Julia Gillard makes stand as a social conservative
158 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28725080]religion[/QUOTE]
nothing is stopping a gay couple from having a marriage ceremony, so why does it matter if it's written on paper that they're marrier rather than together?
i'm all for gay marriage, but i'd prefer to see efforts focused on other areas of inequality
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28725097]nothing is stopping a gay couple from having a marriage ceremony, so why does it matter if it's written on paper that they're marrier rather than together?[/quote]
Because civil unions in many jurisdictions don't afford the same rights as marriage. There's also the "separate but equal" issue.
[editline]21st March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28725097]
i'm all for gay marriage, but i'd prefer to see efforts focused on other areas of inequality[/QUOTE]
it's terrible that you'd downplay the problem of homosexual discrimination
you're terrible
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28725097]nothing is stopping a gay couple from having a marriage ceremony, so why does it matter if it's written on paper that they're marrier rather than together?
i'm all for gay marriage, but i'd prefer to see efforts focused on other areas of inequality[/QUOTE]
because it signifies they are not considered legally equal
i myself personally do not want to get married as i've only ever see it cause unhappiness in the long term, but that's not the point. it's the fact they are not allowed to legally do something that heterosexual people can do.
[editline]21st March 2011[/editline]
you're pretty misguided there doggunn, you've missed the point entirely
[QUOTE=Rusty100;28725111]because it signifies they are not considered legally equal[/QUOTE]
in victoria, the laws were changed a few years ago so that de facto couples of any sex combination have identical rights as those that are married minus the title
What other inequalities other than marriage are there?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28725104]Because civil unions in many jurisdictions don't afford the same rights as marriage. There's also the "separate but equal" issue.[/quote]
then that's what needs to work on being changed first. what's the issue you're referring to?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28725104]it's terrible that you'd downplay the problem of homosexual discrimination
you're terrible[/QUOTE]
i resent that, because one of the inequalities i was referring to is social discrimination.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28725130]in victoria, the laws were changed a few years ago so that de facto couples of any sex combination have identical rights as those that are married minus the title[/QUOTE]
it's still pretty despicable that they had to create a new name for it. while the rights are nice, it's almost defeating the point of fighting for marriage rights.
and besides, that's a pretty specific case. what does that have to do with anything?
-
if i too wasn't from victoria you wouldn't have even brought it up, that's irrelevant
[QUOTE=Rusty100;28725159]it's still pretty despicable that they had to create a new name for it. while the rights are nice, it's almost defeating the point of fighting for marriage rights.
and besides, that's a pretty specific case. what does that have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]
well considering the topic at hand is about australia - and jurisdiction for marriages is in the states hands, i feel it relevant.
regardless of what name it is, the rights associated with it are identical. while i feel that having the allowance for actual marriage in the state would be wonderful, i feel that efforts should be focused on other areas of ineqality between those who it affects.
nothing is free in terms of money, particuarly when it comes to having legal reform. i think it would be more important to focus on other areas of potential inequality before turning attention to what people are ignorantly most reluctant to "give up" (i.e. the apparent defintition of marriage).
[editline]21st March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;28725170]if i too wasn't from victoria you wouldn't have even brought it up, that's irrelevant[/QUOTE]
no, i would've. but i know it for victoria, seeing as how i live here, and have studied the area of law.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28723909]have you actually read the arguments?[/QUOTE]We have. If you don't see how absolutely ridiculous those articles are, you're simply beyond the reach of any logic whatsoever.
There are actually some pretty serious philisophical arguments against voluntary euthanasia.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28725363]There are actually some pretty serious philisophical arguments against voluntary euthanasia.[/QUOTE]Hm? I was referring specifically to the articles he linked regarding gay marriage.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28725391]Hm? I was referring specifically to the articles he linked regarding gay marriage.[/QUOTE]
Oh I wasn't responding to your post, I was just pointing out that many people don't think there's any reason not to have it, when there is.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28725363]There are actually some pretty serious philisophical arguments against voluntary euthanasia.[/QUOTE]
we should have involuntary euthanasia of people.
[editline]21st March 2011[/editline]
:frog:
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28725363]There are actually some pretty serious philisophical arguments against voluntary euthanasia.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to hear them sometime (once gay marriage is out of the way here)
[editline]21st March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28725412]we should have involuntary euthanasia of people.
[editline]21st March 2011[/editline]
:frog:[/QUOTE]
america does, big hit there
I think the marriage shit is over, let's see these reasons.
Fuck it, I'm voting greens.
[QUOTE=GunsNRoses;28725703]Fuck it, I'm voting greens.[/QUOTE]
Do not waste your vote.
