Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter crazyhomo
- Start date
- Status
neo o
it's coming to me...
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,294
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Agreed, homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples - but i feel it has to be outside of an institution such as marriage - which is still religious based - so obviously civil unions are the way to go.
its understandable though that, in a country that is 70% christian and with a legal system that has been based on christian morality/ethics legislation will be passed that somewhat infringes upon the privelages of homosexual couples.
The adoption thing is of course, a much more contentious issue. Despite our more tolerant stance on homosexuals, I don't think Australian society can really readily accept the idea of homosexuals having children. Stands to reason though - as i said before, 70% of the population IS Christian.
Oh and just for the record, i'm an Aethiest
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Religion, in this case, has no relation to whether a marraige is legal or not - and so religion should not be cited as a reason to prevent same sex marriages.
Bullshit! If that's so, it should be illegal for a child to a have a single parent (be it by death or divorce) - that damages their upbringing in some way, does it not?
Denying same sex couples the right to marry and adopt children is the same as denying any racial group a right - i.e. the right to vote, the right to marry if they do not belong to the Christian church - etcetera ad nauseum!
There is no good, logical reason to prevent same sex couples from marrying and adopting children (I'd rather a child have a same sex couple as parents than stuck in an orphanage with no parents at all) - only misguided, outdated fear and prejudice make this so.
neo o
it's coming to me...
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,294
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Marriage is a religious based institution. Don't you think its hypocritical to unite two people, in the name of something that condemns that very union?
However, legal entitlements come hand in hand with marriage - and this is what homosexual couples should have a right to - ie : a civil union...
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Uncomfortability is NO BASIS for denying these people their rights - who really gives a damn what hole they put it in?!
Excuse me for being so crass, but it really gets to me why society, even in our 'equality' stage, is so utterly bigoted.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
OUR form of 'marriage', yes, was originally based on religion. But that's simply not the case anymore.
I'm not just talking about the Christian religion, either. How about Buddhists - they marry too, and yet it isnt based on religion! The idea that marriage is an institution of 'God' is old, outdated, and quite simply wrong.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Both, I think.
Anyway, argue away. I'm going to bed.
neo o
it's coming to me...
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,294
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Society is uncomfortable with the idea of someone running down the street naked.
Society is uncomfortable with you killing someone.
Society is uncomfortable with you raping someone.
Youll find that all our laws are based upon what society is comfortable with
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
This all comes down to the concept of how we construct reality and how we construct the structures which govern our existance. We've constructed marriage in a certain way and many people would find it difficult to change this and view it differently, This is why a form of "civil union" should be available - similar to a marriage but somewhere between a marriage and a defacto relationship.
If parents can show that they can look after, care for, love and provide for their children then they should be allowed to care for children. I still maintain that in adoption etc that if parents of equal standing apply but one is homosexual and heterosexual should get it simply because it reflects what occurs in reality - a man and a woman conceive a child and the woman gives birth to the child. Other than that, there should not be limitations. This is not because of the "way it's always been", it's because it's something that is true - a sperm fertilises an ova which in turn (over a period) creates a child. Technology has changed this, yes, but the moral and ethical implications of this are still emerging and until we have determined the effects this has on the child the old methods should be acknowledged and used. Even now only a female can give birth to a child.
In society today, legally, there is no discrimination due to sexuality. This is stipulated in both Federal and State legislation. What we do have, however, is discrimination based on the form of relationship. This is what people are afraid of, the form and the nature of the relationship and who it is between. It seems ironic that whilst there is general acceptance of the right to be of a certain sexuality it doesn't extend to the right to be engaged in a relationship due to that sexuality but anyway.
Simply, it shouldn't be marriage because of the connotations of what it is. Creating a new legal institution will not create discrimination. De-facto relationships are accepted in society and are not condemned as being "immoral". These types of relationships, under state laws, have a large degree of protection for both heterosexual and homosexual couples (as under the legislation in NSW they are treated equally).
If parents can show that they can look after, care for, love and provide for their children then they should be allowed to care for children. I still maintain that in adoption etc that if parents of equal standing apply but one is homosexual and heterosexual should get it simply because it reflects what occurs in reality - a man and a woman conceive a child and the woman gives birth to the child. Other than that, there should not be limitations. This is not because of the "way it's always been", it's because it's something that is true - a sperm fertilises an ova which in turn (over a period) creates a child. Technology has changed this, yes, but the moral and ethical implications of this are still emerging and until we have determined the effects this has on the child the old methods should be acknowledged and used. Even now only a female can give birth to a child.
