Australian state legalises

[psyche101]

FGS.....

"Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group or local community. It is often viewed as a contract.

Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction." -- Wiki

lol

Interesting link that, it all rides in the definition of Marriage Law, and that link says:

Rights and obligations

A Ketubah in Aramaic, a Jewish marriage-contract outlining the duties of each partner

See also: Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States

A marriage, by definition, bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as well, being the sole mechanism for the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). These may include:

Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s labor, and property.

Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.

Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.

Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.

Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.

Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.

Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

These rights and obligations vary considerably between societies, and between groups within society.[1]

husband (ˈhʌzbənd)

Definitions

noun

a woman's partner in marriage

verb

to manage or use (resources, finances, etc) thriftily

archaic

(tr) to find a husband for

(of a woman) to marry (a man)

wife (waɪf)

Definitions

noun

Word forms: plural, wives, waɪvz

a man's partner in marriage; a married woman related adjective uxorial

marriage (ˈmærɪdʒ)

Definitions

noun

the state or relationship of being husband and wife

the legal union or contract made by a man and woman to live as husband and wife

Definitions courtesy of Collins Online Dictionary.

Marriage is widely recognized as being defined as a joining contract between a man and a woman. A new term needs to be coined to accurately reflect the newly recognized state of union. Again, that is why we have nomenclature practices.

Edited January 10, 2012 by psyche101

[Eldorado]

Marriage is widely recognized as being defined as a joining contract between a man and a woman. A new term needs to be coined to accurately reflect the newly recognized state of union. Again, that is why we have nomenclature practices.

There already is a new term....

Gay Marriage

Noun

informal

the legally recognized union between partners of the same sex

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gay+marriage

[shadowhive]

Yeah whatever. You are just sooo cool aren't you LOL.

And you are repeating yourself ad nauseam, why bother to reply? It is quite obvious that you simply refuse to accept that the straight community has a voice in the matter. We should just all agree according to you. It you who is not interested in finding common ground, you have one solution, and that is all you are prepared to offer. All your protests are not ridiculous they are deceiving, and the worst part is that you have claimed you required marriage for a rights cause, and that is an outright lie. I am sure you see my arguments as ridiculous, because you can only fathom one outcome.

As for ridiculous, how about answering the question I keep asking? It is a bit ridiculous to keep avoiding it I feel. What rights are you chasing from marriage that the OP does not already offer? What is the basis for redefining traditional marriage?

I accept that civil unions are a stepping stone. I wish they weren't necessary. That is why I say what I do. I'd rather cut out the middle man. We are expected to compromise, but because I'm not willing to agree to that you call me deceptive.

I have listened to what the straight community has to say. Unfortunately a lot of what the opposing side say is rather groundless. You've said it'll destroy marriage, but never once ofered how. You've never ofered an explanation as to why straight marriages would suddenly be destoryed. If you have a legitimate concern I'd listen, but I've yet to hear one.

I have answered it. All you have done is stuck your fingers in your ears.

Not the impression I get from the OP, the facts seem to indicate otherwise.

Look at the op's third paragraph. People on the opposing side view it as 'mimicking marriage'. People supporting it view it as a 'step towards equality'.

Civil unions are not considered as equal to marriage even by their own supporters.

As far as I am concerned, it is a straight couples right to do what they want with their marriage. It's a contract as well as you keep pointing out, hoping I will not see the man and woman bit in the recognized definition. I think you have marriage and the honeymoon mixed up.

That's just it, as far as you're concerned straight couples can do as they like. You don't care if they've known each other three weeks, stay married ora month and have a quicky divorce. That doesn't matter to you. But if a long term gay couple who has been together for 40 years wants to marry, that's suddenly wrong.

No, why is not not created for atheists? They fit the recognized definition completely if a straight couple. Again you are talking about a religious wedding ceremony, not marriage. You do not seem to know much about what you want so desperately.

In Christian societies only Christian marriage was recognised. Therefore people of no faith couldn't marry, nor could an interfaith couple despite them fitting the man/woman definition.

2,000 years ago, the definition was the same as it sits today. You want to rewrite the definition, and I oppose that change for many reasons.

That's not the case. 2000 years ago the woman couldn't enter into a marriage, her parents approval was required. Indeed, forcing awoman to marry against her will was common practice (indeed it was often done rather for the parents gain then anything else). Today the shadow of the tradition remains. Men ask the approval of a prospective wifes parents, but their approval/disapproval has no actual value.

For most of that 2000 years marrying for love was an utterly foreign concept.

You find an alternative pointless and unnecessary because you want marriage to include the gay community. You have not given a reason why it is pointless and unnecessary, just that you think so, well, nuts to you, I disagree. I do not see how defining a union for what it is accurately as being pointless and unnecessary, I find that makes good sense. I simply refuse to accept that straw man. It is patently ridiculous.

Bottom line is people like you in the gay community do not care one whit for what the straight community thinks. If a straight person agrees with you, they are open minded, if not, they are evil and deserve ad homs. There is no middle ground here, you want it all, and nothing else will do, and those that already have what you want can agree, or get out of your way as you barge through. I am not going to vote for that, nobody should. That is what you lot have against the Church, isn't it?

I have given various reasons, however, none meet your satisfaction. I'm not sure there's anything I could say that would meet with your approval.

Oh I care for what the straight community thinks. You seem to be under the delusion that I don't just because I want my relationships treated equally to yours. Is that so wrong? To you, it is.

What we have against the church is that the church calls us sinners, throws us out and has a long history of torturing and murdering us because of what we are.

I'd like to read the report, and meet those that made it. I sure hope this is not some weak effort by some fresh out of school teenager who decided they know how to run the world. In any case, votes count here, not studies, regardless of how that sounds, it is the way of things. You cheese of the people, and you are going to get nowhere, now matter how many times some pimply faced teen tells you that it is not ethical.

I posted the link to it a few pages back, read it for yourself. Their is real psychological harm being done to the gay community because of this and the damaging arguements bought up by the church. Naturally, of course, you don't care because this is from an 'out if school teenager'.

At least they bring facts to the table, something your side avoids at all costs.

Like your ridiculous stament of "it's less confusing".

The reasons have been given out, but I guess it would be hard to hear them with ones head firmly stuck in sand.

Much like the ridiclulous statement of 'we can't change marriage'.

The reasons haven't, just broad statements. You have not given any legitimate reasoning.

I will have no problem at all. I am sure she will shake her head at your insistance and refusal to accept the straight communities point of view. She can see two sides. You can't.

