Gay Marriage revived. (1 Viewer)

[ur_inner_child]

i find that when i'm the side of the majority its time to pause and reflect.

Ahhhhh good ol' english extension 1.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Of course you can, it's just no-one will take your opinion seriously.

I don't want to convince you of my opinion, I just want to tell it to you. If I wanted to convice you I'd be explaining it. I really can't be bothered arguing this point.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I don't want to convince you of my opinion, I just want to tell it to you. If I wanted to convice you I'd be explaining it. I really can't be bothered arguing this point.

Fair enough


I disagree

 

[Monkey Butler]

now this is what a discussion board's all about

 

[tWiStEdD]

The Egyptian slaves. ANY SLAVES. You're missing the point, which is to say that simply because something is currently rejected doesn't mean it always will be (and additionally, it does not mean that it is right).

Egyptian slaves were freed when it was seen to be right by the Pharoah. 'Banning slavery' as you aptly put it, refers to the domestic and international measures taken to abolish slavery. America - 1880's (post war). Internationally - 1956.
Your analogy is flimsy, but i'll not get fussy about it.

Um, why?

because homosexuals are not imprisoned aganist their will, they're not traded and they're paid.... to name a few. The most basic difference is the way that slaves were treated, which is nowhere near the way that homosexuals are treated.

Woah... some really bad reasoning there. You assume that because few single parents are allowed to adopt each year, that it is to do with the single gender of the parent? It could be for a million reasons, such as the obvious: far less income, less love and support, and less time for the child.

I did say self-sufficient didnt I? I was refering to the household income and therefore quality of life. That is, in fact, the primary reason that single parents are, on their own, refused adoption rights is due to income disparities. The whole single parent thing only comes into play when there are other prospective adopters who are either married or in a stable relationship.

Simply because something is not the case does not mean it should not be the case. When there is no reason not to allow equality, you are in a very difficult position of trying to say there should be none.

In a majority of cases, equality can be readily addressed. The problem with this sort of relationship is they are NOT equal to begin with. Homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual couples but nor are they less than, nor greater than. Its apples and oranges. To equalise these apples and oranges you get a fruit that is somewhat bitter to the taste.

1. Law and morality are two different things.
2. Morals present in society are not necessarily right.
3. Laws do not always reflect the morals in society anyway.

1. True, but one affects the other.
2. Who are you to say that? Saying something like that gets my hackles up. An Islamic man might tell you its okay to stone a woman for being unfaithful, but in Australia you would be hard pressed to find people that would agree. CONTEXT.
3. True, because law is slow to change. However, in combining legal movements and law itself you will find a good indication of what we really believe it.

So you're saying why should we allow gay marriages? My response, why should we allow heterosexual marriages? Quite simple.

Why breathe? Because its something we've grown up with. We both know it is institutionalised in western tradition and I understand where you're coming from but I do not think its a logical or fair question given the context of the time.

Translation: "I do not have any evidence of damage to children, no."

I, having been that age myself, know how it feels to be picked on... we all do. I do not honestly think that peers would let up about something like that. Combine that with subsequent withdrawl from their peers. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I see it as a possibility, but a dangerous one.

That is a pretty poor analogy. As humans in modern society we need far different skills than physical survival. With education, and the love of both parents, I don't see how the child would be inhibited in his/her development.

We need plenty more, you're right there.
But what if education is prevented by peer groups? What if your parents were the cause of that trauma? (Maintaining my ongoing point, of course)
Do you deny that it could happen as I have stated?

Thankyou.

My pleasure.

Love and support can pull children through a lot. There may be some periods of life where there will be some jerks but on the whole, as xayma mentioned, it's a bit of an extreme to say kids are going to be mentally scarred.

It would be extreme, in this case, to say anything definitively. I dare say it would be extreme to say that children WILL NOT be scarred. The chance exists that they will be.

