Ban on Gay Marriage (6 Viewers)

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by santaslayer
Waiting does not achieve anything. Did people 'wait' for gender equality? No, people acted as catalysts to achieve that right.

firstly, that is a completely irrevelant example, and secondly, yes they did. gender equality has been going on for over 150 years, and still continues today

 

[Ziff]

Yeah the women's movement has a very long history (particularly in the UK). Just look at the Suffragettes.

 

[cleopatra]

Originally posted by sugaryblue
the bible says it's wrong

Fuck The Bible!!! what the fuck do i care bout what the bible says when im Buddhist or atheist? Why should my future happiness be determined by a book which est's. rules which apply to a religion I dont follow???

This of course leads ya'll to argue that Aust is a prodominatly christian society (70% if i read right) and thus its legal system is based on this. Well please forgive me but is that not completly screwed!!??? Why should the majority rule in such important matters? What of the Hindus in our society? they just have to conform to our Christian beliefs?

he Russians were right in attemping to seperate state and religion. the two MUST be seperate for a truely FAIR society!!! This does of course ask the question of "well does that not leave room for OTHER religions to dominate or to wish that their beliefs be upheld aswell/insrtead?" and of this i honestly do not know. I dissagree with Muslim law which allows a woman to be stoned to death for adultery or having pre-marital sex(as much as i dissagree with capitol punishment), so i would not allow that to become aust law. but this obviously contradicts the comment i WAS going to make that christian morals on murder are not exclusivly christian, but are ones of humanity. This simply is not true and is an ignorant generalisation.

what im trying to say is that we must not base our legal system on a religious one simply because the judicial system is FOR ALL, and one particular religion is not! i would ultimatle wish for a secular govt and judicary, but the alternative???? I do not know the solution. So what this has to do with gay marriage is that the bible has no credibility in the decision of this.

Originally posted by neo_o
Is marriage a right?

HELL YEAH!!!

Article 16.(UN Declaration of Human Rights)
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State

this says marriage is a right. and in relation to article 7:

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

so in this the UN Dec. of Human Rights states that ALL are entitled to marry, this must include same-sex marriages as it also states none shall be discriminated against!! As aust is part of the UN and has ratified this Declaration into its Statute Law it therefore stands in Oz that same-sex marriages are a human right and the denial of this right would thus be a breach of human rights. Is this correct? im not entirly sure, so please correct me if it is not.

Originally posted by neo_o
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.

this comment is a contradiction in itself. You say they should be afforded equal rights, but A SEPERATE marriage ceremony/union! HOW is this equal??? please enlighten me? the CAN BE NO "SAME RIGHTS" when youi impose a different marriage ceremony for same sex couples.

You also say that marriage is still religious based. Well would you please define what you mean by marriage? the union of a couple in general? of an exclusivley Christian definition? Because there ARE such things as secular marriages. as someone else stated -Buddhist marry, but obviously not in a Christian church. Does this mean that this union is not a marriage? Would you prohibit all those who have had non-religoius marriages from referring to themselves as "married" and insist they say they are in a "union" instead? thats ridiculous IMO. Marriage is not something you can define. It is the commitment to one person for a reason caled love. You wish to extend your relationship, so you marry. No matter where, how or by whom, the outcome remains. Then why should particular groups be denied this?

The descriptions of the term 'marriage' used in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) (s. 43(a)) and the Marriage Act 1961 (ss. 46(1) and 69(2)) are based on the definition in the 19th century English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. In Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, Lord Penzance defined marriage as
'the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others'

through pusuasive precedent, aust. adopted this definition and it was upheald as the basic legal definition of a marriage until the 2001 case of "Kevin".

It is a requirement of a valid ceremony of marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) that the parties be a male and a femaleat the date of their marriage . On 12 October 2001 Justice Chisholm of the Family Court of Australia handed down his decision in Re Kevin (validity of marriage of transsexual) [2001] FamCA 1074 which found that a post-operative female to male transsexual had validly married.

in lay term, kevin was a woman, became a man and is now legally allowed to marry a woman, as the social context has changed and the meaning of "a man and woman" now has different connotations.

What i ask of you is does "Kevin" have more rights to marry than a woman who is not gender realligned? I do not think so.

