Gay marriage in NSW/Australia (2 Viewers)

[Xayma]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

(do posts often randomly disappear??)

But anyway- altering a law isn't really discriminatory if the law itself was discriminatory in the first place. You can't lump every law that has to do with marriage in one group and say- "if you change one, you have to change them all" It's just a petulant response.
You have to look at the reason, and time, these laws were made, and what prompted them.

In the case of 'gay marriage' i guess it started in the bible (when reproduction was kind of important seeing as the Jews had just left slavery, were looking for a homeland and were desperate to keep their culture going) and in Australia, was based on religion, back when Australia was a very religious place.
Nowadays, while you can't discount religion entirely, we're becoming a much more secualr society, and religion is seperate from state- to keep laws made when our society was different without reviewing them is a bit weak.
~Trill

Funny about the whole slavery thing considering there is no Egyptian evidence to say that the Jewish were an enslaved people. I think it would be much more related to either their dislike of things different then themselves or that high child death rate meant that alot of sex should be happening to produce lots of babies and having sex with people of the same sex doesnt produce a barrel o' babies.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

I'd like to hear justification for why marriage needs to be institutionalised at all. Why does the state need to frame a social construct?

 

[loquasagacious]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

Thats not a why unless you establish control/power it gives as both a means and an ends in itself.

 

[Serius]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

sometimes i wish i was gay so i could offend more political and/or religious groups than i allready do.

i have to problem with gay marriages, they can do whatever they want imo i dont really care, aslong as public acts of gay sex doesnt become the norm iam happy

 

[loquasagacious]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

What is your opinion on public acts of 'straight sex' becoming the norm?

 

[Ollz San]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

What is your opinion on public acts of 'straight sex' becoming the norm?

I've always been annoyed with such comment as well.
"I don't care as long as they don't display affection in public"

"I don't care as long as he doesn't hit on me" Am I then allowed to say, I don't care if he's straight as long as he doesn't hit on me.

 

[*Minka*]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

I love how gay marriage opponents talk about it being a religious insitution. Would they like it if the government decided to wipe the concept of marriage, making their rights as a married couple null and void? Don't think so.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

I love how gay marriage opponents talk about it being a religious insitution. Would they like it if the government decided to wipe the concept of marriage, making their rights as a married couple null and void? Don't think so.

Thats never going to happen Minka, you and I both know that.

 

[*Minka*]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

Thats never going to happen Minka, you and I both know that.

I know that. But that is exactly what is happening to homosexuals and I was merely wondering if the fundies would appreciate it happening to them.

 

[premer]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

I tend to agree; however clever this strategy may be by the government to sway voters towards them, the whole idea of financially supporting couples who are not having children is idiotic. The sad truth is that it works. I must admit, if one government was offering me financial support and the opposition wasnt, i know who i would vote. Not to mention that Beasly is just plain stupid.

 

[Xayma]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

No .. no civil unions, no marriage, no benefits, no anything. If you chose to be gay you take the entire package - the only reason married hetro couples get benefits is because hetros have the ability to concieve children and add to the population pool - gays dont becuase nature never intended male-male or female-female conception.

Last I checked not too many people chose to be gay. Whether nature or nurture it was not a concious choice. How about we women over 50 from getting married since they can't add to the gene pool (if we are discounting IVF which same sex couples could also concieve through).

 

[robo-andie]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

How about we women over 50

I had to do a double take on that, I thought for a moment... "hang on, Xayma is over 50?". Then I realised you just missed a word, it all made much more sense.

 

[bshoc]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

Last I checked not too many people chose to be gay.

You're obviously not checking medical or genetic reports, becuase as of yet there is no such thing as a gay gene, gay DNA or anything else. Meaning that until proven otherwise the dicision to be homosexual is solely a metal one, and thus like every other decision in life carrier both negatives and posatives that must be considered before that decision is taken - I dont know about you, but i'm into treating people like grown ups.

How about we women over 50 from getting married since they can't add to the gene pool (if we are discounting IVF which same sex couples could also concieve through).