If one of your parents is obese, and you get teased for it, does that scar you for the rest of your life? No, of course not. You get pissed off at the bully, continue loving your obese parent, and hopefully get on with the rest of your life. Bullying is always going to happen, and if it's not about a kid's parent it'll be about something else

People get over that thing. Obesity is not so... 'alarming' as homosexuality. Especially when there's two homosexual parents and one obese parent. The analogy doesnt stand since obesity might not be encouraged but it has infiltrated all of our lives.

Marriage is supposed to be a commitment based on mutual love and respect, despite what the Government says. Whether that love is between two people of the same sex should be irrelevant.

And the law courts.
And, it would seem, the Labour caucus and the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and in turn the Australian people. Do not alienate the representitve government that the Australian people stand so firmly behind. The people are just as responsible as they are.

And the issue of adoption/artificial birth of children is entirely irrelevant in this debate. Sure, gay marriages COULD lead to that issue being addressed, but ignoring a contentious issue because it may lead to another contentious issue is ridiculous. As has alreeady been said, adoption and artificial insemination are not processes exclusive to married couples, and so the provision of marriage for gay couples would not necessarily mean that those couples would automatically have to be allowed to adopt children.

It will follow. Its a logical progression. Marriage implies this right anyway (No, not written but married couples can adopt and it is looked upon more favourably). IVF is available to sterile women in marriages, right? (CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE MOONLIGHT) This could lead to significant abuses in terms of lebsian spouses.

Ahhhhh good ol' english extension 1.

I will not prentend to have done it . I know it was Twain though.

Moonlight.
Sorry for attacking you personally. You might have noted that I didnt quote nor reply early in this post, because i didnt want to distract from the case at hand, hence it is down here.

I respect the course you're doing and, in fact, hold you in high regard as an individual of not only seemingly impeccable moral fibre but of grammatical excellence. I should never have attacked your integrity, I suppose I was not thinking.

Anyone doing a BA and LLB at UNSW should certainly be given a certain level of respect.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

now this is what a discussion board's all about

yep... lets all state our opinions and leave it there shall we! pretty exciting

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Egyptian slaves were freed when it was seen to be right by the Pharoah. 'Banning slavery' as you aptly put it, refers to the domestic and international measures taken to abolish slavery. America - 1880's (post war). Internationally - 1956.
Your analogy is flimsy, but i'll not get fussy about it.

Well I didn't intend as an anology, it's just an example to show a point: society's values change.

I did say self-sufficient didnt I? I was refering to the household income and therefore quality of life. That is, in fact, the primary reason that single parents are, on their own, refused adoption rights is due to income disparities. The whole single parent thing only comes into play when there are other prospective adopters who are either married or in a stable relationship.

What is your point with these single parent adoptions? I don't see the relevance. There are two parents in gay relationships..

In a majority of cases, equality can be readily addressed. The problem with this sort of relationship is they are NOT equal to begin with. Homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual couples but nor are they less than, nor greater than. Its apples and oranges. To equalise these apples and oranges you get a fruit that is somewhat bitter to the taste.

Hold on, they are both humans. If you want to say that all humans should not be equal then I don't know if there's any point continuing this discussion... maybe you want to clarify this part

2. Who are you to say that? Saying something like that gets my hackles up. An Islamic man might tell you its okay to stone a woman for being unfaithful, but in Australia you would be hard pressed to find people that would agree. CONTEXT.

Who am I to say that the morals that may be present in society are not necessarily right? I think that is common sense. Nazi Germany? You think the morals of society in that context are necessarily right? My point is simply because any one society approves of something does not mean it is right.

Why breathe? Because its something we've grown up with. We both know it is institutionalised in western tradition and I understand where you're coming from but I do not think its a logical or fair question given the context of the time.

"Given the context of our time." You're saying that because of the way society thinks, it is right? I think that, logically, it is a fair question. You appeal to tradition. Traditions aren't necessarily right. But anyway my point is, we don't get anywhere by asking "why should we allow gay marriages," without answering the similar question, "why should we allow heterosexual marriages." I think it should be phrased in the negative, "why shouldn't we allow gay marriages?"

