yay America did something good

[Cthulhu]

I did a quick google search and found this: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf
It explains how children of gay parents are bullied about the sexual orientation of their parents.

Because there are still ignorant fucks out there who raise their children to hate gay people.
Also: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html
It explains how children raised by lesbian parents seem to do better academically and socially than their counterparts.

Don't you think that a child needs both a father and mother figure for healthy development?

What about children who have a dead mother/father or single mothers who decided to have their babies on their own through sperm donation? Are those children not well rounded and happy?

What makes you think someone raised in a homosexual relationship wont have healthy development?

[Spreadbury]

at fady_22 marriage isn't such a religious rite anymore. for example Russia actually banned religious weddings in 1917 (probably been reversed by now but still). people should be allowed to do what they want, but I doubt the restrictions on homosexual couples will last, nothing like this does

also being in a marriage i've heard does make certain things easier (mainly financial form what I hear such as a joint bank account or the like).

in regards to the side topic, I half-agree that divorce has invalidated marriage. there are a lot of divorces now which is a good thing in one way, it ensures people aren't bogged down in a relationship that's bad for them, but it's also been made too easy to get- but it's not like you could have one without the other. but I think divorce is a good thing, people just abuse it. it's like the notion that legalising abortion may lead to abortion becoming a contraception; both negative and positive implications

in summary: weddings are not about religion anymore

EDIT: reading further through this board, I find it disturbing the influence of the church in legislative matters. parliament cannot make laws creating a religion or imposing religious observance, yet religion's can do as they please it appears. I think a referendum should be held for this, why leave so much to chance. we'd see what the majority wants through a referendum and we all know parliament won't act on this itself

Don't you think that a child needs both a father and mother figure for healthy development?

whether it's a female and a male, 2 females or 2 males doesn't matter. it's more 'normal' to have 1 of each gender as a parent, but that doesn't guarantee healthy development. it matters who the people are themselves rather their gender. a kid who comes from a homosexual home will probably have a healthier development than another child who comes from a home filled with domestic violence

(sorry, this post is all over the place)

[enwiabe]

Dear religionists,

Please recognise that marriage did not begin with religion. Its roots can be traced even to the times before Judaism and paganism. Religion did not start off owning marriage, it merely grabbed it when it ascended to power in the dark ages.

Marriage is not an artefact of religion. Religions have different interpretations for what marriage should be, but it is not the property of religion. As evidenced by its transcendance of all religions; marriage is about the symbolising of a bond between two people. Christian marriage symbolises a marriage within the set of values that embody christianity, likewise Islam, and likewise Judaism. If marriage was religious, would not the 'correct' marriage of the 'correct' religion invalidate all the other ones?

That is lunacy, and if you aired that in public you'd be hounded and heckled. Yet, surprisingly, this does not happen when referring to marriage between homosexuals? It is a simple thought experiment to realise that if you think marriage is religious, then at LEAST 80% of all marriages must be entirely invalid.

So the argument that marriage is owned by religion is ridiculous. Marriage is universal. Culturally, Marriage means the official stamp of "I love you" - and to deny this monumental cultural symbol of love to homosexuals is a ridiculous slap in the face. You're basically saying "your love will never be viewed with the same status as a straight couple's love"

A 'civil union' is so sterile, so devoid of the romanticism afforded to marriage. If civil unions were really exactly the same as marriage, why not call it marriage?! Because, what you're really doing is  creating a distinction between the bond of straight people, and the bond of gay people. For example, it's like calling a white person a master and a black person a slave. 'Master' and 'slave' both mean 'person' but one means a higher 'class' of person. This condescending "civil union" treats homosexuals as second class citizens. It is the epitome of discrimination; it is LEGALISED sexual discrimination.

Further, what shits me is this "Marriage is purely for a man and a woman" BULLSHIT. This is the standard line that homophobes hide behind. It deligitimises homosexuals without you actually having to say "i don't like homosexuals" - and it does so in such a way that has become acceptable in our society. This is bullshit, and I really hope people realise this. I will certainly agree that some people are simply ignorant when they say this, but in my experience, most of the people who spout that line are completely homophobic, they just don't want to admit it.