Can't remember exactly how the argument goes, but it's along the lines that consent can never be rationally given for such an action, and that rather than it being the choice of the person who wants to die, it is the choice of the doctor to judge whether or not the request is legitimate.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;28724808]they are intolerant of homosexuals. it doesn't matter what word you use for it, that's what they are
intolerance usually stems from fear. i'm willing to bet anyone who doesn't want them to marry is scared, and it manifests into hate. it's a fear of the unknown. i don't understand it therefore i'm scared of it therefore i hate it.
are you actually trying to argue this? it's the most basic shit.
there's no way you can argue they shouldn't get married without it being homophobic, be it from a religious point or view or a 'moral' point of view.
since i've seen a few people trying to say it's not because of their religious views, remember that marriage itself comes from religion.[/QUOTE]
Marriage is a universal concept wherein two people are bound by oath to love one another for all eternity. The word is just a term for said universal concept that a bunch of homophobes want a monopoly on a simple word because they're too close-minded and idiotic to see past their blind hatred. They don't understand that letting gay people call themselves married will not change anything and will not affect their culture/identity/whatever in any way whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28728216]Can't remember exactly how the argument goes, but it's along the lines that consent can never be rationally given for such an action, and that rather than it being the choice of the person who wants to die, it is the choice of the doctor to judge whether or not the request is legitimate.[/QUOTE]
That only applies to euthanasia which is decided upon by a regulatory body, in instances where requests for euthanasia [I]can[/I] be considered illegitimate.
So, rather limited argument, and not particularly directed at the substance of euthanasia, but rather the surrounding politico-legal structure which determines whether or not requests for euthanasia are legitimate.
[Quote=Julia Gillard]"Bible"[/quote]
Whoops.
marriage is overwhelmingly a religious ceremony
any church should be able to restrict marriage in any way they see fit
the state itself should not recognize marriage because it is religious
civil unions should be allowed for any people who want to share their property and get the tax breaks and benefits associated with it, from homosexual couples, to heterosexual couples, to polygamists, to platonic couples
it is merely a financial decision, not a religious or emotional one
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28731685]marriage is overwhelmingly a religious ceremony
any church should be able to restrict marriage in any way they see fit
the state itself should not recognize marriage because it is religious
civil unions should be allowed for any people who want to share their property and get the tax breaks and benefits associated with it, from homosexual couples, to heterosexual couples, to polygamists, to platonic couples
it is merely a financial decision, not a religious or emotional one[/QUOTE]
[quote]People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.[/quote]
Marriage is not a completely religious ceremony, it is also a legal contract, which is why you can get married in a civil union. A church can refuse to recognise homosexual marriage but the state should allow it as there are many laws tied to it. You can say "well why don't you just call it something else" but legally it's the same thing and should have the same name.
It's the exact same as the "seperate but equal" shit they had in America in the 50s with racial segregation.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28732381]Marriage is not a completely religious ceremony, it is also a legal contract, which is why you can get married in a civil union. A church can refuse to recognise homosexual marriage but the state should allow it as there are many laws tied to it. You can say "well why don't you just call it something else" but legally it's the same thing and should have the same name.
It's the exact same as the "seperate but equal" shit they had in America in the 50s with racial segregation.[/QUOTE]
no it shouldnt have the same name
marriage is performed mostly by churches and ministers, it is a religious ceremony
it should not be a legal contract at all
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28732441]no it shouldnt have the same name
marriage is performed mostly by churches and ministers, it is a religious ceremony
it should not be a legal contract at all[/QUOTE]
See my post about how its not a religious ceremony and that its a universal concept.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28732441]no it shouldnt have the same name
marriage is performed mostly by churches and ministers, it is a religious ceremony
it should not be a legal contract at all[/QUOTE]
You do know that marriage isn't a Christian thing, right?
[quote=Confucius]Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain.[/quote]
Do you see anything about gender in there?
Did you know same sex marriage is thought to have existed in Ancient Greece and Rome? That predates Christianity. Marriage is a legal contract, and everyone should have the right to marry, whether it goes with what a bigoted church wants or not.
[QUOTE=Earthen;28732464]See my post about how its not a religious ceremony and that its a universal concept.[/QUOTE]
who performs marriages in the united states
the vast majority are ordained ministers, religious people
the fact that a minister can perform a marriage shows that it is, at least in part, a religious ceremony and that the state has no right to recognize it in any form
[editline]21st March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28732677]You do know that marriage isn't a Christian thing, right?[/QUOTE]
i never said it was, i said it was religious
[editline]21st March 2011[/editline]
i mean seriously, my solution gives everyone a winning situation
people can still get married how they see fit but it isnt recognized
homosexuals, heterosexuals, and polygamists also now have the same rights because a new secular agreement has been created that cant be refused based on religious or moral grounds
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28732700]who performs marriages in the united states [b]Judges are the only people who can declare a couple legally married, which is why you go to a court to get a marraige license. The ceremony is purely for tradition.[/b]
the vast majority are ordained ministers, religious people [b]And Unitarian Universalists, Metropolitan Community Church, Quakers, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ and Reform Jewish all allow same sex marriage.[/b]
the fact that a minister can perform a marriage shows that it is, at least in part, a religious ceremony and that the state has no right to recognize it in any form [b]You can get married in court, by a judge with no religious influence at all. Hence, marriage is not the sole domain of religion.[/b]
[editline]21st March 2011[/editline]
i never said it was, i said it was religious [b]It's also a legal joining, there are rights given to those who are married. By denying people the right to marry you are denying them other rights.[/b][/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.