I, having been that age myself, know how it feels to be picked on... we all do. I do not honestly think that peers would let up about something like that. Combine that with subsequent withdrawl from their peers. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I see it as a possibility, but a dangerous one.

We need plenty more, you're right there.
But what if education is prevented by peer groups? What if your parents were the cause of that trauma? (Maintaining my ongoing point, of course)
Do you deny that it could happen as I have stated?

I think that is somewhat exagerated. By year 9-12, kids have wisened up enough to (a) not perpetually return to "harrassing" other children about their parents, and (b) not take possible (though likely minor) existence of such harrassment to heart.

It would be extreme, in this case, to say anything definitively. I dare say it would be extreme to say that children WILL NOT be scarred. The chance exists that they will be.

Well, bring me some proof of that and I'll consider that. There's a chance I might fall over in the shower tomorrow morning, maybe it's best I don't get out of bed, just in case? Given two loving parents it seems a bit far-fetched to me.

And the law courts.

The courts have no choice but to uphold the acts passed by the government anyway (except if unconstitutional)

And, it would seem, the Labour caucus and the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and in turn the Australian people. Do not alienate the representitve government that the Australian people stand so firmly behind. The people are just as responsible as they are.

It's not like the Australian people had much choice on the matter. Even if they did, the point is an appeal to majority. As you yourself were quoting, if you find yourself on the side of the majority, it often time to pause and reflect :uhhuh:

It will follow. Its a logical progression. Marriage implies this right anyway (No, not written but married couples can adopt and it is looked upon more favourably). IVF is available to sterile women in marriages, right? (CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE MOONLIGHT) This could lead to significant abuses in terms of lebsian spouses.

I don't know about the sterile woman thing (fairly sure they can), but the adoptions do not necessarily have to follow. Legally if the government wants to allow gay marriage but stop gays adopting it can do just that. But then I suppose socially you might mean that it would move the pressure on the government to the next step..

I will not prentend to have done it . I know it was Twain though.

Moonlight.
Sorry for attacking you personally. You might have noted that I didnt quote nor reply early in this post, because i didnt want to distract from the case at hand, hence it is down here.

I respect the course you're doing and, in fact, hold you in high regard as an individual of not only seemingly impeccable moral fibre but of grammatical excellence. I should never have attacked your integrity, I suppose I was not thinking.

Anyone doing a BA and LLB at UNSW should certainly be given a certain level of respect.

Apologies duly accepted and no offense taken; thankyou kindly. While I welcome ideological and philosophical debate, I find it disconcerting to be personally offside with intelligent people, such as yourself

 

[Sophie777]

I was expressing support, something people generally appreciate in debates

Sorry, over the internet it is hard to tell whether someone is being sarcastic or not.

 

[tWiStEdD]

Well I didn't intend as an anology, it's just an example to show a point: society's values change.

Okay, fair enough. Society's view change over time, yes. I'm not totally sure that society is ready for gay marriages, however.

What is your point with these single parent adoptions? I don't see the relevance. There are two parents in gay relationships..

I think someone said something about adoption generally... i'll have to see how we got to that point. That's the problem with BOS debates each point gets addressed individually and thus will evolve as the debate continues.

Hold on, they are both humans. If you want to say that all humans should not be equal then I don't know if there's any point continuing this discussion... maybe you want to clarify this part

I probably should, whoops. It was late last night that I was writing... I went to bed immediately afterwards. I believe I meant that they're equal in individual terms, but their relationship is not equal to heterosexuals due to the procreation issue and the procreation issue alone.

Who am I to say that the morals that may be present in society are not necessarily right? I think that is common sense. Nazi Germany? You think the morals of society in that context are necessarily right? My point is simply because any one society approves of something does not mean it is right.

Nazi Germany was 'right' in the context of many German people, at least initially. Even Churchill proclaimed support for Hitler... Stalin loved him . The societies were different then. I do not think we have much, if any, right to judge them now. History should be judged on its own merits, we should not look at the past in the context of today.

