Same sex marriage

Not sure where are you coming from, maybe I am stupid or something... But currently I am entitled to expensive IVF because I am married to my husband. If I choose to I can go through as many cycles of IVF that we are mentally prepared. But if I divorce my husband and I start relationship with let's say Amy, I suddenly become less fit to be a parent, a lesser person and not entitled to IVF treatments. I am still the same person with same values, same ways to bring up my child. I do not quite understand the difference...

 

Of course, I cannot dispute your statement that you will behave hypothetically in a hypothetical situation. Your right, your say and I will leave it at that.

 

Of what possible relevance is your disgust?

Maybe ugly people getting married disgusts me. Or old people. Or bigots.

That doesn't mean I have a right to stop them from marrying. It's none of my business.

 

Actually, IVF is already available to gay and lesbian couples in most of Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_...Australia#Assisted_reproduction_and_surrogacy

This is one of many reasons why the "think of the children" brigade have it all wrong.

The only issue we're debating is whether the parents of the children of LGBTQI couples are able to marry.

Where are the stats showing that children of unmarried LGBTQI couples fare better than the children of married LGBTQI couples?

 

Interesting development on this one.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-19/entschs-gay-marriage-bill-debated-parliament/6708746

Not sure I think much of the way they have worded the question. Should it be "two consenting adults?" or is that implicit because of the Marriage laws in Australia? I am asking because I have no idea what our laws are. I actually have zero interest in marriage. The only reason I am interested in this topic is because of discrimination aspect.

 

Yes, consent is explicitly required already.

I oppose a plebiscite. I think the Australian public would deliver the outcome I favour, but on principle, I don't think matters of human rights should be subject to popular vote. It's a bad precedent to set.

If we had a plebiscite that said something like "Muslims should be prohibited from obtaining Australian citizenship", it wouldn't surprise me if that got up , but that doesn't mean it's right, or that I'd support it.

Democracy works well at deciding between two options, where both are valid options, i.e. deciding how to achieve something. It does not work well at protecting the rights of minorities, particularly minorities who are unpopular at the time.

 

Do you think marriage is a human right?

 

It makes a mockery of the concept of representative democracy. The problem is the "representatives" know what the majority want but they are too gutless to implement it.

 

I don't think it would be an issue if it was the majority.
Careful of thinking might is right.

 

I was only basing it on the more recent poll results. If it was a one off result, I would dismiss it, but poll after poll is coming in with majority support.

This is from a year ago. I am not aware of anything changing since then.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...port-for-samesex-marriage-20140714-3bxaj.html

 

Democracy has nothing to do with what the majority want re: policy.

It is simply giving the people a chance to periodically vote for a government that delivers

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.
2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.
3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens.
4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens

And that's that.

Switzerland on the other had has a referendum on any policy that garners enough support through petition.

 

True. But you can have a Direct democracy, where the public vote on policy initiatives directly, or a Representative democracy where a group of elected officials representing a group of people vote on policy initiatives on behalf of the people they represent. Australia is a Representative democracy and my opinion is that putting a policy iniative back to the people to vote on (as would be done in a Direct democracy), in a way, makes a mockery of having a Representative democracy.

 

No, actually, I don't; I should have said "civil right".

If the government didn't want to have any involvement in any marriages, I'd have no problem with that, and I wouldn't be campaigning that we had to be given our human rights.

But if it's going to be involved, then I maintain that it mustn't discriminate and allow some marriages to be recognised, and not others. There's a civic right for our government to not discriminate.

 

It's not a "right".

It's a choice. Get married or frickin don't; who cares?

The word "right" is sooo overused in today's' society; makes me mad and is used by the "victim" element more often than not.

Yesterday; this lady on the wireless was making the statement that Lleyton Hewitt "has a responsibility" to talk to Naughty Nick and try to set him straight about behaviour etc.

I mean; wtf?

Lleyton has no responsibility at all, and could probably care less about NIck. Let the idiot dig his own grave.

But that lady's mentality (and the victims who overuse "right") is the sort of mentality and attitude that folks trot out about life these days.

Everyone want their rights, and everyone wants to blame everyone else for everything and....sigh

 

it's blurred the lines, that's for sure.

but such are the joys of the Westminster system.

 

The difference is that the child grows up not knowing their father or mother, whichever the case may be. Which is a pretty big deal. Now, before any of y'all jump down my throat, I will say this: I fully support anyone's desire to get married, I don't care what their sexual orientation, religious beliefs or anything else are, if peeps want to get married, then I will be the first one to wish them all the best and to have a happy and fulfilling life together.

However, in same sex couples that have children, the child(ren) grow up not knowing their father or their mother (depending on the sex of the couple). For me, that is a serious problem. In my view, if same sex couples (again - of either sex) wish to have IVF, then there must be something in the contract that ensures that the donor parent gets to have time with the child, so that the child grows up knowing both their biological parents.

Further to that, anyone that wishes to be a donor that doesn't want communication with the children is automatically declined as a donor. Note that the donor parent has no financial obligation to the child, the financial obligation is on the biological parent and surrogate parent only.

 

It's not a choice for some people... hence this thread...

 

The United Nations seem to think it is. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 states:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

Could equally apply to "hetro" couples. Has nothing to do with marriage equality.