Howard Pushes To Ban Same-sex Unions

Discuss news and current affairs. Please enter with an open mind. Strictly no personal attacks.
User avatar
Logie Nominee
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:30 pm
Cash on hand: 5.00
Location: Melbourne
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:46 am
[quote:90a5f245c8]The objection that civil unions are an 'attack on the institution of marriage' is irrational and therefore a non-argument. [/quote:90a5f245c8]
Agree with you totally Fringedweller.
People keep saying that gay unions will "threaten the institution of marriage", and I've never understood the argument. You wanna know what I think threatens the institution of marriage more? Allowing teenage heterosexual couples to marry, before they've had time to live and work out who they really are, thus ensuring the marriage is doomed to fail as the couple will inevitably "grow apart". Oh, and celebrities getting engaged after knowing each other for only a matter of weeks (yes I'm looking at you Bec and Lleyton) - that ain't doing much to strengthen the institution of marriage either. But a same-sex couple, who have soul-searched, and know who they are, and are committed to each other is what the institution of marriage should be about. IMHO of course.
Image
User avatar
Australian Film Star
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:12 am
Cash on hand: 77.50
Location: Brisbane
PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:54 pm
The institution of marriage as traveller said has changed dramamtically over the last 30 years. Only for those who are religious IMO is it important, that is the idea that man and women should be joined in holy matrimony in the presence of god. For the rest, it is the union that is important and the additional legal benefits that go with it. Therefore, civil unions are the crust of it and marriage is just a word IMO that is out dated term and can be removed forever.

Of all of my close friends who are in relationships many are not married or in civil unions but for those that are only two sets are married (back when they thought god was real) and seven others sets came together in civil unions. Unfortunately for some they were only entitled to be joined in commitment cermonies.
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. ~ Bertrand Russell
User avatar
Oscar Winner
Posts: 2808
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:10 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
Location: New South Wales
PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:03 pm
[quote:fc4401ec63="delightful"]Therefore, civil unions are the crust of it and marriage is just a word IMO that is out dated term and can be removed forever.
[/quote:fc4401ec63] Have to agree with that.

Would like to share Lee and Ben's story.
[quote:fc4401ec63][b:fc4401ec63]Couple bound in reality, not on paper[/b:fc4401ec63]
By Julie Szego
June 7, 2006

Lee Centra and Ben Ladbrook do not see themselves as sentimental warriors in a fight for legitimacy. True, the 30-something gay couple sanctified their bond (it'll be seven years this weekend) with a romantic "wedding" on the sands of Byron Beach last December. And if the Federal Government had not determined that same-sex unions could not be sanctified, they would avail themselves of a legal option too.

But Centra, a project manager at National Australia Bank, and Ladbrook, an employee of the ALSO Foundation, a gay charity, say it is love, not politics, that drives them. [b:fc4401ec63]"My view is that you don't need a government or a church to tell you that you are married to each other," says Centra. "It's nice to have, but it's not a prerequisite.[/b:fc4401ec63] I haven't gone out of my way to campaign for civil unions, but I do feel very strongly about equal rights and the issues that affect gays and lesbians. So I think they (civil unions) are a stepping stone to eliminate that kind of cultural discrimination."

Adds Ladbrook: [b:fc4401ec63]"It's just about having an equal playing field where we're all able to do . . . what everybody else takes for granted."[/b:fc4401ec63]

The couple's commitment can be evidenced by everything short of the state's stamp of approval. They jointly own property, and each is named as beneficiary in the other's will and life insurance policy. Of course, Centra criticises the existing discrepancies between same-sex and heterosexual couples in federal areas such as taxation, superannuation and social security. "Your spouse isn't necessarily your spouse in many circumstances and so, yes, there are things you miss out on."