And she is a good drummer too. She was MC at my own wedding.

I can see both sides too. However it's not quite as clear cut as you make out. It's not simple all of the straight community vs all of the gay community. It's some of the straight community vs the gay community plus some of the straight community.

I accept your view, sadly, exists. I wish it didn't. However I also accept that some people have the view that gay people should be imprisoned or executed. That doesn't mean I'm going to roll over and let them have their way.

That is over dramatic codswallop. The definition of marriage never included same sex couples. You are wanting that changed now to suit your personal wants. And claiming you are chasing rights. You cannot stifle something that never existed.

How far back would you like to go?There is evidence of pre-Christian same sex marriages having taken place. christianity, of course, insitituted it'sversion of marriage and silenced opposition.

Women? What about men? Ever heard of slavery? The religious situation in the middle east has never been at peace with the west, and we are in the west, you are chasing a western right. My wife is not a second class citizen, and if I tried to treat her like that I would get a black eye. We fought for these rights and now have what you belittle so frivolously as some attempt at shock value to get other's on side. The same people who have been in charge of marriage also opposed the repression of women. Your straw man therefore makes no sense, but I see you keep trying to bring in controversial race issue as comparisons. I think the chip on your shoulder must be the size of the pacific northwest.

I bought up women because you bought up the 'tradition' of marriage as a form of reasoning. Your reasoning was because marriage has lasted as man/woman for 2000 years that it shouldn't be changed. I bought up the role of women because women were treated traditionally as second class citizens for a much longer time period then marriage has existed. If the length of time alone gives marriage it's validity, why does length of time not give the traditional role of women validity?

The reason is because women fought to gain rights and now that traditional view has been broken by women. A similar process is happening here.

Historically when any group wishes to have equal rights and fights for them, tradition against that equality (no matter how strong) crumbles to dust. That's why I bring up other groups that fought for equality and won.

One thing I am NOT doing is belittling marriage. I made a post awhile back in response to your own about what marriage meant to me, how imprtant I saw it. I most certinly do NOT want to belittle it.

Shadowhive, this has nothing to do with rights, so in that instance, I have been lied to. Again I ask you to reread the OP, and tell me what rights and entitlements you speak of. From what I see, you already have them. Therefore what is left other than romance as an issue?

Straight couples do not take it for granted, not all straight couples marry. Again you try to belittle those with the right. You might see it that way (taken for granted), but I can only figure that you could have such an opinion if you have never been involved in a marriage. The planning, stress, plans and money that goes into marriage is extensive and hardly indicates being taken for granted. If the gay community wants to marry for love, best they be honest about that, and not hide behind fictional rights issues. I would say they are not being honest about that because it is too soon to change the global mindset that oppose such, having been the way of things for the last 2,000 years, so they are being underhanded to attain something that they have decided they want.

Is that what you really want? A list?

The Federal Government recognises these state and territory civil unions for the purposes of federal entitlements.

These civil union schemes are only open to residents of the particular state or territory which provides them and are generally not yet recognised by other Australian states or territories. Some other countries, however, do recognise Australian civil unions, for example, the United Kingdom.

This is a pretty big one. (Unless, of course, in Australia marriages only apply in the state you marry in and not across the board.) At the moment I am trying to find somewhere with a more comprehensive comparison of the exact civil union laws compared to marriage laws, because apparently only by doing that will satisfy you.

Not all straight couples take it for granted, I apologise if you think I meant all but that's not what I intended. Some do. Some marry purely for money, or to gain citizenship, or just marry on impulse.

I think it's great when a couple decides they want to make a committment together and want to celebrate the union. I realise it's stressful and time consuming, but it's worth it is it not? I want to be able to do the same thing when the time is right, when I find the right person. Is that really so wrong? If I was a straight person and said that you'd not be arguing with me about that want.

There's no lying about the gay community wanting to marry for love. In fact they've been quite honest about that. This isn't a fictional rights issue, this is about equal rights. The keyword being equal.

You're trying to say the gay community should put it off, do it later well some of us won't be here for later and some of us see that as what it is, an excuse to fob us off.

Edited January 10, 2012 by shadowhive

[psyche101]

There already is a new term....

Gay Marriage

Noun

informal

the legally recognized union between partners of the same sex

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gay+marriage

Ohh for Petes sakes. That is PC, good lord. That is one of the reasons I oppose it! Look upo the definition of gay, and look up the definition of marriage.

[psyche101]

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....

This is pretty much exactly the solution the way I see it.

[Eldorado]

Ohh for Petes sakes. That is PC, good lord. That is one of the reasons I oppose it! Look upo the definition of gay, and look up the definition of marriage.

So, the Collins Dictionary is ok, but the Oxford dictionary is crap? LOL

Edited January 10, 2012 by Eldorado

[psyche101]

I accept that civil unions are a stepping stone. I wish they weren't necessary. That is why I say what I do. I'd rather cut out the middle man. We are expected to compromise, but because I'm not willing to agree to that you call me deceptive.

I have listened to what the straight community has to say. Unfortunately a lot of what the opposing side say is rather groundless. You've said it'll destroy marriage, but never once ofered how. You've never ofered an explanation as to why straight marriages would suddenly be destoryed. If you have a legitimate concern I'd listen, but I've yet to hear one.

I have answered it. All you have done is stuck your fingers in your ears.

No, I call you deceptive because it was made out this was a right, not a want. That is indeed deception by any definition.

Yes, I have said why marriage will be changed forever, which is something I also oppose.

No, you have not told me why it is more confusing, you offered an offhand opinion, you have not told me why tradition should change, you just said "whats the harm" and you have not named what right it is that marriage offeres that is not obtainable in a civil union. No fingers in my ears, I am listening, but hearing your opinion, which is nothing like fact.

Look at the op's third paragraph. People on the opposing side view it as 'mimicking marriage'. People supporting it view it as a 'step towards equality'.

Civil unions are not considered as equal to marriage even by their own supporters.

That's your problem to fix. See how they look in 2,000 years. You want easy street and to jump on the straight bandwagon. Have some imagination. Respect is earned, not bought.

That's just it, as far as you're concerned straight couples can do as they like. You don't care if they've known each other three weeks, stay married ora month and have a quicky divorce. That doesn't matter to you. But if a long term gay couple who has been together for 40 years wants to marry, that's suddenly wrong.

Yup. Thats real marriage not just the honeymoon. You have much to learn about marriage. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. But it is the call of a man and woman to decide.

