Same sex marriage

Francesco,

Give it up mate.........this lot know it all.......

ciao

Nor

 

Like i said its entirely irrelevant, no matter what info is on her blog. What is being discussed is same sex marriage and not the suitability or legality of gay people having kids. That already happens so lets not stray from the topic and muddy the waters with tripe

 

Theres room for opinion and therea simple fact. The fact is the kids issue is not even being discussed, its already legal.

So youre right, give it up

 

Fellas, what's important to remember here is that politicians have no actual beliefs, beyond what they believe will garner them more votes. For instance:

--------------
On December 7, 2003, in an interview with John Roberts of CBS News, then Senator Clinton said that she opposed allowing same-sex marriage while affirming her support for some form of civil unions for same-sex couples: "I think that the vast majority of Americans find [same-sex marriage] to be something they can't agree with. But I think most Americans are fair. And if they believe that people in committed relationships want to share their lives and, not only that, have the same rights that I do in my marriage, to decide who I want to inherit my property or visit me in a hospital, I think that most Americans would think that that's fair and that should be done."
--------------

Nowadays, she magically 'supports' it. There's also this:

--------------
Barack Obama misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, his former political strategist David Axelrod writes in a new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

“I’m just not very good at ********ting,” Obama told Axelrod, after an event where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, according to the book.

Axelrod writes that he knew Obama was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as Obama publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages. Axelrod also admits to counseling Obama to conceal that position for political reasons. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’ ” Axelrod writes.
--------------

You cannot trust politicians to do anything other than what is most helpful to ensuring they get re-elected. The ultra-conservative wing of the Laberal Party (Liberal) believes it is beneficial to them to be seen to oppose gay marriage at this point in time whilst the centre right wing of the Laberals (Labor) get their time in the sun pretending they care. It's just the usual game of ping pong politics. "it's your turn to look bad, lads."

 

Sanj,

Man, you're starting to sound like a red M&M....("no, you get in the bowl")..., you probably might need to keep an eye on that......

Speaking of facts to support the affirmative case,I have yet to see any at all in this thread. Which is really a pity IMHO. I was truly hoping to see something enlightening, that would open my Neanderthal brain, remove my ???? (Oh that's right...hatred) and bring me forward into the new sexual utopia of legalised gay marriage.

Too bad, so sad.

Anyhow,

I just love the way, the loving (anecdotal) gay couple who have been together for years are consistently trotted out as the perfect example........when in reality across the general LGBT population, nothing could be further from the truth. Just start by looking at the stats where gay marriage has been legalised for some time....oh dear, very poor success rate.And a very poor uptake rate once the initial "pent up demand" has been spent.

But hey, let's get back to the anecdotes - as that's all we seem to have atm.

I was introduced to amyl nitrate (poppers - for you young'ens) when I was in my middle teens, by one of my mates who was gay (except we didn't say gay then....starts with.....p).
Did it worry me?...no. I'm still mates with the guy...and he is still gay....sort of....with a wife and kids...bit sad really (I laugh when I see him still flagging.....surely that went out years ago - Grindr anyone??.)

Anyhow, long story short, throughout the eighties and nineties when I was working as an electrical contractor, at one time a very significant portion of my work ended up being for gay couples in inner Melbourne (mainly through recommendation). The work was great, the money good, but man what really used to annoy me was getting hit on............and it was always the alpha partner in what we would know as "a deeply committed" relationship. Not all couples - but definitely more than half that I worked for across that time period. And what's worse in my mind was that it was always allowed by the submissive partner. Always politely declined - appendages & exits never really did it for me.......but hey every one to their own. Didn't have the benefit of the information superhighway back then, so I really did use to wonder what sort of relationship this was that allowed for open promiscuity within the relationship??

Do leopards change spots?.......never.

So in no particular order.............

I believe the Australia public is being sold a furphy with regard to gay marriage. A heterosexual definition of marriage is very different to the LGBT definition of marriage. Problem is that most of us breeders have no idea........we all think of the definition in the only terms that we know of.....and that is what makes it easy for the movement to garner support. This also makes it very easy for what I call the uninformed 'head in the sand" response........."how's it going to hurt you"? and so on and so forth.

I am concerned (really) about the stifling of debate on this issue (ie...if you don't agree with me you're anything ranging from a bigot / homophobic....to a neanderthal living in the past). If it happens on here......it'll happen everywhere. According to Scott Morrison on last nights 7:30 Report there are currently two commercial television channels which are refusing to allow "anti -gay marriage" advertising. Excellent.......nothing like suppression and censorship going into a possible plebiscite/referendum. Never mind that we have the Kleenheat couple over here in WA...

Whilst I am not religious (agnostic), I do believe, based on past events overseas, and more recently in Australia, that there will be serious issues in regard to the rights of those organisations and individuals who hold religious views on the subject.



T.A. IMHO has been quite clever on this, the LGBT lobby lives in fear of the silent majority (go read their own literature) and have been pushing the political agenda as that's where they believe they have the best chance of succeeding.


So yeah, I'm definitely not interested in the LGBT sexual utopia, and will be voting accordingly.

Ciao

Nor

 

The problem is though PG; a lot of folks who comment and are against gay marriage use this myth as a reason.

Anecdotally; I know 4 gay relationships (two male, ad two female) who are raising kids just beautifully.

 

That's was one item that always stands out,most of the Gay Men that I used to work for always were good payers ,sometimes there were problems with what they wanted done and the safe way but payment wise was never ever a problem,and once they knew you would turn up on time quote in line with everyone else they pass on your number and more work then I could handle never once had a payment problem sometimes cash up-front,but never ever did anyone put the soft word on me,from what my simple understanding some gay men can tell who's who by just looking, one told me it's called Gaydar or something one told me once,i just put in down to having red hair and take responsibility for the welfare of others to break down the walls of selfishness and pride..

