Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[crazyhomo]

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

 

[Sabbo]

I reckon they should have the right to get married. Who is the government to say that it is right or wrong?

Also I don't see why a gay couple shouldn't have the right to adopt children. It's not like all heterosexual couples are perfect parents.

Edit: Re-defined statement

 

[cro_angel]

mmm i know everyone should be free to do whatever they want..
but marriage is a religious thing.. intended for a man and a woman to ultimately make babies.. and religions dont really promote being gay.. although it is outdated now and everyone seems to be getting divorced..
arent they already recognised as being a couple (like in the census) anyway? its a pretty big step considering how unacceptable being gay was in previous times..
basically my view is.. marriage is between a man and a woman.. i dont have a problem with gay people being a couple but i just dont think the term marriage should be used for them.. like life partners or something but yeh thats just cuz im a stickler for tradition..
ahh now the refuting..
hmm i didnt even cover the adoption issue lol.. me and my friends were debating about this last week
i dont see why they cant adopt children.. seeing as women can just get donor sperm and have kids anyway..
some people can provide all of a childs needs and some people cant.. and its so obvious that not all heterosexual parents are perfect cuz so many kids need to be taken out of their house to be put in foster care due to abuse..
not saying that all gay people who are parents arent going to be abusive.. but yeh if they can promote the childs wellbeing then they should have the right to being a parent..

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by cro_angel
mmm i know everyone should be free to do whatever they want..
but marriage is a religious thing.. intended for a man and a woman to ultimately make babies.. and religions dont really promote being gay.. although it is outdated now and everyone seems to be getting divorced..
arent they already recognised as being a couple (like in the census) anyway? its a pretty big step considering how unacceptable being gay was in previous times..
basically my view is.. marriage is between a man and a woman.. i dont have a problem with gay people being a couple but i just dont think the term marriage should be used for them.. like life partners or something but yeh thats just cuz im a stickler for tradition..
ahh now the refuting..

well since marriage is as much a legal status as it is a religious one, how do you propose same-sex couples go about sharing assets while they are together and dividing them up when they split? straight couples have the laws of marriage to help them through this, but now same-sex couples, even those married in countries that allow it, will not be recognised by the courts in australia

 

[Loz#1]

Please don't start this again. Do we all remember the last gay marriage thread?

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by Sabbo
I reckon they should have the right to get married. Who is the government to say what is right or wrong?

So, the government doesn't can't say murder is wrong? The government can't say that stealing is wrong? The government can't say having sex with little kids is wrong?

I think you mean the government just doesn't have any right to disagree with you.

 

[Xayma]

Nah Im more annoyed at the sweetner the government added (the superannuation) to try and destroy the flack.

Anyway hopefully the Democrats/Labor have enough sense to stop it in the Senate.

 

[Ziff]

The government's laws are there to protect us in most cases or at least to regulate behaviour. They're based on moral and ethical concerns that prevail in society at the time.

Marriage did arise from religious traditions and has ultimately become a legal institution in our society. It is what forms the basic unit in our society - the family.

In theory a family should be comprised of a mother (female) and a father (male) as this is the only natural way to conceive children. Their purpose is to provide care, comfort to each other etc but of course, the primary purpose of a family should be to provide the best quality of life possible for their offspring. Children of course being the most fundamental asset of society (according to CROC etc). Of course now that male/male and female/female pairings can also have or acquire children somehow you have to think about the ethical and moral implications of technology on these units.

Should a child have both a mother and a father as nature intended? And yes, that is now nature intended otherwise we would naturally be able to procreate in other ways!

Should we allow technology to change nature allowing a child to have male/male or female/female parents? What affect will this have on the child? Is it right or is it wrong? Why?

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the thought of a child having same-sex parents. At the same time, I'm also uncomfortable with the thought of a child having a male and a female parent who are abusive or a single parent mother/father who is working their arse off to provide for them financially whilst being forced to neglect them emotionally.

If it's in the best interests of the child to have same-sex parents (and it's better than leaving them with abusive parents or in a dangerous situation) then I say let it go ahead but if you can find a good, caring mother and father then they should always take precedence.

Should they be allowed to marry? No. Should they however, be afforded the same legal protection if they are in a couple as a married couple? Yes. The notion of marriage has a strong traditional values and ties which can't be neglected or ignored. It has a fundamental purpose but maybe something along the lines of a civil union - midway between a de-facto relationship and a marriage might be a good option.

This way you don't create too much change overnight but also afford them legal protections, rights, obligations and privileges.