In Christian societies only Christian marriage was recognised. Therefore people of no faith couldn't marry, nor could an interfaith couple despite them fitting the man/woman definition.

I thought we were discussing Western traditions, not solely Christian, as that is the marriage we are speaking about. You are talking about how cultural differences can affect the process, again, you have much to learn about marriage past the honeymoon stage. Interfaith marriage, traditionally called mixed marriage remains within the recognized definition. In any instance, interfaith marriage has a very long history as well, and was not too much of a problem until 1236, when Moses of Coucy induced those Jews who had contracted marriages with Christian or Mohammedan women to dissolve them. The restrictions you speak of were introduced by the council od Trent in the 1500's, just a little of that long history which you seem to find unnecessary, but what gained the respectful air that marriage commands today.

That's not the case. 2000 years ago the woman couldn't enter into a marriage, her parents approval was required. Indeed, forcing awoman to marry against her will was common practice (indeed it was often done rather for the parents gain then anything else). Today the shadow of the tradition remains. Men ask the approval of a prospective wifes parents, but their approval/disapproval has no actual value.

For most of that 2000 years marrying for love was an utterly foreign concept.

Personally I see some value in that as young women tend to have a thing for "bad boys" and regret it later. Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.

Marriage for love is still for many a foreign concept. That does not mean that definition is violated, nor the ceremony, not the expectations, nor the outcome.

I have given various reasons, however, none meet your satisfaction. I'm not sure there's anything I could say that would meet with your approval.

Oh I care for what the straight community thinks. You seem to be under the delusion that I don't just because I want my relationships treated equally to yours. Is that so wrong? To you, it is.

What we have against the church is that the church calls us sinners, throws us out and has a long history of torturing and murdering us because of what we are.

You have not given reasons, you have given opinion, and I do not see the logic in it. Lets look at how you say the two terms would be confusion, yet cannot offer a reasoning why. The straight community has terms for any union that is not conventional marriage, some cultures, even Christian, such as the mormons, allow more than one wife, which is not the joining of A man and A woman, it is several people from both sexes, so the terms polygyny or polyandry exist to define that union. But does polygyny or polyandry have the same respect marriage does? No. Is that fair? Not my call. Do they whine about it and want to be called married? No. The straight community can recognize nomenclature differences within it's own community, why must the gay community insist on remaining blind to that? If you want to be included in marriage, the first step would be recognizing that a nomenclature hierarchy exists, and to accomodate that. The gay community has no such intention because of honeymoon delusions of grandeur.

Yes that is right, traditionally the Church has a real problem with the gay community, so this is some sort of "getback" to destroy that ceremony and it's controlling authority is it? Have you considered how many innocent people your Church vendetta hurts?

I posted the link to it a few pages back, read it for yourself. Their is real psychological harm being done to the gay community because of this and the damaging arguements bought up by the church. Naturally, of course, you don't care because this is from an 'out if school teenager'.

At least they bring facts to the table, something your side avoids at all costs.

I am brining experience to the table, why can that not also be recoginsed? It is not, you just say NO, I want marriage, and nothing else will do. Not too much discussion there.

Much like the ridiclulous statement of 'we can't change marriage'.

The reasons haven't, just broad statements. You have not given any legitimate reasoning.

Perhaps you simply do not understand my reasoning, and as you have no experience, but some honeymoon romantic ideal of marriage in your head, so I guess that's not altogether surprising.

I did say I cant change marriage, I said I do not want to, it has earned it's place. It is not right for some new group to come in, tear it up and rearrange and redefine it. After that. it's not the same is it. The gay community does not have the right to blindly barge on into a place it has never been and take charge. It is a straight tradition. You don't seem to care for facts too much when it comes to historical record of marriage, you just try to find some loose tale of persecution to liken it to. That also reeks of dishonesty.

I can see both sides too. However it's not quite as clear cut as you make out. It's not simple all of the straight community vs all of the gay community. It's some of the straight community vs the gay community plus some of the straight community.

I accept your view, sadly, exists. I wish it didn't. However I also accept that some people have the view that gay people should be imprisoned or executed. That doesn't mean I'm going to roll over and let them have their way.

How far back would you like to go?There is evidence of pre-Christian same sex marriages having taken place. christianity, of course, insitituted it'sversion of marriage and silenced opposition.

If you do not think a separate state is clear cut, then you do not see both sides. And you have not displayed any understanding for the straight community. The gay community is taking advantage of human nature is all. Even death row multiple murderers have groups protesting their executions. As long as bleeding hearts exist, all communities will have some sort of support, hell, some people refuse to accept that radical Muslims are responsible for 911, despite proud confessions, and dancing in the streets from the sickos that rejoice death. As such, it is the straight community that you have to deal with, and some people with their heads in the clouds. Gay people have been imprisoned and executed for being gay, the sexual urge was worth more to those individuals than life itself. That's part of the history you should be gathering for a historical record that lead to a new state, but as the gay community just accepts that this is nothing more than "overdue" it seems the sacrifices made by your predecessors are lost and forgotten, so it was all in vain. If anyone is taking things for granted, it's the gay community.

How far would I like to go? The further the better. Should make for some more than interesting statistics!

I bought up women because you bought up the 'tradition' of marriage as a form of reasoning. Your reasoning was because marriage has lasted as man/woman for 2000 years that it shouldn't be changed. I bought up the role of women because women were treated traditionally as second class citizens for a much longer time period then marriage has existed. If the length of time alone gives marriage it's validity, why does length of time not give the traditional role of women validity?

The reason is because women fought to gain rights and now that traditional view has been broken by women. A similar process is happening here.

Historically when any group wishes to have equal rights and fights for them, tradition against that equality (no matter how strong) crumbles to dust. That's why I bring up other groups that fought for equality and won.

One thing I am NOT doing is belittling marriage. I made a post awhile back in response to your own about what marriage meant to me, how imprtant I saw it. I most certinly do NOT want to belittle it.

With regards to a women's role and regards to validity, I would love to introduce you to my wife. How persecuted does Becky's Mum sound? That block has been overcome, and in historical record, always has been. Otherwise, how did so many queens arise during the course of history? The vile form of female persecution you are referring to is shariah law, that's not in this ball park, I would appreciate it if you could keep within some sort of sensible parameter.

The post you gave only talked about the ceremony. Once the honeymoon is over, it evolves again.

Is that what you really want? A list?

Yes indeed, what rights are being shunned by not having the term Gay Marriage as opposed to civil union? The legal workplace contracts you mentioned? That are redrawn every 6 months? That's not a reason, that's an excuse.

