Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
TrueBeliever

Gay Marriage

1,007 posts in this topic

I never said anyone took away rights from them. I'm trying to get a stance from you. Your just saying facts that I don't really have a need for without an over arching opinion.

I'm sorry but you did. You posted, "We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people . . . ."

I will repost my stance . . . .

I agree that gays should not be denied rights. They aren’t. They cannot be denied the right to rent a dwelling. They have the right to cohabitate with a partner. They have the right to vote. They have the right to work with all the labor protections of any other citizen. They are entitled to every social benefit given to anyone else. They are not denied any government program at any level. But now to even consider if two men marrying each other is an acceptable legal process falls into the realm of bigotry.

We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc.

But with gay marriage, It is automatically a right that should be given now by all people across the world. Well, that’s not going to happen and it has nothing to do with bigotry. It has a lot to do with consideration and exploration of what such a freedom (not a right) would eventually bring.

Call it bigotry if you like, but that’s how things work. Victims of Parkinson were not given the right to use experimental treatments and stem cell research was denied as they pleaded for their right to find a cure.

Blacks were freed in 1865 but not really. They had a voting tax to prevent them from voting. They were excluded from establishments frequented by whites and if permitted, they had separate drinking fountains and restrooms. They could not attend public schools and were excluded from many churches. Their eventual freedom came through a process that was long and agonizing. Why? Because that’s how it’s done. Gays don’t realize that or don’t want to. They live with the illusion that a right is immediate and obvious to all. Well, it’s neither. They will wait their turn and see if they get to the front of the line.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you did, indeed, say that. Quote: “So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?”

Yes, I did say that, but I took it from what you implied on an earlier point. Rhetorical really, because I thought you might take in context. But there was an influx of posts at the time.But yes the question still holds. Do you mean to say that, "So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but you did. You posted, "We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people . . . ."

You left out the question mark. Those are important.

I will repost my stance . . . .

I agree that gays should not be denied rights. They aren’t. They cannot be denied the right to rent a dwelling. They have the right to cohabitate with a partner. They have the right to vote. They have the right to work with all the labor protections of any other citizen. They are entitled to every social benefit given to anyone else. They are not denied any government program at any level. But now to even consider if two men marrying each other is an acceptable legal process falls into the realm of bigotry.

We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc.

But with gay marriage, It is automatically a right that should be given now by all people across the world. Well, that’s not going to happen and it has nothing to do with bigotry. It has a lot to do with consideration and exploration of what such a freedom (not a right) would eventually bring.

Call it bigotry if you like, but that’s how things work. Victims of Parkinson were not given the right to use experimental treatments and stem cell research was denied as they pleaded for their right to find a cure.

Blacks were freed in 1865 but not really. They had a voting tax to prevent them from voting. They were excluded from establishments frequented by whites and if permitted, they had separate drinking fountains and restrooms. They could not attend public schools and were excluded from many churches. Their eventual freedom came through a process that was long and agonizing. Why? Because that’s how it’s done. Gays don’t realize that or don’t want to. They live with the illusion that a right is immediate and obvious to all. Well, it’s neither. They will wait their turn and see if they get to the front of the line.

You are comparing give two people the legal benefits of marriage to slavery and doctor assisted suicide. Does that not seem silly to you?

The best argument people made for something like this happening is gay marriage leading to allowing people to get married to ducks and box turtles.

Edited by Kazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just let them get married so we can move on to more important things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't they marry?

Again, an action requiring the authorization of law does not become a right until it is legislated as a right. Marriage as known to heterosexuals was enacted in 1228 as a part of British law.

We do not have rights to breahe, have a pulse or think, those are physical functions necessary to life. Rights are not simply rights because someone declares them to be. I have the right to be a millionarie because there are many millionaires? Who will give me my money?

We are throwing the concept of human rights around here like it is an absolute fact when it is not.

In answer to your question, they cannot marry in many places because the law forbids it. Will that change? Who knows. The British court ruled that gay marriage is not a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did say that, but I took it from what you implied on an earlier point. Rhetorical really, because I thought you might take in context. But there was an influx of posts at the time.But yes the question still holds. Do you mean to say that, "So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?"