 

[glycerine]

Originally posted by cro_angel
mmm i know everyone should be free to do whatever they want..
but marriage is a religious thing.. intended for a man and a woman to ultimately make babies.. and religions dont really promote being gay.. although it is outdated now and everyone seems to be getting divorced..
arent they already recognised as being a couple (like in the census) anyway? its a pretty big step considering how unacceptable being gay was in previous times..
basically my view is.. marriage is between a man and a woman.. i dont have a problem with gay people being a couple but i just dont think the term marriage should be used for them.. like life partners or something but yeh thats just cuz im a stickler for tradition..
ahh now the refuting..
hmm i didnt even cover the adoption issue lol.. me and my friends were debating about this last week
i dont see why they cant adopt children.. seeing as women can just get donor sperm and have kids anyway..
some people can provide all of a childs needs and some people cant.. and its so obvious that not all heterosexual parents are perfect cuz so many kids need to be taken out of their house to be put in foster care due to abuse..
not saying that all gay people who are parents arent going to be abusive.. but yeh if they can promote the childs wellbeing then they should have the right to being a parent..

like pat said, in the australian context, marriage has much more weight as a legal institution than as a religious one. by your logic, only religious people may marry.

 

[Ziff]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
how do you propose same-sex couples go about sharing assets while they are together and dividing them up when they split? straight couples have the laws of marriage to help them through this

In NSW at least, we have the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 that gives people living in a de-facto relationship (heterosexual or homosexual) a variety of legal rights. Of course, this act also creates a variety of problems when you deal with children but oh well...

Give all power concerning relationships and children to the Federal government and you'll have problems when a hardcore Liberal gets in (who will just abolish any mention of the phrase "same sex"). Keep everything separated as it is now between Federal and State and you'll have problems involving costs and jurisdiction. It's lose-lose.

 

[Sabbo]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
So, the government doesn't can't say murder is wrong? The government can't say that stealing is wrong? The government can't say having sex with little kids is wrong?

I think you mean the government just doesn't have any right to disagree with you.

Sorry, I was too broad in my statement. It was meant to focus on the gay marriage issue.

Of course the government has the right to enforce rules to protect people etc

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Ziff
If it's in the best interests of the child to have same-sex parents (and it's better than leaving them with abusive parents or in a dangerous situation) then I say let it go ahead but if you can find a good, caring mother and father then they should always take precedence.

Should they be allowed to marry? No. Should they however, be afforded the same legal protection if they are in a couple as a married couple? Yes. The notion of marriage has a strong traditional values and ties which can't be neglected or ignored. It has a fundamental purpose but maybe something along the lines of a civil union - midway between a de-facto relationship and a marriage might be a good option.

why should straight parents be preferred to same-sex parents? you're reasoning seem to suggest 'because that's the way it has always been'. i'm sure many were uncomfortable with women or aboriginals being able to vote.

and i can see where you are coming from in saying there should be no same-sex marriage, because of what marriage is. but like glyc said, if marriage is to be a purely religious institution, then shouldn't it be against the law to marry if you are not religious? or what about inter-religious couples? i'm glad you think same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples, but when you do this but categorising them as inherently different, does this not encourage discrimination?

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by Ziff
Should a child have both a mother and a father as nature intended? And yes, that is now nature intended otherwise we would naturally be able to procreate in other ways!

As nature intended in a marriage post is open to discussion. Human beings operate as social animals (as far as can be told our ancestors were pack animals) hence should other family members have as many legal rights over the offspring especially since they provide alot of the care (both back in time and nowdays), also in nature looking at the closest "relatives" being with one partner doesnt seem to occur too much and often only the strongest male can breed, so unless we go to a Vulcan system of breeding it isnt going to work

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Sabbo
Sorry, I probably was to broad in my statement. I was more focusing on the gay marriage issue.

Of course the government has the right to enforce rules to protect people etc

and if this legislation does protect people, but you cannot see it?

 

[Sabbo]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
and if this legislation does protect people, but you cannot see it?

Then I'd like to know in what way it protects them and any legit reason(s)
for it

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by untying_average
OK, so you say that it isnot healthy to have same sex parents, can anyone give any evidence? In theory, shouldn't same sex parents be a lot better, since it is so much harder for same sex couples to obtain children, only those who were really serious about having kids and had steady jobs etc. could get them..?

No. That doesn't mean that they'd be WORSE, but just because you are extrapolating and thinking that only those who would really care would adopt, and since they care they'd be better parents doesn't make it better.

 

[sugaryblue]

the bible says it's wrong

same sex marriage is out of the norm, It just doesn't seem too write to have gay marriage. anyway nature rules that reproduction requires 1 man 1 female (although, some species are exempted from this).

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Sabbo
Then I'd like to know in what way it protects them and any legit reason(s)
for it

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

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by sugaryblue
the bible says it's wrong

same sex marriage is out of the norm, It just doesn't seem too write to have gay marriage. anyway nature rules that reproduction requires 1 man 1 female (although, some species are exempted from this).

the bible also says people who need to wear glasses should be put to death. and, as your signature says, does not god love everyone unconditionally? isn't that a contradiction? i put it to this thread than any argument based on 'my religion says so' should be automatically ignored

on your argument on nature, if we were to follow nature, then bigomy would be our preference. the whole institution of marriage violates nature at it's most basic form

 

[glycerine]

Originally posted by sugaryblue
the bible says it's wrong

same sex marriage is out of the norm, It just doesn't seem too write to have gay marriage. anyway nature rules that reproduction requires 1 man 1 female (although, some species are exempted from this).

You cannot take quotations from the Old Testament to argue your case, considering that the New Testament was written to replace the teachings of the Old.