This is a pretty big one. (Unless, of course, in Australia marriages only apply in the state you marry in and not across the board.) At the moment I am trying to find somewhere with a more comprehensive comparison of the exact civil union laws compared to marriage laws, because apparently only by doing that will satisfy you.

All you need to outline is what basic right is denied by not allowing the term marriage to define a same sex couple?

Not all straight couples take it for granted, I apologise if you think I meant all but that's not what I intended. Some do. Some marry purely for money, or to gain citizenship, or just marry on impulse.

I think it's great when a couple decides they want to make a committment together and want to celebrate the union. I realise it's stressful and time consuming, but it's worth it is it not? I want to be able to do the same thing when the time is right, when I find the right person. Is that really so wrong? If I was a straight person and said that you'd not be arguing with me about that want.

Yes, some do not marry for love, I said that, that is the right of a man and a woman. Sometimes other advantages in life can outweigh love. Sometimes people can love what they are marrying for. Sometimes people marry because of their love for others. Marriage as I said is much more than the honeymoon. It is wrong in my opinion because traditional marriage is not and never was intended for the gay community. It is the celebration of the joining of a man and a woman. When you find the right person, I think much more about marriage might suddenly become apparent to you. I hope then that you see what a different state of being it can be, and why that state if being deserves it's own definition.

There's no lying about the gay community wanting to marry for love. In fact they've been quite honest about that. This isn't a fictional rights issue, this is about equal rights. The keyword being equal.

You're trying to say the gay community should put it off, do it later well some of us won't be here for later and some of us see that as what it is, an excuse to fob us off.

They have not been honest about it, you were not honest about it. It took pages of us debating for that to emerge, this started of as some victorious celebration that no legal obstacles hinder a recognized gay union. That is when marriage came up, and not only I said, hang on just what is the difference, and we find that there is none. As long as the want for marriage is touted as so much as being connected to the legal system, it's a lie, and preying upon people who are sympathetic to any cause. Be straight up. Dont call this a fight for a right, tell it like it is, the gay community is going to attempt to barge and bully it's way into the tradition of marriage, and any who object are going to be harassed to tray and change their minds. Well, I am going to give the community a stumbling block so that they have to stop for a second, and let out the truth about this so called right they are fighting for so everyone knows the real issue. Not rights, romance. If the majority agree with that, then I am stuck with that decision, but at least I would be able to rest at night knowing I lost fair and square, not through lying and deceit.

[shadowhive]

Ok, it is 4:38am here, so I'm going be quick and I'm going to be blunt. In the morning, perhaps I will return and expand these points.

First the major point here is that you feel decieved about this not being a rights issue. I gave you in the last post just one example: that the civil union is only recognised in the state that it's made in. By comparison your marriage is recognised in every state and beyond. That's a pretty big difference.

Again, I am sorry you feel lied to. Truly I do. However, this has flat out not been the case. It's still a rights issue, but because you've found something in it you can use against it, you're doing it. You're turning the fact that loving gay couples want to marry against them and that's wrong.

Second, you are now against even an alternative. Worse still you vow to try your best to make an alternative impossible. This makes no sense. Why? Because so many of your posts have said that you WANT the gay community to have an alternative. Now you've changed. You want them to have an alternative, but will do your damnedest to prevent it from happening. That just doesn't make sense.

Third, you try to make it out like this is against tradition and culture. Guess what? Gay people are in your community, they are a PART of our society, part of our culture. All your actions seem to making out like the gay community shouldn't be a part of your culture, that they should make their own. To make their own traditions and their own culture... which you're not too keen on recognising because it's against your own.

Fourth, tradition changes. I have tried to show you this, yet every time you seem unable to see my point or what I am getting at.

Here we don't have full gay marriages, we have civil partnerships. But you wouldn't think it. From day one people have called them marriages. All over the world, wherever civil unions are introduced people just call them marriages. That's why I say calling them something else seems pointless. People can and do refer to them as marriages anyway, regardless of what the union is actually called.

Fifth, the straight community has absolutely nothing to lose from this. Yes, the gay community gains something, but it's not at anyone's expense. Religions will still be able to marry who they want and all straight marriages remain valid. And, of course, straight couples will still be be able to marry. Fact is, no one will get harmed by this and marriage as you know it will still exist.

Sixth, on the flipside, opposing sides to same sex marriage/civil unions, don't care who they hurt. They don't care about the families they'll put down or the mental and psychological harm they're doing to people. They just don't care. Think about that.

Seventh is about the definition. The dictionary is a collection of words. It is a vast collection to be sure, but that's basically what it is. If you picked up a dictionary today and compared it to an earlier one, you'd noticed significant differences. Definitions change over time, in some cases quite durastically, and new words get added. This is a constant, ongoing process. Stamping your feet about maintaining the definition of marriage seems contradictory to the whole English langauge, especially since some dictionaries are already changing. And why? Because like I said above, wherever there's civil unions there's people that just call them marriages.

People ultimately decide what the definition of words are and the dictionary changes accordingly, not the other way around.

(A simple example of this is the word cool. If you look there, it has 14 different meanings for the word. Many of those are fairly recent additions, but because they've entered common usage they've been included. The definition was added to because the people changed it and added to it's meaning. Now cool is just one word and I'm using it because it's obvious, but it's not the first, last or only word that has had such a change.)

I am sorry that you don't agree with me on this. However the fact that our discussion has led to you turning on this issue doesn't sit well with me at all. Remember at the start of this you were supportive of civil unions and remember why. Now look at yourself and how willing you now are to destroy them. Just sit bak and think. Please.

Edited January 10, 2012 by shadowhive

[psyche101]

So, the Collins Dictionary is ok, but the Oxford dictionary is crap? LOL

No, that is not what I said, I said it was quoting PC guidelines. Became quite popular during the 80's. Stupid as it is.

And I do not mean personal computer Marriage is the union between man and woman.

As for your Oxford dictionary, the latest version of it says:

marriage

Pronunciation: /ˈmarɪdʒ/

noun

1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:

she has three children from a previous marriage

Note the terms Husband and wife, then refer to my previous post.

LINK - Oxford Online

Edited January 10, 2012 by psyche101

[The Silver Thong]

No, that is not what I said, I said it was quoting PC guidelines. Became quite popular during the 80's. Stupid as it is.

