Same sex marriages (3 Viewers)

[iamchillturtle]

Weird, thought they said as long as they are happy and arent hurt and its consensual... Weird.

 

[iamchillturtle]

Marriage nowadays isnt about making a family or anything. Its to bond two people. And even then, there is such thing as divorce which is much more socially acceptable nowadays and surprisingly, I havent seen it on this forum yet... You make the point of how marriage is to 'make a mother', what about women who are single parents? Or the use of IVF? Or adoption? Or women who cant have children and are married? What happens then? Marriage nowadays is a bond. A bond that shows your love towards someone, basically a legal agreement saying you will be there for someone through thick and thin, better or for worse, sickness and health. So why cant a man and a man or a woman and a woman be married? Why?

 

[isildurrrr1]

marriage is just a bond of assets tbh.

 

[LC14199]

After going through this shit storm of information, here's my rather succinct opinion on the matter.

It's true that Marriage was designed to unite families to create a stable environment, however as others have pointed out it is also true that there are many children stuck in the foster care system that would benefit from having a stable home to live in. As a child that has grown up in a relatively stable family, I cannot really comment on what it's like to live in the foster care system. But what I do know, is that I've grown up without a male influence for the majority of my child hood. My mum and dad split after a month and a half of being married because my father was an ass. But here's the problem, growing up without one of the sexes unbalances the childhood value system. Children gain certain values from both sexes, where a dad might say just deck the bully to solve the problem, the mum says try to show compassion and figure out why the person is bullying you.

I've always found that women are more likely to be less violent, I'm not exactly 100% sure if that's a societal expectation, and hence why it occurs, or if it's just a generalization that tends to happen. I'm not saying there aren't any violent women because I've seen plenty of them in the news, and from friends of friends. If I had a choice, I'd rather grow up with a Dad and a Mum, because having only one parent really is difficult. Sure statistics might say that it doesn't harm the child, but statistics can be biased rather easily according to the companies supporting or sponsoring the studies used to create the statistics.

I'm going to request that I be left out of this argument, because quite frankly I don't really care if same sex couples get married, but raising children is a whole different matter. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to, but we need to remember that we're only talking about the marriage aspect, not the family aspect. True, they are intricately connected, but that doesn't mean we can bring up all the mumbo jumbo that may only necessarily apply to one or the other. But I do agree with someone that said earlier that a church should have the legal right to refuse to marry same sex couples if it does not fit within that religions belief.

So that's my opinion. I'm rather apathetic towards the issue overall, as many people have pointed out it just doesn't affect many of us. We can talk about history all we want, but ultimately I think this society hasn't had a central belief system like it used to for a long time. Therefore, it's created the pathway to the argument we currently sit in. What do we as a society want? Do we want everyone to be able to do everything, or are there limits? It's a difficult question to answer. Equality is important, but how far are we as people willing to go to ensure that everyone is 100% equal? There will always be small inequalities or biases no matter what we do. But society can try its best to remove the major ones.

So the overall of the overall, I'm not overly worried about it, and many of us need to stop getting our feathers so ruffled over an issue that really, isn't the biggest drama.

PS: Please don't pick apart this, as I'm really not interested in arguing my point. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and people will always disagree with eachother. We cannot please everyone.

 

[teridax]

LC14199, I pretty much agree with most of your post, except for the last 3 mini body paragraphs.

So that's my opinion. I'm rather apathetic towards the issue overall, as many people have pointed out it just doesn't affect many of us. We can talk about history all we want, but ultimately I think this society hasn't had a central belief system like it used to for a long time. Therefore, it's created the pathway to the argument we currently sit in. What do we as a society want? Do we want everyone to be able to do everything, or are there limits? It's a difficult question to answer. Equality is important, but how far are we as people willing to go to ensure that everyone is 100% equal? There will always be small inequalities or biases no matter what we do. But society can try its best to remove the major ones.

But history is precisely the reason it explains why it was originally accepted that marriage was to be between a man and a woman...

Except this is formed via relative truth, it's only because of society that has construed the notion that allowing gay couples to marry is equal.

So the overall of the overall, I'm not overly worried about it, and many of us need to stop getting our feathers so ruffled over an issue that really, isn't the biggest drama.

What's wrong with debating on certain topics such as this? Just because it's a sensitive one doesn't mean it always has to end up in flaming.

PS: Please don't pick apart this, as I'm really not interested in arguing my point. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and people will always disagree with eachother. We cannot please everyone.

But if you weren't interested in arguing your point, then why is it that you posted a lengthy response?

That's just a logical fallacy whereby a person discredits any opposition as bigotry by exclaiming that they are entitled to their opinion. It's not relevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. Why? Have you look at this article for yourself: http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

And that's a sweeping generalisation to say that "people will always disagree with each other" because it's implying that every human being will never agree on certain things, which is definitely a wrong assumption to make.

 

[isildurrrr1]

But history is precisely the reason it explains why it was originally accepted that marriage was to be between a man and a woman...

Are you daft? In ancient greco-roman history it was common for a man to love a younger man. It's called a pederst relationship and it's pretty much the same as marriage.

Except this is formed via relative truth, it's only because of society that has construed the notion that allowing gay couples to marry is equal.

Of course it's a rights issue. Arbitrarily denying a portion of a population to a legal contract that is abled to be enjoyed by the rest is quite backwards. It's almost akin to denying people marriage because they're not of the same race. The whole having kids argument is non-sense, there are a lot of married couples that don't want to have kids or are unable to. Gay couples have other methods of having kids as well so it's entirely a moot point.

 

[Aerath]

I disagree with same sex marriage.

