Gay Marriage In Australia

[pandaandthelion]

So The Australian Government Is Having A Conscience Vote on Gay Marriage Sometime next year, What are Peoples Thoughts On Wether Or not It should be legalized

Personally I think it should And plus I hate the Fact they use Gay marriage as the word it should be just marriage they are looking for equality so why not just call it a marriage and not Gay marriage.

[Oniya]

Gay marriages are much better than somber ones.



;D

(Sorry, couldn't resist - we had a news story recently about a teacher who 'censored' Deck the Halls.  The principal reversed the decision.)

[Beguile's Mistress]

THUD!


EDIT:  Fell down before the disclaimer.

[Zakharra]

(Sorry, couldn't resist - we had a news story recently about a teacher who 'censored' Deck the Halls.  The principal reversed the decision.)

Gods, you're serious?!  What  porcupine crawled up that person's butt and died?

[Oniya]

She said that the kids were snickering, and instead of making it a 'teaching moment', she changed the word to 'fine'.

But in case it wasn't clear, I hope that Australia legalizes it.  I can't think of a good reason why two people who are truly committed to each other should have to jump through more hoops just because they're the same gender.  Celebrity marriages that last less than a year before publicly exploding do more harm to the 'sanctity' of marriage than two men who have stood by each other for 20+ years getting to exchange rings.

[pandaandthelion]

I agree Straight people who are all like But the bible says No Blah Blah Blah and like i mean what they probably have divorced and yet they can get married as many times as they want but when it comes to two homosexual Men or Ladies Who's love i think is way more stronger than that of a hetrosexual couple cannot get married

[RubySlippers]

Britian declared it legal as a moral good, that marriage is by its very nature a positive thing for the society therefore allowed gays to marry. They did not as a society implode. And they are a very conservative and moral people as a rule just in their actions.

So why is it a big deal just do it.

[Tamhansen]

I thought the british, as a society imploded long ago :P

Seriously though. The dutch just celebrated 10 years of gay marriage, and nothing really changed over here.

[Onyx]

I agree Straight people who are all like But the bible says No Blah Blah Blah and like i mean what they probably have divorced and yet they can get married as many times as they want but when it comes to two homosexual Men or Ladies Who's love i think is way more stronger than that of a hetrosexual couple cannot get married

How is this mindset any better than the way bigoted heterosexual people view homosexuality?  I'm really trying to temper my response here, but you have basically just stereotyped all straight people, mocked their "religious values," advocated that all they do is get divorced, and then made a baseless claim that love between two people of the same sex is inherently 'stronger?'

You need to seriously calm down and think about what you just said here.  And for the record, I am not a heterosexual person.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I would think using the yard stick of  “didn’t kill their society so just do it” is a poor one for policy change in any country.

[pandaandthelion]

Okay let me rephrase what i was think sorry I am a bit dyslexic sometimes when words sounds good in my head but doesn't come out so good on paper/internet

What I Meant to say was Heterosexual Religious Bible Thumpers who believe everything in the bible is true who think homosexuality is a sin and marriage shouldn't be legalized and yet those Religious Ones are the ones who Get Divorced, Commit Adultry and those two are a sin/frowned apon in the bible

Hopefully That is a Little Clearing on what i was trying to say and with the love to me i think Gay Love Is stronger because there are less Homosexual people in the world so when they find the one they love it will last forever as opposed to Heterosexual we're they are more tempted with Adultry/Cheating

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I am not understanding the point of providing clarification for one statement of baseless generalization with two more statements of the same baseless generalization.  Now there is simply the generalization that people who take the Bible literally are adulterers and are going to be divorced.  Is there somehow a basis for this stereotype aside from a simple desire to create hypocritical circumstance to boost an argument? 

As for the argument that there are less homosexual peoples in the world so their love is stronger, there is almost no point in even addressing that statement.  Promiscuity runs just as deeply in the gay community as in the straight community.  Honestly I’ve heard arguments that due to the deviant label of the subculture promiscuity is an issue among the homosexual community. 

