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

[notneo]

Marriage is a stupid thing anyway, makes it alot harder to leave a relationship once you get married because you've invested so much and admited a bond infront of alot of people.

My parents never married, hopefully I can do the same... not like you need to announce your love to others to make it true.

If gay people want to get married I don't see why not, but I do have an issue with gay couples adopting children. I don't think it would be a healthy household for a child to grow up in not because I think gay people are dirty or anything along those lines but because it would seriously weird the kid out. He/she would also get alot of crap from school and peers and for that reason don't think it's the right thing to do.. thinking of the child's interests.

 

[doofqueen]

I think in this day and age homosexuality and lesbianism is tolerated and accepted by many and kids would be used to it as part of their society. Or should be taught that anyway.

 

[De Spook]

it comes down to a narrow minded view by a head of state to intent on making his country the america of the southern hemisphere. John howard openly states his position against homosexual marrige then in the same breath says "but you can collect their super if they die....WTF......
ravebuddha

i'm sorry RB but john howard put forward the legislation in order to stop the forard motion of legislation in the USA making it to australia. but i do agree with you that Mr Howard PM is a small minded conservative whose political positions lack an open minded and overall community based viewpoint.

Originally posted by doofqueen
I don't know why in this day and age anyone wants or needs to get married but if they want to they should have a right to.
doofqueen

i agree that any two people should have the right to marriatal status
i said it before, that most wish to state their love for each other in front of friends and loved ones and also to be considered equal to the heterosexual couples.
also there are many benefits that married couples enjoy that de facto couples do not. and as such gay couples do not enjoy the same benefits.

thank you to those who corrected the Jedi knight and the celebrant laws. had to go for a dive. mmmm, playing with seals at 30m below the surface where we truely are second class citizens. (sorry off topic)

if your (to noone in particular so please don't be offended) gripe is with the religious position on homosexuals more specifically the christian biblical view then i suggest you read or re-read the bible and please quote for me any passage which refers to a a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationship or which deals directly with same-sex marriages (aka domestic partnerships, civil unions, holy unions, etc.)
(and please try to find accurate translations and quote in context) Leviticus 18:22 in the KJV for example (see below)

It is possible to take the possitive assertions of heterosexual relationships and thereby decide against homosexuality, but i'm sure you can see the implausability of using that as the basis for an argument (Genesis 2 or Matthew 19:4-6 which is a repetition of Genesis 2 spoken by Jesus)
this goes about describing that a partner for adam Gen 2:23,24 however the hebrew word for woman is very similar to man, so may even be misstranslated
1 Corinthians 6:9,10 is often used but the direct translation is for "homosexual offenders" not for homosexual couples who do not partake in the following acts. (and even if you do feel the translation is for all homosexuals then they were "washed, were sanctified" so this could be taken that homosexuals may be sinners but can still be washed and enter into Heaven

there are passages which do refer to homosexual actions, most of which i think you will agree are amoral:
Homosexual rape (Genesis 19; Judges 19:14).
Homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples -- a religious taboo (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13).
Homosexual prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).
Heterosexual men and women going against their basic nature and engaging in homosexual Pagan orgies (Romans 1:26).
Men who sexually molest boys -- and the boys that they abuse (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9).
Bestiality: Men engaging in sex with males of another species -- angels in this case (Jude 7).

from this it is possible to come to the conclusion that some homosexual acts, though similar heterosexual acts, can be considered amoral; however, there is little to deny a loving relationship between homosexuals.

please feel free to respond but please no personal attacks.

 

[onetwothreefour]

^^^ nice post

 

[Raz]

Should gay marriage be allowed?

keystroke requested this topic be an official poll, so here we go....ask and ye shall receive mine peeps! :D

 

[BopGirl]

woohoo! Two people have voted!

Gay couples CAN get married! 100% say so :D

 

[MoeBro]

Fuck
I accidentally clicked no
when looking at the poll take 1 from no and add to yes

My opinion on this matter is simple - If you are gay and you wish to get married, I couldn't care less. It doesn't affect me in the least, and if the fact that you are now 'married' be it by religious means or otherwise makes you happy, so be it. I wont stand in your way. Nor will I support you. Unless you happen to be a good friend of mine, or someone else I obviously care for.

Sorry about the poll fuckup

 

[Cosmic Mist]

I think this is another tactic designed to move the focus of this up-coming elsection away from the wars in iraq and afganistan. It's such a petty thing to be legislating against, yet it is so controversial that the press will jump on it.

Personally i don't see how allowing gay couples to be married makes a lick of difference to any person other than the two people involved in the relationship.

Furthermore, seeing as so many people these days are having non-denominational weddings, i don't believe that marriage can truely be held as an institution of the church SOLEY. If people can be married by a registrar, and it doesn't matter what religion they are, then what does it matter whether they are two men, two women, or two people of the opposite sex???