As far as the good life is concerned, traditional marriage puts others at the centre - traditional marriage is good for society (society needs), as opposed to gay marriage which is individualistic (I want). These things lie at the heart of the matter - who do you live for - others or yourself, and is morality external to humanity, or is it something we invent as we go along?

LOL, what the FUCK?

Same sex parents cannot procreate. They need to undergo IVF and new birth technology.

The sexual union of different sex couples is what reproduces the human race. If same sex couples want to reproduce, they would put a strain on current health systems (if it were mainstream).

If you want to stop putting a strain on the current health systems by stopping babies, then tell bogans out west to stop fucking around like rabbits.

But in any case, with the exception of being able to procreate without intervention, same sex relationships are identical to mixed sex relationships.

And even that caveat is NOT an impediment to marriage. Infertile couples can and do marry. The elderly can and do marry. So, being able to bear children is not, in my honest opinion, a reason to deny the option of marriage to same sex couples.

In addition, I've seen no rational reason why same sex couples should be denied the option to marry.

Let me break it down, based on the most common arguments:

1) "Tradition" based arguments: Unfortunately for these type of arguments, the institution known as "Marriage" has already changed its definition multiple times. For example, in the time of Queen Victoria the First, marriage was used as a means to secure a political alliance, usually between royal houses, but also between Lords. The crude phrase "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed." is a fair commentary of the times. A more recent example would see me use the advent of "no fault" divorce. In all possibility, the advent of "no fault" divorce has probably done more harm than good regarding the sanctity of marriage, moreso, I believe, than any change to the Marriage Act to allow SSM. For those that keep saying that "new laws" will ruin marriage, let me remind you that the legal position of marriage as being between a man and a woman has only been law since 2004.

2) Arguments based on any form of slippery slope: While these arguments are totally and utterly irrelevant to this discussion, it's worth debunking them. What pro-SSM advocates are asking for is a change to the legal definitions covering who can be married. Specifically, we are asking that the wording be returned to the pre-2004 changes, which said that a marriage was between two natural persons, rather than the post 2004 amendment, which changed that definition to specify that the genders must be different. Pro-SSM advocates are NOT asking for a change to the legal status of polygamy or any other such issue. Please do not use this one!

3) "It's icky!" and similar arguments: You may ask yourself do you find the thought of two men kissing passionately to be disturbing? Possibly. However, does it affect you? Nope, not in the slightest. Why? Because, it has no effect on youif two people who love each other want to get married, and have that love legally recognised by the State.

4) "Won't someone think of the children?!" and similar: Would it surprise you that we actually ARE thinking about the children? Firstly, children seem to know how to love, but not how to hate. Go take a look at any pre-school where there's mixed races. They're all playing together. No real distinction on their colours. It's only later on in life that the distinction happens. Secondly, and this is a fairly big one, by legalising SSM, and defining it simply as "Marriage" we are saying to our kids, who might be struggling with their sexuality, that it is okay if you're gay, or bi, or even if you earnestly believe you're in the wrong body (And yes, I can find sources that show that some children believe that they're females in a male body, and visa versa.) This would have a seriously positive effect on kids who fear coming out. They can then turn to society and say "No, I'm NOT weird, I'm NORMAL!" and they will be backed up on it by society.

Another benefit related to number 4 is that it also helps to break down barriers between people. I have seen, first hand, the hatred by school kids toward a gay person. The experience left me bloody, literally, but it was worth it. Would I do that again? Yes. Why? Because he's human, and ultimately, we as a society need to realise that. We need to show that we DO give a damn about those who are different to us. Oh, and no, he didn't try to make a pass at me. He was quite a nice dude, actually, and we had a lot in common.

Another related argument is the "But you're denying girls the right to a mother/boys the right to a father." On first blush, this is true. Children who have same sex parents do not have the opposite sex in their daily lives. However, this argument tends to overlook a few points of contact. Firstly, children go to school. Especially in primary school, there's a large female influence. Secondly, there's outside groups, such as sporting clubs, or even friends houses. Most importantly, there's the Doctors. I believe that SS couples will utilise that last resource extensively, because people do trust doctors. What WE as a society need to create is an environment where kids and parents alike can go to the doctors for resources and get around the whole not knowing about the other gender thing.

And finally, when ultra religious parents are shunning their kids who come out as gay, or when priests and bishops either commit child pedophilia or cover it up - who will think of the children?

5) I alluded to this earlier. The inability to have children is often used as an argument against SSM. Unfortunately for this argument, there's numerous holes blown into this argument. An example would be a couple aged mid 20's to early 30's, yet through some sad circumstances (Say, testicular or ovarian cancer for example) the couple is unable to conceive a child. The marriage between the couple is still valid, simply because marriage is (supposed to be) the ultimate expression of love between two people. The same applies to the elderly, past the years of childbearing. They can still be married under law, and that love can be recognised by the state. With this, I apologise if I have caused hurt amongst this community for raising the issue of infertility.

6) "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman:" Well, technically, yes it has. Does that, in and of itself, for a clear and legally valid reason for the continued discrimination against couples of the same sex? No, I do not believe it does. We are, as a society, supposed to grow up as well, and part of that growing up period is supposed to be looking at our past and saying "We were wrong." We've already admitted we were wrong when, for the best of intentions, we removed aboriginal children from their families and placed them into state care. We've also admitted that we were wrong when certain institutions placed the children of single mothers into forced adoption. I think it's high time we looked at ourselves and say "We are wrong to deny a loving couple the chance to marry."

Legally, as I said above, in Australia, marriage has only been that legally between a man and a woman since 2004.