The couple decided to get symbolically hitched in 2004. "It was a powerful decision," reflects Centra. "I felt a real sense of peace and commitment from it." About 40 people, including Centra's grandparents, attended the ceremony. A straight friend played master of ceremonies (Centra had done the same at his wedding) and the couple wrote and exchanged vows. "It was a great, great time," Centra says. "We just wanted to make that personal commitment - there just seemed to be something missing that couldn't be explained."[/quote:fc4401ec63]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-couple-bound-in-reality-not-on-paper/2006/06/06/1149359741396.html
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 6044
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:42 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
Location: In your PANTS!!! >:D
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:50 am
I was kinda dumbfounded by John Howard's comparison of Marriage to TEE scores... That made absolutely no sense!
User avatar
Oscar Winner
Posts: 2808
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:10 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
Location: New South Wales
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:58 pm
From a friend -
[quote:25156fb8e3]"You know what's wrong with gay marriages?
:thinking:
The same things that are wrong with straight ones."
:whistle: [/quote:25156fb8e3]

I like that.
User avatar
Hollywood Walk of Fame Star
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:22 pm
Cash on hand: 2.50
Location: London, UK
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:44 pm
You know, there's a point where you have to stop being politically correct and start protecting certain traditions. I 100% believe in civil unions, whether it be between and man and a woman, or a (wo)man and a (wo)man. But the idea of co-opting the word (and the associated connotations) of 'marriage' is a bit much for me. Sometimes it seems to me that the gay lobby goes too far.

Under the law there should be absolutely no distinction when it comes to spouse protection whether it is between a same sex union and a hetero one. I dunno though the idea of dragging the word 'marriage' in to it, well, it just doesn't sit right with me, and I cannot at all justify this from a moral point of view, but only from a personal and tradional one.

Generally I do not at all have time for the viewpoint that gay couples have a right to demand their civil unions be called marriage. To me marriage is a very sacred, very tradional union between a man and a woman for the purpose of starting and supporting a family of their own creation. I feel that should be fairly sacrosanct. Some things should just be left well alone, so long as the legal equivalent exists so that despite tradition, in the eyes of the law there is equality.

I'm far, far, from religious. But sometimes I think forsaking tradition in the pursuit of gay rights damages the gay cause more than helps it. Sure ABSOLUTELY should gay couples be able to have their partner recognised as their spouse. But stop throwing the word marriage in there. It pisses a lot of people off unneccesarily.
User avatar
Logie Nominee
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:30 pm
Cash on hand: 5.00
Location: Melbourne
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:46 pm
[quote:07f249675e]Generally I do not at all have time for the viewpoint that gay couples have a right to demand their civil unions be called marriage. To me marriage is a very sacred, very tradional union between a man and a woman for the purpose of starting and supporting a family of their own creation. I feel that should be fairly sacrosanct. Some things should just be left well alone, so long as the legal equivalent exists so that despite tradition, in the eyes of the law there is equality.[/quote:07f249675e]
OK, I take your point, but what I think, and the point I was trying to make in my post before, is that there is a lot about heterosexual marriages in our society today that isn't sacred. For instance, as it is, it is perfectly legal for a heterosexual couple to run off to Vegas after knowing each other for a weekend and get married. Is that any more sacred than a union between a same-sex couple who have been committed to each other for years, simply because of the sexual orientations of the couple involved?
And for my own personal reasons, I do get frustrated when people talk about marriage being for the purpose of starting a family. I am infertile, and so any kids I have will not be genetically mine. Does that mean I should never get married? Should I never be allowed to have sex - after all, any sex I have can never be for reproduction. I realise that's probably not what you meant when you said that, but you get my point. If you're going to look at marriage and sex purely as a means of reproduction, how am I really any different to gay woman?
All I am saying is that, in my mind, there is nothing more sacred or sancrosact than two PEOPLE who love each other and are committed to spending their lives with each other through the good and bad times - and that shouldn't only confined to heterosexual couples.
Image
User avatar
Hollywood Walk of Fame Star
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:22 pm
Cash on hand: 2.50
Location: London, UK
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:04 pm
You make very fair arguments. Certainly the whole institution of marriage has been been cheapened over the last couple of decades, but for a lot of people, not to presume a majority, or minority at all, having gay couples shoehorning their unions as marriage as well, would feel as a further erosion of that institution.

I mean, the world is getting hotter all the time, so should we just think stuff it, I'll buy myself a BMW X5, the environment is stuffed anyway kind of thing?