"Given the context of our time." You're saying that because of the way society thinks, it is right? I think that, logically, it is a fair question. You appeal to tradition. Traditions aren't necessarily right. But anyway my point is, we don't get anywhere by asking "why should we allow gay marriages," without answering the similar question, "why should we allow heterosexual marriages." I think it should be phrased in the negative, "why shouldn't we allow gay marriages?"

I just dont think society is ready for such a leap of faith. There are potential risks inherent in society's morals today. Time is needed, values need to change significantly.

I think that is somewhat exagerated. By year 9-12, kids have wisened up enough to (a) not perpetually return to "harrassing" other children about their parents, and (b) not take possible (though likely minor) existence of such harrassment to heart.

How a child is in year 9-12 is a direct result of year 6-8, times when manners are more or less still being develped.

It does not need be in the form of "your mother is a lesbian! hahahaha!" It can be little things such as "Want to come stay at my house this weekend?" "Ahh... Mum doesnt want me to go out... Want to come to my house?" Having others, friends, feel uncomfortable around your parents would result in similar, if not more dire, effects upon the child's confidence.

Well, bring me some proof of that and I'll consider that. There's a chance I might fall over in the shower tomorrow morning, maybe it's best I don't get out of bed, just in case? Given two loving parents it seems a bit far-fetched to me.

I am not saying scarred by the parents themselves, but by their peers. I will look into it.

The courts have no choice but to uphold the acts passed by the government anyway (except if unconstitutional)

True. (How can i argue that point? No fair.)
However, many of the more important issues of homosexual relationships are protected under common law, rather than statues.
e.g.
statute law
Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999 (NSW) and the Superannuation Industry (Administration) Amendment Act 2003 (recognition as de facto couples and recognition for the purposes of superannuation payouts, respectively)
common law
W v G, Hope and Brown V NIB Health Fund, Kevin Case, The Case of Patrick

It's not like the Australian people had much choice on the matter. Even if they did, the point is an appeal to majority. As you yourself were quoting, if you find yourself on the side of the majority, it often time to pause and reflect.

Definitely. We're seeing what seems to be a form of 'group think' whereby a group will become more adhesive as they unite their views, often the descisions of the group are flawed, that's why reflection is necessary.
To address this in the future, it will be necessary for this group think situation to be dealt with or broken up somehow.

I don't know about the sterile woman thing (fairly sure they can), but the adoptions do not necessarily have to follow. Legally if the government wants to allow gay marriage but stop gays adopting it can do just that. But then I suppose socially you might mean that it would move the pressure on the government to the next step..

Precisely. I'm for their unions as long as they cannot access IVF (as they can in some Australian states) but in cases of adoption, while i'm not happy with it, I would accept a child being placed with a homosexual couple if it was the best possible course of action for the child.

Apologies duly accepted and no offense taken; thankyou kindly. While I welcome ideological and philosophical debate, I find it disconcerting to be personally offside with intelligent people, such as yourself.

Likewise.

Sorry, over the internet it is hard to tell whether someone is being sarcastic or not.

Oh you'll know when she's being sarcastic... trust me.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Okay, fair enough. Society's view change over time, yes. I'm not totally sure that society is ready for gay marriages, however.

Maybe because people keep unnecessary chains on tolerence - perhaps society needs a bit of a nudge.

I believe I meant that they're equal in individual terms, but their relationship is not equal to heterosexuals due to the procreation issue and the procreation issue alone.

Well their relationship not being equal is a right that is being denied, hence they are being treated unequally to those who have that right recognised.

Nazi Germany was 'right' in the context of many German people, at least initially. Even Churchill proclaimed support for Hitler... Stalin loved him . The societies were different then. I do not think we have much, if any, right to judge them now. History should be judged on its own merits, we should not look at the past in the context of today.