Thats a non-argument - most hetrosexual marriages result in children, there may be medical reasons that mean that a certain percentage of hetrosexual marriages do not concieve children, lets say 5% or so, thats an acceptable figure - compared to the homosexual figure of 100%.

 

[spell check]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

what causal link is there between allowing homosexuals to marry and a reduction in the birth rate? that is essentially what you are getting at

 

[bshoc]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

what causal link is there between allowing homosexuals to marry and a reductin in the birth rate? that is essentially what you are getting at

Nope I'm mainly arguing from the perspective of economics - the reason married couples get those monetary governmental perks is becuase the government is banking on children - as Costello said - One for the mother, one for the father and one for the country - population is one the basic essense's of economic growth and the government would much rather produce its population than import it. Homosexuals cannot generate children (aka. labour resources), thus have no right to claim marriage viability, anything against this would be descrimination against hetrosexuals.

 

[Xayma]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

You're obviously not checking medical or genetic reports, becuase as of yet there is no such thing as a gay gene, gay DNA or anything else. Meaning that until proven otherwise the dicision to be homosexual is solely a metal one, and thus like every other decision in life carrier both negatives and posatives that must be considered before that decision is taken - I dont know about you, but i'm into treating people like grown ups.



Thats a non-argument - most hetrosexual marriages result in children, there may be medical reasons that mean that a certain percentage of hetrosexual marriages do not concieve children, lets say 5% or so, thats an acceptable figure - compared to the homosexual figure of 100%.

Ok how about we take the idea that people who get cancer from environmental conditions showed it.

Actually nothing seems to be a gay gene, however, there is a large number of evidence for things that predisposition one towards homosexuality, even if it is an unconcious mental choice influenced by environmental factors later in life.

IVF works well for same sex female relationships. The cost shouldn't be any more of a factor then for infertile couples.

 

[robo-andie]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

Thats a non-argument - most hetrosexual marriages result in children, there may be medical reasons that mean that a certain percentage of hetrosexual marriages do not concieve children, lets say 5% or so, thats an acceptable figure - compared to the homosexual figure of 100%.

Let's look at some more figures.
Considering what you say is correct, if 5% of heterosexual couples aren't producing babies, and heterosexuals make up 90% of our population (assuming 10% are same sex attracted - openly of course, this figure is not inclusive of those who have similar attractions and fear to express them) then one could assume that 85% of the population is reproducing and 15% are not. Of that 15%, only 5% are awarded marital benefits, even though they cannot reproduce, so one third of the 15% unable to reproduce (the minority of this group) are given equal rights, and the other two thirds, are completely left out of the picture.
If you can support the minority once, you can do it again.

 

[Xayma]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

Bshoc why not just tie all economic marriage related benefits to child raising and family allowance, while giving various legal rights to same sex marriages (such as presumption of nok and other factors).

bschoc if you really want to get into it then since 85-90% of infertility can be treated with medical or surgical routes, and since only 10% of the child bearing age of the population is infertile, all bar 98.5% of marriages of people of child bearing age should produce children (and a large group of the rest can be done with IVF). Which is funny because the argument then stands that you are denying the right to half of the group.

 

[Xayma]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

Umm the government benefits wouldn't come near the cost of raising the child. But people already do it.

Again assuming it is a decision.

Why not remove all medicare benefits for diabetes. Obesity is much more of a decision then homosexuality.

Umm morality is fucked and never existed in the first place.

 

[bshoc]

Re: Gay marriage in NSW

Umm the government benefits wouldn't come near the cost of raising the child. But people already do it.

And they would do it alot more under you proposition.

Again assuming it is a decision.

Most things of this nature are.

Why not remove all medicare benefits for diabetes. Obesity is much more of a decision then homosexuality.

Actually they're both decisions, I suppose the same reason we dont remove medical benefits to homosexuals with AIDS? We're talking about somebody's life here, not an undeserving grasp at rights.

Umm morality is fucked and never existed in the first place.

I dont deny theres some subjectivity there - but generally speaking there are things which one can define as moral or immoral.