And speaking of adoption... It would be a benefit to society as a whole if we could say "Yes, we DO have a family for you to enter into." to a child waiting for a new life. We let our society down when we let our children down.

A few words in conclusion. I know that I'm gonna get my post picked apart word by word, so let me finish with this. In the grand scheme of things, with all the issues facing this world, the debate (If one can call it such) around same sex marriage is a minor issue. But just because it's minor, it doesn't mean it's not important. We, as a society, need to move beyond the view of "shirts vs skins" or "colour vs white" or other meaningless arguments, and realise that we all bleed red, and we're all made of the same damn stuff. Only then will we be able to move out beyond our minds and begin to explore.

Edit:

I forgot to say, the poll question is incredibly loaded. It should not matter whether an individual enjoys the idea of same-sex marriage. I suspect that a whole lot of my friends would be uncomfortable with the idea of my boyfriend and I making out; just as they would be uncomfortable with the idea of a straight couple making out in front of them for 30 minutes on a train ride home.

But do they think that the Australian government should provide a mechanism for state-sanctioned discrimination? No.

The question is as loaded as: "do you believe in state sanctioned discrimination of LGBTIQ identifying individuals and couples?".

A more appropriate question would and should be: "Do you believe that the Marriage Act 2004 (Cth) should be expanded to include same-sex couples?"

Edit 2: I also should note that I'm happy for anyone to respond to this/

 

[snowflakeptical]

^ You pretty much covered everything relevant

 

[calamebe]

Yeah, why not. I'm christian and see no problem with it. These days marriage is more than just love, as it comes with benefits, so we should let everyone have those benefits.

 

[Amleops]

If you want to stop putting a strain on the current health systems by stopping babies, then tell bogans out west to stop fucking around like rabbits.

But in any case, with the exception of being able to procreate without intervention, same sex relationships are identical to mixed sex relationships.

And even that caveat is NOT an impediment to marriage. Infertile couples can and do marry. The elderly can and do marry. So, being able to bear children is not, in my honest opinion, a reason to deny the option of marriage to same sex couples.

In addition, I've seen no rational reason why same sex couples should be denied the option to marry.

Let me break it down, based on the most common arguments:

1) "Tradition" based arguments: Unfortunately for these type of arguments, the institution known as "Marriage" has already changed its definition multiple times. For example, in the time of Queen Victoria the First, marriage was used as a means to secure a political alliance, usually between royal houses, but also between Lords. The crude phrase "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed." is a fair commentary of the times. A more recent example would see me use the advent of "no fault" divorce. In all possibility, the advent of "no fault" divorce has probably done more harm than good regarding the sanctity of marriage, moreso, I believe, than any change to the Marriage Act to allow SSM. For those that keep saying that "new laws" will ruin marriage, let me remind you that the legal position of marriage as being between a man and a woman has only been law since 2004.

2) Arguments based on any form of slippery slope: While these arguments are totally and utterly irrelevant to this discussion, it's worth debunking them. What pro-SSM advocates are asking for is a change to the legal definitions covering who can be married. Specifically, we are asking that the wording be returned to the pre-2004 changes, which said that a marriage was between two natural persons, rather than the post 2004 amendment, which changed that definition to specify that the genders must be different. Pro-SSM advocates are NOT asking for a change to the legal status of polygamy or any other such issue. Please do not use this one!

3) "It's icky!" and similar arguments: You may ask yourself do you find the thought of two men kissing passionately to be disturbing? Possibly. However, does it affect you? Nope, not in the slightest. Why? Because, it has no effect on youif two people who love each other want to get married, and have that love legally recognised by the State.

4) "Won't someone think of the children?!" and similar: Would it surprise you that we actually ARE thinking about the children? Firstly, children seem to know how to love, but not how to hate. Go take a look at any pre-school where there's mixed races. They're all playing together. No real distinction on their colours. It's only later on in life that the distinction happens. Secondly, and this is a fairly big one, by legalising SSM, and defining it simply as "Marriage" we are saying to our kids, who might be struggling with their sexuality, that it is okay if you're gay, or bi, or even if you earnestly believe you're in the wrong body (And yes, I can find sources that show that some children believe that they're females in a male body, and visa versa.) This would have a seriously positive effect on kids who fear coming out. They can then turn to society and say "No, I'm NOT weird, I'm NORMAL!" and they will be backed up on it by society.

Another benefit related to number 4 is that it also helps to break down barriers between people. I have seen, first hand, the hatred by school kids toward a gay person. The experience left me bloody, literally, but it was worth it. Would I do that again? Yes. Why? Because he's human, and ultimately, we as a society need to realise that. We need to show that we DO give a damn about those who are different to us. Oh, and no, he didn't try to make a pass at me. He was quite a nice dude, actually, and we had a lot in common.

Another related argument is the "But you're denying girls the right to a mother/boys the right to a father." On first blush, this is true. Children who have same sex parents do not have the opposite sex in their daily lives. However, this argument tends to overlook a few points of contact. Firstly, children go to school. Especially in primary school, there's a large female influence. Secondly, there's outside groups, such as sporting clubs, or even friends houses. Most importantly, there's the Doctors. I believe that SS couples will utilise that last resource extensively, because people do trust doctors. What WE as a society need to create is an environment where kids and parents alike can go to the doctors for resources and get around the whole not knowing about the other gender thing.

And finally, when ultra religious parents are shunning their kids who come out as gay, or when priests and bishops either commit child pedophilia or cover it up - who will think of the children?

