Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Name_Taken]

lib·er·ty (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties
1.
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.


It would seem, from the definition of liberty, that homosexual marriages have, just about everything to do with liberty.

Uuuh no, not at all... Gays can marry, they just have to abide by the restrictions on who they can marry, just like the rest of us (asuming you're not gay yourself).

Even dispite of that, gays are free to be gay. They are free to celebrate their individuality or w/e in parades etc. They are free to enter into meaningful unions with a person of their choosing, and to make the same vows of committment as heterosexual couples, even in their own mock-marriages at Churches willing to endorse such ceremonies.

Where is liberty being infringed?

They have every liberty they could ask for. They want recognition. And they can't have it, because a union between two people of the same sex is not the same as that of two people of the opposite sex and doesn't offer what heterosexual unions do, and as such doesn't merit either the same status or benefits.

You have the bloody burden of proof to prove with actual reasons why it is in everyones interest to legalise same sex marriage. All you (as in everyone in the sodomy squad) seems to be able to do is repeat the status quo.

 

[Name_Taken]

Explain? It's not like I'm saying that two dudes blowing each other off in the middle of the street is socially acceptable- the same applies to heterosexuals.

Umm... do I have to go into detail?

Like the actual sexual acts invovled in regards to the physical manifestation of homosexuality do not in anyway resemble the equality that can be found within natural heterosexual sexual practises.

 

[Durga]

Dude seriously like are you actually proposing the solution to global overpopulation is to hand out contraception and even encourage homosexuality?

Really?!

What about telling people to get some bloody good old fashioned self control and keeping it in their pants?

What ever happened to common sense? If anything birth control encourages this problem, as it teaches people the wrong attitude towards both sex and marriage, as well as demeaning the value of human life.

Don't have sex until you're married. Every time you have sex, consider whether or not you are able to support the child that may result, if you can't then why don't you abstain like a responsible adult that thinks with their head, and not the contents of their pants?

Yes, I do, because a Bronze Age book doesn't cloud my judgement. It's not the entire solution, but it will help. What is counter-productive is your Church campaigning against birth control in areas effected by severe poverty and over-population.

Are you so ignorant as to make an absolute statement such as 'Don't have sex until you're married'? People will have sex when they want to, and when they feel ready. We need to educate people about proper use of birth control, not to tell them to just go cold turkey!

 

[Durga]

Uuuh no, not at all... Gays can marry, they just have to abide by the restrictions on who they can marry, just like the rest of us (asuming you're not gay yourself).

Even dispite of that, gays are free to be gay. They are free to celebrate their individuality or w/e in parades etc. They are free to enter into meaningful unions with a person of their choosing, and to make the same vows of committment as heterosexual couples, even in their own mock-marriages at Churches willing to endorse such ceremonies.

Where is liberty being infringed?

They have every liberty they could ask for. They want recognition. And they can't have it, because a union between two people of the same sex is not the same as that of two people of the opposite sex and doesn't offer what heterosexual unions do, and as such doesn't merit either the same status or benefits.

You have the bloody burden of proof to prove with actual reasons why it is in everyones interest to legalise same sex marriage. All you (as in everyone in the sodomy squad) seems to be able to do is repeat the status quo.

Liberty is being infringed the moment gays can't marry their life partner. Stop being ignorant.

And yes, I (and the so aptly named 'Sodomy Squad') will continue to chant equality. It is in the same interests for society to legalise same-sex marriage as it was for womens/Aboriginals voting rights. So that in our society, everyone is considered equal.

 

[Name_Taken]

Yes, I do, because a Bronze Age book doesn't cloud my judgement. It's not the entire solution, but it will help. What is counter-productive is your Church campaigning against birth control in areas effected by severe poverty and over-population.

Are you so ignorant as to make an absolute statement such as 'Don't have sex until you're married'? People will have sex when they want to, and when they feel ready. We need to educate people about proper use of birth control, not to tell them to just go cold turkey!

As a Christian I can confidently tell you that the most effective method of birth control is abstinence, after all, it only failed once

The problem is the sex culture which has emerged. The problem is not a lack of contracpetives, but rather a society which actively says, yes when you're ready and when you want it, go for it. Contraceptives never give a 100% "success" rate and as such, unplanned pregnancies will continue to occur if people continue to have sex in the manner currently encouraged by soceity. A contraceptive is simply a bandaid used to reduce the impact of societies obsession with sex, the root of the problem is this attitude. One hardly has to be Christian to appreciate this.

 

[Titburger]

Umm... do I have to go into detail?

Like the actual sexual acts invovled in regards to the physical manifestation of homosexuality do not in anyway resemble the equality that can be found within natural heterosexual sexual practises.

"I find it gross so I'm not going to let consensual adults participate in these acts"

 

[Durga]

As a Christian I can confidently tell you that the most effective method of birth control is abstinence, after all, it only failed once

The problem is the sex culture which has emerged. The problem is not a lack of contracpetives, but rather a society which actively says, yes when you're ready and when you want it, go for it. Contraceptives never give a 100% "success" rate and as such, unplanned pregnancies will continue to occur if people continue to have sex in the manner currently encouraged by soceity. A contraceptive is simply a bandaid used to reduce the impact of societies obsession with sex, the root of the problem is this attitude. One hardly has to be Christian to appreciate this.