:

]

Marriage is a legal issue between two people. If god wants to dip his finger into a legal issue so be it. However we live in secular states and god can not do that. Simple, how does it hurt anyone to allow gay marriage. Well except those that think the term marriage is an owned word and can not me shared but by anyone of there said faith.

[Indiogene]

Congrats to Australia and all its states plus territories in the uniaminous decision in the name of rights for all people.

I await for the entire USA state by state to legalize same-sex marriage, a long road ahead not to force people to change their minds...activism, education, public awareness and ignoring ignorance is the best way to open minds to combat closed mindness.

I am straight male, yet I recognize the humanity of all people regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.

[psyche101]

Ok, it is 4:38am here, so I'm going be quick and I'm going to be blunt. In the morning, perhaps I will return and expand these points.

First the major point here is that you feel decieved about this not being a rights issue. I gave you in the last post just one example: that the civil union is only recognised in the state that it's made in. By comparison your marriage is recognised in every state and beyond. That's a pretty big difference.

Again, I am sorry you feel lied to. Truly I do. However, this has flat out not been the case. It's still a rights issue, but because you've found something in it you can use against it, you're doing it. You're turning the fact that loving gay couples want to marry against them and that's wrong.

Yet the article in the OP shows us that the state of things is changing doesn't it? If the gay community was to embrace the example as opposed to turing their nose up at it, then more of the globe, or at least the Western World would have a legal example as a precedent to make people change the way the gay community stands, not just let it hide in the straight communities shadow. If some states are behind in their way of thinking, should not advantages of the new state be presented as a shining example? I thought you wanted to impact people, not hide in the shadows, as that seems not much of a step forward.

I do feel lied to, I think that rights should not be mentioned until a right that is denied can be held up as an example.

Second, you are now against even an alternative. Worse still you vow to try your best to make an alternative impossible. This makes no sense. Why? Because so many of your posts have said that you WANT the gay community to have an alternative. Now you've changed. You want them to have an alternative, but will do your damnedest to prevent it from happening. That just doesn't make sense.

Why have I changed? Your one way attitude. There is no discussion here, it's your way or the highway, and civil unions are just not good enough. If this is how the gay community wants to conduct itself on all issues, then I am opposed to it. I know many good people will suffer for the actions of the few proud ones, but that's life. The proud few who "want it all" are not helping their own community. The old give an inch take a mile.

Third, you try to make it out like this is against tradition and culture. Guess what? Gay people are in your community, they are a PART of our society, part of our culture. All your actions seem to making out like the gay community shouldn't be a part of your culture, that they should make their own. To make their own traditions and their own culture... which you're not too keen on recognising because it's against your own.

Yeah, so is the KKK. I do not agree with them nor their views, same with neo nazis, but for some inane reason, these groups have rights. All in our community right?

It's a part of our culture that has not always been accepted. Now it is starting to be. As such, it is a new facet of culture. A new facet deserves it's own identity. Marriage is an old tradition, not a modern one.

How is it "against" my own culture? In the first line you say how it is the same, in the last you say they are different. Not following you there.

Fourth, tradition changes. I have tried to show you this, yet every time you seem unable to see my point or what I am getting at.

Why does it have to? And how is it tradition if it changes, and so radically? Marriage is between a man and a woman, if it is between two of the same sex, then it is not marriage, its a union.

tradition

Pronunciation: /trəˈdɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

1 [mass noun] the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way:

members of different castes have by tradition been associated with specific occupations

[count noun] a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on from one generation to another:

Marriage is not traditionally for the gay community. So it is destroying the tradition by making it for one and all. That is not what the tradition of marriage encompasses.

Here we don't have full gay marriages, we have civil partnerships. But you wouldn't think it. From day one people have called them marriages. All over the world, wherever civil unions are introduced people just call them marriages. That's why I say calling them something else seems pointless. People can and do refer to them as marriages anyway, regardless of what the union is actually called.

Well, maybe more people need to read a dictionary? Shame that so many people are not conversant with their own language. That's a bit sad really. I would just call that lazy.

Fifth, the straight community has absolutely nothing to lose from this. Yes, the gay community gains something, but it's not at anyone's expense. Religions will still be able to marry who they want and all straight marriages remain valid. And, of course, straight couples will still be be able to marry. Fact is, no one will get harmed by this and marriage as you know it will still exist.

Gee, I really wish it was possible to hold you to that. Let Gay marriage have a trial run, and hold you personally responsible for any damages. Fact is you are making promises you cannot keep. That really does not allay my concerns. For a start, the recognized definition is changed immediately. I have no intention of repeating the other poins for you again. It just gets long winded and you ignore it anyway.

The fact that you are making promises you cannot keep is concerning enough. There has been enough deception to date.

Sixth, on the flipside, opposing sides to same sex marriage/civil unions, don't care who they hurt. They don't care about the families they'll put down or the mental and psychological harm they're doing to people. They just don't care. Think about that.

BS. What the heck do you think the rights that this thread is actually about are doing? Who do you think voted for those rights? Where did the Gay community get these rights? From the community. The Gay community does not have the numbers to get this far alone. You do not go to those lengths if you do not care. There is even now civil unions that offer the full compliment of rights that marriage does, but hey, that is still not enough, you want to re-write terminology as well. What about considering that the straight community deserves to have a say in a tradition they have been associated with exclusively for 2,000 years?

Seventh is about the definition. The dictionary is a collection of words. It is a vast collection to be sure, but that's basically what it is. If you picked up a dictionary today and compared it to an earlier one, you'd noticed significant differences. Definitions change over time, in some cases quite durastically, and new words get added. This is a constant, ongoing process. Stamping your feet about maintaining the definition of marriage seems contradictory to the whole English langauge, especially since some dictionaries are already changing. And why? Because like I said above, wherever there's civil unions there's people that just call them marriages.

People ultimately decide what the definition of words are and the dictionary changes accordingly, not the other way around.

(A simple example of this is the word cool. If you look there, it has 14 different meanings for the word. Many of those are fairly recent additions, but because they've entered common usage they've been included. The definition was added to because the people changed it and added to it's meaning. Now cool is just one word and I'm using it because it's obvious, but it's not the first, last or only word that has had such a change.)

That is right, it has been written, and people have chosen the definition. The gay community wants to change that definition. I do not think that is fair or right. The people have spoken, the word is in the book, and I even showed one person who quit her job over violating the definition. It is a major change that is not required, nor necessary, and according to nomenclature practices, makes no sense. This is but another reason I now oppose civil unions, that old give an inch, take a mile. It's rude to expect too much at once. And cool is but a word, not the descriptor of a time honored tradition. Marriage is bigger than a word. Everyone was happy with the alternate meanings to cool, but there is opposition to the term same sex marriage.

