Same sex marriages (1 Viewer)

[Aerath]

m8, did you just call Graney a leftie? Boy oh boy oh boy.

Someone hasn't been around long enough.

 

[Crobat]

that doesn't change the purpose. the fact you believe others can parent doesnt change the fact that same sex couples do not complement physically, and cannot, in principle, produce children.

great purpose that you will one day justify your own marriage with

too bad neither it nor any purpose(s) are recognised or relevant to the legal operation of marriage so any argument grounded in the so-called 'purpose of marriage' is irrelevant to the question of fairness and equality in the eyes of the law

and yes I am aware that would mean marriage should be available for polygamous relationships and others but 1. polygamous marriages that take place overseas are already recognised in Australia and 2. so what if marriage is extended to them? There is no defined purpose to marriage to violate by doing so and any argument turns on social reasoning not legally indoctrinated

The reason I haven't defended it because discussing it is a whole new question, and would detract from the question of this thread. While it is an element, I think if we talk about parenting, pro-SSMers will be under the impression that showing SS couples can be good parents somehow justifies SSM.

yes forgive us for thinking that the fact that children of SS parenting are statistically happier, performing better in school and more accepting than their counterparts from heterosexual parenting is relevant to the argument "but the children are losers in SSM"

 

[isildurrrr1]

polygamy is a funny thing in aus, since bigamy is still a criminal offence in NSW and the commonwealth, but having 6 de facto partners is a-ok.

 

[Maxwell]

Palm trees for marriage equality

 

[Maxwell]

These cats for marriage equality

 

[Maxwell]

This camel for marriage equality

 

[donglover]

Marriage is a legal bond between two people who love each other, who are we to prevent the union of two people. Though, I still see no further progress of LGBT equality as marriage is a standard. People need to realise that not every aspect of their life has to cater to their personal views - looking at homophobes, sexists, racists, basically everyone who believes a social structure should exist.

 

[TheShepard256]

The question posed is a bit vague. Does it mean "widening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples" or "making a new type of marriage for same-sex couples"?

In any case, I think that it would be better to remove sex/gender from the definition of marriage entirely. That way, people who are neither completely male nor completely female can get married, and there will legally be no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

 

[sindyracanelli]

I'm against it. But not against it being just a de facto relationship. I don't think it changes anything legally aside from the general traditional rules of marriage. Otherwise I think they are just wasting their time. Australia has other things to consider other than the love of another, for example, NOT going into debt like Greece because it keeps giving pensions out to people that don't need it. Make centrelink payments available only for those who actually study and are disabled, or have a valid excuse to not be in the workforce. Hint, hint all you single stay at home mother's out there that live off child support and centrelink payments, lol.

(sorry I digressed, it's a point that really frustrates me)

 

[jdennis]

I'm against it. But not against it being just a de facto relationship. I don't think it changes anything legally aside from the general traditional rules of marriage. Otherwise I think they are just wasting their time. Australia has other things to consider other than the love of another, for example, NOT going into debt like Greece because it keeps giving pensions out to people that don't need it. Make centrelink payments available only for those who actually study and are disabled, or have a valid excuse to not be in the workforce. Hint, hint all you single stay at home mother's out there that live off child support and centrelink payments, lol.

(sorry I digressed, it's a point that really frustrates me)

I agree, there are a lot of issues which are far more important.

Which is why we should just get on with it, allow gay people to marry and then deal with bigger problems facing the country. Why are we wasting our time arguing about whether people deserve equal rights or not?

 

[SylviaB]

wow the amount of eurocentric thought in this thread is disturbing

try being inclusive of other cultural perspectives in the future please guys

 

[SylviaB]

Research also says that two same sex parents are as good as two heterosexual parents..

 

[JuliusSeizure]

Idk why people are against it, times have changed, people just have to move on. They're not hurting anyone

 

[Kiraken]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Family_Structures_Study

Check the criticism section

 

[SylviaB]

a blogger said the study was bad but a university disagreed

wow okay then

 

[RenegadeMx]

Idk why people are against it, times have changed, people just have to move on. They're not hurting anyone

This is why the West continues to morally degrade

 

[Kiraken]

a blogger said the study was bad but a university disagreed

wow okay then

Not sure if you read the page but multiple staff from multiple universities such as Southern Illinois University as well as the University of Texas Austin criticised it and performed audits on the peer review process deeming it inadequete.

In fact literally the only university that defended it that is mentioned on that page is Baylor University which is a small, private baptist university lmao

 

[Sien]

But honestly, why is same sex marriage such a big deal? It's not hurting anyone. We have better things to worry about than a couple of gay people trying to marry each other

 

[ENFP]

I vote yes but tbh I'm neutral. Personally, I wouldn't mind Australia having equal rights for marriage so that I am free to marry a partner I settle down with, be they male, female, agender, intersex, trans, w/e. But, I can understand the issues with straight-up legalising same-sex marriage (no pun intended).

It is entirely reasonable for religious organisations to retain the right to refuse to marry a same-sex couple, if it goes against their beliefs. I will always agree with that. However, it doesn't have to be a Religious institution that provides a marriage certification. A court should have the same rights. Here's a system proposed by some backseat politician (i cant remember who it was and i think they were backseat):

An equally valid marriage certificate can be given by both religious institutions and the Court. They provide the same rights and entitlements. A Court has to allow any couple to get married, but the religious institution can refuse. Basically upgrade civil unions done by the court to actual marriages.

 

[SylviaB]

But honestly, why is same sex marriage such a big deal? It's not hurting anyone. We have better things to worry about than a couple of gay people trying to marry each other

keep your islamaphobic opinions to yourself please