I answered that in post 915

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You left out the question mark. Those are important

You are comparing give two people the legal benefits of marriage to slavery and doctor assisted suicide. Does that not seem silly to you?

The best argument people made for something like this happening is gay marriage leading to allowing people to get married to ducks and box turtles.

You don't think slavery and the right to die are valid examples of the concept of human rights?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DR. D. "We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc."

And how is this on topic? Shorten your answers (i.e. make your point.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DR. D. "We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc."

And how is this on topic? Shorten your answers (i.e. make your point.)

I didn't know you were a mod. If you were, you would have realized that the right to die and slavery are valid examples of human rights and the controversy surrounding them.

I will use however many words I need to express my opinion. You are free to do the same.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think slavery and the right to die are valid examples of the concept of human rights?

The right to marriage is not a human right. Its a law governed by individual governments.

Its a much smaller problem then slavery. Comparing them is almost an insult to the struggle of slavery.

Edited by Kazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to marriage is not a human right. Its a law governed by individual governments.

Fine. Then you agree with me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered that in post 915

No you didn't, you answered a question I didn't ask. I asked a question based on what I thought you implied. No, on second thought, what you said - I was actually asking for some clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine. Then you agree with me.

I agree with that fact. But your stance was very broad. I'm worried about the details.

Do you want to keep gay marriage illegal because it could lead to other things?

Do you think gay people should not be aloud to adopt children because they could be pedophiles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know you were a mod. If you were, you would have realized that the right to die and slavery are valid examples of human rights and the controversy surrounding them.

I will use however many words I need to express my opinion. You are free to do the same.

Granted. Good point. But the converstaion has devolved to a 'human rights' or 'human privelege' issue now.So where does marriage fall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, an action requiring the authorization of law does not become a right until it is legislated as a right. Marriage as known to heterosexuals was enacted in 1228 as a part of British law.

We do not have rights to breahe, have a pulse or think, those are physical functions necessary to life. Rights are not simply rights because someone declares them to be. I have the right to be a millionarie because there are many millionaires? Who will give me my money?

We are throwing the concept of human rights around here like it is an absolute fact when it is not.

In answer to your question, they cannot marry in many places because the law forbids it. Will that change? Who knows. The British court ruled that gay marriage is not a right.

Here's what I think about "rights": if anybody else can do it, I have the right to do it. So why can't gay people get married? This is bigotry and the "legislation of rights" is obviously corrupt.

There is common sense, then there is legislation.

Edited by Taylor Reints
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lIke I said earlier straight marriages have produced some really effed up kids and totally dysfunctional families.......to disallow gay marriage based on that same basis...is ding ding ding bigotry! saying it is ok for starights because some Bible says it is ok but not ok for gays because some allegedly holy book says it isn't ok? come on...reality time...NOW is the time to THINK for some of you.

Personally my opinion on homosexuality and gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with outcomes for individuals and for society. I do not happen to believe that an individual has "rights" which might cause harm and thus costs to to others. So i do not accept that a person has a right to eat unhealthily, or drink, or smoke, or engage in ANY harmful form of dangerous sexual behaviour, and then expect their society to pick up/pay for, the costs resulting from those individual practices.

But i apply that to all things. I do not accept that homosexuality is a safe productive or biologically sound form of physical relationship, particularly statistically for males but also demonstrably for men and women, despite its "natural" condition. Cancers, blindness, dwarfism and infertility etc., are all natural products of evolution too. That doesnrt mean, inherently, that we accept them as the status quo

Personally, in principle and in practice i would treat a gay person the same as a straight person with allowances for their differing sexuality of course. I would love them the same. I would judge their behaviour on an individual basis, eg if they were honest or bad tempered, or a killer or a saint. That is all independent of their sexuality.

As i have stated numerous times I WANT gay people to be in along term monogamous relationship like marriage for their own health benefits and particularly if they chose to have kids, because such a relationship provides the best outcomes for human adults and children.