 

[Strawberry_lovemuffin]

I highly doubt a gay couple would even want to be married by a minister given the (Catholic at least) church's stance on homosexuality. The religion argument is just completely defunct. Marriage hasn't been soley - or at all, in many cases - about religion for many years.

I find it pretty distasteful that John Howard says he's trying to "protect one of the most important institutions in society" (or words to that effect). Protect it from what, exactly? From more loving, caring couples joining the ranks to pay their taxes, buy real estate, take out loans and contribute to society like a good, law-abiding committed unit? Oh lord, save us! 8)

How, indeed, does the marriage "institution" need protecting? Will it suddenly turn pink? Will it lead to mass orgies, looting, random muggings and general chaos? Will - god forbid!- married hetrosexual couples catch a bad case of the creeping gays, and begin to prance around listening to Barbara Streisand? (as I'm sure John Howard believes is de rigeur in your average gay household).

How, pray tell, does having a gay couple with an extra ring on their wedding finger and bit of legal paper, affect anyone on god's green earth at all ?

 

[ravebuddha]

i

i'm sorry RB but john howard put forward the legislation in order to stop the forard motion of legislation in the USA making it to australia. but i do agree with you that Mr Howard PM is a small minded conservative whose political positions lack an open minded and overall community based viewpoint

De Spook

I understand the fact that he is trying to stop a repeat of the U.S debacle over this matter. However I wonder what his position on the issue would be if George W was for gay marriage?

Ravebuddha

 

[Innocuous]

There's a lovely t-shirt from t-shirt hell;
I support gay marriage, so long as both lesbians are hot.

and that about sums up the intelligence of this whole issue.
*sigh* After the fiasco in the states it's hardly surprising that little johnny is pulling this one out this election year. It's stupid, but then, at least that in keeping with everything else.

Personally I think marriage is a pretty idiotic idea, but other people feel differently and as such should be able to marry and divorce as they see fit, it's none of my business and certainly none of the Howards either.

 

[Raving Loony]

A great peice from Andrew Sullivan's blog about the historical perception of marriage in the US.

JUDICIAL TYRANTS: Yes, those figures in black robes once violated basic principles of self-government and forced vile and disgusting marriages on unwilling majorities. No one had a say - except nine dictators in the Supreme Court. And the public was overwhelmingly opposed, according to Gallup:

In 1968, only 20% of Americans approved of marriage between "whites and nonwhites." By 1983, 43% said they approved of marriage between blacks and whites, and in the most recent survey conducted for AARP, 73% of Americans expressed approval toward black-white marriages. This percentage is up significantly since Gallup last asked the question in June 2002.

While a majority of black adults have consistently approved of marriage between whites and nonwhites since Gallup began asking this question of blacks in 1968, only 17% of whites approved in 1968. It wasn't until 1997 that a majority of whites expressed approval toward black-white marriages. According to the latest survey, 70% of whites and 80% of blacks approve of marriage between whites and blacks.

Younger Americans are more likely than older Americans to approve of marriage between blacks and whites (approval ranges from 85% among the 18- to 29-year-olds to just 47% among those 65 and older).
It wasn't until 1997 that a majority of whites approved of inter-racial marriages! The public approval of marriage rights for gays today is close to double the approval of inter-racial marriage in 1967. Judicial tyranny was worse then, wasn't it?

Says it all really.

 

[bbqdave]

in a free country should we not be allowed to do whatever the fuck we want? (and everything else is bullshit)
Gay adoption is a bit different in my opinion, but they can marry all the want.

 

[MaDMAn_Project]

Unfortunately we are still a long way from being a free country. I was even more disappointed when I heard that Labour were backing the redefinition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

I urge all of you to enrol and vote.

 

[Rosencavelier]

Being irreligious I personally think marriage is a crock of sh*t - I don't need to declare my love and commitment to a god, nor to the state - only to the one I love. However - I think that anyone that wants to be wed should be allowed to.

 

[mickeyjooce]

Ugh!!!! Little Johhny and his merry men,

I really think Little Johnny is using a clever form of homophobia to win an election. The biggest group of people in our society at the moment are people in their 40-65 age bracket (due to the baby boomers) and in a poll of them most of them don't believe in gay marriage. However, saying straight out that gay people shouldn't get married would leave him open to being called homophobic (and that wouldn't be good in an election year) so he says, "No marriage, but superannuation." And expects that we should be content with this.

The other problem is that to support gay marriage and make it law there would need to be a referendum to change the constitution from "The union of one man and one woman". And to change the constitution isn't as easy as winning more than 50% of the vote, to change their needs to be a majority of votes in a majority of states. Meaning there would have to be at least 4 states who have majority of votes for. And what would the be the new constitution model? "The union of one person to another person?" "The joint union of one man/woman to one man/woman."

Well sorry to sound like a whinging, bleeding heart, but it isn't good enough. If I want to get married why shouldn't I be able to? I want to have the white picket fence life too. Why should I be happy with second rate? My answer, let people marry people.

Hope this have given you all something interesting to discuss.