Gay marriage in NSW/Australia (2 Viewers)

[dora_18]

you can run but you cant hide....i dont know why you press this children issue so much...who cares how a child is raised and loved...whats important is that they are...i dont see how ones sexual preference interferes with their ability to raise a child in any way

 

[kami]

I just feel strongly against this issue, similar to when you push strongly for what you believe in.

I care how a child is raised and loved and I can't stand the thought of gays adopting kids, fucked if I know why, I just cant and will not except the thought. gees

Something important to note is that its not two 'gays' raising a child - its two people who just happen to be of the same gender. The fact that those two men or women may have sex with each other has little or nothing to do with their identity or their parental skills. Afterall, was your parents sex life a large part of your youth?

Re: Pushing issues. You can believe what you believe, but it is also restrictive to discussion if your response consists merely of re-stating how you feel. EDIT: This isn't a dictation, but a suggestion.

 

[White Rabbit]

I aint running lol, I just feel strongly against this issue, similar to when you push strongly for what you believe in.

I care how a child is raised and loved and I can't stand the thought of gays adopting kids, fucked if I know why, I just cant and will not except the thought. gees

But maybe it's just how I am, It could change one day' till then -my opinion is concrete.

But you've yet to provide ANY argument against gay couples having children, other than you "...can't stand it". You say the idea of two women or two men raising children disgusts you, so what to you think of children who are raised by their mother and grandmother? A mother and auntys (as seen in some remote aboriginal communities).

My closest friends are almost all gay, and several of them are in relationships and want kids. One in paticular, he'd make the most wonderful father I could imagine. Then I have other friends/family who are straight, have children and are shit parents. Your sexuality in no way impedes your ability to raise kids.

 

[0Jade0]

I care how a child is raised and loved and I can't stand the thought of gays adopting kids, fucked if I know why, I just cant and will not except the thought. gees

You should be caring about whether the child is loved and is brought up in a caring stable environment, not the sex of the parents.

 

[dora_18]

I care how a child is raised and loved and I can't stand the thought of gays adopting kids, fucked if I know why, I just cant and will not except the thought. gees

so really...you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about...you just think its disgusting and gross but really you have no reason for it..as you say yourself..you dont know "why" you think that way you just do....well im sorry ...
BUT THAT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!!!!!so back it up with facts... if you want to make a statement like that

My closest friends are almost all gay, and several of them are in relationships and want kids. One in paticular, he'd make the most wonderful father I could imagine. Then I have other friends/family who are straight, have children and are shit parents. Your sexuality in no way impedes your ability to raise kids.

i totally agree,god i think id be willing to HAVE a child for them if they wanted one... i know way too many people who have had children and are straight and make the worst parents..im not saying all gay people would make terrific parents...but yeah...

 

[White Rabbit]

i totally agree,god i think id be willing to HAVE a child for them if they wanted one... i know way too many people who have had children and are straight and make the worst parents..im not saying all gay people would make terrific parents...but yeah...

Thats exaclty right, I know plently of straight people who are/would make great parents, just as I know gays who wouldn't. But, it goes both ways, and like I said, this bloke would make an awesome dad, and yes, I would give him a child, because I know how good a job he'd do. And theres several lesbian couples I know who already have kids, one couple is a bit rough but theres nothing overtly wrong with the family, but the others are great. One couple in paticular has 2 beautiful boys and are trying for a 3rd. The boys are so well mannered and polite and just good kids. The kids are happy and have a great home life, it's the sort of home you'd want any kid to grow up in.

 

[dora_18]

would give him a child, because I know how good a job he'd do

im just trying to imagine of i could carry it for 9 months..and then give it up...it'd be really hard...this has come up in conversation with my friends so many times...and yeh i dunno..id love to think that i could..but doing it is a whole different story..

Type in the word "Gay hate" in Google and scroll through and you will come across incidents where school children have been beaten because their parents are gay(Fact).

using your logic, type in 'fat kid" into goggle and tell me how many stories you can count of children being beaten up or teased about being overweight
kids get beaten up over various things..having a disability, being of particular religious backround, even eating food that is specific to their culture, wearing glasses, being "ugly"!..kids are just being kids...

homosexuals having children isnt "creating a target for individuals to attack"..that is completely ignorant of you....because chances are if they dont get bashed up for having homosexual parents, itll be over something else..
and this is exactly why children are getting introduced to the idea, so they dont think is weird and therefore get discriminated...
its like saying ugly people shouldn't have children because chances are their kids will turn out ugly and get beaten up at school

why is it so hard for you people to understand that individuals have varying perceptions of world issues. These are my perceptions, if you don't like it, that's your decision –don’t post reply’s questioning my opinions if you first don’t read and understand them.

