Gay Marriage in Australia?

[raised by monkeys]

Thanks to those who read and maybe got something out of my paper.

Cheers

[Ezz]

Originally Posted by Streets

That's your individual interpretation of marriage. What you're doing when you say "call it something else" IS in fact imposing your interpretation and views on other people. Allowing gay marriage will not affect anyone -- aside from the two people marrying -- one iota.

lol, no its not. This interpretation existed well before I was born.
I'm not imposing anything on anyone and I stated that.
In fact, it's some gay people (not all) who are imposing their beliefs upon a term 'marriage' defined by the union of a man and a woman. It's some people in the gay community trying to impose their views not vice versa.

My personal opinion (which I'm entitled to) is merely a suggestion and a reason why I don't agree with gay marriage... take it or leave it.

[mcnews]

You know Howard only put the man and woman thing in a few years ago don't you? To override federally the states powers to make same-sex marriage legal.

[geckoGT]

The problem with definitions is they evolve over time according to public use and opinion.

I would not prop my argument up on a definition, definitions can be changed and often are

[dave351cid]

looks like a hot topic here.
well done to geckoGT and everyone else for keeping it pretty civil.

personally i done see what the issue is ???

in general i think that it is a call for gay`s, bi`s, lesbian`s or anyone else to be able to "legally" marry.

this should be about legal entitlements and reconition and religious or other views and beliefs should not come into it.
i myself do not hold any religious beliefs, i can still get legally married though. does that mean that i still have to follow someone elses rules as to who i marry ??

i`m not trying to sound anti religious here ( everyone should be able to live how the want -- "provided they are not hurting anyone else".
who has the right to say that "my way is the only way and anything different is wrong" ??

i have known quite a lot of homosexuals and i must say that must of them are better people then a lot of the "normal" people i know.

give them their full rights and lets get on with the real problems this country has.

[BLUEYBA]

Originally Posted by mcnews

The most important reason for this to happen is to help reduce the stigma felt by young people as they come to terms with their sexuality. Anything that helps this should be applauded.

Otherwise the suicide rate among young males will continue to be terrible. And more men will marry women and have kids because they can't deal with being gay, and then going on to bang other married males in public toilets and the like for their gay out. Which then ends in misery for them and their family.

The whole between man and woman marriage thing is new. Through the ages males have been together in society for aeons, lots of them married to produce offspring and had numerous wives to that end, but they also had their male lover etc. If anybody thinks this is new they are kidding themselves.

There is no reasonable argument against same-sex marriage. The excuses against it reflect just pure ignorance and bigotry and just feed the hate cycle and the radical religonazis.

why are people ignorant and bigoted just because they don't agree. This is the problem, in Australia you can't have a discussion anymore without people shouting you down and calling you names just because they have a different opinion. As long as you don't attack people personally in explaining your opinion then there is no issue

[nstg8a]

theres some responses going pretty close to being a personal attack, to suggest someones views are bigoted or ignorant simply because they are opposed to your own is i think pushing things too far.

also to suggest that history sides with the idea of gay marriage is fundamentally flawed as well, slavery existed for a long long time, doesnt make it right.

i believe marriage to be more of a religious thing than an 'asset' thing these days, after all, a couple in a de facto relationship enjoys the same rights under the law as a married couple.
so with it being a religious, mostly ceremonial, act then it should be done in accordance with the right religious beliefs. if your particular faith says no to gay marriage then thats it, no gay marriage.
if your faith supports it then yippee, your free to marry who you want.

[Ezz]

I didn't mention anything to do with law?

'Marriage' has always been defined as my above statement. Do your history. Yes, I understand that definitions can change... do we all remember when gay simply meant happy? Obviously that happens and I’m simply stating my opinion as to why I disagree with it. Or am I not allowed to do that???

Thanks to those who have stood up against the persecution of those expressing their personal view. I didn't attack anyone or any group personally, but it seems others are attacking or dismissing people's personal viewpoints because they don't agree.
Anyway, obviously people's opinions that oppose it are not welcome in this thread so I'll leave it at that.