I saw a desire to discuss same-sex marriage but instead find nothing but generalizations from the person asking for that discussion.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Bah! 

We should get government out of the marriage business entirely.

Have the government issue civil unions to any two consenting adults who want them.  The civil union would confine itself to dealing with joint assets, power of attorney, tax status and children.  All very non-spiritual, strictly temporal arrangements.

And marriage?  Well, any couple would be free to be married in any institution willing to perform the ceremony.  Each church, synagogue, mosque, temple, lodge, coven, or whatever would be free to set its own policies regarding who it would or would not marry.  If a church wished to confine marriage to left-handed heterosexual redheads, that would be its prerogative.  The ceremony would have no legal significance, and whatever spiritual significance the participants deem it to have.  Or, if there are two atheists, they can get the civil union from the courthouse, file it, and be done with it sans further pomp and circumstance.

[Serephino]

That would probably be the best idea, but I don't see it happening.  Too many people cling tightly to tradition.  But honestly, if I could go sign a piece of paper with my boyfriend then have a nice ceremony, that would be fine as long as we were equal under the law.

[consortium11]

Britian declared it legal as a moral good, that marriage is by its very nature a positive thing for the society therefore allowed gays to marry. They did not as a society implode. And they are a very conservative and moral people as a rule just in their actions.

So why is it a big deal just do it.

The UK still has the civil partnership/civil marriage distinction so currently we've still got the ol' "separate but equal" thing going on.

The current government has indicated it will introduce a civil marriage bill before the next election but for now it's still civil partners, not marriage.

[Oniya]

That would probably be the best idea, but I don't see it happening.  Too many people cling tightly to tradition.  But honestly, if I could go sign a piece of paper with my boyfriend then have a nice ceremony, that would be fine as long as we were equal under the law.

*nods*  You'd get the DOMA people saying 'Why do I need to sign a paper?"'  (I think it's fair enough to say that they'd be the primary ones complaining.)

[Serephino]

Right now it's the legal stuff that's the problem. If, god forbid, something nasty were to happen to me, my mother would be considered my next of kin, not him.  Same thing for him, they'd look for his mother or siblings to tell them what to do.  He doesn't have much to do with his mother, and I live with him.

We have to go give money we don't have to a lawyer for wills and living wills to give each other legal rights should the worst happen. A straight married couple; all the surviving partner has to do is pull out the marriage certificate, and they can make medical decisions, and get to keep everything unless there is a will saying otherwise.

My dad had a will, but what wasn't specifically given to others, my mom kept because they were married.  That's all we want. 

And really, the divorce rate is something like 50%.  It's a valid argument.  Straight couples rush into marriage, or give up easily all the time.  It's supposedly sacred, but disposable.  It's ridiculous!  Why can't homosexual people be given the same opportunity to make a mockery of it?  Many celebrity couples lasted less than a year.  My boyfriend and I have been together almost 6 years, but can't exchange rings in a legal ceremony because of someone else's religion.       

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The divorce rate is somewhere around 49% though that number has been tied to flawed math.  Some studies put the number at around 40% and those with college degrees have a number hovering around 15%.  This shows that there are various items affecting the staying power of a marriage.  Contending that homosexual couples remain together than heterosexual marriages by virtue of being homosexual has no basis for support or even an understanding of social influences.  In fact the statement is entirely wrong.

“Kurdek says in a 1998 Journal of Marriage and the Family paper that even though gay and lesbian relationships end more often than straight marriages, they don't degrade any faster.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1704660,00.html#ixzz1gO04ioKj

So the homosexual couples break up the same if not more.

Also, go to your local hospital and request a Health Care Power of Attorney form from the hospital.  Fill that paperwork out and keep a copy for yourself and your partner.  Also, Living Wills do not require an attorney.  They only require the presence of a doctor to sign off on the paper work.