In fact give my first preferences, I'd tend to force or legally/financialy strongly encourage parents, gay or straight, to be in a commited relationship with legal boundaries before I let them have kids. For example a woman gets 6000 dollars and a weekly income from the govt for every child she has in Australia. I would restrict that payment to couples (straight and gay) who were in and remained in a monogamous commited relationship, and fulfilled other obligations to their children like feeding them, attending regular health clinics for check ups, having them vaccinated, and making sure they attended school regualary.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would homosexuality affect anybody besides those whom wanted to be gay married?

I think drafting is bull. Most of the wars America drafts people to go fight in are pointless and stupid (i.e., the Gulf War, the Iraq War).

Also bull. However, isn't the latter a mental issue?

Marriage shouldn't be in the hands of anybody--the church, the state or the feds. You could marry a tree stump for all I care.

EDIT: 900th comment!

Laws on mariage effect everyone in a society. They impact on all aspects of relationships from the silly to the serious For example when spain legalised gay marriage one of the royals who was a lesbian married her partner as she (the royal) was dying of cancer. Hence we have the first and only dowager royal from a same sex couple

.More seriously marriage sets the paramenters for many laws and outcomes for families and especailly for children. These were originally designed to balamnce the differnces and inequalities between men and women and to provide for the security of women and chilfdren. They just don;t work the same way between same sex couples Other laws, in many areas from maternity leave to inheritance to taxation regulations, have to be changed to adjust to the new definition of marriage.. That effects everyone, individually and collectively.

Like all "state" laws, marriage laws serve a purpose of regulation and protection. That is why you cant marry a tree stump or your sister. The state (and in a democracy that means the voters) decide who requires protection and regulation and where individual laws will apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Does that make it right though?. As TrueBeliever pointed out above, slavery simply used to be a property issue. Times change.Time will tell, but I think that humankind will eventually side with the liberals on this issue.

Perhaps. In part that will depend on human mores and values which change collectively over time. But it wil also depend on outcomes and practicalities. No where in the world was slavery abolished until AFTER it was no longer an economically viable proposition. Womens rights and emancipation did not succeed until economic and social imperatives made them a productive outcome for society.. In other words people's feelings and opinions dont change the world, UNLESS they coincide with practical benefits/advantages for the world. Economic realism is a far more effective driver of humans and human society than emotions and beliefs.

The proof of this is in a fact you may not be aware of. There are more slaves in the world today than at the height of the slave trade. These include women ensalved in the sex trade, and children enslaved on commercial plantations and other work places in africa. If you dont believe me, look this up. Again, the reason is simple. Economic reality always trumps both ethics and the laws. Prohibition in America was a classic example.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps. In part that will depend on human mores and values which change collectively over time. But it wil also depend on outcomes and practicalities. No where in the world was slavery abolished until AFTER it was no longer an economically viable proposition. Womens rights and emancipation did not succeed until economic and social imperatives made them a productive outcome for society.. In other words people's feelings and opinions dont change the world, UNLESS they coincide with practical benefits/advantages for the world. Economic realism is a far more effective driver of humans and human society than emotions and beliefs.

So, what you're saying is that 'economics suppresses gay marriage'?, or something to that effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what you're saying is that 'economics suppresses gay marriage'?, or something to that effect?

You were saying that gay marriage will vindicate present liberal beliefs. I am saying gay marriage will only prove succesful if it creates a nett economic benefit and not a liability.

All past evolutions of marriage have occured primarily as the economic structure of society, and the value/ worth of women changed. When their highest value was staying home and having 14 kids that s wha they did When war forced them into factories they went, when their highest value is contributing to a modern economy ,and providing the workers required to drive that economy, then they are almost forced into working even if they want to stay home and have 14 kids.This happened to my wife and I. She decided to stay home after marriage, having worked from age 15 to age 34.. In the 70s govt's. wanted women to enter the work force. They changed taxation and other arrangements, to force this to happen. We lost many thousands of dollars But my wife never worked after marriage, as a matter of principle. She saw it as taking a job from a single woman who did not have a husband to support her and provide for her.

But as fertility drops, and western populations age, a women's value is again being accounted in their fertility, and govts are restruturing laws and rules to encourage women to have more children, and to try and balance this with a working life. Too late for us, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were saying that gay marriage will vindicate present liberal beliefs. I am saying gay marriage will only prove succesful if it creates a nett economic benefit and not a liability.