Social relativism is a very dangerous and shakey moral theory. Surely the morals of some societies, such as Nazi Germany, were wrong. I'm sure any sane person in the world, including yourself, would agree that performing thousands of terrible and atrocious experiments on prisoners in concentration camps, was WRONG. Likewise the genocide of thousands of innocent Jews was WRONG. The point is, the morals of any society are not necessarily right.

I just dont think society is ready for such a leap of faith. There are potential risks inherent in society's morals today. Time is needed, values need to change significantly.

Why should we not allow gay marriages?

Because society is not ready? I think society, as prejudiced as it is, is perfectly ready. As I indicated before, if we perpetually chant the mantra that society isn't ready, society will never be ready. We should not let the chains of the past continue to produce absurd inequalities.

How a child is in year 9-12 is a direct result of year 6-8, times when manners are more or less still being develped.

I hardly think manners, of all things, would be inhibited by gay parents.

It does not need be in the form of "your mother is a lesbian! hahahaha!" It can be little things such as "Want to come stay at my house this weekend?" "Ahh... Mum doesnt want me to go out... Want to come to my house?" Having others, friends, feel uncomfortable around your parents would result in similar, if not more dire, effects upon the child's confidence.

Disallowing gay marriages simply reiterates and re-enforces any such prejudices

However, many of the more important issues of homosexual relationships are protected under common law, rather than statues.
e.g.
statute law
Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999 (NSW) and the Superannuation Industry (Administration) Amendment Act 2003 (recognition as de facto couples and recognition for the purposes of superannuation payouts, respectively)
common law
W v G, Hope and Brown V NIB Health Fund, Kevin Case, The Case of Patrick

Well statute overrides common law, so Parliament can do away with anything they don't like in common law quite easily (once again, unless it is unconstitutional).

 

[neo o]

Ahh gay marriage, and 12 quote posts.

*thinks back to the old thread*

Good times

 

[eviltama]

Oh here we go again.

I really don't want to have to type out the entire gay marriage thread again so for the moment (since i'm at tafe and should be working) i'll just say my piece and come back when i have time to sift through the shit in here and insult you all personally.

All humans are equal (yes even in the eyes of ther american constitution would you believe it?!) Regardless of sexuality or other defining factor. And under the UDHR (which Australia is supposed to uphold.. not to mention the other two UN treaties) the right to marriage is a basic human right. Regardless of sexuality and regardless of gender. Why is Australia, the great defender of human rights, putting aside such an important human right.. while at the same time trying to say it's defending it?

How is limiting our rights defending something which is primarily defined by an individual.. its effectively limiting the intellectual rights of the individual. Marriage is not only defined by the legal system, its also defined by our society, by the individual and by our culture. Yes in some cultures marriage is a religious event, what right does the govt have to interfere in someones religion... it too is a basic right. Allowing gay marriage won't harm the institution of marriage... it won't hurt the catholic nor christian churches and it won't kill anyone. Homophobia does though.

*YaY! TAFE is over*

 

[Tammie]

Im too lazy to shift through all this but i want to oadd my opinion soz if its already been said

Although some people view marriage as a religious institution and oppose gay marrigage becoz of religion and the religious underpinning of marriage. But in todays society it is as much a religious instituation as a legal one. And although civil ceremonies provide an avenue for a gay couple to marry it, this couple is only recognised as a defacto couple under australian law....as there person before me said...everyone despite sexuality etc should be entitled to marry, if not for moral resons(which is the view which most oppose gay marriage) but for legal reasons.

Defacto relationships offer a degree of commitment etc and rights when the relationship disolves. But a defacto parter can only claim property division on the current value of the property whilst married couples who divorce can claim on the grounds of future value of assessts....eg a house in 2002 worth $600,000 may be worth $800,000 in 10yrs a married couple who divorce can claim division on the future value as one spoouse usually keeps the house

sorry for this long winded argument but i just think its unfair in the legal respects. some people have no problems with gay marriage but many still do. if it is not allowed, which is debatable at least fix the inequalities between gay "civilly married" couples and legal recognised married couples