I am sorry that you don't agree with me on this. However the fact that our discussion has led to you turning on this issue doesn't sit well with me at all. Remember at the start of this you were supportive of civil unions and remember why. Now look at yourself and how willing you now are to destroy them. Just sit bak and think. Please.

I am sorry it went that way too, but I feel perhaps I was maybe a bit too naive to begin with. I was all for equal rights, but it's so much more than that. Equal rights is just the cover story. I think there are many more agendas lurking here, and until they are all out in the open, I cannot in good conscience vote for something I do not have the full story on. The gay community needs to be more open about it's wants. If you sneak something, it is going to leave a bad taste behind. I personally feel the gay community needs to be more open to discussion of the matter, as opposed to insistance. A little flexibility would go a long way here,it's just that I am not seeing any.

[psyche101]

Congrats to Australia and all its states plus territories in the uniaminous decision in the name of rights for all people.

I await for the entire USA state by state to legalize same-sex marriage, a long road ahead not to force people to change their minds...activism, education, public awareness and ignoring ignorance is the best way to open minds to combat closed mindness.

I am straight male, yet I recognize the humanity of all people regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Australia has not legalized same sex marriage, they have recognized full rights for civil unions. Australia recognises same-sex marriages only by one partner changing their sex after marriage. - LINK

[psyche101]

Marriage is a legal issue between two people. If god wants to dip his finger into a legal issue so be it. However we live in secular states and god can not do that. Simple, how does it hurt anyone to allow gay marriage. Well except those that think the term marriage is an owned word and can not me shared but by anyone of there said faith.

Why do you keep talking about God? The Gay Community is lying to the straight community and saying they need marriage for equal rights, when they already have said rights in a civil union, and are lying to get to the romance aspect. If you are OK with being lied to, more power to you. Our secular states have already defined expressions to describe all aspects of society, one more is required the way I see it, that is just how nomenclature works. The dictionary requires a new term.

It hurts marriage because it changes the meaning of marriage. I really do not think people who care naught for marriage deserve a say here to be quite honest, as they have no idea what they are talking about.

Marriage is not defined as a legal issue between two people, it is defined as a legal issue between a man and a woman. So Same the sex marriage definition is a legal contract between a man and a woman, excepting that this is not a man and a woman, but same gender partners. That is long winded and stupid. A new term is required, and has been issued, but they gay community do not like it, and want the standard male/female definition re-written. Unless God controls all the dictionaries, he is out of the picture here.

[shadowhive]

Yet the article in the OP shows us that the state of things is changing doesn't it? If the gay community was to embrace the example as opposed to turing their nose up at it, then more of the globe, or at least the Western World would have a legal example as a precedent to make people change the way the gay community stands, not just let it hide in the straight communities shadow. If some states are behind in their way of thinking, should not advantages of the new state be presented as a shining example? I thought you wanted to impact people, not hide in the shadows, as that seems not much of a step forward.

I do feel lied to, I think that rights should not be mentioned until a right that is denied can be held up as an example.

Exactly, things are changing. The gay community isn't 'turning it's nose at it'. The simple fact is this: the gay community want same sex marriage. They'll take civil unions as an alternative, but that's all they see it as.

Why do you see it as 'hiding in the shadows'?

Whenever I hold one up, you don't seem to care about it. I think to you it has to be not just a right, but a big right that is denied. Even then you reserve the right to ignore it.

Like you said, things are changing and they are changing at a rapid rate. In just a few generations homosexuality has gone from being a criminal offense to a recognised part off human sexuality. Approval for gay relationships and their unions has improved noticeably every year. Their is opposition and it is loud, but people are now seeing the human side of things that the opposition does not.

Why have I changed? Your one way attitude. There is no discussion here, it's your way or the highway, and civil unions are just not good enough. If this is how the gay community wants to conduct itself on all issues, then I am opposed to it. I know many good people will suffer for the actions of the few proud ones, but that's life. The proud few who "want it all" are not helping their own community. The old give an inch take a mile.

My attitude isn't 'one way'. I have heard variations of your 'discussions' before. I have found they hae no valaue as they don't have any examples of evidence to back them up. Like I said, you use broad sweeping statements and have bought into fear.

Like I said, I see civil unions as a 'stepping stone'. Think it's decietful? You didn't seem to think that when you first replied, even though the op says the same thing.

And there you show what the opposition always does: that you know good people will suffer, but you just don't care.

Yeah, so is the KKK. I do not agree with them nor their views, same with neo nazis, but for some inane reason, these groups have rights. All in our community right?

It's a part of our culture that has not always been accepted. Now it is starting to be. As such, it is a new facet of culture. A new facet deserves it's own identity. Marriage is an old tradition, not a modern one.

How is it "against" my own culture? In the first line you say how it is the same, in the last you say they are different. Not following you there.

Of course you use comparisons to extremist groups that often actively harm people.

Yes, not always accepted, but your actions are making out like they should continue not to be accepted. You don't want the gay cmmunity to have YOUR marriage. You don't want the gay community to have something even like marriage now. Again, you seem not interested with letting the gay community be part of our culture, you'r$e more concerned with keeping them out of it.

Why does it have to? And how is it tradition if it changes, and so radically? Marriage is between a man and a woman, if it is between two of the same sex, then it is not marriage, its a union.

tradition

Pronunciation: /trəˈdɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

1 [mass noun] the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way:

members of different castes have by tradition been associated with specific occupations

[count noun] a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on from one generation to another:

Marriage is not traditionally for the gay community. So it is destroying the tradition by making it for one and all. That is not what the tradition of marriage encompasses.

A common tradition in the Western world is the celebration of Christmas. It's origin can be traced back to a pre-Christian pagan mid-winter festival, then Christians co-opted it to make the transition easier for pagans. After that things were added to the tradition. The tree, the decorations, the presents.

That's but one tradition that has changed from it's inception. You might say the original meaning of Christmas has been destroyed, but that's a llittle overdramatic. It's merely altered it. Altering doesn't mean destroying.

Gee, I really wish it was possible to hold you to that. Let Gay marriage have a trial run, and hold you personally responsible for any damages. Fact is you are making promises you cannot keep. That really does not allay my concerns. For a start, the recognized definition is changed immediately. I have no intention of repeating the other poins for you again. It just gets long winded and you ignore it anyway.