All past evolutions of marriage have occured primarily as the economic structure of society, and the value/ worth of women changed. When their highest value was staying home and having 14 kids that s wha they did When war forced them into factories they went, when their highest value is contributing to a modern economy ,and providing the workers required to drive that economy, then they are almost forced into working even if they want to stay home and have 14 kids.This happened to my wife and I. She decided to stay home after marriage, having worked from age 15 to age 34.. In the 70s govt's. wanted women to enter the work force. They changed taxation and other arrangements, to force this to happen. We lost many thousands of dollars But my wife never worked after marriage, as a matter of principle. She saw it as taking a job from a single woman who did not have a husband to support her and provide for her.

But as fertility drops, and western populations age, a women's value is again being accounted in their fertility, and govts are restruturing laws and rules to encourage women to have more children, and to try and balance this with a working life. Too late for us, LOL.

so you know a lot about child psychology right? well my little sister (15) has been calling me and she told me that she wants a strong male figure to look up to (her mother is with a women right now) and i want to know if thats normal in children with gay parents? thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you know a lot about child psychology right? well my little sister (15) has been calling me and she told me that she wants a strong male figure to look up to (her mother is with a women right now) and i want to know if thats normal in children with gay parents? thanks.

I did 2 years of child psychology as a part of a post graduate diploma in education. I must say i was not impressed with the academic state of psychology at tha t time. I spent 5 years as a student counsellor for adolescent students. I read a bit.

My non professional opinion, supported by a lot of writings and evidences, is that this is a very common need in adolescent females. We are caring for a fifteen year old girl whose father commited suicide when she was about two. She stuggles with this loss and absence every day. She talks about it and tries to understand, but It affects her social and psychological well being. I provide such a role model. Her step father also provides a good one but he has 3 of his own biologicla children in the family which complicates matters.

. But yes. For both males and females, especially from about 10 to mid teens, when awareness of such things is at its highest and influences are most critical, absence of one or the other role models can have very measurable negative effects on a child's emotional and psychological well being.

This time is also critical for children who know, or find out, that they are adopted and can cause real stresses in the adoptive family, which did not appear in younger years.

So it is not the gay nature of the parents, but the absence of strong alternate role models which is the problem. W e ALL, in terms of physical and social evolution, need male and female role models, preferrably close to us from birth to adulthood, to model, learn from, and adapt to.

A boy has the same need for his mother or a surrogate female figure. But girls tend to be more aware and vocalise their concerns, while boys bottle it up, and then act out in behavioural forms their inner conflicts.

Your little sister sounds like an intelligent, self aawre and articulate person. It is imortant not to use this issue to drive any wedge between her and her mother(s) who probably love her and want the best for her. The issue is to find an constructive way to involve a suitable male model in her life who is accpetable to her and her present caregivers, Are there ANY candidates, such as uncles or grandfathers, who might be able to do this? In australia there are groups who will help with a mentor of either sex for young people. There might be similar in your area.

Are there any male teachers with whom she feels comfortable and safe, or sporting coaches etc?

Unless the women have a real problem with maculine/male figures in general, it should be possible to find someone suitable.

Are you able to provide any form of guidance yourself, or is this impractical? ( I am not sure of your own age and life experience)

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna address a few things in posts in one go.

But the disproportionate violence among gay couples is to be ignored because violence also exists in heterosexual families. We are to cure it with a “positive attitude.” But nowhere have I said that domestic violence in straight families should not be addressed. The fact is that it is being addressed. In South Carolina alone, the number of organizations combating the problem is impressive; SCCADVASA, Laurens County Safe Home, Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Cumbee Center to Assist Abused Persons, Hope Haven of the Lowcountry, My Sister's House, Safe Harbor, CASA/Family Systems, Barnwell County Help Line, SAFE Homes, Rape Crisis Coalition, Safe Passage, Inc., Pee Dee Coalition, MEG's House, YWCA of the Upper Lowlands, Inc., Sistercare, Inc., Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Citizens Against Spouse Abuse, Laurens County Safe Home.