 

I know this is slightly off topic - can Nor confirm he has this feature. LOL

 

So basically @Norwester we shouldn't have marriage equality because a gay guy once cracked on to you and wouldn't take no for an answer.

If we apply that logic to marriage as it stands then no woman would ever want to marry a guy.

Honestly, some gay guys sleep around. Some straight guys sleep around. Some gay women sleep around. Some straight women sleep around. What this has to do with individual relationships I don't know.

Basing your entire assumptions about gender roles, sexual politics and identity and commitment to relationships on one extremely horny guy is highly flawed.

A gay guy once tried to chat me up, just told him nah, not interested, wrong gender, and set him up with a gay mate instead. They're still together, 12 years later. The only other time is when the mothers of gay men assume that because I don't like rum or fighting I must be gay and try and set me up with their sons.

 

Id again like to know the relevance of the entire rant. Sure it was entertaining in a "look how out of touch i am with society and sanity" kind of way but realistically what was relevant to the discussion?

When i was young and impressionable a white mate gave me drugs, should all white people be banned from this country? Im just wonderinf how far we take this whole anecdote =the truth nonsense and if only minorities get judged by the actions of a few or everyone does

 

The relevance is this: gays are promiscuous so we can't let them get married. With once simple response: ashelymadison, an app and web site that helps married couples cheat on each other. So following the logic in the post above, we abolish marriage because people who cheat don't deserve the right to get married.

 

A point for the affirmative... ending discrimination. That won't bring you forward into any kind of sexual utopia. Marriage isn't about sex and the gays will continue having sex even if you don't let them get married.

I have never seen a convincing argument that we should discriminate against a group of people simply on the basis that they are attracted to people of their own gender. It seems quite a petty reason to discriminate to me.

 

Article in the paper today about Katy Faust campaigning in Australia against marriage equality because "of the children". The argument was very succinctly dismissed in the article:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...ign-to-australia/story-fnet09y4-1227481826940

 

I believe both my Mum and Dad incredible parents for me and my siblings. I'm very lucky to have them and I'm glad for both the male and female role models. I do believe that both of my parents contributed in very different positive ways that were heavily influenced by their gender.

That belief doesn't mean I believe children are uniformly better of being raised by a male and female parents. There's plenty of single parents (of both sexes) who do a terrific job raising their children. There's plenty of traditional families where one parent virtually ignores the kids and leaves all the parenting to their partner. There's plenty of parents out there who should have never been allowed to have children; ask anyone from child services.

Frankly I think I'm an extremely fortunate person to have the parents I have.

I don't think you can use the raising of children as an argument against gay marriage without making a judgement against the individuals. If you're going to do that then every parent should also be judged, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

Perthguy,

Thanks for the response.........

The two phrases/words most often bandied around this argument are "discrimination" and "equal opportunity / equality".

Discrimination - Just because the law says you can't do it, does it mean you are being discriminated against? My limited understanding is that the law judiciously discriminates in that manner fairly often by recognising things that are different, and treating things that are not the same unequally...No? Therefore is it not logical that if your particular "right" is not defined in law that it cannot be discriminated against, because it actually doesn't exist?

Equality - There can never be an equality, other than a gay women marrying a gay man. So in order to achieve this we need to modify the definition. Problem with this approach is that now we have something completely different to the original definition. So how can the two definitions logically be the same? Truth of the matter is that they cant. So what is really inferred by this argument under the guise of equality? Change is the answer. But lets shroud it in the equality banner, because that is easier to market.


ciao

Nor

 

Willair / Francesco,

Thanks for the laugh...........other than this morning when I walked into the local IGA and glanced at the front page of "The West"........a lot of the Eastern seaboard papers where going nuts about this topic, but not over here......business as usual in WA (wait awhile)...maybe tomorrow...

Seriously though, I always thought it was more about the football team that I supported, rather than my exceedingly good looks and manners........

And for now the hair colour will just have to remain secret.

Ciao

Nor

 

Correct. Just because the law says someone can't do something, it doesn't mean they are being discriminated against. It depends on what the law says they can’t do and the reason they can’t do it. It could be considered acceptable or may be considered discrimination, depending on the circumstances. For example, we might say that violent offenders are prohibited from working with children. At a guess, I would say that most people would find that acceptable and not find it discriminatory. Alternately, we might (and did) say that women are not allowed to vote on the basis that they are female. Enough people found this unacceptable and discriminatory for the law to be changed to allow women to vote.

I think that to tell a couple they are not permitted to marry because they are same sex attracted is an unacceptable form of discrimination. It’s down to your own values though. I’m sure that polygamists in Australia feel discriminated against because they aren’t allowed to have multiple wives. However, I feel that this is an acceptable form of discrimination. Same sex couples in Australia feel discriminated against because they aren’t allowed to legally marry. I feel that this is an unacceptable form of discrimination.

“The Law” isn’t "good" and isn’t "right". It is simply enshrines the values of the day. As these values change, the “The Law” is changed to enshrine new values. That is why women can now vote and own land.

 

I would like to see the current definition of "marriage" thrown out anyway. I do not approve of the bit about procreation of children. No, I did not get married so as to procreate children. I got married for the same reason that so many ss couples want to get married - as a public statement of commitment between two adults. Leave the children out of it.

 

Just a thought bubble, but maybe it's time for the government to get out of regulating/legislating marriage altogether and develop a framework to allow people to enter into relationships and let them choose how to define it? We're already halfway there with recognising de facto relationships.

 

I agree. Separation of church and state. The state can legislate civil unions and if churches want to perform marriages on top of that, it would be up to them. But I agree the state should stop legislating what churches do.