Marriage is a romantic symbol of undying love. It is the announcement to the world that you love somebody and they love you back. (This isn't always the case, but it is the romantic idyll). And I will reiterate; to deny this right to homosexuals is to slap them in the face and treat them as a lower class of citizen.

History will look back on the opponents to gay marriage with the same disgust that it viewed those who believed woman should not vote, or that blacks were worth 3/5 of a human. Please consider that for a moment, and ask yourself if that is how you wish to be remembered. And if that doesn't work for you, just imagine that you were being denied a right based on your love for your partner (a human being, for those who have forgotten somewhere along the way...). Truly disgusting, dastardly, discriminatory.

[ninwa]

Let's take all these arguments to their logical conclusion; perhaps then you'll see their absurdity.

Re: comparison to atheists getting married, marriage doesn't mean anything anymore yadayadayada.

The difference is that the option remains open to heterosexual atheists. They have the CHOICE to either get married or live in a de facto relationship. The option does not remain open to homosexuals. What makes a heterosexual atheist any different from a homosexual atheist (on strictly religious grounds; I'll come to your other arguments later)?

Also, many atheists are heterosexual, so you cannot compare marriage between atheists and homosexuals.

On this argument alone, it makes no sense why parliament would allow one and not the other. Strength of atheist belief doesn't vary with sexual orientation. And, what about religious homosexuals? (yes, shock horror, they do exist, I couldn't fathom why but good for them)

For centuries, a marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why change that now? And if it is changed, what else will change along with it? Where is the line drawn?

but when they want to change something that I have explained has remained unchanged for centuries

Oh please, marriage has changed so much over the centuries. A few examples:
For centuries in the US, interracial marriage was not allowed.
For centuries (perhaps millenia, I am not so familiar with their history) in India (and even today), intercaste marriage was not allowed.
For centuries in many countries, inter-religion marriage was not allowed. There was a time where a Protestant marrying a Catholic was a big deal, for example.
For centuries, marriage between royalty and commoners was heavily frowned upon.

Where is the line drawn? At the point where two consenting people of able mind decide to join in a union. Heterosexuals are allowed to (even, as you say, if they are atheists). Is the consent of homosexuals somehow worth less than those of heterosexuals?

You are right, Cthulhu, that the religious have higher divorce rates, but only marginally. Which only goes to show that marriage means nothing.

And lynt.br, call me cynical, but I don't think that a love strong enough to withstand any circumstance really exists anymore. Everyone is so selfish these days, which, again, is evidenced by divorce rates. It's quite sad, really.

So abolish it altogether then. Why does it only mean nothing to homosexuals and not to atheists etc.? Or more pertinently, why force your own personal cynical view of marriage upon others?

Legal rights mean nothing to those fundamentalists, but it is the idea that two people of the same sex getting married is what makes them go crazy.

Exactly why they should have as little influence in modern society as possible.

Most churches frown upon homosexual actions (and not homosexuals per say) because the ultimate aim of marriage in a religious sense is to allow someone to have sex in order to procreate. As homosexuals cannot do this, they cannot get married.

Because they have the potential to have children

Therefore, it would be perfectly logical by your stance to ban religious but infertile couples from getting married.
NB definition of infertile: do not have the potential to have children.

and to bring them up in a "normal" family. Homosexuals cannot.

So your view of what a "normal" family consists of is so superior to anyone else's that it should be imposed upon everyone else.

Assuming your "normal" family is a mother and father:
I propose that DOCS take children away from any families where one parent has passed away, or the parents have divorced, or for whatever reason, the parents cannot take care of the children and they are instead brought up by grandparents/other relations. (By your logic then I should have been placed into a foster home, since I grew up with my grandparents and *divorced* uncle shock horror! Abnormal family!)

