| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Same Sex Marriage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Same Sex Marriage

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Same Sex Marriage
    Posted: 22 Oct 2017 at 03:09
Over the past few years, Australia has been involved in a conversation regarding the legalisation of lawful marriage between two people of the same gender.

Obviously this conversation has become divisive, with aggressive advertising by the "Vote Yes" camp and the "Vote No" camp.

The Federal Government, basically afraid to back one side or the other, commissioned a poll of all registered voters in the country-at a cost of some $AUD22 million.

The poll has closed now and we await the outcome, but the government has not committed to following the results of the poll. So, regardless of which way we have voted, there's no guarantee that the government will legislate in accordance with the vote.

As I understand it, the 25 or so countries which have passed same sex marriage legislation have not encountered any difficulty with permitting Gay Marriage.



Edited by toyomotor - 22 Oct 2017 at 03:13
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2017 at 21:52
I think your definition of "no difficulty with gay marriage" means that it pissed off a lot of people who in your view don't count.  A lot of those people voted for Donald Trump and Mike Pence, both of whom I would consider difficult.

I knew a guy that had an idea that I thought was quite good.  Everybody gets "civil unions" same sex couples, heterosexual couples, everybody.  If you want to get "married" that is fine, but marriage is a religious thing (or secular imitation of a religious thing) done by a Church, synagogue, temple or whatever.  Freedom of religion guarantees that they don't have to marry anybody, but with the proliferation of Churches in the United States (there is a lot), there will always be somebody to marry someone (in addition to the civil union) including religious institutions.  Of course, there may be situations where people who live together may want a civil union, so they have visitation rights at hospitals or whatever.  People who live together and are not romantically involved and don't want marriage.  
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2017 at 00:22
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think your definition of "no difficulty with gay marriage" means that it pissed off a lot of people who in your view don't count.  A lot of those people voted for Donald Trump and Mike Pence, both of whom I would consider difficult.

I knew a guy that had an idea that I thought was quite good.  Everybody gets "civil unions" same sex couples, heterosexual couples, everybody.  If you want to get "married" that is fine, but marriage is a religious thing (or secular imitation of a religious thing) done by a Church, synagogue, temple or whatever.  Freedom of religion guarantees that they don't have to marry anybody, but with the proliferation of Churches in the United States (there is a lot), there will always be somebody to marry someone (in addition to the civil union) including religious institutions.  Of course, there may be situations where people who live together may want a civil union, so they have visitation rights at hospitals or whatever.  People who live together and are not romantically involved and don't want marriage.  

Quote I think your definition of "no difficulty with gay marriage" means that it pissed off a lot of people who in your view don't count.

That's below the belt. Who are these people whom you claim in my view don't count. My point was that there's been no major social upheaval from the introduction of Same Sex Marriage.

My view is that it's not my business, unless at some stage it adversely effects me or my family.

Nor is it the business of the Churches or governments.


Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2017 at 04:11
There are some people who really don't like gay marriage.  The fact that they don't take to the streets or riot is not a sign that they are indifferent to the matter.  So the fact that there is "no social upheaval" does not indicate that there is no problem.  It is not something that does not emotionally concern me much (and I gave a proposed solution).  But for some people it is very bothersome.

The question is, is the state supposed to further some sort of morality.  If you say yes, then what are the guidelines, if you say no, then can you have any limits on people's actions whatsoever.  For example, the French philosopher Michel Foucault was still sexually promiscuous when he had full blown AIDS.  I wonder if you tried stopping him, he would say you're trying to limit his freedom.  For some, getting or giving is not a limiting factor.  But, if you say it is not your business, well you too are making a moral judgment about what and who is important.  Of course, the gay movement is a lot more conservative and cautious these days, because the radicals killed themselves off.

If you read stuff about gay liberation in the 1970s, they were going to screw their way to the revolution, they were very anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-religion.  It is not a good thing, but the radicals, again, killed themselves off with the AIDS crisis.  So now they have more conservative, family, marriage, religion oriented values (conservative compared with the 70s, and the downfall in the 80s).  But guess what?  Some people remember the gay liberation values in the 70s, and they are very leary about whether gays today are sincere in their interests in family, marriage and religion.  I don't think the fundamentalists cannot change, I think they have learned some lesson from long ago and distrust what the gay community was, and thus now what it is.  Some gays, lesbians, etc are very sincere, but some seem to be interested in marriage, religion, family because they are told they can't have it.  Which is a bad reason (either for it or against it).  Fundamentalists need to decide if it is better to promote fidelity and monogamy for people who are gay, just as they promote fidelity and monogamy for heterosexual couples.  Or is it more worthwhile keep people away from fidelity and monogamy because they are gay, realizing that it also means keeping some heterosexual couples away from fidelity and monogamy as well. 

Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2017 at 04:29
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

There are some people who really don't like gay marriage.  The fact that they don't take to the streets or riot is not a sign that they are indifferent to the matter.  So the fact that there is "no social upheaval" does not indicate that there is no problem.  It is not something that does not emotionally concern me much (and I gave a proposed solution).  But for some people it is very bothersome.

The question is, is the state supposed to further some sort of morality.  If you say yes, then what are the guidelines, if you say no, then can you have any limits on people's actions whatsoever.  For example, the French philosopher Michel Foucault was still sexually promiscuous when he had full blown AIDS.  I wonder if you tried stopping him, he would say you're trying to limit his freedom.  For some, getting or giving is not a limiting factor.  But, if you say it is not your business, well you too are making a moral judgment about what and who is important.  Of course, the gay movement is a lot more conservative and cautious these days, because the radicals killed themselves off.

If you read stuff about gay liberation in the 1970s, they were going to screw their way to the revolution, they were very anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-religion.  It is not a good thing, but the radicals, again, killed themselves off with the AIDS crisis.  So now they have more conservative, family, marriage, religion oriented values (conservative compared with the 70s, and the downfall in the 80s).  But guess what?  Some people remember the gay liberation values in the 70s, and they are very leary about whether gays today are sincere in their interests in family, marriage and religion.  I don't think the fundamentalists cannot change, I think they have learned some lesson from long ago and distrust what the gay community was, and thus now what it is.  Some gays, lesbians, etc are very sincere, but some seem to be interested in marriage, religion, family because they are told they can't have it.  Which is a bad reason (either for it or against it).  Fundamentalists need to decide if it is better to promote fidelity and monogamy for people who are gay, just as they promote fidelity and monogamy for heterosexual couples.  Or is it more worthwhile keep people away from fidelity and monogamy because they are gay, realizing that it also means keeping some heterosexual couples away from fidelity and monogamy as well. 


Quote But for some people it is very bothersome.

Why? It's none of their business.

Quote The question is, is the state supposed to further some sort of morality. 

Only up to a point. Forms of pornography for example which encourage paedophilia, bestiality and some other forms should not be permitted. Child, or for that matter any exploitation should be banned.
Bedrooms should be "out of bounds" for the government.

The cases of gay people knowingly passing on HIV Aids is not a moral question, but one of law, causing deliberate harm to another person. It would be th same if a prostitute, male or female passed on Sexually Transmitted Diseases such as syphillis.

Quote  Fundamentalists need to decide if it is better to promote fidelity and monogamy for people who are gay, just as they promote fidelity and monogamy for heterosexual couples.  Or is it more worthwhile keep people away from fidelity and monogamy because they are gay, realizing that it also means keeping some heterosexual couples away from fidelity and monogamy as well.

Fidelity in a relationship, likewise, is not any business of church or state.

Morally, it's the desired option, but it's up to individuals, gay or hetro.





Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1253
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2017 at 02:31
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think your definition of "no difficulty with gay marriage" means that it pissed off a lot of people who in your view don't count.  A lot of those people voted for Donald Trump and Mike Pence, both of whom I would consider difficult.

I knew a guy that had an idea that I thought was quite good.  Everybody gets "civil unions" same sex couples, heterosexual couples, everybody.  If you want to get "married" that is fine, but marriage is a religious thing (or secular imitation of a religious thing) done by a Church, synagogue, temple or whatever.  Freedom of religion guarantees that they don't have to marry anybody, but with the proliferation of Churches in the United States (there is a lot), there will always be somebody to marry someone (in addition to the civil union) including religious institutions.  Of course, there may be situations where people who live together may want a civil union, so they have visitation rights at hospitals or whatever.  People who live together and are not romantically involved and don't want marriage.  