The fact that you are making promises you cannot keep is concerning enough. There has been enough deception to date.

In several places gay marriage has been in existance for years. You don't actually need to 'let' gay marriage have a trial run, all you have to do is look at these places and see what damage is being done. If the damage is as obvious you'd claim, there'd be evidence from these places.

Again, facts and information are ignored in favor of blind opposition.

BS. What the heck do you think the rights that this thread is actually about are doing? Who do you think voted for those rights? Where did the Gay community get these rights? From the community. The Gay community does not have the numbers to get this far alone. You do not go to those lengths if you do not care. There is even now civil unions that offer the full compliment of rights that marriage does, but hey, that is still not enough, you want to re-write terminology as well. What about considering that the straight community deserves to have a say in a tradition they have been associated with exclusively for 2,000 years?

I suggest you look at the op. You'll see that the opposition in it doesn't particular care about gay rights and are as opposed to civil unions as they are to marriage.

I have a question for you. Do you really want the staight communtity to have a say, or only the members of the straight community that agrees with you? Just curious.

The gay community got this far through the support of members of the straight community. Yes there is opposition, but there are also strong supporters. Oddly you seem to act like there's just opposition.

That is right, it has been written, and people have chosen the definition. The gay community wants to change that definition. I do not think that is fair or right. The people have spoken, the word is in the book, and I even showed one person who quit her job over violating the definition. It is a major change that is not required, nor necessary, and according to nomenclature practices, makes no sense. This is but another reason I now oppose civil unions, that old give an inch, take a mile. It's rude to expect too much at once. And cool is but a word, not the descriptor of a time honored tradition. Marriage is bigger than a word. Everyone was happy with the alternate meanings to cool, but there is opposition to the term same sex marriage.

Let's look at the person that quit their job. One person quit their job because they lost a vote. Everyone was allowed to vote the way they wished, yet only that one person left because it didn't go their way. They could have remained in their party and continued to do their job, after all that's what other people do when they lose a vote, but they couldn't. They didn't have to leave, they weren't forced to leave, they did it themselves.

Like I said, I've never said there is not opposition. What I have said is the opposition doesn't take a good look at what it's satying, what it's doing, or any facts or information.There is always opposition to change and new ideas. Like I try and point out, change often wins out.

I am sorry it went that way too, but I feel perhaps I was maybe a bit too naive to begin with. I was all for equal rights, but it's so much more than that. Equal rights is just the cover story. I think there are many more agendas lurking here, and until they are all out in the open, I cannot in good conscience vote for something I do not have the full story on. The gay community needs to be more open about it's wants. If you sneak something, it is going to leave a bad taste behind. I personally feel the gay community needs to be more open to discussion of the matter, as opposed to insistance. A little flexibility would go a long way here,it's just that I am not seeing any.

It's not a cover story, far from it. There are many agendas, but they ARE out in the open. They are obvious for all to see, but you've been so blind you've missed them.

This has never been about sneaking anything.

The strange thing about discussion is this. The gay community want recognition for their relationships, ideally in the form of same sex marriage. The opposition would rather that gay relationships weren't recognised at all (some have even gone as far as to say they don't exist). There's not much to discuss there.

Edited January 10, 2012 by shadowhive

[psyche101]

Exactly, things are changing. The gay community isn't 'turning it's nose at it'. The simple fact is this: the gay community want same sex marriage. They'll take civil unions as an alternative, but that's all they see it as.

Why do you see it as 'hiding in the shadows'?

Whenever I hold one up, you don't seem to care about it. I think to you it has to be not just a right, but a big right that is denied. Even then you reserve the right to ignore it.

Like you said, things are changing and they are changing at a rapid rate. In just a few generations homosexuality has gone from being a criminal offense to a recognised part off human sexuality. Approval for gay relationships and their unions has improved noticeably every year. Their is opposition and it is loud, but people are now seeing the human side of things that the opposition does not.

Simple fact is the straight community do not want same sex marriage that is why it is not commonplace. You lot keep pointing the finger at the Church, and although the Church has never been a supporter of gay unions, The Church hardly encompasses the entire speaking world. A lot more than just the Church has been in opposition for the last 2,000 years and in the past where the people have been in conflict with the Church, the people have won. This goes back as far as the historical uprising during the time if Thomas Becket. So why have the straight community been silent for the last 1,000 or so years? As a Gay Marriage is an alternative to traditional marriage, an alternative arrangement also needs to be made, that is plain common sense. Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. You have turned me against it due to your demands. Do you really think I will be the only one? There are people far more opposed than I, and fact of all the people I know, I am thew most benign on the issue. I have not met or personally spoken to one Queenslander that has said "that's great about the new laws!" but I have had people I know in other states call me and say what the hell is that government doing to you lot? One door opens, and that's it. We have to rewrite definition, change tradition, and alter the true meaning or marriage. I see why so many are concerned now, and feel that blindly opening doors is just not the way to go. Things are screwed up enough as it is, the last thing we need is more mess thanks very much.

It is hiding in the shadows, the gay community is underhandedly trying to assimilate marriage instead of standing up with their own ideas. For a community so proud of it's rights, you seem rather short on imagination, domination seems to be more the way that community rolls.

Yes, things are changing rapidly, and that seems to give the gay community more confidence to attempt to assimilate modern heterosexual society. I am going to fight to preserve heterosexual culture. I am not going to let the gay community dissolve it into one big sticky mess.

One thing you have held up that I acknowledge is that marriage is unanimous no matter where you are on the globe, Civil Unions can vary. That is where the hard work the gay community is required to do sits, and what the gay community will avoid, for the easy path of assimilating marriage. I do not feel barging into marriage is the way here although an easy path, I think that fighting and winning these rights one by one is the way to make the globe acknowledge that alleged struggle of the gay community, and what would earn respect, and the many varied instance I feel would lead to the gay community having it's own specialized form of union that immediately defines a couple as gay, and not gay/heterosexual. But I am seeing that path is too hard, and it is just easier to take marriage from the straight community and redefine it. Damn lazy I reckon.

My attitude isn't 'one way'. I have heard variations of your 'discussions' before. I have found they hae no valaue as they don't have any examples of evidence to back them up. Like I said, you use broad sweeping statements and have bought into fear.

Like I said, I see civil unions as a 'stepping stone'. Think it's decietful? You didn't seem to think that when you first replied, even though the op says the same thing.

And there you show what the opposition always does: that you know good people will suffer, but you just don't care.