[vztrt]

Maybe there should be a poll??

[mcnews]

I'm sorry if anyone took anything personally. Everyone is entitled to their opinion for sure.

I used the term bigot on a wide scale, not to someone singled out on here.

From Wiki - "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."

[mcnews]

This was just posted on the ABC News site and perhaps is newsworthy of the day to be posted in here.

-- From ABC News --

Bob Katter's gay brother speaks out

The half-brother of independent federal MP Bob Katter has spoken out against his sibling's criticism of gay marriage.

Last week Bob Katter said the idea of same-sex marriage deserved to be ridiculed.

"Truly this proposition deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed. It doesn't serve any serious treatment," he told an anti-gay rally at Parliament House in Canberra.

But his half-brother Carl Katter, who is gay, told Channel Ten that Bob Katter's views are damaging.

"It's hurtful, its dangerous, it's damaging, and it's really inappropriate," he said.

"It doesn't give any supporting to his argument by perpetuating hate."

Carl Katter says his brother is targeting a minority through his comments.

"I don't understand his motives," he said.

"I don't know how he can target a minority and persecute them in the way he has."

He says he felt the stigma of growing up gay in a regional community and fears Bob Katter's comments perpetuate that environment.

- PM meets activists

Meanwhile, former president of the Australian Medical Association, Kerryn Phelps, her female partner and other gay rights activists have met with Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Dr Phelps praised Ms Gillard as the first prime minister to meet with a group from the gay and lesbian community to discuss the issue of marriage equality.

And she hopes the Prime Minister will change her mind in favour of gay marriage.

"I'm hoping that in appealing to her on this level that she will have the opportunity to think very carefully about why this issue is so important to us," she said.

"Now I believe people's views can evolve, I am very hopeful that the Prime Minister's views may well evolve on this issue but that's a matter for her."

Ms Gillard has repeatedly said marriage should be between a man and a woman, but the topic will be debated at Labor's national conference later this year.

More than a dozen MPs will report back to Federal Parliament on Wednesday about what their electorates think about gay marriage.

[G6E Turbo 2]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

You do realise that the donor in this case was also gay?

YES , Well , There you go then, that says it all !!!!

Gay & Lesbian Marriage = NO way
Children = No Way

Sorry I just don't feel like it is really part of
what is meant to be

Having said that what they do in their
own home is not my issue

[geckoGT]

Ok, some tempers flaring up here and a few people need to walk away, have a drink and re read this thread before posting. From what I see everyone has done a commendable job putting their point of view forward and no one here has lost out or been criticised heavily for their point of view.

However I do see a few worrying things creeping in, it has been fair and equitable so far, please lets keep it that way.

Lets remember, this topic is about family ideals, beliefs, morals and sense of equity. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean anything personal or derogatory to you, it just means they have different beliefs to you based on different experiences.

[ILLaViTaR]

Should be allowed to be married but not titled "married". Merely call it something else, marriage is a Christian value that is specific to a man and a woman. It's their value therefore it's up to them. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of Christianity but it's their value and it's not up to any other party to dispute this.

People need to understand equal rights. I hate the idea of gay marraige but everyone is different which seems to be a problem for some to comprehend. People have no right to stop these people from being gay I guess lol, if it's simply because of the fact you can't stand homosexuality you're just ignorant and selfish sorry to say. Equal rights isn't a matter of opinion, unless you're a douche.

I can see a controversial issue though. Gay couples want marriage which is a Christian value, it's up to the Christians not the gays. That's what marriage is, a bond between a man and a woman. Which homosexuality isn't. Therefore instead of ****ing off a religion and wrongfully attacking it, they shouldn't call it marriage so it doesn't contradict religious beliefs. Just something on paper that says their life partners or something, if they expect marriage they're expecting to steal a religions value therefore basically destroying the religion.