Thousands of organizations across the world are dealing with this problem, but the fact remains that domestic abuse in gay relationships is five times greater per capita and the response is much like yours, to ignore it and justify it by comparing it to others.

Once again, common sense to you is immensely lacking.

In that post you say groups are dealing with domestic violence, then you go on to list quite an impressive number that deal with it. The problem? At the start of the lsit you qualify that they deal with 'domestic violence in straight families'. Now I'm assuming from your arguement that, because such groups exist straight domestic violence rates have gone done in straight families, right?

So why do you act so surprised that,since gay people don't have access to those groups, that they are not as well protected?

I mean in a post you made before, you even said that police are 'dismissive' of same sex domestic abuse. So how is the problem meant to be solved if the very people meant to solve it are dismissive about it?

For example a woman gets 6000 dollars and a weekly income from the govt for every child she has in Australia. I would restrict that payment to couples (straight and gay) who were in and remained in a monogamous commited relationship, and fulfilled other obligations to their children like feeding them, attending regular health clinics for check ups, having them vaccinated, and making sure they attended school regualary.

See I have a problem with that. The problem being that it's couples. If you're a single parent family? Well tough luck, you get to worse off. That doesn't sound too productive. In fact, it sounds like it's an attempt to make one group of kids worse off, regardless of the circumstances (for example, if one parent died the kid would be raised by one parent and then bam! Be worse off not just emotionally but financially as well).

.More seriously marriage sets the paramenters for many laws and outcomes for families and especailly for children. These were originally designed to balamnce the differnces and inequalities between men and women and to provide for the security of women and chilfdren. They just don;t work the same way between same sex couples Other laws, in many areas from maternity leave to inheritance to taxation regulations, have to be changed to adjust to the new definition of marriage.. That effects everyone, individually and collectively.

Since the inception of marriage marriage has changed. Those laws you mention? Most of those are compartively new when compared to how long marriage has existed. They got added on to benefit people. All this is is a new set of things designed to benefit people. The odd thing is, people are making out lie these things are so bad the world will end.

It may require a few changes to implement, but those changes aren't necessarily bad or wrong and won't (no matter how hard people try and make it out) impact or change the status of any past, present or future hetrosexual relationship.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna address a few things in posts in one go.

See I have a problem with that. The problem being that it's couples. If you're a single parent family? Well tough luck, you get to worse off. That doesn't sound too productive. In fact, it sounds like it's an attempt to make one group of kids worse off, regardless of the circumstances (for example, if one parent died the kid would be raised by one parent and then bam! Be worse off not just emotionally but financially as well).

Since the inception of marriage marriage has changed. Those laws you mention? Most of those are compartively new when compared to how long marriage has existed. They got added on to benefit people. All this is is a new set of things designed to benefit people. The odd thing is, people are making out lie these things are so bad the world will end.

It may require a few changes to implement, but those changes aren't necessarily bad or wrong and won't (no matter how hard people try and make it out) impact or change the status of any past, present or future hetrosexual relationship.

I have a difference of opinon based on evidences. I do not think single parent families are good for children, at least not as good as two parents raising a child. However, our govt pays mothers regardless of marital status. It was MY point that govts should only give tax payer funded benefits to families who are optimum for raising kids and who do all the right things by and for their kids. Perhaps strangely to you, that would include gay couples who were in a long term relationship and where one of the couple was the biological parent of the child.

I dont oppose women having kids by them selves, but i object to my tax dollars going to support them and to a system which encourages single mothers to have a dozen kids and live off welfare. It benefits no one and harms many. I have spent my life, in part, caring for such children who were abandoned by their "families" when they were no longer bringing in a govt subsidy or when they got to teenage years and were too difficult to handle.

In australia when one parent dies the welfare payments often increase to compensate. There are also funeral payments etc I am not talking about such instances but where women have many children from multiple partners and may live with none of them, but with more recent partners. None are married or commited to each other in a loving relationship. This increases the rates of neglect and abuse and there have been a number of fatalities in our state in the last year among children, due to physical bashings, neglect and malnutrition, because they lived in a group of several men and several women who really had no biological connection to them, certainly were incapapble of loving them, and; abused, neglected, beat and starved them, beyond belief.

