Controversial Issue: Gay Marriage

[kensan]

damn christian lobby group in australia 

[nubs]

I like to take the pacifist approach, yes, I accept people who are homosexual, and believe that same-sex couples should have all the rights and privileges that married couples get. However, I also respect the institution of marriage and religions who state that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we need another term to describe the union between a same-sex couple. Lawfully, they should have the same rights as a married couple, but I don't think we should call it marriage. Civil unions, I support

By tradition, marriage is kinda defined as the union b/w a man and a woman and also their families...etc.

I'm not too sure about that
If we really want to establish equality for homosexuals, then I think the only way to do so is by legalising gay marriage, and calling it marriage - not anything else

If we do call it something else, there will probably be some sort of stigma attached to that word, and as a result it will never be viewed as something that is completely synonymous to marriage.

Some gay people may feel as if their relationships are not as respected or as important as those bound by marriage, and as a result the disparity may remain. It may seem petty, but the word 'marriage' is perceived to be so much more symbolic(right word?) than a 'civil union'

Civil unions may be seen as less significant and not as legitimate (for lack of a better word)
To give gays a feeling of complete acceptance and equality, civil unions - although they are an important step - are simply not enough in my opinion

[Russ]

Yeah that. You probably can't force the Church to marry them (and whether you should is another matter), but there's no reason to create two distinct types of "marriage" and claim them to be separate but equal

[Panicmode]

Yeah that. You probably can't force the Church to marry them (and whether you should is another matter), but there's no reason to create two distinct types of "marriage" and claim them to be separate but equal

Because we all know Jim Crow laws in America show that when discrimination is concerned it is possible to have two facilities separate but equal.... Oh wait.

[JellyDonut]

Yeah that. You probably can't force the Church to marry them (and whether you should is another matter), but there's no reason to create two distinct types of "marriage" and claim them to be separate but equal

I'm pretty sure that there are 'progressive' churches who would marry them but that's a religious institution problem not a government issue.

[mark_alec]

If we really want to establish equality for homosexuals, then I think the only way to do so is by legalising gay marriage, and calling it marriage - not anything else

What about abolishing any government sanctioning of *any* marriage? All they should care about is if people cohabit and consider themselves partners.

[Random_Guy]

I can't believe it has been supported by the ALP. This is a dark day in Australia's history.

[lexitu]

Yes what a horrible day it is when politicians listen to their constituents!

[paulsterio]

you know, why not just make marriage a ceremonial issue and just have "civil union" under laws, then there would be no religious stigma attached to it :S

[Eriny]

I saw this recently: http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali?s=mobile

[paulsterio]

I have a whole new radical idea, why don't we make EVERYONE civil unions, both hetrosexual and homosexual, then we won't have to worry about the churches chiming in. We can leave "marriage" as a ceremonial issue rather than a legal issue

Are there any issues with this model?

[JellyDonut]

If gay people got married, would I be able to marry my waifu?

[jane1234]

I have a whole new radical idea, why don't we make EVERYONE civil unions, both hetrosexual and homosexual, then we won't have to worry about the churches chiming in. We can leave "marriage" as a ceremonial issue rather than a legal issue

Are there any issues with this model?

Well, then you kind of take away the whole point of a marragie as a legal union. I don't think anyone would be too happy with this, it's like removing marraige altogether and leaving it as nothing more than a meaningless ceremony. I don't think many people will be too fond of that idea...

[paulsterio]

But that's what might be good, because marriage has such historical and religious connotations, why don't we just have "Civil Unions" as the accepted legal union for all, rather than marriage

[nubs]

'Marriage' itself will bear much significance even if it is just a 'ceremonial issue', because, as you said, it 'has such historical and religious connotations'. Also, we want to establish equality without pissing off as many people as possible. Getting rid of marriage altogether may upset a lot of people