[Mark^^]

I am gay and I have also studied for the catholic priesthood, I left for other reasons other than my sexuality and it was of no issue with my order as if I committed to celibacy then it made no difference is I was gay or straight. However my own personal opinion is that if gays, lesbians and others want to formalise a legal partnership that recognises their commitments to each other, then they should come up with a legal process that carries all the same benefits and recognition that marriage entails but is unique and not 'marriage'

The Commonwealth has made many legislative changes to bring about equality for gay and lesbian couples, but they just need to go that bit further for recognition of the relationship but call it something different from marriage or current relationship recognitions.

[mcnews]

Marriage has constantly evolved throughout the ages. From Wiki.

Wiki -

History of marriage by culture

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[12] Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[13] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[14] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[15] Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[16]

Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups.

Europe

In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.[citation needed] Men usually married when they were in their 20s or 30s[citation needed] and expected their wives to be in their early teens. It has been suggested that these ages made sense for the Greeks because men were generally done with military service by age 30, and marrying a young girl ensured her virginity.[citation needed] Married Greek women had few rights in ancient Greek society and were expected to take care of the house and children.[citation needed] Time was an important factor in Greek marriage. For example, there were superstitions that being married during a full moon was good luck and, according to Robert Flacelière, Greeks married in the winter.[citation needed] Inheritance was more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.[17]

There were several types of marriages in ancient Roman society. The traditional ("conventional") form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony.[18] In this type of marriage, a woman lost her family rights of inheritance of her old family and gained them with her new one. She now was subject to the authority of her husband.[citation needed] There was the free marriage known as sine manu. In this arrangement, the wife remained a member of her original family; she stayed under the authority of her father, kept her family rights of inheritance with her old family and did not gain any with the new family.[19] The minimum age of marriage for girls was 12.[20]
Woodcut. How Reymont and Melusina were betrothed / And by the bishop were blessed in their bed on their wedlock. From the Melusine, 15th century.

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter,[citation needed] with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required. However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, "[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."[21]

In the 12th century[where?] women were obligated to take the name of their husbands and starting in the second half of the 16th century[where?] parental consent along with the church's consent was required for marriage.[22]

With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[23][24] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[25] This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding;[23] if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts. During the Middle Ages marriages were arranged, sometimes as early as birth, and these early pledges to marry were often used to ensure treaties between different royal families, nobles, and heirs of fiefdoms. The church resisted these imposed unions, and increased the number of causes for nullification of these arrangements.[22] As Christianity spread during the Roman period and the Middle Ages, the idea of free choice in selecting marriage partners increased and spread with it.[22]

The average age of marriage in the late 13th century into the 16th century was around 25 years of age.[26]

As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther's view that marriage was a "worldly thing".[27] By the 17th century many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage. As of 2000, the average marriage age range was 25–44 years for men and 22–39 years for women. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.[28]

As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."[29]

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage"[29] for recognition.

In England and Wales, Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 required a formal ceremony of marriage, thereby curtailing the practice of Fleet Marriage.[30] These were clandestine or irregular marriages performed at Fleet Prison, and at hundreds of other places. From the 1690s until the Marriage Act of 1753 as many as 300,000 clandestine marriages were performed at Fleet Prison alone.[31] The Act required a marriage ceremony to be officiated by an Anglican priest in the Anglican Church with two witnesses and registration. The Act did not apply to Jewish marriages or those of Quakers, whose marriages continued to be governed by their own customs.

In England and Wales, since 1837, civil marriages have been recognized as a legal alternative to church marriages under the Marriage Act of 1836. In Germany, civil marriages were recognized in 1875. This law permitted a declaration of the marriage before an official clerk of the civil administration, when both spouses affirm their will to marry, to constitute a legally recognized valid and effective marriage, and allowed an optional private clerical marriage ceremony.

In contemporary English common law, a marriage is a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[32] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".[33]
China
Main article: Chinese marriage

The mythological origin of Chinese marriage is a story about Nüwa and Fu Xi who invented proper marriage procedures after becoming married. In ancient Chinese society, people of the same surname were not supposed to marry and doing so was seen as incest. However, because marriage to one's maternal relatives was not thought of as incest, families sometimes intermarried from one generation to another. Over time, Chinese people became more geographically mobile. Individuals remained members of their biological families. When a couple died, the husband and the wife were buried separately in the respective clans’ graveyard. In a maternal marriage, a male would become a son-in-law who lived in the wife's home.

