Australian state legalises

[shadowhive]

Ok since it is late here (4am) I'll answer what I feel are the main issues, not all of them (I'm warning you of that in advance so you can't complain about it later).

I think I am looking at this seriously, and I think you are trying to focus on aspects of marriage, not marriage.

We're both focussing on aspects of marriage aren't we. You are focussing on the 'man/woman' part, while I'm focusing on main of the other parts.

You just said yourself these are minor definitions, the overall concept remains the same. What you are proposing os a complete definition, and cultural re-write, and I do not think that is fair to those that have been upholding the tradition for centuries.

You act so dramatically over it don't you? You make out like it's something far wore than what it actually is.

Do you find the percentages I offered as unrealistic? I certainly offered the recognised minimums. If anything, the number is very likely to be higher than what I have proposed. And I am afraid that your personal assurance with the group that you associate with is a long way from convincing on a global scale.

What I find unrealisitic is to deny a whole group something because of what 1% might do.

How can you continue to say the alteration will harm no-one? Cultural aspects will indeed be destroyed, and as you can see from the post about Kevin Rudds sister, this is a prevalent mindset. The Gay community does not have the right to invade a long standing culture and tradition because they like it and want in. You are asking the globe to rewrite the definition, and change what the globe thinks of marriage. How is that not harming anyone? That is attacking tradition and culture. All for a warm and fuzzy.

I say it based on reality. Will anyone be harmed in any way by the alteration? No. Will the tradition as it is continue? Yes. So where is the harm other than perceptions?

Are they trying their best to fight them? Can you show me any place where a Muslim protest has denounced these factions? You know what I have seen? Muslim Muftis calling Aussie women uncovered meat, and firing up Australian Youth with huge promises if they join the Jihad. These are the religious authorities. You know, the ones that run the show. Can you tell me how these actions are helping bring terrorism under control? How many anti terrorist protests have you seen from the Muslim crowd, and how many have you seen with burqa (what the hell has the middle east got against the letter Q anyway??) clad participants carrying placards that say freedom go to hell? Or behead those that insult Islam? Or how about the Teddy Bear incident? Yeah. top job there.............. That's the model you propose to follow?? You will forgive me if I remain a tad suspicious. What if the Muslim religion was forced to deal with the problem instead of the rest of the world?

Well this brings up two things.

First there is a great deal of focus on the negative when it comes to Muslims. A few months ago there were riots over here in England. Many Muslim communities offered protection to their communities yet it was hardly reported. There are Muslims working against terrorism and protesting againsst it, yet they're not really heard. But pretty much every day you can watch the news and see something bad has happened somewhere and it's a Muslim's fault.

Secondly is about religious authority. On one hand you're saying religious authority must be respected all the time while on the other you're quietly saying 'except this one'.

Sure, that is probably right. So you find a 1% as definite trouble makers quite acceptable do you?

No. As 'possible' trouble makers.

This brings me back to a point above, about how unrealisitic you're making things. Less than 1% of the general populace fall into the catergory of 'troublemakers' yet not everyone is treated like murderers/rapists/drug dealers/terrorists. Do I want the 1% to 'cause trouble'? Of course not. But I wouldn't restrict the rights of the 99% that don't cause trouble.

Of course people flock to these places. What is the global population, and how many places have succumbed to being bullied out of their own rights to allow anyone and everyone to partake in a time honored tradition? What 10 places? 20? That is not popularity, that is statistics.

Have those places been bullied into it? Nope. Not a one. So nowhere has 'succumbed' to it.

However in America (and elsewhere) states have succumbed to Christian bullying, to the extent that same sex marriage bans have come into place. These bans are often worded so poorly they ban civil unions at the same time.

It is not an issue to you, and that fires me up even more. You simply have no intention of seeing my point of view. You just want it gone. You believe I am not seeing you point of view I take it, but I feel I do. I have been trying to get to the bottom of why this is an issue for you, and that issue is romance. Everything else you have asked for is already available to you in a civil union.

I see your point of view. I really do.

However what I fail to understand is why you act like traditional marriage will cease or be destroyed. It will not. It hasn't been the case anywhere.

That is your perception, and that is the responsibility of the gay community. The straight community is not responsible for the perception of the term "Civil Union" Like I keep saying, marriage is traditionally carried out in a Church, and recognises by definition a man and a woman. My perception is that it is not in any way a gay union. And I have that perceprtion because that is the recognized definition of marriage. Changing that devalues the meaning of it to those that desire it, and take it seriously.

See this is the thing, the straight community (being the majority) is at least partly responsible for how it is percieved. The gay community can try it's best to get it pecrcieved on equal terms, but if the straight community doesn't want to, then it won't be.

Changing it won't devalue it in the slightest. Again, I find that quite offensive and insulting that you'd think that.

How can you say that is my sole concern when I listed 7 points for you that range from legal aspects, to cultural aspects? Forgot about that already?

You mention it being a p*** take about 4 or 5 times per post. Perhaps I should have said 'main' reason and not sole one.

In fact, the entire post can be reduced to that one line, because that is what we have spent pages on. What is the difference legally? None. What is the difference culturally? Much. What do you actually want changed? A legal definition so that the gay community can permeate that culture as opposed to creating a new culture.

Why should the gay community have to create a new culture? They're part of many cultures. Shunning them makes things worse.

Do I think civil unions would gain the same respect? I guess that would depend on how the gay community behaves as time goes on. This stunt of restructuring historical cultural aspects is not getting the communities of on a good note. Just like married couples have been providing expectations from marriage for centuries, I think the gay community should also be creating their own cultural aspects and expectations from such a joining.

So instead of gaining something that has instant respect they have to start something from scratch and (basically) wait. Wait for respect to come while churches keep making sure that the respect doesn't exist.

You keep acting like it's a 'stunt', a 'p*** take' or a delibrate act of aggression, which it's not. I don't see why you keep treating it like that.

Yes, they gay community has been historically repressed by the very people that have been in charge of the marriage rite since pretty much it's inception. So why the hell must the gay community force itself into this tradition, that has absolutely nothing to do with that life choice. Historically the gay community is not welcome by these marriage authorities, so why the hell does the gay community keep knocking on that door, when they can have the same rights, and be in a recognised legal union already? You own argument is against you, not supporting your position!