i would respect your opinion...if you gave me ONE reason for it..apart from the kids getting bashed at school! and if you're going to post things on here you have to be open to criticism..you cant just post and think that no one is going to repond...its an open forum for gods sake..its not like im yelling to your face, so get over the "blah blah no one respects my opinion"

 

[dora_18]

well if you read up to that...at least you read half the post!!! and i said you're being ignorant becuase i can at least aknowledge your opinion...you just cant see the other side of the story at all!!
i hope you at least excercised what was written in that first paragraph

 

[Erin1988]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

they deserve to be happy jst as much as we do. if they wanna get married so be it. no1 should have the right to take that choice away from a couple whether they are gay or not.

 

[Jonathan A]

Then its not marriage. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. We cannot have that definition changed for political correctness. It is a sacred institution - not one you brandish to show the UN that you have followed a Millenium Goal.

The Unions of same-sex couples is paramount in this country and world-wide. We need to focus on cutting down discrimination and I think that is becoming more and more successful which is excellent. However Marriage should not be seen as this hurdle.

All homosexual persons have the right to get married in this country - no exclusions are made in the Marriage Act. It is just that you must follow a criteria, one which is not compatable with the ideas of many.

I don't mind same-sex couples being in de facto relationships or co-owning property, having similar benefits to marriage couples financially, however the institution itself is strictly for heterosexual unions. Lord Penzance did not make his statement in passing, it was intended to be a set condition of the union and should continue that way.

 

[poloktim]

Then its not marriage. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. We cannot have that definition changed for political correctness. It is a sacred institution - not one you brandish to show the UN that you have followed a Millenium Goal.

The Unions of same-sex couples is paramount in this country and world-wide. We need to focus on cutting down discrimination and I think that is becoming more and more successful which is excellent. However Marriage should not be seen as this hurdle.

All homosexual persons have the right to get married in this country - no exclusions are made in the Marriage Act. It is just that you must follow a criteria, one which is not compatable with the ideas of many.

I don't mind same-sex couples being in de facto relationships or co-owning property, having similar benefits to marriage couples financially, however the institution itself is strictly for heterosexual unions. Lord Penzance did not make his statement in passing, it was intended to be a set condition of the union and should continue that way.

Question: Would you consider marriage less sacred if same-sex couples were given the same rights as married couples under a different name?

Question: On what basis is marriage sacred? Judeo-Christian grounds (in a secular country)?

 

[kami]

Then its not marriage. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. We cannot have that definition changed for political correctness. It is a sacred institution - not one you brandish to show the UN that you have followed a Millenium Goal.

Since when is marriage so sacred? We as a society have redefined marriage constantly as it suited our social, political or religious agendas - it is nothing as compared to what it once was in the judaeo-christain sense. So why hold back at this redefinition? Allowing same sex marriage would not innately lessen the sacred aspect of marriage as it would be marriage in the legal sense - not that of your personal religion which would choose to approve or dissaprove of its own accord.

All homosexual persons have the right to get married in this country - no exclusions are made in the Marriage Act. It is just that you must follow a criteria, one which is not compatable with the ideas of many.

Ah, not everyone does under the Marriage Act - there are some transgendered and intersexed people who may experience difficulty in the marriage process if they have changed from the gender they were originally certified as - it would simplify both that process and the awarding of various rights if civil marriages were granted to same sex couples. Why make the process more difficult than it need be?

And also, I don't see how denying same sex couples the right to marriage is any different than permitting interracial marriages - back then anyone could marry someone of their own race and thus would have had to follow the same 'criteria' which would not be compatible 'with the ideas of many'.

I don't mind same-sex couples being in de facto relationships or co-owning property, having similar benefits to marriage couples financially, however the institution itself is strictly for heterosexual unions. Lord Penzance did not make his statement in passing, it was intended to be a set condition of the union and should continue that way.

If you think defacto couples (regardless of the genders involved), should have the same rights as married couples then why bother with marriage as a legal institution?

And while I am not challenging Lord Penzance's intent in defining marriage as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”, I would challenge some of its validity. Just as that comment is dated in the way it includes modern society and its allowance of divorce[ "union for life"], it can also be debated that it is also dated in its inclusiveness on same sex marriage.

 

[neo o]

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW

they deserve to be happy jst as much as we do.

I'm looking through my pocket Australian Constitution (I always carry one in case of emergencies) and I can't seem to find the section that guarantees a "right for happiness". Is this an implied right?