Complete abstinence will always work, but it's the equivalent of saying the proper way to stop murder is to stop murdering people. While it is the perfect way of stopping unplanned pregnancies, it is not practical in real life.

Birth control provides an effective (not absolute, but >95% is damned good) way of reducing unplanned pregnancies. Sex is an outlet for many people, a way to release stress. Birth control affords us the luxury of this act without the risk of a baby resulting every time.

It also is an effective way of preventing AIDS (once again, not completely absolute).

 

[Titburger]

As a Christian I can confidently tell you that the most effective method of birth control is abstinence, after all, it only failed once

The problem is the sex culture which has emerged. The problem is not a lack of contracpetives, but rather a society which actively says, yes when you're ready and when you want it, go for it. Contraceptives never give a 100% "success" rate and as such, unplanned pregnancies will continue to occur if people continue to have sex in the manner currently encouraged by soceity. A contraceptive is simply a bandaid used to reduce the impact of societies obsession with sex, the root of the problem is this attitude. One hardly has to be Christian to appreciate this.

Of course a virgin would come out with this

 

[Name_Taken]

Liberty is being infringed the moment gays can't marry their life partner. Stop being ignorant.

The same rules apply to everyone.

And what do you mean by marry? Presently gay couples can "marry" in ceremonies conducted by willing Churches within Australia, isn't that what they want?

If you're asking for civil marriage, then you have to demonstrate why gay couples are eligible for civil marriage (keeping in mind the purpose of civil marriage in regards to the state), and why, if gay unions are accepted, why other private relationships (e.g. polygamy) should continue to be excluded.

What makes gay unions special? (We already know what makes heterosexual couples special, and this quality is not shared by homosexual unions, but w/e I'll give you a chance).

You are just repeating the status quo "but gays can't marry atm etc etc." Less complaining, more reaons please.

You have to explain why we should change the definition of marriage, to compenstate for the choices and desires made by a very small minority of adults who wish to hold marriage and the family to ransom in order to achieve their goal.

And yes, I (and the so aptly named 'Sodomy Squad') will continue to chant equality. It is in the same interests for society to legalise same-sex marriage as it was for womens/Aboriginals voting rights. So that in our society, everyone is considered equal.

This is different altogether, for 3 obvious reasons.

i) Aboriginals and women (however women less so) suffered real persecution by Australian society. Homosexuals, in comparrison are bashed up by stupid thugs every now and then (as are Aboriginals and Indian students for example). You can't realistically compare the plight of women and aboriginals to that of the gay movement, the differences are just too extreme. Aborignals and women were denied basic rights on the basis of something they had no control over.

ii) Homosexuality is a behaviour, and is chosen by the individual, wheras one cannot choose to be female, or Aboriginal.

iii) No rights of gay people are being compromised in the status quo. This is opposed to women, who couldn't work, and Aboriginals who were bloody killed/raped and treated like slaves. Gay unions earn more (combined income) on average than heterosexual unions.

 

[nikolas]

Even dispite of that, gays are free to be gay. They are free to celebrate their individuality or w/e in parades etc. They are free to enter into meaningful unions with a person of their choosing, and to make the same vows of committment as heterosexual couples, even in their own mock-marriages at Churches willing to endorse such ceremonies.

So basically you're just against the Government giving the same legal status to homosexual couples?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Marriage is about families, and families are about children. Same-sex marriage is inconsistent with the purpose of marriage, and that is why homosexual unions should not be given the same recognition as heterosexual unions. Love outside of the procreative context may be good, but that alone is not deserving of society's concern; children are society's concern, and children come from heterosexual, not homosexual unions.

C.S. Lewis made a point in reference to the relationship of love and marriage when he said, "The idea that 'being in love' is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if it adds nothing, then it should not be made."

The grounds of marriage is not love. That may be an emotionally compelling reason to get married, but that is not its purpose. There is another reason we enter the social contract of marriage: for the production of, and stabilization of the family unit--the building block of society. If marriage is fundamentally about love marriage would not be necessary, because marriage does not produce love, nor does it secure it. Just ask any who is divorced.

so why isn't compulsory for all married couples to bear children?

and who have you ever heard say, "marry me because it is our purpose to contribute to the stabalisation of the family unit!" sounds fucking romantic doesn't it?

I have stated a gabillion times that people get married to:
- solidify their commitment
- declare their love for one another to the world
- celebrate their relationship

am i not saying this plain enough?

 

[nikolas]

And what do you mean by marry? Presently gay couples can "marry" in ceremonies conducted by willing Churches within Australia, isn't that what they want?

No they want these ceremonies to be recognized by the Government equally alongside Hetero marriages.

 

[Durga]

so why isn't compulsory for all married couples to bear children?

and who have you ever heard say, "marry me because it is our purpose to contribute to the stabalisation of the family unit!" sounds fucking romantic doesn't it?