Changes WILL impact many people. In australia, where gay marriages are being considered and introduced in some states, it is acknowledged that there will be changes to all marriages to accomodate the nature of gay marriage. For example to be "fair", if a gay man can have paid maternity leave so should a straight one. If a gay man can be paid the baby bonuses why not straight ones etc .ALL inheritance laws will be effected by changes to inheritance laws passed to accomodate gay relationships

Superannuation and other laws wil also have to be changed for everyone.

It is either naive or else deliberately misleading to claim that, in a society as complex and integrated as ours, changing the nature of a constitutional law like the marriage act will not have ramifications in many other areas for everyone, not just gay people.

One of the most difficult areas will be where same sex couples live together, sometimes for decades but are not in a sexual relationship. How will the laws distinguish them. Another area that might affect many is where a gay couple lives together but does not want to get married (they may have objections to a contractual arrangement or to the notion of marrige as amny straight peole do) Will straight defacto couples be affected if gay defacto couples are given similar recognitions.

These are not necessarily insurmountable impedements to the legalisation of gay marriage, but they illustrate how many non gays will be impacted by legalising gay marriage and this needs to be accepted and recognised as reality rather tha just denied..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a difference of opinon based on evidences. I do not think single parent families are good for children, at least not as good as two parents raising a child. However, our govt pays mothers regardless of marital status. It was MY point that govts should only give tax payer funded benefits to families who are optimum for raising kids and who do all the right things by and for their kids. Perhaps strangely to you, that would include gay couples who were in a long term relationship and where one of the couple was the biological parent of the child.

I dont oppose women having kids by them selves, but i object to my tax dollars going to support them and to a system which encourages single mothers to have a dozen kids and live off welfare. It benefits no one and harms many. I have spent my life, in part, caring for such children who were abandoned by their "families" when they were no longer bringing in a govt subsidy or when they got to teenage years and were too difficult to handle.

In australia when one parent dies the welfare payments often increase to compensate. There are also funeral payments etc I am not talking about such instances but where women have many children from multiple partners and may live with none of them, but with more recent partners. None are married or commited to each other in a loving relationship. This increases the rates of neglect and abuse and there have been a number of fatalities in our state in the last year among children, due to physical bashings, neglect and malnutrition, because they lived in a group of several men and several women who really had no biological connection to them, certainly were incapapble of loving them, and; abused, neglected, beat and starved them, beyond belief.

Changes WILL impact many people. In australia, where gay marriages are being considered and introduced in some states, it is acknowledged that there will be changes to all marriages to accomodate the nature of gay marriage. For example to be "fair", if a gay man can have paid maternity leave so should a straight one. If a gay man can be paid the baby bonuses why not straight ones etc .ALL inheritance laws will be effected by changes to inheritance laws passed to accomodate gay relationships

Superannuation and other laws wil also have to be changed for everyone.

It is either naive or else deliberately misleading to claim that, in a society as complex and integrated as ours, changing the nature of a constitutional law like the marriage act will not have ramifications in many other areas for everyone, not just gay people.

One of the most difficult areas will be where same sex couples live together, sometimes for decades but are not in a sexual relationship. How will the laws distinguish them. Another area that might affect many is where a gay couple lives together but does not want to get married (they may have objections to a contractual arrangement or to the notion of marrige as amny straight peole do) Will straight defacto couples be affected if gay defacto couples are given similar recognitions.

These are not necessarily insurmountable impedements to the legalisation of gay marriage, but they illustrate how many non gays will be impacted by legalising gay marriage and this needs to be accepted and recognised as reality rather tha just denied..

of course it affects others and involves changes. the problem is that many say we ought to discriminate because no one wants to be affected by the 'gays'''like they are dirty and bad and inferior and don't deserve any accomodation in society. In my country the religious folk have judged and persecuted and harrassed the homosexual population ruthlessly and with pride. It is bigotry standing in the way of their right to marry. We all affect esch other in society to suggest that oh gays they affect us much more negatively or it's so much more TROUBLE to accomodate the gays IS BIGOTRY. frame it anyway you like, spin it til u r dizzy itis prejudice plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.