There we go with the life choice nonsense again. However, I'lll deal with the crux of this at the end.

And no, the gay community has not had a say in marriage historically, because it is for the joining of opposite sexes. This is what you want rewritten. Why can't the gay community have it's own practises? Is it just because you do not like what is available at the moment? For Petes sakes, does not a soul in the gay community have an ounce of imagination? Why do you have to leech of a long standing tradition instead of having your own?

Why should the gay community be forced to have it's own practises? Ah yes. Because 'religious authority' doesn't like the gay community.

Yes, the community has had such freedoms for a short time, I would agre with 50ish years. So are you not asking for quite a lot, quite soon? I think now that you have your foot in the door, that you are being greedy.

Are you suggesting it would be better to wait? If so how long? 10 years? 20? 100? 1000?

Of course procreation is not going to wash with you.

Clearly you missed the point of what I said and why I said it, so I'll answer only two parts of this rant.

Hardly accomplishable in your preferred choice is it!

You've made several big assumptions there. Am I gay? No. I am bisexual (thanks for asking). Did I choose it? Nope.

If you are trying to say that the majority of people who get married have no intention of procreation, I just simply do not believe you, and would require some proof. I am going to call that a pork pie.

Nope. What I was saying if marriage was about children (or if it was such a major part) than those that can't or won't have children would be denied it under that basis. That's not the case.

And it might be another thread altogether I would say, but I do not agree with gay parents either, and I would not vote for it. I know many straight couples are not suitable parents, and I will openly admit that. But I do no feel that is a reason to make a bad situation more complicated. I think procreation should be a bit more thought about. You have to get a license to drive a car, but anyone can make a kid. That's wrong. As such, I do not feel this subject is appropriate in this thread. And, that is not procreation, That is fostering. Does the gay community try to blur every definition to "fit in"?

You know, finally I can say I agree with you on something. I think it's far too easy for people just to pop out a kid, especially when they have absolutely no responsibility and are unable to take care of it.

However I do disagree with you on gay parenting (of course). A child needs several things. Most important of those are a safe, secure environment, food and drink and love. All of those things can be provided by same sex parents.

Also think about the first art. A same sex couple has to go through a long process to get a child. They essentialy have to prove they are capable of looking after a child before they get one. So they give an incredible amount of thought when it comes to having a child, something which most hetrosexuals just don't have to do

And you can never fathom marriage. You cannot see that this is upsetting the straight community. You cannot see that you do not have a legal argument. You keep trying to make out that you are fighting for a right, but you are not, you are fighting for a want.

You have offered no proof that it would 'upset' the straight community and that the time honored tradition would cease to be.

I understand that you would hate the Church, and I feel that is the motivation here. And that is fair enough.

You're right, I do hate the church.

But do you know something? I'm not campaigning for churches to be denied the rights to perform marriage. I've no desire to take away the churches right to marry. It's funny how you miss that.

The problem with this is that the Church is not the power of state. Hasn't been for a long time, so it's not the Church at all is it? It's the people, many of whom belong to a Church. The Church is not the bully here, that Gay community is. I am not sure if that is "getting one back" or what the story is, but this premise is legal rights, and lets face it, that claim is out and out codswallop. The Church performs the rite, the state says who gets it.

At last, you seem to to get it.

I have bolded the appropriate part of your post. Remmeber above I said I'd get to a point? Well here it is. You are saying yourself that the church merely performs the rite. The church DOES NOT say who gets it. So all your talk about religious authority is meaningless, since religious authorities have no say who gets it.

The gay community wants the STATE to recognise same sex marriage. The majority of the gay community doesn't CARE if the church does or not.

(I know you're going too pull at the thread of me saying majority there unless I clarify it. The majority of gay people have been driven from the church, as such they don't care about the church's opinion. However a minority remain in the church [or in a gay friendly one] and, as such would want it recognised by the church as well.)

[Karlis]

Shadowhive, why do you want to have the accepted meaning of marriage changed?

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of

Husband and Wife

in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman ... ~~~ (Snip) ...

Source

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage

[psyche101]

Ok since it is late here (4am) I'll answer what I feel are the main issues, not all of them (I'm warning you of that in advance so you can't complain about it later).

We're both focussing on aspects of marriage aren't we. You are focussing on the 'man/woman' part, while I'm focusing on main of the other parts.

You act so dramatically over it don't you? You make out like it's something far wore than what it actually is.

No worries, sleep well. Thank you for your efforts. You can always read this tomorrow.

I do not feel I am focusing on aspects of marriage, I have had to break marriage down in an attempt to explain my point of view. Yes I will continue to focus on the man woman part, as that defines who the contract is open to. Same sex is a contract between a man and a woman, except that it is a man and aman or a woman and a woman. That just does not make sense by definition, again, this is why we have nomenclature. If something new comes to our attention, we name it appropriately. I object to Marriage as a term, and you seem to object to civil union as a term, so should the term not be correctly applied?

It all flows from there, the man, the woman, the ceremony, the wedding night, and procreation. It is a long chain of events that does not suit the lifestyle of the gay community. It's just not a marriage when the couple has the same gender.

What I find unrealisitic is to deny a whole group something because of what 1% might do.

That 1% on todays global population means about 42 million people. That is significant.

I say it based on reality. Will anyone be harmed in any way by the alteration? No. Will the tradition as it is continue? Yes. So where is the harm other than perceptions?

Yes, tradition will be harmed, the ceremony will be harmed, and the overall meaning of marriage is not the overall meaning of marriage any longer.

Why is proposing a new tradition such a biggie? Can I ask what is your real objection to that? Don't say it is confusing to create two states again, because I could not disagree more, it is two states of union, so why cant it be defined as such?

Well this brings up two things.

First there is a great deal of focus on the negative when it comes to Muslims. A few months ago there were riots over here in England. Many Muslim communities offered protection to their communities yet it was hardly reported. There are Muslims working against terrorism and protesting againsst it, yet they're not really heard. But pretty much every day you can watch the news and see something bad has happened somewhere and it's a Muslim's fault.

