Revenge of the Return of *Homosexuals are Gay* Reloaded

Anyway, it's time to let this go.

Don't give up, _Darth_Brooks_. I've responded to this in the appropriate thread.

 

Well, I would assume that for many gay people the ultimate symbol of love and devotion, and committment, is marriage. I mean, marriage really, nowadays, is symbolic so as such I'm hard pressed to consider a viable opposition to gay marriage.

E_S

 

Well, I would assume that for many gay people the ultimate symbol of love and devotion, and committment, is marriage. I mean, marriage really, nowadays, is symbolic so as such I'm hard pressed to consider a viable opposition to gay marriage.

But marriage is the ultimate symbol between a man and a woman. That is how it is currently defined. If it is for symbolic reasons then why not choose another word. If it means the same thing what difference does it really make? Star of David, Crucifix, or Crescent Moon, all just symbols used by man to represent his faith int he same God.

The ultimate symbol for love between two people (same sex and otherwise) is commitment. Marriage is just the official contract, the paperwork version of the agreement.

 

Well, actually, marriage is a symbol of committment. Which doesn't give me a good reason why gays can't marry.

E_S

 

Actually, no. There has never been a referendum regarding same sex marriages ever in Australia. Here is a page that links to all referendums in Australia and the 3 plebiscites.

There has been talk of passing legislation at a federal level to try to block any of the states and territories that have been considering passing legislation that will allow full recognition of same-sex civil unions. But frankly that's been more of a reactionary tactic to take the issue off the plate leading up to the recent federal, state and territory election than is anything setting itself in stone.

 

And you have just given the reason. It isn't because of the religious aspects of marriage that recognition of same-sex marriages is sought, but because of the legal aspects. I don't know how it works in the US, but I can say that here a "marriage" is the word used to refer to either just a civil union overseen by a celebrant, or a civil union that is entered into with the full religious reglia of 'marriage'. As it stands right now, same-sex couples are afforded the same rights and protections that exist for all de facto couples under legislation, but they are not offered the rights and protections that a civil-union (i.e. marriage) has.

To me the entire arguement that seems to come up is a simple case of semantics since no matter what you want to call it, it's the protections that are the actual issue at hand. But it's too much of a loaded issue now that a 'victory' for either side has to be over 'marriage' itself in order to be able to strike a blow at the other side.

Personally the matter is of little interest to me since whether the laws are ever changed or not will not impact greatly on me as I'm not expecting to want it regardless of who I end up with.

 

But simply giving a reason why it should not be done is not giving a reason why it should be.

To me the entire arguement that seems to come up is a simple case of semantics since no matter what you want to call it, it's the protections that are the actual issue at hand. But it's too much of a loaded issue now that a 'victory' for either side has to be over 'marriage' itself in order to be able to strike a blow at the other side.

Exactly it is a semantic argument that I am standing on. If the contract is one man and one woman and then we go and change the very basis of that contract because "things change over time" the contract will forever be up to re-writting under the same name. This opens the door for polygimists to rewrite it for their benifit, not to mention beastiality and incest and what ever else some minor group would petition for. While this argument almost always gets the "be realistic thats rediculous", think back as little as 75 years ago. This same thing would be said about allowing two men to get a marriage license. Back 200 years and the thought would be enough to get you ran out of town on a rail.

If you call it same sex union you will be creating a new contract and can decide the stipulation of it and make it function moving forward. This keeps the sanctity of the contract of marriage to its purpose of one of each gender, and the sanctity of SSU to two of the same. All the other laws and regulations against a union with a fern still will stand and there is no fear of the contracts being bastardized movign forward because a precedent has been set to not rewrite the contract stipulations. Polygimists would have to create their own contract and have that be accepted by the public.

The equal but different argument doesnt hold water for me because it does not take into account the larger picture, it looks for an immediate way to make everything equal to all without regard to the future or taking into account logic, somethings just have to be made equal but different when gender is a key factor (bathrooms).

I don't understand the fuss over a word. SSU would be just as discriminatory to hetro couples as mariage would be to **** couples. Regardless it is still the choice of the individual as to whether they want to enter either of the unions.

 

Maybe even two million, which is a lot.

It certainly would be labeled "discrimination" if heterosexuals weren't allowed to marry.

The government shouldn't interfere with the personal decisions of any citizen. If a priest wants to marry, the government shouldn't stop him. He might lose his job, but that isn't governmental discrimination: that is discrimination that is perfectly up to the choice of the church.

The bundle of rights given to married couples shouldn't be witheld from a class of people because the government considers it inferior.

You have perverse grammar.

Yes.

It's not discrimination "in my opinion," it's discrimination by its very definition. Some discrimination is, in my opinion, OK, such as segregating bathrooms according to sex. That is not an attempt to consider either sex inferior or treat one sex unequally before the law. Allowing only one sect of people to enjoy a privilege based on the premise that it is superior to the other (for reasons such as "it is more natural" or "God wants it this way") is, in my opinion, wrongful discrimination.