5) I alluded to this earlier. The inability to have children is often used as an argument against SSM. Unfortunately for this argument, there's numerous holes blown into this argument. An example would be a couple aged mid 20's to early 30's, yet through some sad circumstances (Say, testicular or ovarian cancer for example) the couple is unable to conceive a child. The marriage between the couple is still valid, simply because marriage is (supposed to be) the ultimate expression of love between two people. The same applies to the elderly, past the years of childbearing. They can still be married under law, and that love can be recognised by the state. With this, I apologise if I have caused hurt amongst this community for raising the issue of infertility.

6) "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman:" Well, technically, yes it has. Does that, in and of itself, for a clear and legally valid reason for the continued discrimination against couples of the same sex? No, I do not believe it does. We are, as a society, supposed to grow up as well, and part of that growing up period is supposed to be looking at our past and saying "We were wrong." We've already admitted we were wrong when, for the best of intentions, we removed aboriginal children from their families and placed them into state care. We've also admitted that we were wrong when certain institutions placed the children of single mothers into forced adoption. I think it's high time we looked at ourselves and say "We are wrong to deny a loving couple the chance to marry."

Legally, as I said above, in Australia, marriage has only been that legally between a man and a woman since 2004.

And speaking of adoption... It would be a benefit to society as a whole if we could say "Yes, we DO have a family for you to enter into." to a child waiting for a new life. We let our society down when we let our children down.

A few words in conclusion. I know that I'm gonna get my post picked apart word by word, so let me finish with this. In the grand scheme of things, with all the issues facing this world, the debate (If one can call it such) around same sex marriage is a minor issue. But just because it's minor, it doesn't mean it's not important. We, as a society, need to move beyond the view of "shirts vs skins" or "colour vs white" or other meaningless arguments, and realise that we all bleed red, and we're all made of the same damn stuff. Only then will we be able to move out beyond our minds and begin to explore.

Edit:

I forgot to say, the poll question is incredibly loaded. It should not matter whether an individual enjoys the idea of same-sex marriage. I suspect that a whole lot of my friends would be uncomfortable with the idea of my boyfriend and I making out; just as they would be uncomfortable with the idea of a straight couple making out in front of them for 30 minutes on a train ride home.

But do they think that the Australian government should provide a mechanism for state-sanctioned discrimination? No.

The question is as loaded as: "do you believe in state sanctioned discrimination of LGBTIQ identifying individuals and couples?".

A more appropriate question would and should be: "Do you believe that the Marriage Act 2004 (Cth) should be expanded to include same-sex couples?"

Edit 2: I also should note that I'm happy for anyone to respond to this/

I agree with you on the refutations of the common arguments, I never believed them to be particularly valid anyway.

But I'll ask you the same question that I asked previously, because I haven't seen it been adequately refuted yet. Why do you think allowing gays to marry would be a superior option to civil union reform?

 

[Queenroot]

Yeah, why not. I'm christian and see no problem with it. These days marriage is more than just love, as it comes with benefits, so we should let everyone have those benefits.

.

 

[isildurrrr1]

But I'll ask you the same question that I asked previously, because I haven't seen it been adequately refuted yet. Why do you think allowing gays to marry would be a superior option to civil union reform?

Because they're practically already existing? You already have de facto and registered relationships that have the same legal obligations as marriage.

In terms of familial legal obligation (separation, child support etc) there isn't a difference.

 

[iBibah]

1) "Tradition" based arguments: Unfortunately for these type of arguments, the institution known as "Marriage" has already changed its definition multiple times. For example, in the time of Queen Victoria the First, marriage was used as a means to secure a political alliance, usually between royal houses, but also between Lords. The crude phrase "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed." is a fair commentary of the times. A more recent example would see me use the advent of "no fault" divorce. In all possibility, the advent of "no fault" divorce has probably done more harm than good regarding the sanctity of marriage, moreso, I believe, than any change to the Marriage Act to allow SSM. For those that keep saying that "new laws" will ruin marriage, let me remind you that the legal position of marriage as being between a man and a woman has only been law since 2004.

Just because it has been redefined before it does not mean we should continue to do so. And while no-fault divorce has definitely had a negative effect towards marriage, SSM would be a worse effect because it completely undermines its purpose.

The discussion should be whether the change is beneficial, not whether it's been changed before. Prior redefinition is not grounds for redefinition now.

2) Arguments based on any form of slippery slope: While these arguments are totally and utterly irrelevant to this discussion, it's worth debunking them. What pro-SSM advocates are asking for is a change to the legal definitions covering who can be married. Specifically, we are asking that the wording be returned to the pre-2004 changes, which said that a marriage was between two natural persons, rather than the post 2004 amendment, which changed that definition to specify that the genders must be different. Pro-SSM advocates are NOT asking for a change to the legal status of polygamy or any other such issue. Please do not use this one!

They're not completely irrelevant. The principle which pro-ssm'ers appeal to can be applied to all and any relationships: Couples, thruples, quartets, brothers, sisters, siblings, father and child, mother and child (the last 5 mentioned are not always incest as they can be non-sexual relationships). In fact it's rather discriminatory for pro-ssm'ers fight for same sex couples but not other relationships.

At the moment the requirement of marriage is two physically complementary people (hence man and woman). However to claim marriage is about love and spending their life together and benefits etc, and not extend it to multi-person relationships or a group of friends is unfair. I could love my best mates, wanna spend my life with them, share economic benefits, yet still not be sexually attracted to them. How is that different? The rationale doesn't hold behind ssm doesn't hold currently. It would be more logical to seek the dissolution of marriage altogether. While I'd still disagree with that, at least it would actually be a logical and coherent argument.