Civil Unions it's a great idea. It would ease the financial burden on individuals, two can live cheaper than one usually. And then you need someone to rely on, be there when the cable guy is coming. People have submitted to the sanctity of marriage with contempt. The whole point of marriage was to make people responsible for their own kids.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2017 at 02:41
But, the point is _everybody_ would get a civil union in order to get the legal rights, marriage would mean that they could get religious rites to sanctify their union, if they want.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2017 at 19:20
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think your definition of "no difficulty with gay marriage" means that it pissed off a lot of people who in your view don't count.  A lot of those people voted for Donald Trump and Mike Pence, both of whom I would consider difficult.[DIV]
[/DIV][DIV]I knew a guy that had an idea that I thought was quite good.  Everybody gets "civil unions" same sex couples, heterosexual couples, everybody.  If you want to get "married" that is fine, but marriage is a religious thing (or secular imitation of a religious thing) done by a Church, synagogue, temple or whatever.  Freedom of religion guarantees that they don't have to marry anybody, but with the proliferation of Churches in the United States (there is a lot), there will always be somebody to marry someone (in addition to the civil union) including religious institutions.  Of course, there may be situations where people who live together may want a civil union, so they have visitation rights at hospitals or whatever.  People who live together and are not romantically involved and don't want marriage.  [/DIV]


I know you know this. But my two cents. Imho, the US still can't figure out what it is, a democracy or a republic.

While originally set up as a republic made up of a legislature and executive that which is governed by the legislated, it has slowly morphed from the original intent to one of surpassing all the checks and balances to that of populism and majority rule based solely in opinions and mixed facts. Which worryingly is also sometimes governed from the judicial bench.

Sometimes, views simply won't count because of a lack in the ability to accommodate all views in minutiae. But, when large swathes of views are discounted, danger and anarchy lurk. Hence the idea of a republic being the ideal of the founding fathers rather than trusting in the anarchy of a democracy.

Saying all of this, the US has same sex marriage based in legislation from the judiciary and only half of the legislative assembly in favor while discounting the views of the other half not being full agreement. It happened only because of judicial fiat only.

That is the best my memory can remember. And my memory is imperfect.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2017 at 23:12
It's a very sensitive issue, but I don't believe that the Church or the governments need to know what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

That a person loves someone of their own gender is their business imho.
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2017 at 23:24
I'll take a stab in the dark, but i reckon, that perhaps, quite a few Americans on both sides don't care either. Should the government intervene or should it not intervene? That seems to be the question.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2017 at 03:01
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

I'll take a stab in the dark, but i reckon, that perhaps, quite a few Americans on both sides don't care either. Should the government intervene or should it not intervene? That seems to be the question.

As long as it's not made compulsory.Wink
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Nov 2017 at 21:14
It is not a matter of what happens in bedrooms or whatever, that ship has sailed a long time ago.  It is a question of what marriage means, is it for the children? is it for the tax benefits?  Is it so you can grin in public and announce you are married.  Is it a religious thing?  If it is for a warm fuzzy feeling that you "belong?"  what does that do to those who consider it a religious thing?  How much watering down does it take for it to mean nothing at all?  And if you water it down to meaninglessness, what does that do to the divorce rates, and single parent rates?  Liberal societies like the Netherlands are very proud of do whatever you feel like it, and they do, and they have appropriate divorce and single parent custody rates.  Some people act like it is an automatic free lunch, but in reality someone pays the cost in marriages done too quickly, and marriages abandoned.  It will probably be the kids, mainly.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Nov 2017 at 23:00
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It is not a matter of what happens in bedrooms or whatever, that ship has sailed a long time ago.  It is a question of what marriage means, is it for the children? is it for the tax benefits?  Is it so you can grin in public and announce you are married.  Is it a religious thing?  If it is for a warm fuzzy feeling that you "belong?"  what does that do to those who consider it a religious thing?  How much watering down does it take for it to mean nothing at all?  And if you water it down to meaninglessness, what does that do to the divorce rates, and single parent rates?  Liberal societies like the Netherlands are very proud of do whatever you feel like it, and they do, and they have appropriate divorce and single parent custody rates.  Some people act like it is an automatic free lunch, but in reality someone pays the cost in marriages done too quickly, and marriages abandoned.  It will probably be the kids, mainly.

The institution of marriage is not as important to many people these days as it once was.

Personally, I believe that some sort of mutual agreement, such as marriage vows, provides a basis for stability, although many would disagree.

If two loving people of the same gender wish to cement their relationship by a cermony such as marriage, why not?

But, to me, the question of children is an entirely different matter. I don't believe that a same sex couple can provide the balance required in a childs development.
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2017 at 00:45
Why not use a butterknife instead of a screwdriver?  Because you might just end up bending the butterknife, and making it less attractive for the place setting.  "Marriage" means something, and if you change the meaning, then to what extent is it still "marriage"?  I have suggested that the state get out of the marriage business, and let religious and civic organizations fill that spot.  Doing this, one could have the "rights" of marriage such as hospital visitation, filling of joint taxes, etc, be given to couples under a civil union bill.  Just because someone might wish to share with someone the rights of civil union, doesn't mean they would want to get married.  But of course, in the gay community, they want to get married (gays want to get married, lesbians more want to be married), and so the issue that their "solution" won't fit everyone, doesn't bother them.  In my proposed scheme everybody could get married, if they picked the right religious or civic organization.  The definition of marriage is going to depend on which organization it is, if they want a strict definition, okay, if they want a loose definition, okay.  But for the "rights," everybody would have to go through a civil union as well for the legal implications.

The purpose of marriage traditionally, is to have family.  Although for some people, that is not desirable, for others it is not possible.  Adoption is one answer for people for whom the natural way of having children is not possible.


Edited by franciscosan - 5 hours 31 minutes ago at 23:59
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2017 at 02:37
Quote Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognised union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family through marriage).https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Marriage&oq=Marriage&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2789j0j8&sourceid=chrome
&ie=UTF-8
and 
a combination or mixture of elements.
"her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip-hop"
synonyms:unionalliancefusionamalgamationcombinationaffiliationassociation,
 connectioncouplingmergerunification
informalhook-up

So the word can also refer to a joining-not necessarily wedlock.

Reproduction may be a by-product of marriage, but the two are not indivisible. Neither one is reliant on the other.


Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2017 at 22:20
"And consummating the marriage," traditionally that was to get the baby ball rolling, if it was going to happen.  In Islam, being childless is grounds for divorce.  I am not saying I agree with that, but children in traditional societies are important, and not having them can be a blow.  Even not having a male heir to carry on the name can be upsetting to some couples.

You could also say that the head-on collision between the Mac Truck and the Mini, married them together, but that would definitely be stretching the language a bit for the sake of expressiveness.  Marriage is a sacrament, but obviously there are people who do not believe in the sacraments, who believe in some kind of union, WHICH could be called civil unions, unless people want to get hung up on calling them marriages, but for no other reason than I can see than pissing off the religious.  In other words, pissing off the people who are perhaps a numerical minority, but who really care about these kinds of things.  AGAIN, require everyone to get civil unions for book keeping purposes, and have marriage be either a religious or civic ceremony, with a certificate for that particular denomination.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Dec 2017 at 08:14
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

[QUOTE=Panther]I'll take a stab in the dark.

Quite an unfortunate choice of words.LOL
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 4 hours 53 minutes ago at 00:37
I think by-product is an unfortunate choice of words, as if sex itself is a matter of production and consumption, like a collection of football memorabilia.  And maybe children are the "epiphenomenon" of a "process." euuw!  Children are the point of Shakespeare's two backed beast, and God or evolution made it so fun, to make up for the fact that it is so destabilizing in other ways.

There are two ways we outlive ourselves, Conceptual survivals (ideas, art, literature, works), and physical survivals (biological children, remains both physical and trace).  Oh, also through our kindness or cruelty.  And of course you can mix these categories, like adoption hopefully part of all three.

As far as guy couples adopting, I think having a single parent (all male or all female) family is a disadvantage for socialization, but there may be advantages in the particular adult individuals that compensates for the disadvantages.  If it is a choice between them and a middle class heterosexual couple, overall I think that the Cleavers should be favored.  But if it is between them and a couple of heroin waifs.  I think you get my point.  Oh, if they are treating it like a project, or to make a point, then that should weigh against any potential adoptees, whatever their preference or orientation is.

Of course, my speculation on this topic is pure and unsullied by any real world experience.  If I actually knew what I was talking about, I might find it quite different.  Still, I think that human nature is human nature, no matter how many layers of artificiality and environment shape it.  What should be required for adoption is love, plus material and behavioral support ("goods" + positive, supportive 'action").  I might worry about the natural attachment of gay parents to their adopted child, then again a lot of natural heterosexual parents are messed up in their attachment a lot worse, and that doesn't immediately disqualify them.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.