• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Gay Marriage - Should they be allowed to say I Do?!?

Should gay marriage be allowed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 80.9%

  • No

    Votes: 9 19.1%
  • Total voters
    47
Status
Not open for further replies.
katmeow

katmeow

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
10,089
For those who haven't seen or read the news in the last few days...

Gay marriage to be banned

May 27, 2004 - 10:06PM


The federal government will ban gay marriages and outlaw overseas adoptions by gay couples under new laws designed to take the matter away from the nation's courts.

Prime Minister John Howard announced the move, angering gay groups and prompting accusations that he was homophobic, but winning support from church and family organisations.

But Labor said it was likely to support the legislation, heading off a divisive pre-election debate about marriage in the Senate.

Mr Howard said the government strongly believed marriage should be defined as a life-time voluntary union of a man and a woman.

He also said the government did not support gay couples adopting children, but said the federal government had no power to overturn state laws.

While the marriage announcement was a blow to gay rights, Mr Howard did announce plans to ensure gay couples could have better access to equal rights under superannuation laws.

Mr Howard said the government would ensure superannuation death benefits could be paid to anyone who was financially dependent on the person who died.

Advertisement
Advertisement
That clarifies the position for gay couples, as well as disabled children, or siblings who share a long-term home.

Mr Howard denied the changes were designed to corner Labor in the lead up to an election.

"We're protecting the most important institution in our society," Mr Howard said.

He said the move was designed to prevent gay couples marrying overseas, then seeking court rulings in Australia on the status of the marriage.

"The definition of a marriage ... should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation and should not, over time, potentially be subject to redefinition or change by courts," Mr Howard told reporters.

"It is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country and that is what we have decided to do."

Labor backed the marriage ban, but said it had not yet decided on its position about gay adoptions.

Opposition Leader Mark Latham has previously said there could be cases where gay adoptions should be allowed.

© 2004 AAP

From here
Click to expand...


I, for one, honestly don't see how the banning of gay marriages is of any benefit. It's basically sending a message to this part of the community, hey fuck off, what you have is second rate in the eys of the law. Something tells me John Howard is still of the mind set that homesexuality is a disease or some kind of fad that will go away if legislated against.

Your thoughts?
 
It amazes me that almost in the same breath, they can offer new and improved benefits for families, and give $3000 to whoever feels like popping out a baby, but not allow a select group of people create a loving and committed family environment.

Then again, he's just like a miniature George W., so it's not all that surprising.
 
Two words, 8 letters.... Fuck Yeah.

What a narrow minded decision by our government.
 
i agree....it sucks that two people who honestly love each other cannot signify their union and have it recognised by everyone.

but it is good that at least they are recognising that gay couples can be financially dependant on one another, at least thats some sort of progress 8)

and the adoption of children i think is a whole other issue, but johnny is obviously just trying to win churchie support.....hmmm
 
WTF is up with howard???

I can't think of anything recently that his governement has done good for Australia, i think i may actually register to vote this year, just to get that prick out!
 
Marriage = ring on finger and a piece of paper.

Whether the couple are opposite or same sex who gives a fuck?

Howard sucks dick!
 
BopGirl said:
Howard sucks dick!
Click to expand...

infact, quite the opposite; If he did suck dick I bet there would be money thrown by bucketloads to gay couples for adopting children. It appears to me that the older generation will probably never accept the whole 'gay community'; because they were brought up to believe it to be very wrong.

Imagine the day a gay prime minister runs the nation.
 
If possible, as this is a rather interesting thread; someone should create a poll so we could get somewhat an idea of what the people of Bluelight believe; Polls are done anonymously I believe so no one should have to lie about what they feel strongly about.
 
Gay marriage should definitely be allowed! Fuck.. if two people love each other then they should be allowed to spend the rest of their lives together under the banner of marriage.

F
 
1 in 3 normal marriages fail anyway, I bet the odds wouldnt be so high in gay marriages.
 
There is a great thread on this in CE&P at the mo as well.

My opinion stays the same...

Why ban it? it makes no sense...

2 people who love each other. 2 grown adults...cannot be allowed to commit.

It makes me so angry because it seems like such a ridiculous close-minded decision.
 
yeah Johny Howard is a fucking idiot, whats new there?

like the two guys from Frenzal Rhomb said on the radio last night:

"this is a democracy Australian style! we're gonna ask you what you want, then we'll do what we want, then we'll tell you we did what you wanted."

John Howard just does what ever the idiot wants to curry favor with whoevers ass his tongue is stuck in for the day and then says its what the majority of the aussie public wanted.

didnt George W. do something like this recently?
 
They're humans just like the rest of us, they just happen to have their chemicals a little funny. Doesn't mean they don't love each other the same way a boy/girl couple do? This all stems back to the church doesn't it? Who's religious these days anyway? Silly insecure politicians who have probably never had a gay friend and still think they're "queers".

Gay marriages will be a thing of the future, unfortunately not tomorrow.
 
sorry to rock the boat, but i say no.

marriage is an institution of the church, which is based on religion. most religions are against the idea of homosexuality, so to force them to hold ceremonies binding two people together against their will is a pointless act.

my belief is that church and state SHOULD be separate, however in this case it isn't unfortunately.

i'm all for homosexual couples being given the recognised RIGHTS of a legally binded couple and all that entails, since that is a major problem these days for many couples of that sexual persuasion.

but as for marriage? no.

argue away.
 
I was just about to write the exact same thing (i think)

I think that the state and church should be separated as well which forms part of my argument.

There is no way that gay marriages should be allowed to go ahead unless they are completely separated from the religious ceremony. Marriage is a religious ceremony and as religion does not endorse homosexuality - then the answer is no. If there was a clearly defined distinction in ceremonies (there is a little bit of one now with celebrants doing ceremonies) from religious to government recognosied then they should be allowed to participate in those - but that idea will never happen - its just stupid of me to say so.

I do agree however they are entitled to the same rights as hetrosexual couples who engage in marriage however.

Basically I cant see why gay people wouldnt want to take an active stance against the vile evil that is organised religion and not want to participate in their ceremonies which promote hetrosexuality as the norm and refuse them entry into such a disgusting and disturbing institute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top