I guess that was a bad choice of words-- marriage is a social and religious expectation that those who want to start a family. We have not progressed to the state that marriage has become completely obsolete as there is still a social stigma surrounding unmarried couples having children. Homosexuals do not need marriage in my eyes, then, as they do not need to surpass this barrier in order to start a family.

Okay, another marriage ban then - on religious, heterosexual couples who do not want to have children. What a ridiculous idea; the world is overpopulated and orphanages are overflowing as it is.
"Social stigma" is simply a euphemism for how backwards society still is. It should not (but unfortunately often does) translate into backwards laws.
I suggest you do some research on how hard it already is for any couple, let alone a homosexual couple, to adopt children.

Ultimately, I am saying that you cannot grant marriage for love only. It is a legal binding contract, and needs much more than just "love".

Such as?

I did a quick google search and found this: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf
It explains how children of gay parents are bullied about the sexual orientation of their parents.

That is an indication of how backwards society still is in some areas. It is also an indictment on the parenting skills of those bullies. There will always be shit people and shit parents in the world. What's your point?

I was bullied and spat on in primary school for being Asian. Let's ban all Asians in predominantly white countries from marrying and having children (since the two cannot possibly be mutually exclusive?)

And now I return to one of my first arguments. Where is the line drawn? If gay marriage is legalised, then what is stopping polygamy, marriage between humans and animals etc.? Surely there is love in these relationships as well, as well as the yearning to be recognised as legal partners?

What is wrong with recognising polygamy?

Lol, the same tired old "I want to marry my dog" argument. I can't put it any better than this:

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

(and I would add "and obviously is capable of giving consent" to that.)


TL;DR

By your logic, the following should be banned from the institution of marriage:
- homosexuals, atheist or religious;
- atheists and agnostics;
- couples who do not want children;
- infertile and senile couples;
- couples whose children, for whatever reason, may be bullied later in school;
- couples who may separate/divorce later;
- couples who have the potential to be abusive parents because that will hinder their children's development and this somehow relates to to eligibility for marriage;
- couples who have no better reason to get married than because they are in love;
- couples where one or both parents will die before their children are of adult age and will therefore be raised in an "abnormal" family; and
- interracial, interreligious and intercaste couples because marriage hasn't changed at all over the course of history.

[ninwa]

Typical arguments against gay marriage.
I have yet to read a single one that's not been thoroughly exposed below for its utter hypocrisy and absurdity.

• Being gay is not natural. We always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
• Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
• Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
• Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
• Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
• Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
• Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
• Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in Australia.
• Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
• Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
• Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.
• There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.
• Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.
• Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.
• Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.
• Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are the best way.

Credit: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=2204465246&v=info&ref=ts

[Cthulhu]

Holy Adrian. You two are like a tag team.

[TrueLight]

hm interesting enwiabe

http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1158:lifestyle-choices&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290 ... scroll down to gay marriage its quite interesting

"Having government define, control or sanction marriage, or give advantages (or disadvantages) to people based upon their marital status, is beyond the protection of individual rights. It is certainly not valid for the government to purport to give or withhold approval to marry on the basis of the sexual preference of those involved or the fact that the marriage involves two people of the same gender."

the thing that holds some people back is religion. like my parents would say marriage is between a man and a woman and the church has said this and its a god thing etc etc...but yeah i dunno everyone should have individual rights and its private etc but we still have these laws because of the overarching prevalent attitutes of the people and anyway if those people want to have their legal status as marriage, i guess why not? but even if you don't have it as marriage at least give the same legal rights to them. its not like they have to marry via an orthodox church or whatever...but anyway if the government just got out of the business of marriage and gave the individual the same rights then the whole legal thing would be no problem because then you can define marriage according to church/religious beliefs or whatever... i dunno...

[fady_22]

I can understand that the world is becoming more secular, and that as a result marriage has lost its place as a religious rite. I've done some more research, and now I can come to understand WHY homosexuals would want marriage. I apologise for my ignorance.