Men and wome are able to marry. Men and men SHOULD be allowed to and women and women should be allowed to. In the simpleest of arguments it is discrimination on the grounds of sexual preferance, which is iligal in respect to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).

You may wonder why I care so much that they aren't allowd to marry? Because i feel deep remorse and upset at the fact that My Homosexual brother will not be able to marry because some people are "Uncomfortable" with it. I wont even go into the pain i feel when i think that he will also be denied the joy of a family and children, and that I will suffer the denial of the bliss of nieces and nephews.

HOW WOULD YOU FEEL??

(OMG!! LONGEST POST EVER!!)

 

[Josie]

What cleopatra said.

 

[cleopatra]

lol

thats what i like to hear!

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by cleopatra


HELL YEAH!!!

Article 16.(UN Declaration of Human Rights)
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State

this says marriage is a right. and in relation to article 7:

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

so in this the UN Dec. of Human Rights states that ALL are entitled to marry, this must include same-sex marriages as it also states none shall be discriminated against!! As aust is part of the UN and has ratified this Declaration into its Statute Law it therefore stands in Oz that same-sex marriages are a human right and the denial of this right would thus be a breach of human rights. Is this correct? im not entirly sure, so please correct me if it is not.

That doesn't forbid or condone same-sex marriages. It's rather ambigious actually. It's all open to your own interpretation what the "family" is. I could interpret that, in simple terms by saying that a family is a union of a man and woman and who are able to naturally have children. (And please don't make random replies to this about adoption/invitro, im sure you get what im trying to say) Thus, according to point 3, if the state defines a family as the above definition, the state must protect families by banning homosexual marriages..

Skewed logic or no?

Originally posted by cleopatra

this comment is a contradiction in itself. You say they should be afforded equal rights, but A SEPERATE marriage ceremony/union! HOW is this equal??? please enlighten me? the CAN BE NO "SAME RIGHTS" when youi impose a different marriage ceremony for same sex couples.

Its a union that affords same-sex couples the same legal rights as a married couple.

Originally posted by cleopatra

The descriptions of the term 'marriage' used in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) (s. 43(a)) and the Marriage Act 1961 (ss. 46(1) and 69(2)) are based on the definition in the 19th century English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. In Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, Lord Penzance defined marriage as
'the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others'

It is a requirement of a valid ceremony of marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) that the parties be a male and a femaleat the date of their marriage.

 

[Kwayera]

Exc-fucking-actly, Cleopatra.

Citing religion as an argument for law or rights also shits me off, considering i'm an atheist (and NO, that's not a fucking contradiction, silly puritans!).

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by neo_o
That doesn't forbid or condone same-sex marriages. It's rather ambigious actually. It's all open to your own interpretation what the "family" is. I could interpret that, in simple terms by saying that a family is a union of a man and woman and who are able to naturally have children. (And please don't make random replies to this about adoption/invitro, im sure you get what im trying to say) Thus, according to point 3, if the state defines a family as the above definition, the state must protect families by banning homosexual marriages

I know you dont want a random reply but Im going to give it to you. If a male/female is born with a naturally occuring condition that causes them to be infertile should they under the way you interpreted above be unable to get married?

 

[eviltama]

fact forward.

*Marriage is not in any way related to religion anymore.

*Marriage does not have to be performed by a priest, in a church or with any religious tags.

*Marriage should be an equal affair, whether it be a homo or hetero affair. Love isn't only a hetero catholic belief, it also isnt only a hetero belief.

*Over the age of 18 (21 if ur parents are of the older-than-old generation) you are an adult, who you love, who you marry, what drugs you do and how you run your life is ALL UP TO YOU and NO ONE CAN TELL YOU OTHERWISE.

*Church and state seperated quite a while ago, and should stay seperate regardless of who is in the PM's chair and what the government of the day is.

And i think last of all, no one has the right (constitutional or otherwise) to say who can and cannot marry as long as both parties are consenting adults.

Now if only those in power would stop following Bush around like lost dogs, and grow some back bone. Australia is not America and we don't treat homosexuals like outcasts here (socially or culturally), we don't discriminate against them and i don't think we should start.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by eviltama
fact forward.