Secondly is about religious authority. On one hand you're saying religious authority must be respected all the time while on the other you're quietly saying 'except this one'.

1) - Think about it. Why is it hardly reported? Maybe because these are minuscule token efforts that are few and far between?

2) - How do you feel these religious authorities are representing their community? And how accurate do you think these teachings are? As such, do you really consider them an authority, or would you relegate that to followers only? Considering this, are they teaching Islam and does the average follower outwardly condone these actions? And if not, why would I respect that, and why would I recognise such as any type of authority? Remember, this is the 1% that everyone washes their hands of. So maybe I am saying "except this one" as they are not practising what the average Muslim says they preach, are they? Therefore I am confused. The Muslim followers tell me dont listen to these guys, they do not know what they are on about and this is not Muslim belief, yet they hold this highest religious position available in this country. So you tell me, are they really leaders or not? So am I saying except this one? I honestly cannot tell. And if I cannot tell, do I have to offer that respect? Personally, I do not think so. But imagine if the Muslim community did have to answer for these nutjobs!

No. As 'possible' trouble makers.

This brings me back to a point above, about how unrealisitic you're making things. Less than 1% of the general populace fall into the catergory of 'troublemakers' yet not everyone is treated like murderers/rapists/drug dealers/terrorists. Do I want the 1% to 'cause trouble'? Of course not. But I wouldn't restrict the rights of the 99% that don't cause trouble.

Again, it's about 42 million at a very conservative estimate. That is significant. And I do not think the gay community has the right to create even that much disturbance in a long standing tradition, which has always been exclusively a heterosexual right. You can disagree, but I do not feel you have a valid case with it might not happen. If we create a new ceremony, and a new title, it will not happen. And that ceremony could reflect the life chice in a better fashion.

Have those places been bullied into it? Nope. Not a one. So nowhere has 'succumbed' to it.

However in America (and elsewhere) states have succumbed to Christian bullying, to the extent that same sex marriage bans have come into place. These bans are often worded so poorly they ban civil unions at the same time.

So the votes were 100% for?

Same sex marriage bans have not come into place at all have they, don't you mean some states maintained that law?

And if they ban civil unions, should you not simply get the law involved?

I see your point of view. I really do.

However what I fail to understand is why you act like traditional marriage will cease or be destroyed. It will not. It hasn't been the case anywhere.

I am sorry that you cannot see why I am concerned, despite the heated points of this debate you seem like a reasonable chap, and I mean that sincerely.

It is a big overall picture that has spanned generations, and is a series of steps from courtship to old age. All the steps involve family. I know that you state in modern times this value has lessened, and to a degree you are right, but I do not feel that small apathetic group represents the majority of the general community. Can I also ask your age, because I know that when I was under 30, my perception of marriage was quite different to what it was after 30. All these steps, the tradition, the ceremony, the commitment, all are about male and female making something out of nothing, and that includes wee humans. Culturally, such a move will indeed lessen the meaning of this long standing tradition, and what it means for a man and woman to be married. Some say it is just a word, some say it is just a contract, but I honestly believe only a small majority of outspoken critics feel this way. Nobody I know or can honestly say I have met in person feels this way. It means something to me, if just any man woman or other can also be a part of this life long process, it just does not mean as much. As I said I was baptized, so I opted for a Catholic Wedding, and I chose that because I cherish tradition. I used to hate the Church, mainly because they drove my parents apart IMO, but one day my Dad insisted I go with him. The stained glass windows, the robes, the hats, the processions, the hymn's, it might not be for everyone, but I was rather in awe. And considering my Father was dumped on by JW's, I was shocked to see he had any time for Church at all, but I saw what it meant to him, and I started to see what he saw in it. I cant give to you what it means to me to be married, but if I could, I would. I think you would have to get into my head to fully understand what marriage means to me, as an agnostic, I find it the closest thing to a spiritual experience that I could imagine.

See this is the thing, the straight community (being the majority) is at least partly responsible for how it is percieved. The gay community can try it's best to get it pecrcieved on equal terms, but if the straight community doesn't want to, then it won't be.

Changing it won't devalue it in the slightest. Again, I find that quite offensive and insulting that you'd think that.

You mention it being a p*** take about 4 or 5 times per post. Perhaps I should have said 'main' reason and not sole one.

Well, I think it is pretty obvious that the straight community by large objects. That would be why so few places offer gay marriage. I hope I got a bit of my mind on here above, and explained something of why it means a lot to the straight community. Dead set, if the gay community went about this on their own, I would respect that. I keep calling it a p*** take because the only real reason is emotional, but this is being marketed as a legal right. Plainly, this is not the issue.

Why should the gay community have to create a new culture? They're part of many cultures. Shunning them makes things worse.

I do not see this as shunning, but recognising a group with newfound rights. If it was shunning, then I think most straight people would not attend a gay ceremony that the gay community initiated, but I think they would. In fact I really believe that a gay union would have many straight people show up unperturbed, but I honestly think many straight people woud opt to avoid a gay marriage. As far as I can tell we want you to have a right, but we want you to make it right, and mean something to you, not borrow something that means something to the straight community.

So instead of gaining something that has instant respect they have to start something from scratch and (basically) wait. Wait for respect to come while churches keep making sure that the respect doesn't exist.

You keep acting like it's a 'stunt', a 'p*** take' or a delibrate act of aggression, which it's not. I don't see why you keep treating it like that.

What is wrong with waiting for respect? Do you feel you should not, and you should just waltz on by and take the respect that a male and female union has created over thousands of years? Would you find that an aceptable solution in any other situation?

Again if t is not a p*** take, why say this is claimed to be a legal right that you are missing out on? Why can the gay community not be up front and say, it's not the legal right, we have that, we want the romance.

There we go with the life choice nonsense again. However, I'lll deal with the crux of this at the end.

What? How does the gay life choice not factor here?

Why should the gay community be forced to have it's own practises? Ah yes. Because 'religious authority' doesn't like the gay community.

Yes, the community has had such freedoms for a short time, I would agre with 50ish years. So are you not asking for quite a lot, quite soon? I think now that you have your foot in the door, that you are being greedy.