The New Marriage Law of 1950 radically changed Chinese marriage traditions, enforcing monogamy, equality of men and women, and choice in marriage; arranged marriages were the most common type of marriage in China until then.
Same-sex marriage
Main article: Same-sex marriage

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[34] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[35]

While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sex couples, recent publicity and debate over the past decade gives an impression that civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples is novel and untested. There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[36] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[36] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[37] A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE imposed severe penalties or death on same-sex marriage in ancient Rome[38] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[39]

[Ezz]

There is a real difference to perpetuating hate and simply having a differentiating opinion. I seriously disagree with people who hate! If that is the way Bob Katter is approaching it with hate, then he is in the wrong.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Ok, some tempers flaring up here and a few people need to walk away, have a drink and re read this thread before posting. From what I see everyone has done a commendable job putting their point of view forward and no one here has lost out or been criticised heavily for their point of view.

However I do see a few worrying things creeping in, it has been fair and equitable so far, please lets keep it that way.

Lets remember, this topic is about family ideals, beliefs, morals and sense of equity. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean anything personal or derogatory to you, it just means they have different beliefs to you based on different experiences.

Thankyou!

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Should be allowed to be married but not titled "married". Merely call it something else, marriage is a Christian value that is specific to a man and a woman. It's their value therefore it's up to them. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of Christianity but it's their value and it's not up to any other party to dispute this.

Careful... I suggested that and was shot down... but I do see it as a perfectly logical solution to the situation.

Originally Posted by Mark^^

I am gay and I have also studied for the catholic priesthood, I left for other reasons other than my sexuality and it was of no issue with my order as if I committed to celibacy then it made no difference is I was gay or straight. However my own personal opinion is that if gays, lesbians and others want to formalise a legal partnership that recognises their commitments to each other, then they should come up with a legal process that carries all the same benefits and recognition that marriage entails but is unique and not 'marriage'

The Commonwealth has made many legislative changes to bring about equality for gay and lesbian couples, but they just need to go that bit further for recognition of the relationship but call it something different from marriage or current relationship recognitions.

I personally agree!

[vztrt]

The origin of the word 'marriage'.

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php...onth_marriage/

marriage, n., the condition of being husband and wife, since 1975 sometimes applied to same-sex couples. Also applied to the ceremony and celebrations associated with the beginning of such a union. Also applied to other forms of relationship, often with a modifer, e.g., plural marriage. Since c.1400, the word has been applied figuratively to any close union or blending of any two things. The word dates to c.1300 and is from the Anglo-Norman mariage. Ultimately it is from the classical Latin verb maritare, to marry, used to refer to people, animals, and the crossing of grapes in viticulture and the nouns maritus/marita, husband/wife.

[SEZ213]

Marriage has been around 'pre-christian' era, the romans married to stop their children being illegitimate...and still they had to be consenting, so marriage isn't a 'christian' quality, it's a human quality...

Whatever your choices in life, as long as you're happy - it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about your choices, they're yours and no-one can take them away from you.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by Ezz

There is a real difference to perpetuating hate and simply having a differentiating opinion. I seriously disagree with people who hate! If that is the way Bob Katter is approaching it with hate, then he is in the wrong.


Thankyou!



Careful... I suggested that and was shot down... but I do see it as a perfectly logical solution to the situation.



I personally agree!

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised haha. Selfish idealogys cloud logic most the time.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Marriage has been around 'pre-christian' era, the romans married to stop their children being illegitimate...and still they had to be consenting, so marriage isn't a 'christian' quality, it's a human quality...

Whatever your choices in life, as long as you're happy - it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about your choices, they're yours and no-one can take them away from you.

Ah I see, that was my next point. Did Christianity create marriage or the concept, or both?

So the concept isn't Christian I see, it's human. Were the Christians the ones to title it as marriage??

If not then I see no reason as why gay couples couldn't infact get married.