*Over the age of 18 (21 if ur parents are of the older-than-old generation) you are an adult, who you love, who you marry, what drugs you do and how you run your life is ALL UP TO YOU and NO ONE CAN TELL YOU OTHERWISE.

Yeah! Right on you teen rebel. Though maybe the law would beg to differ?

Originally posted by eviltama
And i think last of all, no one has the right (constitutional or otherwise) to say who can and cannot marry as long as both parties are consenting adults.

well, they do and, its called the law (whom i referred to in my last post)

Originally posted by eviltama
Now if only those in power would stop following Bush around like lost dogs, and grow some back bone. Australia is not America and we don't treat homosexuals like outcasts here (socially or culturally), we don't discriminate against them and i don't think we should start.

People will always discriminate against homosexuals, because no matter what youd like to think, they aren't the fucking norm. However, America has the same tolerance for homos as any other WESTERN COUNTRY in some states - more so. Have you seen the educational curriculum in Californian schools? Or even gone to San Fran? I'm sure homosexuals in Asia and the middle east would receive a much harder time eh? Anyway, recently a law was passed that legalised sodomy in all states in America, for redneck states like Texas where it was still illegal..

Originally posted by eviltama
*Church and state seperated quite a while ago.

Except for the Church of England amirite?

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by eviltama

*Marriage should be an equal affair, whether it be a homo or hetero affair. Love isn't only a hetero catholic belief, it also isnt only a hetero belief.

This debate isnt about people of the same sex loving each other, its about them marrying each other, so your "love" argument stinks amirite?

 

[eviltama]

----------------
Yeah! Right on you teen rebel. Though maybe the law would beg to differ?
-----------------

The law is a guidance for what is considered to be generally right and wrong. It is not and never will be an absolute definition. And adult can do waht they want, when they want... even the law cannot stop that. Unless of course the law becomes an entity with the ability to do so.. might make a good movie idea but won't happen in real life.

----------------
well, they do and, its called the law (whom i referred to in my last post)
----------------

'fraid they don't. Re above, and its also society changes.. so does the law.

-----------------
People will always discriminate against homosexuals, because no matter what youd like to think, they aren't the fucking norm. However, America has the same tolerance for homos as any other WESTERN COUNTRY in some states - more so. Have you seen the educational curriculum in Californian schools? Or even gone to San Fran? I'm sure homosexuals in Asia and the middle east would receive a much harder time eh? Anyway, recently a law was passed that legalised sodomy in all states in America, for redneck states like Texas where it was still illegal..
-----------------

People will always discriminate period. People are ignorant fuckwits. And what is the 'fucking norm'? Are they the heterosexuals that produce the offspring that become the people are fuckwits? There is no norm mate, hetero or homo. Homosexuals are no different to heterosexuals, sexual preference isn't a difference... its like hair colour, eye colour, body shape.. its something we're born with not something that should be used to discriminate against. Australia is America, we are a western influenced culture because we are a european based culture at our core.

----------------
Except for the Church of England amirite?
----------------

seperation of church and state... the church has no say in our government. The queen may have a say, and thru her the church... but no the church is seperate.

----------------
This debate isnt about people of the same sex loving each other, its about them marrying each other, so your "love" argument stinks amirite?
-----------------

Love is what makes people marry is it not? Love is what makes a marriage work, so hence my love argument works.

 

[neo o]

---
The law is a guidance for what is considered to be generally right and wrong. It is not and never will be an absolute definition. And adult can do waht they want, when they want... even the law cannot stop that. Unless of course the law becomes The law is a guidance for what is considered to be generally right and wrong. It is not and never will be an absolute definition. And adult can do waht they want, when they want... even the law cannot stop that. Unless of course the law becomes an entity with the ability to do so.. might make a good movie idea but won't happen in real
life... might make a good movie idea but won't happen in real life.
---

True, the law can't stop you from say, raping your neighbours dog, but then again the police (to quote you "an entity with the ability to do so") can.

---
'fraid they don't. Re above, and its also society changes.. so does the law.
---

RE: 2 posts above is calling. Homos can't marry and yes, no matter what you think, the law stops them rather nicely.

The descriptions of the term 'marriage' used in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) (s. 43(a)) and the Marriage Act 1961 (ss. 46(1) and 69(2)) are based on the definition in the 19th century English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. In Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, Lord Penzance defined marriage as
'the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others'

It is a requirement of a valid ceremony of marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) that the parties be a male and a femaleat the date of their marriage.