3) "It's icky!" and similar arguments: You may ask yourself do you find the thought of two men kissing passionately to be disturbing? Possibly. However, does it affect you? Nope, not in the slightest. Why? Because, it has no effect on youif two people who love each other want to get married, and have that love legally recognised by the State.

The state doesn't care who you love.

4) "Won't someone think of the children?!" and similar: Would it surprise you that we actually ARE thinking about the children? Firstly, children seem to know how to love, but not how to hate. Go take a look at any pre-school where there's mixed races. They're all playing together. No real distinction on their colours. It's only later on in life that the distinction happens. Secondly, and this is a fairly big one, by legalising SSM, and defining it simply as "Marriage" we are saying to our kids, who might be struggling with their sexuality, that it is okay if you're gay, or bi, or even if you earnestly believe you're in the wrong body (And yes, I can find sources that show that some children believe that they're females in a male body, and visa versa.) This would have a seriously positive effect on kids who fear coming out. They can then turn to society and say "No, I'm NOT weird, I'm NORMAL!" and they will be backed up on it by society.

Another benefit related to number 4 is that it also helps to break down barriers between people. I have seen, first hand, the hatred by school kids toward a gay person. The experience left me bloody, literally, but it was worth it. Would I do that again? Yes. Why? Because he's human, and ultimately, we as a society need to realise that. We need to show that we DO give a damn about those who are different to us. Oh, and no, he didn't try to make a pass at me. He was quite a nice dude, actually, and we had a lot in common.

So the benefit for children, by legalising SSM, is that if they're gay they'll feel normal? Thank you for considering everything there is to consider about the children.

And yes, people hate on gays because they're not allowed to marry, you got it.

Another related argument is the "But you're denying girls the right to a mother/boys the right to a father." On first blush, this is true. Children who have same sex parents do not have the opposite sex in their daily lives. However, this argument tends to overlook a few points of contact. Firstly, children go to school. Especially in primary school, there's a large female influence. Secondly, there's outside groups, such as sporting clubs, or even friends houses. Most importantly, there's the Doctors. I believe that SS couples will utilise that last resource extensively, because people do trust doctors. What WE as a society need to create is an environment where kids and parents alike can go to the doctors for resources and get around the whole not knowing about the other gender thing.

>kids need both parents, but we'll just get society to sort that out, instead of leaving the institution that already provides that (in the ideal situation)

And finally, when ultra religious parents are shunning their kids who come out as gay, or when priests and bishops either commit child pedophilia or cover it up - who will think of the children?

Once again - irrelevant. While these things are obviously bad, you cannot defend SSM's effect on children by telling us of worse things. That's not answering the question at all.

5) I alluded to this earlier. The inability to have children is often used as an argument against SSM. Unfortunately for this argument, there's numerous holes blown into this argument. An example would be a couple aged mid 20's to early 30's, yet through some sad circumstances (Say, testicular or ovarian cancer for example) the couple is unable to conceive a child. The marriage between the couple is still valid, simply because marriage is (supposed to be) the ultimate expression of love between two people. The same applies to the elderly, past the years of childbearing. They can still be married under law, and that love can be recognised by the state. With this, I apologise if I have caused hurt amongst this community for raising the issue of infertility.

Whoever uses that argument is wrong. The purpose isn't to simply procreate. The purpose is to ensure that children who are born will have both a mother and a father. Simple. So that couple who was unfortunate, did not have any kids who grow up without a mother and/or father. The elderly couple: the father does not give birth to any fatherless kids (kids who grow up without a father). In principle, men and women can procreate. In principle, not incidentally, but by definition. Marriage exists for this reason, to regulate, from a social perspective, the offspring of couples. If they have no children, this purpose is not violated.

6) "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman:" Well, technically, yes it has. Does that, in and of itself, for a clear and legally valid reason for the continued discrimination against couples of the same sex? No, I do not believe it does. We are, as a society, supposed to grow up as well, and part of that growing up period is supposed to be looking at our past and saying "We were wrong." We've already admitted we were wrong when, for the best of intentions, we removed aboriginal children from their families and placed them into state care. We've also admitted that we were wrong when certain institutions placed the children of single mothers into forced adoption. I think it's high time we looked at ourselves and say "We are wrong to deny a loving couple the chance to marry."

Why don't you extend that reason to: "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman for a reason."

The reason is not simply "oh cause it has been", it's "it has been like this for a reason".

Legally, as I said above, in Australia, marriage has only been that legally between a man and a woman since 2004.

And speaking of adoption... It would be a benefit to society as a whole if we could say "Yes, we DO have a family for you to enter into." to a child waiting for a new life. We let our society down when we let our children down.

A few words in conclusion. I know that I'm gonna get my post picked apart word by word, so let me finish with this. In the grand scheme of things, with all the issues facing this world, the debate (If one can call it such) around same sex marriage is a minor issue. But just because it's minor, it doesn't mean it's not important. We, as a society, need to move beyond the view of "shirts vs skins" or "colour vs white" or other meaningless arguments, and realise that we all bleed red, and we're all made of the same damn stuff. Only then will we be able to move out beyond our minds and begin to explore.

Edit:

I forgot to say, the poll question is incredibly loaded. It should not matter whether an individual enjoys the idea of same-sex marriage. I suspect that a whole lot of my friends would be uncomfortable with the idea of my boyfriend and I making out; just as they would be uncomfortable with the idea of a straight couple making out in front of them for 30 minutes on a train ride home.

But do they think that the Australian government should provide a mechanism for state-sanctioned discrimination? No.