Are you suggesting it would be better to wait? If so how long? 10 years? 20? 100? 1000?

Of course procreation is not going to wash with you.

Clearly you missed the point of what I said and why I said it, so I'll answer only two parts of this rant.

Hardly accomplishable in your preferred choice is it!

You've made several big assumptions there. Am I gay? No. I am bisexual (thanks for asking). Did I choose it? Nope.

If you are trying to say that the majority of people who get married have no intention of procreation, I just simply do not believe you, and would require some proof. I am going to call that a pork pie.

Nope. What I was saying if marriage was about children (or if it was such a major part) than those that can't or won't have children would be denied it under that basis. That's not the case.

And it might be another thread altogether I would say, but I do not agree with gay parents either, and I would not vote for it. I know many straight couples are not suitable parents, and I will openly admit that. But I do no feel that is a reason to make a bad situation more complicated. I think procreation should be a bit more thought about. You have to get a license to drive a car, but anyone can make a kid. That's wrong. As such, I do not feel this subject is appropriate in this thread. And, that is not procreation, That is fostering. Does the gay community try to blur every definition to "fit in"?

You know, finally I can say I agree with you on something. I think it's far too easy for people just to pop out a kid, especially when they have absolutely no responsibility and are unable to take care of it.

However I do disagree with you on gay parenting (of course). A child needs several things. Most important of those are a safe, secure environment, food and drink and love. All of those things can be provided by same sex parents.

Also think about the first art. A same sex couple has to go through a long process to get a child. They essentialy have to prove they are capable of looking after a child before they get one. So they give an incredible amount of thought when it comes to having a child, something which most hetrosexuals just don't have to do

And you can never fathom marriage. You cannot see that this is upsetting the straight community. You cannot see that you do not have a legal argument. You keep trying to make out that you are fighting for a right, but you are not, you are fighting for a want.

You have offered no proof that it would 'upset' the straight community and that the time honored tradition would cease to be.

I understand that you would hate the Church, and I feel that is the motivation here. And that is fair enough.

You're right, I do hate the church.

But do you know something? I'm not campaigning for churches to be denied the rights to perform marriage. I've no desire to take away the churches right to marry. It's funny how you miss that.

Am I suggesting you wait 10, 100, 1000 years? Yes, if that is what it tales. Marriage did so. In today's society, I think this would be reduced to decades at worst, don't you? It's a fast paced world we live in today. I touched on this above already.

You are bisexual, well good for you. No missing out there is there. Yes, I made an assumption, and I was wrong. I can admit that. I still believe that your debate is one for the gay community, not a bisexual community.

No, why would a physical defect be cause for denial. That is discrimination. These people are still a man and a woman, with expectations of procreation. If they cannot or choose not to procreate, then that does not mean they are incapable of such, or that the expectation diminishes. If a gay community was to enter into marriage, that expectation would diminish, and perhaps disappear. Again, this is why some opt not to marry. They do not force their views, they just leave well enough alone. There is strong opposition to gay marriage, that means at least to an extent, the gay community is forcing it way into somewhere where it's presence is not desired. The majority of people do intend upon procreation, and that is an expectation of marriage.

I am not going to get into gay parenting here, as it would be wildly offtopic. But if you wish to start a thread, or point me at an existing one, I would be happy to expand further, should you so desire.

I think I have offered proof that it would be damaging to the community. As I posted above, one person quite her job overt this. That is only the tiniest tip of what is to come I feel. If it offers no threat at all, why do you think people are up in arms about the subject? It has already crated rifts, cost jobs, and I bet split families. And family is what marriage is largely about. Yet, this is claimed as a legal need. Now that's offensive!

And I do not blame you for hating the Church. I can see why you would. You might not be taking away the right of the Church, but as your life choice is opposed to everything the Church stands for, how can you say this is not vindictive and diminishing when you already have the rights you say you need from marriage? Honestly it is no better than the Church's attitude towards your life choice. At least they are taking tiny steps to make the situation amicable these days. Mind you, not great, but amicable, which is a start isn't it? I do not feel this protest will help that relationship along. Unless the gay community simply does not want to every have a relationship with the Church.

At last, you seem to to get it.

I have bolded the appropriate part of your post. Remmeber above I said I'd get to a point? Well here it is. You are saying yourself that the church merely performs the rite. The church DOES NOT say who gets it. So all your talk about religious authority is meaningless, since religious authorities have no say who gets it.

The gay community wants the STATE to recognise same sex marriage. The majority of the gay community doesn't CARE if the church does or not.

(I know you're going too pull at the thread of me saying majority there unless I clarify it. The majority of gay people have been driven from the church, as such they don't care about the church's opinion. However a minority remain in the church [or in a gay friendly one] and, as such would want it recognised by the church as well.)

I do not think I said they did. I said they have been in charge of the rite pretty much since it's inception. My reasons go beyond the Church, those values are sanctified by the Church. I am sure that I have expressed such. Now what about considering the people? Despite you telling me that people were for this, the very next link I clicked on without searching mind you, was stating that support has dropped.

The community does not want gay marriage, the gay community wants gay marriage, and has enlisted the support of an apathetic crowd. If people do not care about marriage, they should not be able to vote. They should just leave it that way it is, and they way the majority like it, the way it has always been, the way it is defined, and what modern society is built upon. Many support gay rights, few are for gay marriage. That should say enough in itself. If it is not enough, I think the gay community might be shooting it's own support in the foot here. All the community has to do is pave a new way. Everyone has to at some point.

Edited December 14, 2011 by psyche101

[shadowhive]

Shadowhive, why do you want to have the accepted meaning of marriage changed?

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of

Husband and Wife

in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman ... ~~~ (Snip) ...

Source

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage

I've tried to explain it in various ways.

It comes down, I suppose to this. I don't see the logic of NOT changing it. I don't see a good reason to maintain it as solely a man/woman union. Cuturally no other group has been forced into having a seperate state, soit just makes no sense to me to force this group into making one especially since the main reason is 'religion doesn't like it'. If everything was decided on that basis we'd have barely any freedom.