---
People will always discriminate period. People are ignorant fuckwits. And what is the 'fucking norm'? Are they the heterosexuals that produce the offspring that become the people are fuckwits? There is no norm mate, hetero or homo. Homosexuals are no different to heterosexuals, sexual preference isn't a difference... its like hair colour, eye colour, body shape.. its something we're born with not something that should be used to discriminate against. Australia is America, we are a western influenced culture because we are a european based culture at our core.
---

Since the majority of people arent fags, less then 10%, lets assume its the norm to be straight eh? Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, your not "born" gay, though obviously you can argue till the sun comes down with me there. But here's a hypothetical, if people are "born gay" wouldn't the trait have been bred out eventually mmm? Since gays can't reproduce..mmm (even though, obviously they can now with surrogates etc)...

---
Homosexuals are no different to heterosexuals
---

Homosexuals are different to heterosexuals because they aren't heterosexual.

 

[Generator]

Ah, just a reminder that international law counts for next to nothing, so there is little point in using it to support your argument...

Also, please do not discount religion so easily. Your 'open-minded' stance kind of dies when you take that path.

All points are valid.

 

[eviltama]

---
True, the law can't stop you from say, raping your neighbours dog, but then again the police (to quote you "an entity with the ability to do so") can.
---

The police can enforce what has happened, not what will or what can happen.The police are mostly useless from stopping things happen, becuase they were meant to be the join in the chain after the crime has been commited.

---
RE: 2 posts above is calling. Homos can't marry and yes, no matter what you think, the law stops them rather nicely.
---

Homosexuals can marry, nothing can stop them. Homosexuals can't be legally married in australia, but nothing can stop them from marrying. The law doesnt 'stop them rather nicely' it is wrong, and it needs to be changed. Society is changing so the law needs changing.. for the better not as the govt desires for the worse.


---
Since the majority of people arent fags, less then 10%, lets assume its the norm to be straight eh? Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, your not "born" gay, though obviously you can argue till the sun comes down with me there. But here's a hypothetical, if people are "born gay" wouldn't the trait have been bred out eventually mmm? Since gays can't reproduce..mmm (even though, obviously they can now with surrogates etc)...
---

No one can truely judge how many homosexuals there really are since so many don't admit to being homosexuals because of ignorant people. And homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, you are born gay.. and yes that can be argued forever. As for breeding out the trait i don't see grey eyes being bred out. I don't see people breeding out any faults that occur in humans. And homosexuals can produce, they are humans like everyone else. Just because they choose to share their lives with a person of the same sex doesnt mean they can't reproduce. There are many species of animal within which the males live with the males and only use the females for reproduction of prodgeny. It doesn't make it wrong in human society much less in nature. And the norm isn't decided by what the majority may or may not be, the norm is whatever you see as normal.. whatever you are brought up to see as normal. And that also means that what is normal for you may not be normal for everyone else.

---
Homosexuals are different to heterosexuals because they aren't heterosexual.
---

Humans are humans. Homosexuals are human, heterosexuals are human.

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by Generator
Ah, just a reminder that international law counts for next to nothing, so there is little point in using it to support your argument...

Also, please do not discount religion so easily. Your 'open-minded' stance kind of dies when you take that path.

I discount religion becuase religion is not a problem for me. My religion supports my argument.


I'd like to see the matter taken to the ICJ and to the UN for what they think on the matter. I know it would count for very little, but just out of curiosity.

 

[George W. Bush]

This topic has no future. Nevertheless:

Originally posted by eviltama
The police can enforce what has happened, not what will or what can happen.The police are mostly useless from stopping things happen, becuase they were meant to be the join in the chain after the crime has been commited.

Obviously not true. Police arrest people pre-emptively all the time.

Homosexuals can marry, nothing can stop them. Homosexuals can't be legally married in australia, but nothing can stop them from marrying.

If homosexuals can marry regardless of the law, how is a Howard move to ban gay marriage going to affect them? Why are you bothering to participate in this debate?

Law is an integral part of what constitutes a marriage.

The law doesnt 'stop them rather nicely' it is wrong, and it needs to be changed. Society is changing so the law needs changing.. for the better not as the govt desires for the worse.

