Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[bshoc]

They used "union" not "civil union", and I am obviously aware that a marriage and a civil union are not the same thing.
As I said, I think they were using union as a synonym for marriage (you know, a marriage can be considered a form of union, unifying two individuals through unity), to avoid repeating the word marriage. I think they ignored how this could be interpreted though, it is somewhat confusing.

Well the SBS poll has 18% that are not placed in either category, most balanced polls I've seen had people opposed, such as in that Herald poll, by 58%, there's no question that SBS skewed it in some manner, I just posted that particular poll to show that even hopelessly left sources still say the same general thing.

 

[ihavenothing]

If you are saying you want less productive marriages I think you are further discriminating against infertile and elderly couples.

 

[bshoc]

If you are saying you want less productive marriages I think you are further discriminating against infertile and elderly couples.

No I'm saying thats its stupid to enact policies that will create more.

 

[dagwoman]

What's wrong with non-reproductive marriages? If someone doesn't want to have children, why should they feel obligated? The world is overpopulated as it is. Marriage isn't based on having children, so that's not a valid argument against gay marriage.

 

[townie]

Most marriages will concieve given that they last long enough, thats why most people settle down and commit to marriage, even if what you say is true and a minority of hetrosexual couples dont fit such a description, thats no reason to destroy marriage even further to allow even more non-productive marriages.

most people i know married for love, not children, actually

 

[_dhj_]

I tend to lean towards allowing gay marriages, but I must admit that some of bshoc's arguments are fairly persuasive.

What I don't agree with however is the notion that society "deteoriates" merely because it is more accepting of homosexuality.

 

[townie]

Well the SBS poll has 18% that are not placed in either category, most balanced polls I've seen had people opposed, such as in that Herald poll, by 58%, there's no question that SBS skewed it in some manner, I just posted that particular poll to show that even hopelessly left sources still say the same general thing.

u idiot, the 18% would have been the "undecided", and the poll was done by Newspoll (albiet for the SBS, but still not done by the SBS)

 

[dagwoman]

Love between two people, gay or straight, is real. Gay people want the same rights that marriage gives to straight people. That's the sole legal purpose of marriage, although it can have different symbolic implications for different people. But that is irrelevant to the argument of whether gay people should marry. Just because some people marry to start a family doesn't mean that's what marriage is all about. And even if it was, gay people make families too. And you didn't answer the question:

HOW would the state and society deteriorate by allowing two people who love each other, and just happen to be the same sex, to marry?

 

[townie]

I tend to lean towards allowing gay marriages, but I must admit that some of bshoc's arguments are fairly persuasive.

What I don't agree with however is the notion that society "deteoriates" merely because it is more accepting of homosexuality.

how on earth are his arguments persuasive, his argument is as follows:

1. I dont like gay people
2. I like marriage
3. If marriage and gay people mix, it's bad for me
-some missing link-
.:. it's bad for society

 

[_dhj_]

Love between two people, gay or straight, is real. Gay people want the same rights that marriage gives to straight people. And you didn't answer the question:

HOW would the state and society deteriorate by allowing two people who love each other, and just happen to be the same sex, to marry?

Yep this is a question that needs to be answered since it appears that allowing homosexual marriage would be merely a step in line with prevalent "community values". Imo if gay marriage is allowed the institution of marriage would increase rather than decrease in credibility since it would be perceived as less discriminatory and more progressive.

 

[_dhj_]

how on earth are his arguments persuasive, his argument is as follows:

1. I dont like gay people
2. I like marriage
3. If marriage and gay people mix, it's bad for me
-some missing link-
.:. it's bad for society

I find the notion that marriage isn't a "right" and that homosexuals do not need it somewhat persuasive.

 

[dagwoman]

how on earth are his arguments persuasive, his argument is as follows:

1. I dont like gay people
2. I like marriage
3. If marriage and gay people mix, it's bad for me
-some missing link-
.:. it's bad for society

Pure gold. You captured my thoughts completely.

 

[dagwoman]

In order to make such (ridiculous) statements, one needs to back up WHY they think marriage isn't a right and WHY gay people shouldn't have it. Statements aren't persuasive, arguments are. I see no good argument.

 

[townie]

I find the notion that marriage isn't a "right" and that homosexuals do not need it somewhat persuasive.

ah, well, if marriage isnt a right, we can then assume it's a privelege? yes, if it becomes a priveledge, then it becomes a slippery slope, u could then justly argue then why SHOULD infertile couples or mixed race couples be allowed to marry, i'm not saying that would happen, but it opens the door for possibilities.

further, there are substantial benefits conferred by marriage, it's a recognition of the relationship being "normal" first and foremost, there are supperannuation and tax benefits, centrelink benefits, benefits assosciated with health cover and health care, benefits to do with wills and probate, benefits assosciated with being next of kind, etc.

 

[_dhj_]

In order to make such (ridiculous) statements, one needs to back up WHY they think marriage isn't a right and WHY gay people shouldn't have it. Statements aren't persuasive, arguments are. I see no good argument.

i don't think this discussion is worthwhile but all statements can be arguments for something, and those arguments can be substantiated by further statements which act as arguments by themselves. In this context, "marriage isn't a right" and "gays don't need it" are both arguments for the statement that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

[spell check]

I find the notion that marriage isn't a "right" and that homosexuals do not need it somewhat persuasive.

so the government should only allow people to do things that they 'need' to do? that is fucking stupid.

if homosexuals want to marry each other then why not let them?

if X and Y are in a heterosexual relationship, are they really going to make their decision whether or not to have kids based on whether gay people are allowed to get married? if they do, i propose that they are too stupid to have children anyway and everybody wins.

 

[_dhj_]

Oh dear, not again! May I suggest that you try "Gays and Islam" for your next thread?

PS: I'm going to do my best to run this off the rails, because threads like this NEVER die.

qft.

 

[bshoc]

most people i know married for love, not children, actually

Exactly people were in love before they got married, love alone is little reason for marriage, since marriage involves risk, most people who were in love I know only married when they decided to settle down and have a family.

 

[bshoc]

how on earth are his arguments persuasive, his argument is as follows:

1. I dont like gay people
2. I like marriage
3. If marriage and gay people mix, it's bad for me
-some missing link-
.:. it's bad for society

Its not my problem you cant read, but seeing as how misrepresenting my argument whilst ignoring all of its substance means you dont actually have to adress it, keep it up.

 

[ihavenothing]

Rubbish! My mum's best family friends couldn't afford to have children so they decided against it but they are still together and very wealthy because they didn't have kids. It was their choice and they didn't have them even though later down the track they could but they were in their 40s and too much of a hassle.