All the things that I have thought would happen as a result of recognising same sex marriage has not occurred in any of the countries that have legalised it. In a place where the proportion of homosexuals is increasing more than ever, I now see that there is no real negatives (but rather positives) in allowing gay marriage. They deserve the rights of any other human being.

Nonetheless, as you have all stated, although we would like to think of ourselves as progressed, society is as backward as ever. I don't think that such a society would be hospitable to the idea of legalising gay marriage.

[schmalex]

It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.

So. Out with all laws? Allow each of us to decide for ourselves what we will do based on our own conscience(or lack thereof).

Yes. People should decide for themselves, unless it negatively affects other people. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone except the people getting married. When has framing laws on religious beliefs ever turned out well? Look at the middle east, where women have very few rights and can be stoned to death for adultery because they think that religion has a place in politics.

[Spreadbury]

"Yes. People should decide for themselves, unless it negatively affects other people. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone except the people getting married. When has framing laws on religious beliefs ever turned out well? Look at the middle east, where women have very few rights and can be stoned to death for adultery because they think that religion has a place in politics."

are you serious? people need to be regulated. not by religion, but by a legal body. public order would collapse. in fact i'd even prefer people to be regulated by religious extremeists than have nothing controlling individuals in society

and of course at some point actions will negatively affect others (it's almost unavoidable, we don't live in a greatly caring society) and then we're just back to our system anyway

but I do agree with you on the gay marriage being allowed. but it's not like banning gay marriage is anywhere near as extreme as women being stoned to death for adultery

[schmalex]

If what someone does has no effect on anybody else, why does the government have the right to tell them not to?

[ninwa]

I don't think that such a society would be hospitable to the idea of legalising gay marriage.

I'm not sure about that, actually.

Three in five Australians support same-sex marriage, according to a new survey, with women, young people and those on higher incomes most likely to support it.

NB: commissioned by gay marriage lobby group, probably biased results

Online poll on this article: out of 43366 surveyees, 64% are for gay marriage.

Yet not only does the government continue to ban it, they're even preventing gay couples from getting married overseas.

[Spreadbury]

it's more that the government doesn't want to act on it. think about it, if you were PM and you legalised gay marriage, you're pissing off a lot of people who are against it and as it's such a big issue they'll likely take their next vote elsewhere. it's like how abortion used to be, except finally they did something about that. parliament will avoid big issues like this until forced to handle it, unless it's beneficial to the government they won't act on it. quite a selfish and flawed system.

and gay marriage would have an effect on someone else. I am in favour of letting them do what they want, but you can't deny that it would mess with thousands of years of tradition (not that I at all mind that, but you still have to be mindful of what it would do). but yes it shouldn't matter that much to religious people, they should really loosen their stranglehold on society, they aren't mindful enough (not talking about ALL religious people here, but the few that ruin it for everyone else)

everything we do has repercussions, newton's law applys to more than physics (for example karma)

[ninwa]

That's true, although I would've thought they'd learned their lesson from abortion (Tony Abbott's getting bitten in the arse right now because he opposed the abortion drug RU48 all those years ago, for example). But that's the nature of politics for you. Very rarely is a government actually interested in the nation; rather, they're interested in what gets them votes (which often just happens to also be good for the nation)..

I don't see the problem with messing with tradition. Legalising interracial marriage in the US messed with tradition and that did a bucket load of good. Tradition is just as often a bad thing as it may be a good.

There has not been a single argument against gay marriage which hasn't been torn to shreds. You can't hide homophobia behind reason because it is not rational.

To the proponents of the "marriage is religious" argument: if you were to get married, would you sign a marriage certificate?

[fady_22]

I think there has to be a clear distinction between marriage as a religious rite, and as a legal process (something which I have learnt just recently); they are two separate things, and we cannot use the religious argument to deny homosexuals the right to get married, and legally to be acknowledged as partners. Any religion has the right to give or withhold this right within their respective institutions, but they should not have any influence on the legal definition of marriage.