In society today, legally, there is no discrimination due to sexuality. This is stipulated in both Federal and State legislation. What we do have, however, is discrimination based on the form of relationship. This is what people are afraid of, the form and the nature of the relationship and who it is between. It seems ironic that whilst there is general acceptance of the right to be of a certain sexuality it doesn't extend to the right to be engaged in a relationship due to that sexuality but anyway.
Simply, it shouldn't be marriage because of the connotations of what it is. Creating a new legal institution will not create discrimination. De-facto relationships are accepted in society and are not condemned as being "immoral". These types of relationships, under state laws, have a large degree of protection for both heterosexual and homosexual couples (as under the legislation in NSW they are treated equally).
crazyhomo
under pressure
while de-facto relationships are not considered immoral by most, these are usually only applied to straight relationships. it just seems to me that, even though a marriage and whatever the same-sex/non-married form ends up being are essentially the same, many people will see gays as being treated differently. it is similar to having a toilet for the whites, and a toilet for the colours. even though they are still just toilets, it instills the idea in the minds of the masses that if you have to use a certain toilet then you must be different. i believe a similar situation will occur if same-sex relationships will have to obtain a legal status other than marriage in order to have the same legal rights as married couples
everything i haven't quoted, while i do not necessarily agree with, i feel are valid points, and have nothing against you holding those views
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
The NSW Property (Relationships) Act 1984 :
Your analogy is not similar to that of the African-American. They were discriminated against because it was clear to all that they had a different skin colour. They were overtly and in all aspects of life treated differently. Homosexuals are only treated differently (in theory) in regards to their ability to enter into a marriage and to adopt children. Persons of another race were treated differently becuase people were afraid of them and believed they were inferior from what they could clearly see. Homosexuals are being treated differently in this regard because they lack the ability to do something which heterosexuals can: procreate naturally and uphold the laws of nature in this regard. Also, people still do not trust the ability of a same-sex couple to raise a child in the same way a heterosexual couple could (in the same circumstances etc).
This is why a distinction is applied.
There are many cases in newspapers especially Howard v. R (1998) where the public and the law supported the rights of the same-sex couple or person in such a relationship. All legal things I refer to are applicable to NSW only and are probably different elsewhere.
Your analogy is not similar to that of the African-American. They were discriminated against because it was clear to all that they had a different skin colour. They were overtly and in all aspects of life treated differently. Homosexuals are only treated differently (in theory) in regards to their ability to enter into a marriage and to adopt children. Persons of another race were treated differently becuase people were afraid of them and believed they were inferior from what they could clearly see. Homosexuals are being treated differently in this regard because they lack the ability to do something which heterosexuals can: procreate naturally and uphold the laws of nature in this regard. Also, people still do not trust the ability of a same-sex couple to raise a child in the same way a heterosexual couple could (in the same circumstances etc).
This is why a distinction is applied.
Enlightened_One
King of Bullshit
Damn, someone beat me to mentioning defacto relationships...
Anyway, as it is there are more than enough orphans or homeless kids or foster kids that need a family. Same sex couples want a family. Why not bring them together.
The biggest problem though is going to be the school situation for the kids. School is hard enough, but when your parents are gay you're going to cop the worst shit from the arseholes.
As for marriage it is supposed to be something between a man and a woman. It ought not be tampered with.
Anyway, as it is there are more than enough orphans or homeless kids or foster kids that need a family. Same sex couples want a family. Why not bring them together.
The biggest problem though is going to be the school situation for the kids. School is hard enough, but when your parents are gay you're going to cop the worst shit from the arseholes.
As for marriage it is supposed to be something between a man and a woman. It ought not be tampered with.
santaslayer
Active Member
Waiting does not achieve anything. Did people 'wait' for gender equality? No, people acted as catalysts to achieve that right.
santaslayer
Active Member
You may all like to have a look at the De Jure relationship that is accepted into international law.
crazyhomo
under pressure
i completely understand why you think there should be a difference, but my point is that once you start creating this small difference in law it enters the minds of the people as more than that. yes, the african-american analogy is not exactly the same thing...yet. i believe it is a small step in that direction, and society is likely to follow that path
- Status