[Ezz]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Marriage has been around 'pre-christian' era, the romans married to stop their children being illegitimate...and still they had to be consenting, so marriage isn't a 'christian' quality, it's a human quality...

Whatever your choices in life, as long as you're happy - it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about your choices, they're yours and no-one can take them away from you.

If you want to start a thread relating to Christianity and how long it's been around then go ahead. That's going off topic here...

For your info, 'pre-christian' era relates to before Christ Jesus. Do your history search into judaism, the hebrew God etc and you'll find this custom of marriage did exist well before the 'christian era' which was brought about through the sacrifice of christ. Ask any christian who ordained marriage? Man (human kind) didn't, God did. Take it up with the big fella!

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Ah I see, that was my next point. Did Christianity create marriage or the concept, or both?

So the concept isn't Christian I see, it's human. Were the Christians the ones to title it as marriage??

If not then I see no reason as why gay couples couldn't infact get married.

The concept never was a Christian idea. Its always been around as has Family. Even the original bible doesn't use the word marriage, but describes marriage in its interpretation.

[Streets]

Originally Posted by G6E Turbo 2

YES , Well , There you go then, that says it all !!!!

Hang on, what exactly does it say?

[Geez Louise]

As the thread title suggests - Gay marriage in Australia...Should it be allowed? Are you for it or against it?

I see it not as a sexual issue but a human rights one. People should have the opportunity to marry, irrespective of their sex, race, religeous beliefs etc...to have the same human rights as everyone else. No segregation based on these.

That is all I have to say on this subject. It is one that has a lot of varying opinion, as can be seen all over the globe. There will always be people who support it and those that don't.

And so the world turns...

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Geez Louise

As the thread title suggests - Gay marriage in Australia...Should it be allowed? Are you for it or against it?

I see it not as a sexual issue but a human rights one. People should have the opportunity to marry, irrespective of their sex, race, religeous beliefs etc...to have the same human rights as everyone else. No segregation based on these.

That is all I have to say on this subject. It is one that has a lot of varying opinion, as can be seen all over the globe. There will always be people who support it and those that don't.

And so the world turns...

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject. I think if there is no law against gays living together, then there should be some sort of officially recognised union granted to the same couple if they so choose. Call it a 'marriage', or whatever you want.

I know a few couples living together 'unmarried'... what is the most common reason why? "Oh, it's just a piece of paper in the end, we know we love each other" and lets face it, these days that sort of relationship hardly raises an eyebrow... how many decades ago was this seen as very wrong, and against the grain of what is deemed right and correct?

If a gay couple have lived together for a decade, how does that change or effect others if they are formally united or not? It really doesn't IMO. Anyway, I think there should be some sort of marriage allowed between gay couples, perhaps not in the religious sence, but in a legal sence.

Cheers

[geckoGT]

Time to move on from this "origins of christianity" line of thought. The topic of religion is not allowed under the T&C's and that line of discussion is going too heavily into that topic. No one here is going to agree on that.

I am going to suggest that although it may be argued that marriage is a concept originating in christianity, it also can be argued that it is is not and it is a concept of the human nature that was formalised by chritianity, and other religions. Lets all agree to disagree on this one, everyone has an opinion and they are allowed to have it.

Please no more discussion on the chicken or the egg.

[drew`SEVNT5]

And seriously, people whinge and whine about government intrusion in there lives, this is just another way it occurs... For me, I couldn't give a rats... Go and get married and be miserable like the rest of us :P

[BLUEYBA]

Something Bob Katter's brother said was

Carl Katter says his brother is targeting a minority through his comments.

So if the gay community is a minority should we be changing something for a minority???? This is just a question. just wanted to see what people thought about it

[Geez Louise]

Originally Posted by BLUEYBA

So if the gay community is a minority should we be changing something for a minority???? This is just a question. just wanted to see what people thought about it

That is a question that can cause a lot of arguements too. Minority groups, whilst small (hence the minority bit) can change things. There are instances right through history to support this...suffragettes being one that springs to mind.