Just because some people are treating marriage as a bit of a joke should that mean it's open season on allowing it to be 'debased' even more?

You're right of course about using 'child rearing' as an argument against gay marriage being unfair, and perhaps in some cases not even relevant. But marriage is a tradition, and the argument is used in a traditional context. Marriage is as I view it, all about setting up a stable supportive unit for childrearing and development. I am very much of the opinion, that all things being equal, a child has a right to have both a mother AND a father as a constant in their lives. Marriage in my eyes is an institution to ensure that occurs.

Gay couples from all the research I've seen are just as effective parents as heterosexual ones (more effective in fact, but it is strongly argued that that is the result of confounding variables), but fundementally shouldn't a child have a balanced upbringing, i.e. a man and a wife, raising them (all things being equal and I stress this point emphatically).

That's what marriage means to me anyway. Everyone's different, but I don't think I am alone in my feelings, and it's very dangerous for the gay lobby to focus on the marriage thing too much rather than on the real issue. That is, having equivalent rights under the law.

Maybe in 10-20 years time they will have that equality in the eyes of society too. But right now they run the risk of alienating themselves from popular public sentiment on this issue and as Howard is reacting here, losing out on rights they ought to have under the law.

Oscar Nominee
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:47 pm
Cash on hand: 4,218.10
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:04 pm
[quote:caa088e99d]You make very fair arguments. Certainly the whole institution of marriage has been been cheapened over the last couple of decades, but for a lot of people, not to presume a majority, or minority at all, having gay couples shoehorning their unions as marriage as well, would feel as a further erosion of that institution.

I mean, the world is getting hotter all the time, so should we just think stuff it, I'll buy myself a BMW X5, the environment is stuffed anyway kind of thing?

Just because some people are treating marriage as a bit of a joke should that mean it's open season on allowing it to be 'debased' even more?

You're right of course about using 'child rearing' as an argument against gay marriage being unfair, and perhaps in some cases not even relevant. But marriage is a tradition, and the argument is used in a traditional context. Marriage is as I view it, all about setting up a stable supportive unit for childrearing and development. I am very much of the opinion, that all things being equal, a child has a right to have both a mother AND a father as a constant in their lives. Marriage in my eyes is an institution to ensure that occurs.

That's what marriage means to me anyway. Everyone's different, but I don't think I am alone in my feelings, and it's very dangerous for the gay lobby to focus on the marriage thing too much rather than on the real issue. That is, having equivalent rights under the law. [/quote:caa088e99d]

Marriage doesn't insure anything, my parents were married, we never saw our father, they got divorced, we still never saw our father.
People don't have to be married to prove their loyalty to another person/people (including children), heterosexuals don't have to be married to be considered next of kin, why shouldn't same sex couples atleast have that acknowledgement even if they can't be legally "married".

I heard a storey about two men who lived together as partners for 20+ years, when one of the men got cancer and died, his partner couldn't take any of their joint property or get the equivalent of a widows pension (all the property went to his partners children who he hadn't seen for years because they didn't agree with their relationship).
User avatar
Oscar Winner
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:46 pm
Cash on hand: 1,839.40
Location: Ignore list
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:16 pm
Oh, great; gay marriage, round 4.

Previous threads discussing the pros and cons of gay marriage in this forum are:
[url=http://www.tvaus.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=3801]US Gay Marriage Laws To Stand[/url]
[url=http://www.tvaus.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=4313]Coalition And Labor Pass Same-sex Marriage Ban[/url]
[url=http://www.tvaus.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=6773]Same-Sex Relationships - Canada Approving Gay Marriage[/url]

Reiterating what I said in one of them:

I can't see any justification for excluding prospective partners from being able to choose marriage or any other union under secular law on the grounds that they are of the same sex while homosexuality - male or female - is legal. Church law is totally irrelevant to the matter.

The way our current federal government is heading, however, we are more likely to see homosexuality made a criminal offence again, rather than a reversion of the Marriage Act to its more commonsensical form.
PreviousNext

Return to News, Current Affairs & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron