[Galahad]

Why is it just when the Homosexual community looks like they're getting a fair go, the Federal Government always shuts us back down again? This best shown by the ACT proposing an update to the Civil union act of the ACT to include homosexual relationships as well as updated legislation about heterosexual civil unions. But of course the federal government overruled the territory government and removed the ability for homosexuals to be giving the right to become joined in civil union. Is this fare?

This is an outrage. What reason or right dose the federal government have to stop homosexual partners from undertaking a civil union & what do they replace it with? Some sort of registration where people register their partners. This just isn't good enough Kevin Rudd. I thought you were more open minded about these sort of things then John Howard.

Any Comments?

[kiki]

Galahad, I think you need to understand the issue better. The government is not imposing its conservative agenda on civil unions, its being imposed on civil ceremonies that 'mimick' wedding ceremonies. They're not against civil unions, they're doing nothing to stop Victoria's civil union laws passing, but Victoria's civil union laws don't have a ceremony as part of the law. ACT's does...thats the difference.

[Fedora.Pirate]

Well then to me that's both good and bad. I'm all for same-sex civil union and I don't feel that any type of ceremony should be required for it, but if one is wanted then I due to my support of freedom of expression and so on then it should be allowed also.

[chicken wing]

I am sorry galahad, but i agree with the government policy. I dont think that homosexual couples should be allowed a civil union or ceremony. Call me old fashioned, but homosexuality has never been my favourite topic of conversation.

However, I do think that: just like heterosexual couples that live together (who aren't married), their living together should be recognised when a couple splits. When it comes to divying out assets that they bought together, it should be taken into consideration then.

[kiki]

OK I'm totally against convention arguments. Firstly, I don't accept civil unions as being a good substitute equality is not equivalence, certainly it plays a role, but equality runs deeper. For homosexuals to be truely not discriminated by the law, then marriage needs to be included. However, with the coming overhaul of over 100 pieces of legislation that discriminate against homosexuals, marriage will eventually become totally non-issue anyway, and will most likely become a reality. Mainly because the laws that are being overhauled, while not as popular or widely-discussed, have a much larger impact on acceptance and equality than marriage does, marriage is merely a token, its not a barrier.

When it comes to conventional arguments, or those who favour tradition. "Marriage is traditionally the union of a man and woman, voluntarily entered into it..." etc etc bullshit. Which is fine, and totally true. However, its a redundant argument. In 1901 voting or franchise was traditionally the role of the wealthy man. The man lead the house, the man was the breadwinner, so the man decided on the politics. That was an argument against women's franchise after the federation, and even before - SA almost accepted it (SA wanted gay marriage laws quite a few years ago, but due to state powers they couldn't legislate for it).

And the sanctitiy of marriage argument. I don't quite know how pure the marriage contract is in todays context, that too seems a redundant argument. Marriage is no longer an entirely religious institution, nor is it something that has much moral value compared to what it used to. Our law does not stipulate that marriage is for life, which it used to be and religious institutions that use this argument, firmly believe that it is. Also, the divorce rate is quite high - and re marriage rates are also significantly larger now than before in Australia. The 'holiness' or sanctitiy of marriage is well and truely dead - gay and lesbians are doing nothing to make it less holy, heterosexuals are doing a good enough job at that already.

There's also some issues around family law etc that is confused with marriage law, most of the coming overhauls will make allowances for homosexual relationships that are registered, so family law is already going to change. Thats just something we have to accept.

When it comes to adoption, which is often, for some ridiculous reason, linked to marriage. For the ignorant and homophobic out there, you can remain calm - the government does not appear to back down on this issue, despite ample research that indicates being brought up by two women or two men does not adversely, directly affect the child. And for the fact, those family structures are often more healthy than that of the common broken family, where children do already have two mums and two dads... Biological father, step-father, biological mother, step-mother. That's more parents than that of a child the product of a homosexual relationship would have, or equivalent to. So again, redundant argument. It's a prejudice.

There is no logical reason to forbid these tokenistic institutions from homosexuals. Because the very nature doesn't have any real impact on society, at least no more than the rumoured Y2K. They're unfounded theories, or its misleading research that fails to receive peer acknolwedgement.

So if you're against it, I challenge you to ask yourself, are you against gay marriage because there is something legitimately wrong with homosexuals marrying, or is it a prejudice? A prejudice is no reason to withold rights, thats discrimination and if applied elsewhere, its direct racism - and Australia's all about indirect, we all want to appear equal, even though we are quite clearly not. So by Australian cultural standards, its ridiculously immoral.



Oh and if anyone remembers my former posts on gay marriage, I have made a turn around!

[kiki]

chicken wing, the only issue I have with what you said in your last paragraph is that asset division should only play a role at the end of the relationship. Laws will be coming into place to allow for that, but the rights currently not afforded to homosexuals in long term relationships that are living together and by state standards are de facto relationships, extends far deeper than asset division.

For example, if you and your male partner brought a house together. You've paid that house off and now you've taken out a mortgage against the house to the value of $100,000. For peace of mind, both partners take out life insurance to the value of $100,000 (and yes I'm aware of the technical mistake there, I did study insurance). Then your partner dies, and you think that OK financially this kind of sucks, because everything we had was paid for together but its OK, the mortgage will be settled, his life insurance will cover that. Wrong. That life insurance will not go to the partner, it will go to family. Which some people think is right. But in a heterosexual marriage, that isn't the case - that money goes to the widower, or would. You can even make allowances for that money to go to your partner, you can stipulate that through your insurer, but it is not totally legally enforceable and is easily contested. And if by chance your partners family were not particularly accepting of your relationship, have fun trying to cover the cost of the mortgage. In fact, it might even be easier to slit your wrists and be done with it.

There are also a lot more things that aren't fair with current laws, that run deeper than preventing us from marriage or simple asset division. If your partner is on his dying bed, certain hospital policies for certain incidences require that visitors be family. You are not family. Not by blood, not by law. Marriage is a family establishment. Again laws are coming into place to account for this, but right now thats something we would have to do deal with.

So discrimination in the law should not be removed simply to account for end relationship disputes, but also for the mere rights it deprives. And don't get me wrong, don't think that all of these laws is doing us a favour. When it comes to tax, its the devil. In Australia, we're all about minimising tax, we consider it a burden. There are tax benefits to not being married, which we forego with these laws. While its a small +side for the anti-homosexual agenda imposition </sarcasm>, its not all con-free.

[chicken wing]

Kiki, i am sorry i didnt know about the insurance thing and i didnt really think about what happens with a death. I do agree with you, the insurence and the assets should go to the partner.

However i will never agree to homosexual marriages. I am a christian and i believe everyting in the bible. that marriage is a sacred union between man and women. your arguements are strong and i can see your point of view but i will never change my mind.

In saying that, i am not prejudiced against homosexual people. i have many friends who are homosexual and i can see your point of view. i do not see them as any different. however i am quite uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual marriages. i hope you can see my point of view.

[CH!MP]

I am a christian and i believe everyting in the bible.

Exodus 21 - "If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to be set free, as male slaves are."

Exodus 35 - "You have six days in which to do your work, but the seventh day is to be sacred, a solemn day of rest dedicated to me, the Lord. Anyone who does any work on that day is to be put to death. Do not even light a fire in your homes on the Sabbath."

I've been reading the Bible lately. It has some decent metaphors and ideas. I'm not going to go into the whole "religion is bad" thing, because I don't necessarily think it is. I respect people who believe in religions, but don't pick and chose after you've said you take it all as fact...unless you believe the things i quoted. I think it's possible for Christians to accept homosexuals as equal without betraying their god, because at the end of the day: they're all doing stuff the Bible says not to.

This post has been edited by CH!MP: May 15 2008, 10:31 AM

[evil]

I respect people who believe in religions, but don't pick and chose after you've said you take it all as fact...unless you believe the things i quoted. I think it's possible for Christians to accept homosexuals as equal without betraying their god, because at the end of the day: they're all doing stuff the Bible says not to.

Nice post, CH!MP!

Just to extend on that last part, that they're doing stuff the bible says not to... In the case of the first quote about slaves... one could only guess that the reason they're not obliging with that instruction is due to a belief in individual freedom (and not simply that they don't have a daughter to sell in the first place ). The way I see it, there's no reason why Christians can't extend that belief in individual freedom to accept the notion of an aspiring playwright wanting to take his fling with a Mexican pool boy to the next level.


Also chicken wing, I have to ask something - and please don't be offended, I'm actually just trying to understand. (This is probably the first topic I've participated in that's about either religion or homoseksuality. I don't have much knowledge in current laws in society and I do not study religion - my views are therefore mostly just shaped by the way I was brought up, the morals and common sense that I have acquired along the way, and a little drop of passion.)

I'd just like to know how anything that the aforementioned homoseksualz do with their personal life, including who they marry, affect you on a personal level? I mean, I'm aware of the whole "WTF, God told me this is supposed to only be between man and woman! The apocalypse is near!!" thing - and for the sake of my point, let's just say that I understand how such blasphemous acts will force total doom upon society.
But putting the approaching total destruction of Earth aside for a second, does Steve and Mario finally tying the knot affect your ability to love God? I know that Steve and Mario are complete sinners and are desecrating your beliefs, but at any point, does your faith in such beliefs weaken as a result? Does the official pairing of two Gilmore Girls fans impair your ability to practice religious traditions? Does Mario getting the chance to dress in white for a day (instead of his usual poolside red thong) reduce YOUR faith in any capacity? I'm running out of horrible analogies for homoseksualz so I'll jump right to the point. No.


This is my main gripe with religion - this mentality that just because you believe in something, it automatically makes it compulsory for all others to think the same. I have no issue with believing in a higher being and having faith, and if it turns your life around and makes you happy, then w00t! But don't force that faith onto others to the point where it affects them from living their lives happily.

I'll give you an example that I think symbolizes this perfectly. I'm Jewish, and for a while when I was younger, I was kosher. Okay, only for a week but anyway, this meant that my religion prevented me from eating pork. I was sitting with some friends who were eating bacon in their hamburgers. Was I offended? Did I freak out and whack the burger out of their hands in a desperate attempt to save their souls? Did I demand for the government to completely ban bacon because it goes against my beliefs? No, I merely accepted that my friends had their own beliefs about what was right, and if they wanted to get sent to Hell as a consequence, then that was their choice. Their act of eating bacon, although blasphemous, never once brought me to the point where I was unable to maintain my faith.

So I sat, I chatted normally, and I enjoyed my burger without bacon. And you know what? I'm sure they enjoyed their burgers too. And in some strange way, I was happy for them. If having bacon in their burger was the one thing missing from their lives that made them happy, I really had no tactful reason to stand in their way.

[chicken wing]

evil. honestly, i dont care what homosexuals do as long as i dont see it. In saying that i still dont like the idea of gay marriages. In my eyes marriage is something sacred, holy. If they are allowed marriages too, in my eyes that is seen as an offence in the eyes of god. This hurts me so. I dont like the idea of people changing traditions just to suit them.

What one should know about the bible is that as christians, we dont take every word literally. I do not believe in slavery. Many of the verses in the bible are metaphores of something. CH!MP just blew it out of porportion.

[evil]

In my eyes marriage is something sacred, holy. If they are allowed marriages too, in my eyes that is seen as an offence in the eyes of God. This hurts me so. I dont like the idea of people changing traditions just to suit them.

False. It is seen as an offense in the eyes of YOUR god. Err, *scratches head* you even started the sentence with "In my eyes". As suggested, there are many ways people can interpret the bible. As a result, different ideas of what God would or wouldn't approve of arise. Yes, gay marriage may hurt you and be offensive to your interpretation of Christianity. But since when were you the one buying Mario his new set of pool thongs? Steve and Mario are the ones desecrating God, not you. And hey, since they probably don't share your religious views in the first place, they're really not doing much wrong by their interpretation of God. Like I said before, your faith does not weaken and you yourself remain very heterosexual. If they want to sin, that's up to them. It's not your job to save their souls. That said, there's no reason why THEIR blasphemous marriage would affect YOUR relationship with God or prevent you from leading YOUR happy religious life. Refer to epic bacon story.

What one should know about the bible is that as christians, we dont take every word literally. I do not believe in slavery. Many of the verses in the bible are metaphores of something.

Perhaps then, the idea of two men engaging in hardcore anal sex is simply God's metaphor for our human inability to truly accept people for who they are.

[chicken wing]

Perhaps then, the idea of two men engaging in hardcore anal sex is simply God's metaphor for our human inability to truly accept people for who they are.

You have gone too far there evil. enough said

[evil]

You have gone too far there evil. enough said

[Bambi]

Oh man, I <3 this thread.

And just so I'm actually semi on topic. I'm for gay marriage. The government will eventually legalize it for the sake of political correctness if nothing else. They can't really not, religion should not have a say in politics and so far thats the only reason I've seen against it.

[CH!MP]

However i will never agree to homosexual marriages. I am a christian and i believe everyting in the bible. that marriage is a sacred union between man and women. your arguements are strong and i can see your point of view but i will never change my mind.

What one should know about the bible is that as christians, we dont take every word literally. I do not believe in slavery. Many of the verses in the bible are metaphores of something. CH!MP just blew it out of porportion.

How is a direct quote blowing something out of proportion? lol was it out of context perhaps. Let's get this straight: you don't believe everything in the Bible. You just chose what you are told to chose as being right. And you're saying selling your daughter into slavery is a metaphor for what exactly? I could quote so so many parts about how inferior women are too. They're mentioned far more than gay guys, trust me. But I guess the stuff about women being the servants of man is just outdated...unlike views on homosexuality...okay then . See what bothers me the most about religion is that people pick and chose so much that they just make fools of themselves. Please explain how you decide some things are purely metaphorical or outdated while others are completely relevant to todays society.

[kiki]

I come from a fairly religious background myself chicken wing, I grew up with the bible beaten over my head. And one thing I can say for certain is that in literal terms, the bible is extremely sketchy on the concept of marriage, and despite my former views on marriage - it is not, in todays context, a religious exercise. It was once considered, and in some areas of Christianity still considered, that marriage was the final sacrament - kin to baptism, eucharist, reconciliation and confirmation. And that holds true, and in that sense marriage is religious.
But marriage is not reserved to the religious, atheists and non-believers can marry too. By your argument, that too is against the Bible - which is an interpretation, its not an explicit abomination so it would be extrapolation on your part. We're moving into incredibly unsafe, subjective areas of religion. Pope John Paul II instituted the second vatican council, which challenged many biblical views of the catholic church - most of it, not even half of it has been fully instituted, and the catholic church intends to institute the whole of it. It's remarkable, that one massive document has seen the catholic church do complete back flips, in a few years, they may be themselves marrying homos in St Patricks in Melbourne. While I doubt it, I'm pointing out that religious interpretation can, and does change throughout time - whether or not thats the way it should be, thats the way it is.

And you keep using the argument that marriage is holy. There is nothing sacred to marriage anymore, the concept of a pre-nuptial agreement, the rise in divorce rates, the rise in re-marriage - all suggest the sanctity of marriage, like romance and Gilmore Girls - is dead. You say it is offensive to God, but so shouldn't divorce be? And is divorce illegal? Are you actively trying to prevent that?

The point that evil is trying to make, is that its OK to have religious views, its OK to be against it, but in no way is it OK for you to force your views onto others, and try and prevent the freedom of choice. The government is nanny enough to society, we don't need religion forcing compliance as well - religion in our society is considered something of choice, our constitution provides for that (for those of you interested its in the Commonwealth of Australia Constition 1900 (UK) Section 116). Given that, its irresponsible of our Government to take a religious stance in arguing against gay marriage, regardless of their own personal views and faith. And despite the fact that Christianity is the most dominant religion in Australia, Australia is NOT a Christian country - the writers of the constitution will turn in their graves at that. Freedom of religion is one of the few explicit rights we have in this country, respect it - don't impose yours on others.

This post has been edited by kiki: May 16 2008, 11:07 AM

[lozinabox]

to break the seriousness:

the ad at the top of the page says "children's books for gay and lesbian parents"

makes me giggle... just a bit

[evil]

I'm not really sure what you're giggling at there.

But anyway, I am soooo featuring this thread.

[lozinabox]

Haha I was giggling at the ad at the top of the page. At the moment its one thats "christiancupid.com". I think the ads run in theme (mostly) according to the topic of conversation. haha

[chicken wing]

Dear all you wonderful isfatians,

I went and had a long long think about this topic. I have several things to say.

First of all, I would like to appologise if any of my previous comments in this discussion have offended anybody. For that I am truly sorry.

After reading all your posts and stewing over them for a while, I have eventially decided to change my stance on this topic. I now look upon my previous comments as infintile and unacceptable.

It is with great humility that I would like to say that I now am a supporter of gay marriage rights. I can now see that everyone, who ever they are have a right to show their commitment to the significant other that they love.

Although I dont think I will ever be absolutly confortable with the idea of homosexuality, I am no longer going to shun it.

Yours sincerely,

Chicken Wing