Gay marriage being change for the better is strictly your opinion. So is the law being wrong. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

And homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, you are born gay.. and yes that can be argued forever.

Most scientific studies would tend to disagree with the idea of being 'born gay'. Most scientific studies would also disagree with the idea of choice. However, most scientific studies would agree that homosexuality develops out of a mixture of genetic and environmental factors. For example:

LeVay, 1991 - Demonstrated differences in the INAH3 area of the hypothalamus in a small [ N=41 ] study. Not proof, but clearly showing statistically significant differences in the brains of adult homosexuals. Not all subjects clearly showed this difference, also indicating a role for environmental factors or some other unknown biological basis.

Kallman, 1952 - Twin study showing 100% concordance between MZ twins compared to 12-42% rate among DZ twins. [ N= 37 MZ pairs and 26 DZ ]. Correctly criticized for bias in selection, but still a landmark study for its time.

Subsequent twin studies by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard in 1991 found lower rates, but still demonstrate a correlation between biology and sexual orientation in male homosexuals:
52% of MZ twins
22% of DZ twins
9.2% of non-twin brothers
11% of adoptive brothers of gay men
were also gay.

The same researchers also studied lesbian twins with the following results:
48% MZ twins
16% DZ twins
14% non-twin sisters
6% for adoptive sisters of lesbians

Both studies recruited specifically gay participants, again raising the question of bias. More recent studies using twin registries that recruited without reference to sexual orientation conclude the following:
Hershberger, 1997 - 48% concordance rate for lesbian twins
Baily et. al., 2002 - 40% concordance rate for gay men
Kendler et. at., 2000 - 28-65% male and female combined
Kirk et. at., 2000 - 30% for males, 50-60% for females.

There are plenty more, but at the end of the day it seems generally accepted by the scientific community that:

Despite criticisms of selection bias, there is a biological basis for sexual orientation, either structural or genetic, that has be repeatedly demonstrated.

There is also a role in environmental factors.

So far, neither nature nor nurture can be conclusively shown to be deterministic of sexual orientation.

As for breeding out the trait i don't see grey eyes being bred out.

This would be because people with grey eyes can fuck. People with grey eyes have always been able to fuck. People with grey eyes can probably fuck as well as you do.

I don't see people breeding out any faults that occur in humans.

You're obviously not thinking about it deeply enough. If you are gay from birth, you will be attracted only to other men and or women, depending on your sex. This means you will be unable to breed. If you are unable to breed, this will mean you are unable to pass on your genetic material to the next generation. This means the 'gay gene' will disappear.

And homosexuals can produce, they are humans like everyone else. Just because they choose to share their lives with a person of the same sex doesnt mean they can't reproduce.

So a gay man CAN have sex with women, but just CHOOSES to have sex with other men?

There are many species of animal within which the males live with the males and only use the females for reproduction of prodgeny.

Please define homosexuality. I always thought homosexuals didn't have sex with women. You seem to be confusing a bisexual with a homosexual.

It doesn't make it wrong in human society much less in nature.

Occuring naturally doesn't mean something is right. Hell, incest occurs naturally, and I don't see you campeigning to allow my grandmother to toss my salad. Why, I think you'd be quite opposed to it.

And the norm isn't decided by what the majority may or may not be, the norm is whatever you see as normal.. whatever you are brought up to see as normal. And that also means that what is normal for you may not be normal for everyone else.

Maybe so, but laws are made based on what the majority feels. How could it be elsewise?

Humans are humans. Homosexuals are human, heterosexuals are human.

Males are human. Females are human. Therefore, females are the same thing as males?

 

[neo o]

werd.

 

[Ziff]

Shouldn't homosexuals have been bred out by now? Why do they still exist?

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by Ziff
Shouldn't homosexuals have been bred out by now? Why do they still exist?

Well, there are a variety of possible explanations. For one, homosexuality could be a recessive gene. Another is that homosexality is a mix of genetic and environmental factors, so the 'gay gene' could have been around since the beginning of time, but a certain environment is required to become homosexual. For example, homosexuality was quite reasonably accepted amongst the Greeks (with some notable exceptions). But still, even they thought marriage was between a man and a woman.