[Karlis]

I've tried to explain it in various ways.

It comes down, I suppose to this. I don't see the logic of NOT changing it. I don't see a good reason to maintain it as solely a man/woman union. Cuturally no other group has been forced into having a seperate state, soit just makes no sense to me to force this group into making one especially since the main reason is 'religion doesn't like it'. If everything was decided on that basis we'd have barely any freedom.

In other words, are you saying that you would like the world to conform to your views, as opposed to you conforming to the world's views?

[Fluffybunny]

In other words, are you saying that you would like the world to conform to your views, as opposed to you conforming to the world's views?

I didn't know the whole world had one view.

What a small place this must be that only one side of an issue can be represented. How tiny a place where only one side finds rights.

Lucky thing you are on the right side...

[Karlis]

I didn't know the whole world had one view.

What a small place this must be that only one side of an issue can be represented. How tiny a place where only one side finds rights.

Lucky thing you are on the right side...

A figure of speech on my part ... see how easy it is to potentially confuse impressions of one's views in forum posts.

[shadowhive]

In other words, are you saying that you would like the world to conform to your views, as opposed to you conforming to the world's views?

So the gay community should conform to your views and disappear completely? How sad.

[Karlis]

So the gay community should conform to your views and disappear completely? How sad.

How could you possibly have missed the point, Shadowhive?

Queensland has legislated to have all the legal rights applicable to married heterosexuals, to be applied to gay couples who apply for co-habiting.

Or did I miss seeing something that only you can see?

Karlis

[shadowhive]

How could you possibly have missed the point, Shadowhive?

Queensland has legislated to have all the legal rights applicable to married heterosexuals, to be applied to gay couples who apply for co-habiting.

Or did I miss seeing something that only you can see?

Karlis

I was replying to your comment. The wording was about YOUR comment, not about the subject of the post (which you asked me about directly and I responded to). Curiously, you ignore that.

Edited December 15, 2011 by shadowhive

[Fluffybunny]

A figure of speech on my part ... see how easy it is to potentially confuse impressions of one's views in forum posts.

Perhaps more of a fruedian slip...

[shadowhive]

Well this'll likely be my last reply to this. First (and mainly) since a personal problem has come up which means I won't be online for a few days and secondly because it feels we're going round and round pointlessly.

No worries, sleep well. Thank you for your efforts. You can always read this tomorrow.

Thanks.

I do not feel I am focusing on aspects of marriage, I have had to break marriage down in an attempt to explain my point of view. Yes I will continue to focus on the man woman part, as that defines who the contract is open to. Same sex is a contract between a man and a woman, except that it is a man and aman or a woman and a woman. That just does not make sense by definition, again, this is why we have nomenclature. If something new comes to our attention, we name it appropriately. I object to Marriage as a term, and you seem to object to civil union as a term, so should the term not be correctly applied?

It all flows from there, the man, the woman, the ceremony, the wedding night, and procreation. It is a long chain of events that does not suit the lifestyle of the gay community. It's just not a marriage when the couple has the same gender.

If you look at marriage through the ages the 'contract' was restricted to more than just simply man and woman. As a legal right it's gone through many permutations as I've tried to show. The current idea of marriage (marrying for love, both parties choosing who they marry etc are very 'new' concepts when compared to marriage itself. Yet those changes and concepts are perfecty acceptable to you, despite them not being what marriage 'traditionally' was.

Marriage as a state has changed and evolved over time. To me this is just the next natural step in that process.

That 1% on todays global population means about 42 million people. That is significant.

Yes it is significant, but it appears there's a communication problem here.

42 million people is significant. But if 1% of those are the 'troublemakers' you claim them to be that's still treating 41 million people one way because under a million may do something. So again it comes down to screwing over a large group of people because of the actions of a few.

Yes, tradition will be harmed, the ceremony will be harmed, and the overall meaning of marriage is not the overall meaning of marriage any longer.

Why is proposing a new tradition such a biggie? Can I ask what is your real objection to that? Don't say it is confusing to create two states again, because I could not disagree more, it is two states of union, so why cant it be defined as such?

The tradition will continue. You seem to have a rather dim view of the tradition yourelf if you think this 'time honored' tradition you value so much will suddenly stop due to a change. Why do you seem to think the church will just stop carrying on the tradition?

To say the ceremony will be harmed as well also seems a tad ridiculous.

The gay community is not a 'seeprate culuture' they're a part of the current one. People (specifically religious ones) have tried to pretendthey don't exist or tried to erase them, but it's not worked. Creating a new state seems primarily to be pandering to those that would prefer it that gay people didn't exist in the first place.

1) - Think about it. Why is it hardly reported? Maybe because these are minuscule token efforts that are few and far between?

Perhaps. But there's many of them fighting terrorists and don't get recognition. If you note where the terrorism attributed to the religion happens you see something very obvious: that it's Muslims blowing up Muslims which really, when you think about it, makes no sense.

However this is largely a diferent thing altogether.

2) - How do you feel these religious authorities are representing their community? And how accurate do you think these teachings are? As such, do you really consider them an authority, or would you relegate that to followers only? Considering this, are they teaching Islam and does the average follower outwardly condone these actions? And if not, why would I respect that, and why would I recognise such as any type of authority? Remember, this is the 1% that everyone washes their hands of. So maybe I am saying "except this one" as they are not practising what the average Muslim says they preach, are they? Therefore I am confused. The Muslim followers tell me dont listen to these guys, they do not know what they are on about and this is not Muslim belief, yet they hold this highest religious position available in this country. So you tell me, are they really leaders or not? So am I saying except this one? I honestly cannot tell. And if I cannot tell, do I have to offer that respect? Personally, I do not think so. But imagine if the Muslim community did have to answer for these nutjobs!

Correct. Most of the religious authority's for Muslims don't represent them and are 'nut jobs'. This is extremely obvious isn't it? If the religious authorities of Muslims really did represent them accurately we'd have bloodshed worldwide constantly. Are we seeing that? No.

To me the church is doing something similar. It's obvious to me in the same way those Muslim ones are 'nut jobs' to you. The church may not been condoning violence, but it's not acting the way the majority of it's followers are.