 

[xeuyrawp]

I'm looking through my pocket Australian Constitution (I always carry one in case of emergencies) and I can't seem to find the section that guarantees a "right for happiness". Is this an implied right?

Why do law students constantly refer to the law, especially when it's clearly not needed? It's really irritating, to me at least.

Extra-legal values form the basis for the creation of statutes and statutory interpretation. Legal Formalism is such a silly notion when it comes to issues of this magnitude, especially considering that noone here is arguing that queer marriages have a legal basis. If they were saying that, they should take it up in court. Therefore, she was clearly referring to non-legal human rights, which is a value, and values are the starting point for any legal system.

And Jonathan A, be more specific with what you say. Are you saying that queer civil unions deserve the rights equating to a straight marriage, bar the 'entering of an institution'?

Or are you saying that some rights, among the 'entering of an institution', are not to be granted. If so, which?

Thirdly, what institution are you talking about? Because I don't think many gay people want to enter into it, anyway. It's just impractical to keep saying 'same-sex civil union'. If you're like, you can pretend that every time I say 'marriage' in the context of same-sex civil unions, that I'm saying 'same-sex civil union'. Because frankly, I'm not going to adopt some silly legal jargon simply because you refuse to let me into your silly notion of what an institution is. Even most straight marriages that I know don't conform to any institutional notions.

They're living together, they love each other, they're committed to each other, they share their belongings = a marriage.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Hmm Brumbles v Frankston [1973] 1 NSWLR 550 at 56 tells me this is getting silly.

 

[Generator]

Why do law students constantly refer to the law, especially when it's clearly not needed? It's really irritating, to me at least.

Maybe it has something to do with neo_o's sense of humour? I know that I laughed.

 

[Jonathan A]

Question: Would you consider marriage less sacred if same-sex couples were given the same rights as married couples under a different name?

Question: On what basis is marriage sacred? Judeo-Christian grounds (in a secular country)?

Its sacredness comes from religious backing yes. Do not try to impose the secular nation standard. The fact is marriage traditionally is recognised as a religious institution and in recent time has been dealt with by the law. (By recent I would refer to recent centuries). Nonetheless, the religious concepts as old as they are, do have some constants which many followers will uphold.

To turn marriage into merely a legal relationship defies the reality that the couple in question share some other relationship other than there status under the Marriage Act. The problem of your argument is it dismisses reality and thats the problem with them, they are geared by people who question pre-suppositions (that's fine), but then take another pre-supposition and assume that that's the correct one because its critical.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Its sacredness comes from religious backing yes. Do not try to impose the secular nation standard. The fact is marriage traditionally is recognised as a religious institution and in recent time has been dealt with by the law. (By recent I would refer to recent centuries). Nonetheless, the religious concepts as old as they are, do have some constants which many followers will uphold.

I don't think gay's are fighting for a 'marriage' in the sense that they want a recognised bond between themself and their lover by God (or the church). They seem to simply want the rights which are afforded to straight couples under marriage.

As Pwar said:

Thirdly, what institution are you talking about? Because I don't think many gay people want to enter into it, anyway. It's just impractical to keep saying 'same-sex civil union'. If you're like, you can pretend that every time I say 'marriage' in the context of same-sex civil unions, that I'm saying 'same-sex civil union'. Because frankly, I'm not going to adopt some silly legal jargon simply because you refuse to let me into your silly notion of what an institution is. Even most straight marriages that I know don't conform to any institutional notions.

They're living together, they love each other, they're committed to each other, they share their belongings = a marriage.

To turn marriage into merely a legal relationship defies the reality that the couple in question share some other relationship other than there status under the Marriage Act.

Well as was explained in that quote from pwar, they don't want the 'some other relationship'.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Its sacredness comes from religious backing yes. Do not try to impose the secular nation standard. The fact is marriage traditionally is recognised as a religious institution and in recent time has been dealt with by the law. (By recent I would refer to recent centuries). Nonetheless, the religious concepts as old as they are, do have some constants which many followers will uphold.

To turn marriage into merely a legal relationship defies the reality that the couple in question share some other relationship other than there status under the Marriage Act. The problem of your argument is it dismisses reality and thats the problem with them, they are geared by people who question pre-suppositions (that's fine), but then take another pre-supposition and assume that that's the correct one because its critical.

Do not try to impose the secular nation standard? Why not? Marriage is not a religious institution any more. It carries legal and social weight.

It is fundamentally at odds with liberalism to impose some (ridiculously archaic) religious concept of marriage upon those who do not hold such views.

 

[Erin1988]

why would any1 carry a pocket Australian Constitution around all the time? lol