The question is as loaded as: "do you believe in state sanctioned discrimination of LGBTIQ identifying individuals and couples?".

A more appropriate question would and should be: "Do you believe that the Marriage Act 2004 (Cth) should be expanded to include same-sex couples?"

Edit 2: I also should note that I'm happy for anyone to respond to this/

This is where the debate is really, what benefits society.

 

[iBibah]

Of course. But look around, 62% of those who voted in Ireland voted in favour of same-sex marriage. 62% as opposed to 38% who voted against. That's a huge margin - 24%. This is not about me wanting it, this is what most people want.

Just because a lot of people want something it doesn't make it right.

Redefining it won't remove it's purpose, it'll just open up it's purpose to those who currently don't have access to it.

Yes it will, because if the purpose is kids, and in principle two males or two females cannot have kids (in principle is key here), then you can't extend that purpose.

(I didn't answer the rest of the post because I feel we're going in circles over this, however if there is a point you want me to answer please let me know)

 

[Aerath]

I agree with you on the refutations of the common arguments, I never believed them to be particularly valid anyway.

But I'll ask you the same question that I asked previously, because I haven't seen it been adequately refuted yet. Why do you think allowing gays to marry would be a superior option to civil union reform?

Because it allows LGBT individuals to be offered the same opportunities as "straight" individuals. Until that happens, it's a case of some people being more equal than others. Or separate, but equal.

Separate is definitely not equal, no matter how much detractors of marriage equality state. It's kinda like, oh, you African Americans can sit towards the front of the bus, but there's still some seats which you can't sit in.

Just because it has been redefined before it does not mean we should continue to do so. And while no-fault divorce has definitely had a negative effect towards marriage, SSM would be a worse effect because it completely undermines its purpose.

The discussion should be whether the change is beneficial, not whether it's been changed before. Prior redefinition is not grounds for redefinition now.

I'm glad that you're not going along with the bullshit of "it's traditional, it's always been this way", so that's a start.

So, what negative effect would it have on marriage?

Oh, you mean more negative than Kim Kardashian being married for 72 days? Or Married At First Sight? Or even the morons from the ACL in Canberra who have threatened to divorce if SSM is legalised? I thought marriage was supposed to be (allegedly) between a man and a woman for life. Not just until SSM is afforded to gays.

They're not completely irrelevant. The principle which pro-ssm'ers appeal to can be applied to all and any relationships: Couples, thruples, quartets, brothers, sisters, siblings, father and child, mother and child (the last 5 mentioned are not always incest as they can be non-sexual relationships). In fact it's rather discriminatory for pro-ssm'ers fight for same sex couples but not other relationships.

It's not. If you want to have a discussion about polygamy or incest, than have a discussion about those. If you want to discuss polygamy or incest, then create your own thread about that. That's not what we're seeking.

Tell me, in which of the same sex marriage laws around the world, or even the bills in Australia, have there been any reference to polygamy or incest? Have you read any of the bills that have been tabled in the Australian Parliament? They specifically reference two people.

And I can't even with someone who is against same sex marriage lecturing me about discrimination.

At the moment the requirement of marriage is two physically complementary people (hence man and woman). However to claim marriage is about love and spending their life together and benefits etc, and not extend it to multi-person relationships or a group of friends is unfair. I could love my best mates, wanna spend my life with them, share economic benefits, yet still not be sexually attracted to them. How is that different? The rationale doesn't hold behind ssm doesn't hold currently. It would be more logical to seek the dissolution of marriage altogether. While I'd still disagree with that, at least it would actually be a logical and coherent argument.

Physically complementary? Oh boy. I'm not exactly sure you understand what that mean. A man and a woman can be just as "physically uncomplementary", as a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

But to say that a man cannot complement another man, or a woman can't complement another woman - that is crossing into the realm of homophobia and bigotry. Good job!

Multi-personal relationships is a bullshit argument, as has been evidenced above, and below.

As for your mate, it's unfair only because you say it is. If you're not married to anyone else, if you and your mate are both willing, then, yeah, you should be able to marry him. Pure and simple. Marriage is about love and spending your life together, and having your relationship recognised at law. I'm guessing sex would be a bit of an issue in your marriage though, just saying.

The state doesn't care who you love.

They clearly do, if there is state-sanctioned discrimination in the laws.

So the benefit for children, by legalising SSM, is that if they're gay they'll feel normal? Thank you for considering everything there is to consider about the children.

And yes, people hate on gays because they're not allowed to marry, you got it.

I think there's a serious compassion deficit in the way you approach marriage equality. Coming out is hard. Being ostracised from your friends and family are hard. If same sex marriage is legalised, then the polity becomes about being gay is "normal", and if that stops just one LGBTIQ individual, teenager or child from questioning whether it's "wrong" or whether they're normal (and even preventing a suicide), I classify that as a good outcome.

People hate on gays because we're (apparently) different. That's the basis for a lot of discrimination, difference, based on sex, disability, age etc. People hate on gays because we're allegedly different. By legalising SSM, the "difference" is bridged. I'm not saying that all discrimination will stop - just because you've eliminated discrimination in your laws doesn't mean that discrimination is eliminated in individuals' hearts and minds. But it goes a long way towards it.

>kids need both parents, but we'll just get society to sort that out, instead of leaving the institution that already provides that

Except the institution doesn't provide that - there are numerous one parent families. You don't have an objection to single parent families getting society to sort out an apparent need for both parents, yet you do with same sex families? That's homophobia.

I'll also note numerous studies which show that children are better off with parents that love them, irrespective of the sex of the parents.