That's the point of the comic strip, genius. Through many stages in the evolution of marriage, leaders were saying "the main constant is this: (blah blah blah)," then it gets torn down. For instance, the "one thing that has always remained the same" in one example was that only white people were allowed to marry. It was absolutely ridiculous that anyone would consider letting blacks marry. In that time, if such a comic strip had been made to show the evolution of marriage up to that point, the leader (very much like yourself) would have said something like:

Oh and what is the one thing that has remained constant in that lame excuse for a comic strip? Hmmmm... oh yes! It has ALWAYS BEEN ONLY FOR WHITES. Rights and prvileges may have changed for whites but the race point has always been the same!

 

But creating a second and completely separate 'contract' isn't in the very long run going to provide the one thing wanted, and that is the legal equality. What it means that any future amendments to any 'marriage' legislation would have to have a second concurrent amendment going through at the same time which would not be subject to required linked alterations. So you then set up a way to introduce another form of the same kind of inequality that exists now.

Add to that, your arguement about how this would be a benefit over pure amendments to the current 'contract' doesn't actually hold. To get an amendment in for polygamy, incest, and whatever other thing you wish to throw in is close to the same process to get a brand new piece of legislation covering them separately. Thus it isn't going to be making it easier or harder whichever course you choose. Thus you have to look at the impact it has on the issue at hand.

Besides that, in regards to polygamy I know that here there is no coverage or allowance for it, yet there is support for those that immigrate under a polygimous marriage. It isn't allowed though because of other parts of legislation. The same with bestiality, incest, etc. There are specific criminal and civil legislations that deal with it apart from most of the Marriage Act, thus requiring more than a change to a single piece of legislation.


The equal but different argument doesnt hold water for me because it does not take into account the larger picture, it looks for an immediate way to make everything equal to all without regard to the future or taking into account logic, somethings just have to be made equal but different when gender is a key factor (bathrooms).

"All people are created equal, just some are more equal than others"?


Edit:Sorry, missed this before:

Is marriage discrimination against men and women of the cloth.

...

And don't get your undies in a bunch and start sayin' that deacons can get married, I know that I am talking good ole Catholic priests.

This is where the fact that people seem comfortable to interchange religious issues with legal issues is a problem. As far as I know from most marriage legislation around the world there aren't that many that have a specific provision that prevents 'people of the cloth' from entering into a 'marriage'. The bans/restrictions are completely based in the religion at hand and have no legal implications in relation to marriage itself. All the ramifications exist inside the religious organisation itself.

 

Actually, no. There has never been a referendum regarding same sex marriages ever in Australia. Here is a page that links to all referendums in Australia and the 3 plebiscites.

Yeah, it looks like it wasn't a popular referendum, but the Marriage Amendment was passed in 2004.

HERE

Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnized in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognized as a marriage in Australia.

The point was that even though the Australian government doesn't recognize same sex marriages, it allows for other unions.

 

Touchdown!! A mod who's not conservative!!

 

It was a bipartisan bill (I remember this because in our Oceania debate on the election, people tried to slam the Liberal Party for it - and they're Tories, my American friends - and I pwn3d them with bipartisan f4cts!!1!) and frankly, I can't see the damned point but, oh well...

E_S

 

Actually, with the exact wording of the bill as it stands right now, the Australian government will only recognise a marriage if it is between one man and one woman. It will not recognise or allow for any other. There might be specific protects afforded similar to those of de facto relationships in the case of some other unions, but it does not recognise them.

I do stand corrected on the fact there is something in law about it. The unfortunate thing is that while I don't agree with what they have done, I do agree with some of the political motivations behind it as this is an issue that should be dealt with apart from any other, and some groups were determined to make it a big issue at the elections occurring at the time.

 

Quite right! And why shouldn't the blacks have to sit at the back of the bus? After all, they still get where they're going, so what difference does it really make?

M. Scott

 

People get rightly pissed off in this country when they are being blocked from being able to define something the way they want to . Its important to everyone no matter what your make up is. Your failing to realize that marriage is just a word, and the goverment wants to legislate what THEY define that word as. By the goverment being childish about it by not allowing the word " marriage " to define a gay couples union it blantantly abuses the first amendment. You said a couple pages ago you were totally for the goverment staying out of the issue, so whats the problem? A case would be venued before a liberal judge and it would be so ( gay marriage, in name AND concept ) if politicians stopped their nonsense, both Republican AND Democrat.

 

It seems to me that more people are against gay marriage than for it.

 

And that means...what, exactly?

 

It seems to me more people are for gay marriage than against it.

 

It seems to me that more people don't care than are for OR against it.

 

It seems to me that although potatoes learn quickly, my burrito still sleeps with the couch on.

See? I can do it too.

 

For everyone who has been trotting out the "children need male and female parents" argument, despite all the evidence that suggests that children of same-sex parents grow up just fine, a new study pretty much debunks the notion that men and women are fundamentally different psychologically. Story here.

But, hey, when has a little thing like science mattered to the right?

 

Yes; your argument is the one thar really convinces me!

 

Well, the homosexuals seem more loud in activism than those who oppose it.

 

Those who oppose gay marriage seem more vocal than those who are for it.