Again, it's about 42 million at a very conservative estimate. That is significant. And I do not think the gay community has the right to create even that much disturbance in a long standing tradition, which has always been exclusively a heterosexual right. You can disagree, but I do not feel you have a valid case with it might not happen. If we create a new ceremony, and a new title, it will not happen. And that ceremony could reflect the life chice in a better fashion.

Again, the communication problem because it's not 1% of the total population it's 1% of that 1%.

There are far more straight people that make a mockery of marriage in a year than there are total of these 'troublemakers' in the gay community. Yet, again, I don't see you acting against people that ARE taking the p*** of marriage now, today.

Many things now 'might' happen. I might go outside and get hit by a car (in fact I have, twice). I might get stabbed by a kitchen knife. I might get food poisoning. The easy way to ensure those things don't happen are to stay inside (or ban cars), throw out all the kitchen knives (or ban them) and not eat. Doing those things would ensure the 'bad' things don't happen, but it wouldn't really help would it?

The world is full of things that might happen, both good and bad, but I'd rather not have freedom restricted to ensure something that might not happen doesn't.

So the votes were 100% for?

Same sex marriage bans have not come into place at all have they, don't you mean some states maintained that law?

And if they ban civil unions, should you not simply get the law involved?

So votes that are 100% for are the only ones that count now? If that was the case goverments simply wouldn't function.

They're called 'same sex marriage bans' by their supporters.

The curious thing here is this. When same sex marriage laws come into place they are worded very carefully. They are specifically worded so that churches can continue to do as they like with regards to marriage and that 'traditional' marriage is protected. By contrast, same sex marriage bans aren't written with even an ounce of that respect. They're not carefully written to ensure they don't ban civil unions at the same time. As such to get civil unions back the same sex marriage ban has to be overturned or at least altered.

I am sorry that you cannot see why I am concerned, despite the heated points of this debate you seem like a reasonable chap, and I mean that sincerely.

Thanks. I try to be resonable. However I just see your concerns as rather unfounded, which is why I can't agree with them.

It is a big overall picture that has spanned generations, and is a series of steps from courtship to old age. All the steps involve family. I know that you state in modern times this value has lessened, and to a degree you are right, but I do not feel that small apathetic group represents the majority of the general community. Can I also ask your age, because I know that when I was under 30, my perception of marriage was quite different to what it was after 30. All these steps, the tradition, the ceremony, the commitment, all are about male and female making something out of nothing, and that includes wee humans. Culturally, such a move will indeed lessen the meaning of this long standing tradition, and what it means for a man and woman to be married. Some say it is just a word, some say it is just a contract, but I honestly believe only a small majority of outspoken critics feel this way. Nobody I know or can honestly say I have met in person feels this way. It means something to me, if just any man woman or other can also be a part of this life long process, it just does not mean as much. As I said I was baptized, so I opted for a Catholic Wedding, and I chose that because I cherish tradition. I used to hate the Church, mainly because they drove my parents apart IMO, but one day my Dad insisted I go with him. The stained glass windows, the robes, the hats, the processions, the hymn's, it might not be for everyone, but I was rather in awe. And considering my Father was dumped on by JW's, I was shocked to see he had any time for Church at all, but I saw what it meant to him, and I started to see what he saw in it. I cant give to you what it means to me to be married, but if I could, I would. I think you would have to get into my head to fully understand what marriage means to me, as an agnostic, I find it the closest thing to a spiritual experience that I could imagine.

I understand that marriage involves family. Gay people are part of families, gay people WANT families, yet their families are constantly undervaued by the very people you claim are only interested in families.

I am under 30 and yes, I do respect marriage. I have tried to show that. I don't seek to harm the tradition or the ceremony, so when you act like I want to destroy it it comes off as insulting because that's the last thing I want. I want the chance to marry not because I don't respect it, but because I do.

I don't seek to marry for the sake of it, to take the p*** or for some twisted vendetta. I just want to marry the person I love when the time is right. I don't want the church involved, but I do want to have the experience, the same experience that every straigth person is automatically entited to without or with church involvement.

Well, I think it is pretty obvious that the straight community by large objects. That would be why so few places offer gay marriage. I hope I got a bit of my mind on here above, and explained something of why it means a lot to the straight community. Dead set, if the gay community went about this on their own, I would respect that. I keep calling it a p*** take because the only real reason is emotional, but this is being marketed as a legal right. Plainly, this is not the issue.

I don't think it's that simple. When new things come into pace it starts with a small number and then grows. To say 'oh only few people alow it therefore everyone objects' is rather silly logic. Again if everyone followed that we'd be in a rather sorry state as nothing would progress.

The gay community would treat it with the same respect the straight community does. Indeed, this is proven wherever it is made legal.

I understand it means a lot to you, I did it before what you said above. I've tried to show it means a lot to me to, but you don't seem to want to listen or care because I want it changed a minor way. A lot of the reasons it matters to you are emotional. Your emotions on it are valid yet the gay community's are not?

I do not see this as shunning, but recognising a group with newfound rights. If it was shunning, then I think most straight people would not attend a gay ceremony that the gay community initiated, but I think they would. In fact I really believe that a gay union would have many straight people show up unperturbed, but I honestly think many straight people woud opt to avoid a gay marriage. As far as I can tell we want you to have a right, but we want you to make it right, and mean something to you, not borrow something that means something to the straight community.

I see it as an attempt at shunning. Instead of accepting the gay community into the current culture you seek to force them to make something new.

Look at what you've just written. Basically you're saying people would be happy to attend a gay union... but only if it was called a civil union. Call it marriage and the people that would attend (who are assumingly riends and family of the couple) wouldn't. How does that make sense?

What is wrong with waiting for respect? Do you feel you should not, and you should just waltz on by and take the respect that a male and female union has created over thousands of years? Would you find that an aceptable solution in any other situation?

Marriage gained respect over 2000 years. I'm living in the here and now. I won't be around in 2000 years. There's many gay people now that are old and will thus be dead in 10, 20 years, but they've been with their partners for 40+ years (which is longer than most straight marriages last).

I don't want to take the respect from the male/feamale union. I don't want the hetrosexual marriage to lose ANYTHING. Why would I? I just want the opportunity to have the same respect.

Again if t is not a p*** take, why say this is claimed to be a legal right that you are missing out on? Why can the gay community not be up front and say, it's not the legal right, we have that, we want the romance.

Be honest, are civil unions respected as much as marriage? The answer is no. Even with all the legal rights, the respect isn't there.

Gay people will take civil unions, but we'd rather have marriage. For the respect, for the romance, for full legal recognitions. Take your pick.

What? How does the gay life choice not factor here?

Because being gay is not a 'life choice' since it's not a choice.

Am I suggesting you wait 10, 100, 1000 years? Yes, if that is what it tales. Marriage did so. In today's society, I think this would be reduced to decades at worst, don't you? It's a fast paced world we live in today. I touched on this above already.

I'm optimistic that in that time same sex marriages will become a reality. That seems more likely and more realistic than elevating civil unions.

No, why would a physical defect be cause for denial. That is discrimination. These people are still a man and a woman, with expectations of procreation. If they cannot or choose not to procreate, then that does not mean they are incapable of such, or that the expectation diminishes. If a gay community was to enter into marriage, that expectation would diminish, and perhaps disappear. Again, this is why some opt not to marry. They do not force their views, they just leave well enough alone. There is strong opposition to gay marriage, that means at least to an extent, the gay community is forcing it way into somewhere where it's presence is not desired. The majority of people do intend upon procreation, and that is an expectation of marriage.

Expectations of procreation matter more than ability it seems.

Why are you so negative? Why do you believe that 'expectation' will disappear because the gay community can enter marriage? Marriage is not that weak is it?

Any social change has 'strong opposition'. There was strong opposition (or example) to women gaining the vote or for interacial marriage (as I touched on before). Just because there's strong opposition doesn't mean something is wrong and therefore it be tossed aside for the opposition. You wouldn't say any other group that gained change was 'forcing it's way' where it wasn't desired would you? Even though they had opposition just as strong.

I am not going to get into gay parenting here, as it would be wildly offtopic. But if you wish to start a thread, or point me at an existing one, I would be happy to expand further, should you so desire.

Well I think you've made your 'views' clear on it and I see no point discussing them further (personally they're outdated and wrong to me).

I think I have offered proof that it would be damaging to the community. As I posted above, one person quite her job overt this. That is only the tiniest tip of what is to come I feel. If it offers no threat at all, why do you think people are up in arms about the subject? It has already crated rifts, cost jobs, and I bet split families. And family is what marriage is largely about. Yet, this is claimed as a legal need. Now that's offensive!

No, you've not acctually.

This one person that quit her job quit because there was a vote in her party and she lost. If you look at it like that, you see it's childish that she quit for it. After all if everyone quit because they lost a vote there'd be no one in politics.

The religious authority that you hold in such high regard have split up families and created rifts, as have oppontents to such legislation. Again, that's undervaluing gay families or families with gay people within them. Now THAT is offensive.

And I do not blame you for hating the Church. I can see why you would. You might not be taking away the right of the Church, but as your life choice is opposed to everything the Church stands for, how can you say this is not vindictive and diminishing when you already have the rights you say you need from marriage? Honestly it is no better than the Church's attitude towards your life choice. At least they are taking tiny steps to make the situation amicable these days. Mind you, not great, but amicable, which is a start isn't it? I do not feel this protest will help that relationship along. Unless the gay community simply does not want to every have a relationship with the Church.

I never once made a choice to be bisexual, so the idea that it was a choice (which the church promotes) is highly offensive and one of the reasons I hate them.

The church has not been amicable to the gay community. It continues to not be amicable, indeed the church seems set on keeping those relations frosty (even when the people in the churches disagree). I'd not describe relations between the two as amicable in the slightest.

The church does not want a relationship with the gay community.

There are exceptions, but as a whole, that's not the case. The ones that want a good relationship with the gay community, that show respect, love and kindness, are those that go against the general church teaching to do so.

I do not think I said they did. I said they have been in charge of the rite pretty much since it's inception. My reasons go beyond the Church, those values are sanctified by the Church. I am sure that I have expressed such. Now what about considering the people? Despite you telling me that people were for this, the very next link I clicked on without searching mind you, was stating that support has dropped.

The community does not want gay marriage, the gay community wants gay marriage, and has enlisted the support of an apathetic crowd. If people do not care about marriage, they should not be able to vote. They should just leave it that way it is, and they way the majority like it, the way it has always been, the way it is defined, and what modern society is built upon. Many support gay rights, few are for gay marriage. That should say enough in itself. If it is not enough, I think the gay community might be shooting it's own support in the foot here. All the community has to do is pave a new way. Everyone has to at some point.

My reasons go beyond the church as well, yet it seems to largely comes down to them doesn't it?

So only people that care about marriage should be able to vote? A curious thought is it not. I care about marriage, but I guess that's meaningless isn't it?

Why is the support for gay marriage not there? Largely because of the churches meddling. People are for gay rights though, despite the churches traditional and long standing stance against gay people. It's only a matter of time before people start seeing which group is really being vindictive here: the church.

The support in the community has been growing. Check any opinion poll. 20 years ago support was pretty much nil. It's grown steadily over that time. How long before it becomes the majority view? You said it yourself, it's a fast paced world. The trend is rising and it's only a matter of time before same sex marriage is something the community is for.

[Karlis]

I was replying to your comment. The wording was about YOUR comment, not about the subject of the post (which you asked me about directly and I responded to). Curiously, you ignore that.

Well, basically my comment is that you seem determined to have the meaning of the word "marriage" changed from traditionally accepted format, to fit your personal desires. In other words -- you want the world to change so as to agree with your world-view. It seems to me that nothing less will satisfy you.

[shadowhive]

Well, basically my comment is that you seem determined to have the meaning of the word "marriage" changed from traditionally accepted format, to fit your personal desires. In other words -- you want the world to change so as to agree with your world-view. It seems to me that nothing less will satisfy you.

Do I want marriage to change? Yes, but I aso want marriage to continue as is which seems to be ignored. But marriage has changed from it's 'traditionally accepted format' before, so I don't see what your issue really is.