Once again - irrelevant. While these things are obviously bad, you cannot defend SSM's effect on children by telling us of worse things. That's not answering the question at all.

Just as you have tried above with the: well, SSM, whatever, BUT WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY AND INCEST?

It's about, as you say, apparently, consistency of opinion. If you're going to be caring about the children, then care about all the children.

Whoever uses that argument is wrong. The purpose isn't to simply procreate. The purpose is to ensure that children who are born will have both a mother and a father. Simple. So that couple who was unfortunate, did not have any kids who grow up without a mother and/or father. The elderly couple: the father does not give birth to any fatherless kids (kids who grow up without a father). In principle, men and women can procreate. In principle, not incidentally, but by definition. Marriage exists for this reason, to regulate, from a social perspective, the offspring of couples. If they have no children, this purpose is not violated.

See above - studies show that children are equally happy irrespective of the sex of their parents.

Just because a lot of people want something it doesn't make it right.

It's refreshing to finally hear someone who is against SSM to admit that they are in the minority. Write to your MP!

 

[KotaBear99]

I honestly believe that same sex marriage should be legalised. In the society that we are immersed into today, we are very much so passionate in what we believe in, more so when it comes to the ethical side of things. My younger sister, is defined herself as a 'homophobe' as she does not like the idea of it (Gotta love her twelvie opinions to be perfectly honest). When people say they are against Gay Marriage or Same Sex Marriage, it doesn't sound that bad, right? How about when they say that they are against Marriage Equality? They kinda sound like a doosh.

The fact that heterosexual couples are threatening to divorce if the Marriage Equality Bill goes through the House, To the Senate and passed off by the Governor General as a new law is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone needs to take a long hard look at themselves if this is their current opinion. I hope Bill Shorten wins this, it's time for something to be done.

 

[KotaBear99]

I'm for it because marriage in these modern times is a legal contract and I believe everyone should be equal under the law. As a gay person myself, it is not about the benefits or status of marriage but purely about equality.
(Dying at what the SA senator Cory Bernardi said today: "But there's no discrimination against same-sex couples in this country." Yeah... Ok. [emoji23])

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume you are interested in Politics? I am GLAD Bill Shorten brought this bill into the House. Although, I believe that because a lot of the Politians are older than us and they are quite traditional and this is our current problem. Senator Cory Bernardi will be blind to the fact that there IS discrimination against same-sex couples in this country, and it is all because of our influences. We may be a generation that is quite capable to make up our own minds about what we observe in our micro and macro worlds, but we are still subject to influence as a sign of respect to our elders. Another point is that Mr Bernardi isn't working it correctly, because there is in fact this discrimination present. People are discrimination against 'marriage equality'.

 

[iBibah]

I'm glad that you're not going along with the bullshit of "it's traditional, it's always been this way", so that's a start.

So, what negative effect would it have on marriage?

"completely undermines it's purpose in regards to children.

Oh, you mean more negative than Kim Kardashian being married for 72 days? Or Married At First Sight? Or even the morons from the ACL in Canberra who have threatened to divorce if SSM is legalised? I thought marriage was supposed to be (allegedly) between a man and a woman for life. Not just until SSM is afforded to gays.

You're still giving circumstances as to where marriage has failed. And yes, I do believe it should be life. i.e im not in support of no-fault divorce. You can't justify SSM by giving examples where heterosexual marriage has gone wrong or been abused.

It's not. If you want to have a discussion about polygamy or incest, than have a discussion about those. If you want to discuss polygamy or incest, then create your own thread about that. That's not what we're seeking.

Tell me, in which of the same sex marriage laws around the world, or even the bills in Australia, have there been any reference to polygamy or incest? Have you read any of the bills that have been tabled in the Australian Parliament? They specifically reference two people.And I can't even with someone who is against same sex marriage lecturing me about discrimination.

You completely missed the point. SSMers say "marriage is about love and the declaration of love, so afford the right to same sex couples". And to that I say, why afford that right to have your love recognised by the state, but not have it recognised for multiperson relationships or incestuous reltionships or non-sexual loving relationships between 2 or more people.

And I can't even with someone who is against same sex marriage lecturing me about discrimination.

Instead of thinking about what I'm saying, you'd rather address an unrelated opinion of mine to discredit me. And yes the fact I oppose SSM marriage is irrelevant when I say SSM is discriminatory because there are pro-ssmers that agree that it should be open to all relationships (i'd still disagree, but at least the logic is consistent). But the left has never been known to be particularly logical in their arguments anyway.

Physically complementary? Oh boy. I'm not exactly sure you understand what that mean. A man and a woman can be just as "physically uncomplementary", as a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

But to say that a man cannot complement another man, or a woman can't complement another woman- that is crossing into the realm of homophobia and bigotry. Good job!

wow. Do you know what it means to be physically complementary? Any man and any woman are physically complementary. Not sure if you know this but a man has penis, and a woman has a vagina. Congratulations, you are the first person to ever suggest that two men or two woman can be physically complementary.

that is crossing into the realm of homophobia and bigotry

To suggest i believe two men or two women can't be complementary is homophobic? Do you know what homophobia is? I have said nothing to suggest I hate gays, so don't frame me as some villain to make yourself sound morally superior.

bigotry: intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I believe I've tolerated everything everyone has said so fair. In fact a pre-requisite for intolerance is disagreement. Just because I disagree with you it doesn't make me a bigot. In fact, if anyone is struggling to tolerate an opinion, it's you. So it wouldn't be wise to call someone a bigot when you show every sign of one when you falsely accuse me of homophobia and bigotry because you don't like what I'm saying, and would rather attack the person rather than the point.

