Page 4 of 4

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:26 am
by traveller
I can see the point Kar is making and to some extent agree with it - although like I said, it doesn't apply to the ACT situation as they are not proposing to call it a marriage. I don't think, for the record, that Kar is suggesting marriage is sacred - he's more addressing a perception issue, i.e. that calling it by the word "marriage" is, in his view, an unnecessarily confrontational approach to the rights issue and may alienate those being discriminated against from the society in which they live, whereas a "civil union" could resolve many of the rights issues without creating a confrontation with society.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 am
by Kirstern
I think the term 'marriage' is not as religiously orientated as those opposed to same sex marriage would like to let on.

The reason I say this, is that by law... if you and your partner are together for three or more years; you are considered to be married under the term 'defacto'.

What is the difference? Gay couples are meeting that criteria, so are married in the eyes of the law (by the definition of defacto marriage) in that sense - so what difference does it make to make it legal for them to officially unite in a civil ceremony?

As it has been mentioned, some hetrosexual couples would use civil union over 'the traditional marriage' ceremony too, and that it doesn't have to be due to religion, they just may not want all the 'hoop-la' that goes with...

So my point is, if same sex couples, through a loophole in the system; are deemed married under the term defacto; why say NO to civil unions? Is it just a piece of paper that really matters, so much??

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:23 pm
by Kar
[quote:5286ca4382="traveller"]I can see the point Kar is making and to some extent agree with it - although like I said, it doesn't apply to the ACT situation as they are not proposing to call it a marriage. I don't think, for the record, that Kar is suggesting marriage is sacred - he's more addressing a perception issue, i.e. that calling it by the word "marriage" is, in his view, an unnecessarily confrontational approach to the rights issue and may alienate those being discriminated against from the society in which they live, whereas a "civil union" could resolve many of the rights issues without creating a confrontation with society.[/quote:5286ca4382]

Yup, exactly. That's what I just do not understand. Most people, irrespective of their social values recognise it is fundementally unfair for gay partners not to have the same protection as heterosexual ones. Start chucking the work marriage in there (and often it's more the media I think) and the debate becomes less about definitive equality of rights under the law, and more about symbolic equality in the eyes of society.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:28 pm
by Charlou
I, too, can understand where you and sherry is alive are coming from here: a purely socially and therefore politically pragmatic viewpoint, typically unaffected by any personal ideals, right?

[quote:6aef02022d="Kar"] Start chucking the word marriage in there (and often it's more the media I think) and the debate becomes less about definitive equality of rights under the law, and more about symbolic equality in the eyes of society.[/quote:6aef02022d]

Hopefully, society will become enlightened enough to allow that symbolic equality for [i:6aef02022d]all[/i:6aef02022d] people, regardless of sexual orientation.

Churches have evolved their views and doctrine over the centuries, including those on marriage, but why does society have to wait for religious sanction to effect change?

In a secular society, we should be governed by an objective body, independent of religious influences. Legislation promoting and protecting equal rights and opportunities for [i:6aef02022d]everyone[/i:6aef02022d] should be imposed on all sections of the community, including religious organisations.

[quote:6aef02022d="Mr Fit"]
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.[/quote:6aef02022d]
Unfortunately so. Heading back to the theocratic dark ages. :(

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:24 pm
by Stonegirl70
As of midnight tonight, the ACT legislation becomes null and void :?

Re: Howard Pushes To Ban Same-sex Unions

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:41 pm
by emmanoah
Greetings! It is no a secret that the issue going around same-sex marriages is the main topic of the XXI century! Should be such marriages legalized? Let's find the answer in the following below post:


http://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/should-g ... e-be-legal