The current format (marrying for love and the woman having a choice in the matter) is hardly what marriage was for most of it's history. Indeed the current format is a wholely alien concept when compared to marriages of the past.

The world changes. The human race is built on change, yet it seems you're dead set on things to stay the same to satisfy tradition. Change is not a bad thing, why act like it is?

Edited December 15, 2011 by shadowhive

[Michelle]

I have a Merriam-Webster dictionary so old and worn the cover is missing and I can't read the date it was published...I think it is from the 60's. Anyway, in it the definition of marriage is 1)the state of being married 2)a wedding ceremony and attending festivities 3)a close union.

Just thought I'd throw that in...please continue.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Michelle

[Karlis]

Do I want marriage to change? Yes, but I aso want marriage to continue as is which seems to be ignored. But marriage has changed from it's 'traditionally accepted format' before, so I don't see what your issue really is.

The current format (marrying for love and the woman having a choice in the matter) is hardly what marriage was for most of it's history. Indeed the current format is a wholely alien concept when compared to marriages of the past.

The world changes. The human race is built on change, yet it seems you're dead set on things to stay the same to satisfy tradition. Change is not a bad thing, why act like it is?

Why not by-pass the fluff and straw man arguments, and consider the legal meaning of marriage.

Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman

[shadowhive]

Why not by-pass the fluff and straw man arguments, and consider the legal meaning of marriage.

Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman

And how long has it been that simple hmm? Not very long.

Where's the harm in changing it? Men and women will still be able to marry as they wish so in that regard nothing will change.

[Karlis]

And how long has it been that simple hmm? Not very long.

Where's the harm in changing it? Men and women will still be able to marry as they wish so in that regard nothing will change.

And where is the harm in leaving the meaning of marriage as it now stands, and accepting the same-sex unions of gay people as legal unions, with all that those laws entail?

[shadowhive]

And where is the harm in leaving the meaning of marriage as it now stands, and accepting the same-sex unions of gay people as legal unions, with all that those laws entail?

You could say there's no 'harm' either way. However, creating another legal union just seems pointless when there's already one in place that could be altered a very tiny amount.

There was no 'harm' in leaving marriage as it stood before interfaith marriages were made legal. There was no 'harm' in leaving marriage as it was when interracial marriages were made legal. There was no 'harm' in leaving marriage closed off to non-religious people. New legal states weren't made in any of those instances. All that happened was the standing at the time was changed.

You think any of those groups would have been happy with alternatives to marriage?

To me it just makes no sense not to make the change, especially because all those instances weren't changed. Civil unions are just marriage with a different name, which doesn't make sense.

Edited December 15, 2011 by shadowhive

[mfrmboy]

Way to Go !

[Karlis]

You could say there's no 'harm' either way. However, creating another legal union just seems pointless when there's already one in place that could be altered a very tiny amount.

There was no 'harm' in leaving marriage as it stood before interfaith marriages were made legal. There was no 'harm' in leaving marriage as it was when interracial marriages were made legal. There was no 'harm' in leaving marriage closed off to non-religious people. New legal states weren't made in any of those instances. All that happened was the standing at the time was changed.

You think any of those groups would have been happy with alternatives to marriage?

To me it just makes no sense not to make the change, especially because all those instances weren't changed. Civil unions are just marriage with a different name, which doesn't make sense.

Well, I'll leave you to fight your fight Shadowhive.

[Fluffybunny]

I have a Merriam-Webster dictionary so old and worn the cover is missing and I can't read the date it was published...I think it is from the 60's. Anyway, in it the definition of marriage is 1)the state of being married 2)a wedding ceremony and attending festivities 3)a close union.

Just thought I'd throw that in...please continue.

Well everyone knows that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is left wing propaganda. If you aren't using the Bush-Westboro Dictionary, then you simply wrong on all the important definitions.

[Mr_Snstr]

Well everyone knows that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is left wing propaganda. If you aren't using the Bush-Westboro Dictionary, then you simply wrong on all the important definitions.

Finally someone else sees it. Merriam and Webster were hellbent on world domination through total control over our minds; one word at a time. You have no idea what a relief it is knowing I have an ally out there to help fight this tyranny; with gibberish.

Oh you were joking.

...

yeah so was I.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[+Link of Hyrule]

In a legal sense, I wonder whether a different term might not be considered appropriate! I think many gay couples might not feel it better to use a different term, just so that statistics can stack up against "marriage". If the definition of "marriage" is changed, then gay couples and straight couple are going to be lumped into the same statistical demographic. This means that Kim Kardashian's wedding farce is going to be tagged onto the exact same statistic as the totally loving gay couple that marries for love.

But if a different term was coined (some kind of civil union) with the exact same Rights as heterosexuals, then there would be a statistical band of evidence to say whether gay couples or heterosexual couples have a better chance of staying together after marriage

This may not sound like a big deal, but if it turns out that gays have a better chance of staying married then that's a pretty impressive arrow they can add to their bow of arguments. However, if statistics show that gays DON'T stay together, then that is an arrow for the other side of the debate. Alternatively, the statistics may end up relatively similar, which leads to a stalemate. But if the definition of marriage is changed to include gays, then there is no reliable way to see statistics about one or the other (unless a deeper analysis is used, but that might bring in discrimination laws, such as if a couple was analysed under the marriage law as one being black the other being white).

Using different terminology might be the best approach to statistically checking whether gays or straights value a lifelong covenant more. The only thing gays might fear is if they turn out to be more likely to cheat or divorce than straight couples.... But I'm not going to even consider opening than can of Invertebrates....

Edited December 18, 2011 by Paranoid Android

[Beckys_Mom]

thats fantastic.. about time that governments crawled out of the dark ages and realised that everyone has the same rights. doesnt matter what sex, or if you are black, white or brindle.

I agree and although it was always once known as - Marriage is between man and a woman.....but times move on... I say WHOCARES? I don't... If two people love each other and are committed... who is anyone to yap over it and make a fuss?

I believe n live and let live.. UNLESS it harms you personally... IF not shut up and let people be

Edited December 18, 2011 by Beckys_Mom