I have stated a gabillion times that people get married to:
- solidify their commitment
- declare their love for one another to the world
- celebrate their relationship

am i not saying this plain enough?

+1

The purpose of marriage is not to benefit society all the time (although it does benefit society in that a happier society is generally more productive).

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

No they want these ceremonies to be recognized by the Government equally alongside Hetero marriages.

yeah! screw the church. we just want marraige. apprarently, that's too much to ask.

 

[Name_Taken]

"I find it gross so I'm not going to let consensual adults participate in these acts"

...But they are allowed to participate in this acts, if they want and I haven't proposed they shouldn't be.

Complete abstinence will always work, but it's the equivalent of saying the proper way to stop murder is to stop murdering people.

Um... exactly.

While it is the perfect way of stopping unplanned pregnancies, it is not practical in real life.

People abstian their entire life, I don't see how it is impossible at all, unless you are a slave to your carnal desires.

Of course it is impossible to create a murderless society, or one in which no-body has sex outside of marriage, but if we work on changing the whole culture to admire virtues such as abstinence and self control, while condeming promiscuisity and aggression (in the case of murder), I can't see how we won't be making the world a better place.

Birth control provides an effective (not absolute, but >95% is damned good) way of reducing unplanned pregnancies. Sex is an outlet for many people, a way to release stress. Birth control affords us the luxury of this act without the risk of a baby resulting every time.

As if people can't find a more positive and healthy outlet for stress other than sex?

I never said birth control didn't offer that. Thats one of its problems. It prevents pregnancy, but its breeding an illusion. One which doesn't value self control, human life and love.

It is nothing more than a cop-out which is already leading to massive social problems in our society.

It also is an effective way of preventing AIDS (once again, not completely absolute).

Once again, abstaining completely until marrying your life partner (who you love, and who if abstianed as well won't be infected with an STI anyway) is the most effective method of reducing the rate of STI infections (AIDS and the rest).

Of course a virgin would come out with this

Mate, I'm proving its actually possible.

 

[Titburger]

So basically you're just against the Government giving the same legal status to homosexual couples?

seems to be all he's got left

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

seems to be all he's got left

lol after same sex marraige is allowed, i wonder what the church's got to complain about next?

 

[Name_Taken]

So basically you're just against the Government giving the same legal status to homosexual couples?

And giving them any of the freebees which they don't deserve (not trying to be slack, but like they actually don't merit recieving them).

so why isn't compulsory for all married couples to bear children?

Um, because firstly it is the couples choice as to when they have a child, not the governments and some married couples actually cannot concieve, through no fault of their own.

Even in the case where a couple could concieve but chooses not too, it is different from gay unions, simply becuase the hetero couple has the ability to.

If you have a hammer, and it's hanging on the wall of a toolshed, and not being used to "hammer" something, it is still a hammer

As such, a heterosexual relationship is still a marriage.

The government doesn't know whether each individual coupel will actually have children, but what it does know is that heterosexual couples do have children, and homosexual couples can't.

and who have you ever heard say, "marry me because it is our purpose to contribute to the stabalisation of the family unit!" sounds fucking romantic doesn't it?

I have stated a gabillion times that people get married to:
- solidify their commitment
- declare their love for one another to the world
- celebrate their relationship

am i not saying this plain enough?

You're talking about why people have what I will call private marriages. As in at a Church, where everyone dresses up, has nice cake, exchanges rings and has a party

I can have a private marriage, without registering my and m wife's unions with the government. On the other hand, we can register with the government, and we become married, but not bother with the ceremony and party.

Civil marriage, is the government one. Private marriage is the Church.

Civil marriages are only regulated to straight couples, for children, which is obviously in the states interest.

Private marriage however, is regulated by all the various religious authorities, some of which already accept gay unions (in Australia), some don't.

People get married because they love each other etc. But the government regulates marriages and provides legal protection and in some cases financial support in order to add stability to married unions, in the interest of children.

Marriage, has never been solely about love, declaration of love and committment to the world or to celebrate relationships.

If marriage is a construct of the State, and the basis of marriage is love and commitment, then there is no principled reason to prohibit group or incestual marriages.

Homosexuals have the freedom to love another person of the same sex and commit to that individual for life in a loving relationship. No one is prohibiting them from doing so. There are even ceremonies available for such commitments. What the State has done is refuse to recognize and sanction this sort of relationship as equal to heterosexual marriage. They have not granted homosexual couples the same social approval and legal benefits/protections afforded heterosexual couples. There is nothing wrong with that. The State does not recognize all relationships as equal. Not all relationships are given social approval and special protection by the government (such as friendships)--only those that are foundational to the health and welfare of society.

^^^
Until you can combat that, you have provided no reasons @ all as to why we should accept gay civil marriages and treat them as equal to heterosexual unions.

 

[NewiJapper]

People abstian their entire life.

Yea...these are the people we see jumping off buildings in their latter years.

 

[Slidey]

And giving them any of the freebees which they don't deserve (not trying to be slack, but like they actually don't merit recieving them).

Such as? Why should straight married couples receive any freebies from government but not gay married or de facto couples?