[Oniya]

A lot of legal forms can be had for cheap at Legalzoom.  You probably still want to have a lawyer look over things, but you'll have the paperwork filled out ahead of time, which is just that many fewer hours that you have to get billed for.  (This applies to all people - if you have a person that you're spending your life with, a will is a good idea.)

[Samael]

If I may, I don't think panda wanted to generalize away, although it seems a little that way, but simply point out there's a huge amount of hypocrisy involved in those who usually complain the loudest.
It just seems as if he didn't find the words to put it eloquently into sentences.

That said, I do agree with him to a degree, in that the loudest criers are usually the ones who the least actually hold onto what they preach, but at the same time such behaviour is not limited to one side of the spectrum/sexual identity. Just check out GOProud, to see that there are lesbians and gays who readily work against their own interests, for example.

Stupid simply comes in every form, shape, gender, age, color and sexual identity.

That said, the "Gay love is stronger" thing is pretty silly, but I think only born from a more simplistic point of view, not necessarily meant as an insult.
Love's different from person to person, and there's no measurement system for it, and there -shouldn't- either.

Same rights for everyone.
No excuses. If hetero couples can marry, so should others.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

People that gain the most attention are not always representative of the population.  Typically those people are the most outlandish and outrageous which is how they caught the media attention.  Same-sex marriage in the United States of America is pretty evenly split.  This means that somewhere in the ballpark of 50% of Americans do not support gay marriage.  I do not believe that 50% of Americans are bible thumping adulterers.  Therefore, there are quite a few that have concerns which are not easily swept away with such a generalization of hypocrisy.  Panda may not have meant to make such a generalization the first time, but after taking the moment to clarify his point with further generalization I believe he has solidified his stance in that regard.

Marriage had a strict purpose at one point which is why the state moved to provide government benefits and sanctions.  This was to reinforce the family unit and structure as social creators saw beneficial to the population.  Up to this point that structure was seen to be a man and woman together with a focus on providing for offspring that would grow to be productive citizens.  Tax incentives were seen to help the couple operate as a family and provide for their children.  Legal rights such as medical decisions and divorce proceedings were meant to help keep the family together, or at the very least protect the members of the family.  All such operations with the intent of providing for offspring and raising productive members of society.  The family unit was meant to be a solidifying force in society.

Considering a lot of the social ills being brought forth today alongside the degradation of the family unit, there is some support for trying to maintain the family structure.  Homosexuals being incapable of producing children together does provide a powerful restriction in that case.  Why should homosexuals be given tax incentives and legal rights extended to couples that can produce and raise citizens for the future of the country when they, obviously, cannot do so?

[Oniya]

Ah, but many would be more than willing to provide loving homes for kids that are now being dumped into the foster care system.  My sister has her own biological child (had a donor), and she and her wife are raising him.  I know many gay male couples that would love to adopt, but current regulations won't let agencies even consider them.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

That is a separate issue though.  Gay couples being able to marry does not change that situation.

[Serephino]

I wasn't saying gay couples would have a lower divorce rate. I'm saying it's silly to preach about the sanctity of marriage when straight people clearly aren't treating it as such.  Two straight people can go get a 'quickie' ceremony in Vegas drunk off their asses. 

Divorce rates may not be exactly that high, but so many people are just giving up when they hit a bump in the road.  My boyfriend works with a guy not much older than us, but has been divorced twice.  My mom was my dad's third wife.  No one takes that 'till death to us part' thing very seriously anymore.  Hell, a high school friend of mine is married, but only because she couldn't bother to get off her ass and sign and mail in the annulment papers.  They were married about 4 months I believe before they broke up.  My point is, why can't I be allowed to participate in this sacred thing in which I could need a divorce attorney in less than a year... 

[Oniya]

That is a separate issue though.  Gay couples being able to marry does not change that situation.

All right then, taking it from the other direction - Why should infertile couples or elderly couples be given tax incentives and legal rights extended to couples that can produce and raise citizens for the future of the country when they, obviously, cannot do so?