in the same way a heterosexual couple could (in the same circumstances etc).

This is why a distinction is applied.

i completely understand why you think there should be a difference, but my point is that once you start creating this small difference in law it enters the minds of the people as more than that. yes, the african-american analogy is not exactly the same thing...yet. i believe it is a small step in that direction, and society is likely to follow that path