Multi-personal relationships is a bullshit argument, as has been evidenced above, and below.

As for your mate, it's unfair only because you say it is. If you're not married to anyone else, if you and your mate are both willing, then, yeah, you should be able to marry him. Pure and simple. Marriage is about love and spending your life together, and having your relationship recognised at law. I'm guessing sex would be a bit of an issue in your marriage though, just saying.

Refer to "consistent logic" paragraph.

They clearly do, if there is state-sanctioned discrimination in the laws.

As it currently stands the law does not seek to regulate your love life, no.

I think there's a serious compassion deficit in the way you approach marriage equality. Coming out is hard. Being ostracised from your friends and family are hard. If same sex marriage is legalised, then the polity becomes about being gay is "normal", and if that stops just one LGBTIQ individual, teenager or child from questioning whether it's "wrong" or whether they're normal (and even preventing a suicide), I classify that as a good outcome.

People hate on gays because we're (apparently) different. That's the basis for a lot of discrimination, difference, based on sex, disability, age etc. People hate on gays because we're allegedly different. By legalising SSM, the "difference" is bridged. I'm not saying that all discrimination will stop - just because you've eliminated discrimination in your laws doesn't mean that discrimination is eliminated in individuals' hearts and minds. But it goes a long way towards it.

Once again my disagreement with you makes you think I'm not compassionate when it comes towards gays. I understand it can be hard for the gay community, but that shouldn't cause us to become so emotional that we give in to an irrational cause. And to be honest, the whole SMMer arguement is emotional. The only non-emotionally driven argument is to dissolve marriage and have the state out of the marriage business completely.

Except the institution doesn't provide that - there are numerous one parent families. You don't have an objection to single parent families getting society to sort out an apparent need for both parents, yet you do with same sex families? That's homophobia.

The institution in its ideal form does provide that. Circumstances where it doesn't happen are unfortunate, but in principle it provides it.

But a SSM marriage NEVER provides it. By definition, a SSM marriage cannot provide a mother and father to a child. There's a difference between incidental cases and the principle of the matter.

That's homophobia

Once again assuming opposite views to yourself are fueled by hatred/evil. Not surprised anyway.

I'll also note numerous studies which show that children are better off with parents that love them, irrespective of the sex of the parents.

What is "better off"?

Just as you have tried above with the: well, SSM, whatever, BUT WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY AND INCEST?

It's about, as you say, apparently, consistency of opinion. If you're going to be caring about the children, then care about all the children.

If all you understood was "well, SSM, whatever, BUT WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY AND INCEST?" then you really are not interested in discussion. The left never is anyway. But let's assume you're right, and I did say that. Let's assume I didn't have a point about logical consistency. And you believe it is not a valid argument. And your argument was "just as (I) have tried". But mine was invalid, so yours is invalid too? So you justify your invalid argument by the fact I (supposedly) used one?

The fact the validity of your arguments lies on the invalidity on mine shows they're weak arguments, purely driven by emotion.

See above - studies show that children are equally happy irrespective of the sex of their parents.

You do know their are large amounts of children of same sex couples who oppose SSM? They had very loving parents, were treated well, yet they always longed the other parent. Do these studies ask children if they felt the need for the opposite parent?

And the fact you would rely on society to teach your kids about the opposite sex is quite worrying. These interactions with the opposite sex closely effect the relationships of that person later on.

It's refreshing to finally hear someone who is against SSM to admit that they are in the minority. Write to your MP!

We may be a minority, but not as significant as you might think. And I don't believe as many people would be for it if they truly understood it.

 

[Amleops]

Because they're practically already existing? You already have de facto and registered relationships that have the same legal obligations as marriage.

In terms of familial legal obligation (separation, child support etc) there isn't a difference.

It was my understanding that there was a difference between married couples and couples in civil unions in terms of the legal and financial benefits they are entitled to. Same would go for any relationship not recognised by the state. Because if they already have the same benefits as each other already, as you seem to be saying, then gay marriage advocates would really have nothing to complain about whatsoever.

I very much doubt this. Misguided as I think they may be for seeking marriage as a remedy to their problems, I do think they have legitimate concerns about the insufficiency of their current unions in comparison to marriage. Which is why reform is needed.

Because it allows LGBT individuals to be offered the same opportunities as "straight" individuals. Until that happens, it's a case of some people being more equal than others. Or separate, but equal.

Separate is definitely not equal, no matter how much detractors of marriage equality state. It's kinda like, oh, you African Americans can sit towards the front of the bus, but there's still some seats which you can't sit in.

Separation is not an indication of equality, yes, but neither is it an indication of inequality. Separation, in this context, is a neutral action used for semantic purposes only. Outside the name that we give them, there would be no differences between marriages and civil unions if the latter were to be reformed. They would be equal under the eyes of the law, and none would be given specific preference over the other. The statement then that same sex couples would somehow be "unequal" for not being able to marry, would be equivalent to saying that non-same sex couples are "unequal" because they are not able to access civil unions. Which, again, is somewhat of a pointless argument, when the only differences between the two are in name. So why should it be of any significance? Everyone would effectively have access to the same opportunities, regardless of what we choose to call them.

The difference between this and your African-American bus seat example is that the latter involved racial segregation laws that came about due to the perceived view that one race was superior to the other. Those race laws were used to actively subjugate African-Americans. In the marriage and civil union case however, neither one is considered superior to the other, and neither one would have its participants subjugated for being part of that institution.

 

[Graney]

"completely undermines it's purpose in regards to children.

http://community.boredofstudies.org.../337665/same-sex-marriages-2.html#post6962958