Yes, your attitude is one way, there is no alternative but gay marriage, regardless of what freedoms are associated with an alternate form of recognition as far as you are concerned. If you cannot compromise, there is no way forward.

And yes, good people will suffer for the greater good of the many. That is what society is, and what the gay community seems to be not understanding here. I want capital punishment in Australia, and if I was wrongly convicted, I could sit in the chair and die an innocent man happily (well, maybe not happily, but understanding) knowing my death will save hundreds of other lives. I could understand why my life was lost, if my offspring will benefit a brighter and safer future, and I could accept that.

Civil unions are deceitful, Here I was thinking you lot were happy to be getting new rights, but it is just a stepping stone to assimilating marriage. There is no middle ground here, the gay community is not discussing this, they are saying "give it to me", not "lets talk about this" That is bullying.

Of course you use comparisons to extremist groups that often actively harm people.

Yes, not always accepted, but your actions are making out like they should continue not to be accepted. You don't want the gay cmmunity to have YOUR marriage. You don't want the gay community to have something even like marriage now. Again, you seem not interested with letting the gay community be part of our culture, you'r$e more concerned with keeping them out of it.

Yes, my comparisons are not a distant country and a different law, like you who keeps spouting Shari'ah law. I used a working example from modern society. Neo Nazis are holding a concert in Australia soon, despite overwhelming protest. LINK - Petition to stop neo-Nazi concert I am trying to stick with what affects you and I, not extreme examples from completely different societies. That is what I call a fair debate. It's here, and now. There is also webpages where one can protest against the KKK. When was the last time a stoning took place in your country or mine?

My actions have been shaped by the greed of the gay community. When you get civil unions, and you screw your nose up and say, that will do for right now, tomorrow I want same sex marriage is pushing to much too fast. In fact I am a little surprised that such a basic fact eludes you. The Gay community need to be open and honest about the agenda and say, we have the rights, now we are going to take over the ceremonies. You are right, I do not want the Gay community changing my marriage, I want them to do what the straight community did, and develop their own ways and traditions. A gay couple is not going to procreate, so it is not the same as marriage. So it is not marriage, not be definition, not by lifestyle, not by gender, not by expectation. It is not marriage. It's a union. If it is a different thing, it should be classified as such. The real problem is that PC straight people like the gay community only see the honeymoon aspect.

A common tradition in the Western world is the celebration of Christmas. It's origin can be traced back to a pre-Christian pagan mid-winter festival, then Christians co-opted it to make the transition easier for pagans. After that things were added to the tradition. The tree, the decorations, the presents.

That's but one tradition that has changed from it's inception. You might say the original meaning of Christmas has been destroyed, but that's a llittle overdramatic. It's merely altered it. Altering doesn't mean destroying.

That is one of many reasons why my kids go to a Catholic School. They have learned from an early age that Christmas in not about marketing, that is what Christmas means to people who do not give a crap. As such, I do my best to maintain the long traditions, and make my kids aware of what life was, and what it is now.

Yes, some are trying to destroy the meaning of Christmas, and it is not going without a fight. But that is not a need, it was greed. Marketing. And that change is not really the best change IMHO. Instead of being thankful for being here and now, we only care about what we want from the shops. Some Preschools here decided against Christmas and held a "Festive break" breakup. So that they would not offend those with different faiths. I think the only kids that will be in those preschools this year will be those from those different faiths, it will be interesting to see how many close down due to low numbers. Every single parent I know that was subject to ruining their kids Christmas in this way has already pulled their kids from schools that did this. Every now and then, some bully tries to force you out of your traditions, and to accept theirs, but it will not go down without a fight. This will be no different. The gay community is not going to bully the straight community in to redefining and assimilating heterosexual marriage as we know it without a fight.

Many people do not give a crap for tradition, but some of us are going to hold onto what made us what we are today.

In several places gay marriage has been in existance for years. You don't actually need to 'let' gay marriage have a trial run, all you have to do is look at these places and see what damage is being done. If the damage is as obvious you'd claim, there'd be evidence from these places.

Again, facts and information are ignored in favor of blind opposition.

And when did this start, Hrrm? 2001? And how many Counties have embraced this mess? 10? 12? And what official studies and results can you point me at to reassure me from this minuscule time frame by comparison to a 2,000 year time frame? I just wish it was possible to hold you personally responsible for all gay marriage, and it's impact. Then you claim of responsibility might mean something. There will be real problems, what you do not seem to factor is that the gay community is still human, and therefore subject to human nature, which can be very ugly at times, regardless of who or what you are.

You are making promises that you cannot possibly keep, that's not a great starting point. Where are these facts? How are you going to reassure me? Who can I hold personally responsible? Just by saying, well someone tried it, and that went OK?

I suggest you look at the op. You'll see that the opposition in it doesn't particular care about gay rights and are as opposed to civil unions as they are to marriage.

I have a question for you. Do you really want the staight communtity to have a say, or only the members of the straight community that agrees with you? Just curious.

The gay community got this far through the support of members of the straight community. Yes there is opposition, but there are also strong supporters. Oddly you seem to act like there's just opposition.

I think married straight members of the community should have the say. They have the experience, and they know what marriage means. I do not feel that is is right nor fair to allow people without an inkling of marriage to vote on it's existence, and future. Letting one and all steer this path would be like letting a logger decide if a forrest should be cut down or not. They do not care or understand the bigger picture.

Did you read what I posted above? How does that show the straight community is not supporting the gay community? How does that describe only opposition? Can you elaborate? What I said was that the straight community is not being consulted here. And they deserve to be.

Let's look at the person that quit their job. One person quit their job because they lost a vote. Everyone was allowed to vote the way they wished, yet only that one person left because it didn't go their way. They could have remained in their party and continued to do their job, after all that's what other people do when they lose a vote, but they couldn't. They didn't have to leave, they weren't forced to leave, they did it themselves.

Like I said, I've never said there is not opposition. What I have said is the opposition doesn't take a good look at what it's satying, what it's doing, or any facts or information.There is always opposition to change and new ideas. Like I try and point out, change often wins out.

No, one person quit her job because the legislation was so radical that she could not live with her conscience. These are the people that you are affecting without a second thought, and blaming ignorance on their behalf with some sort of justification. No respect for elders is what I am seeing. None at all. I feel it is the gay community who is not taking in the big picture here, they just expect the globe to instantly conform, but all changes take time to implement.

And from the OP Link:

Gladstone independent MP Liz Cunningham opposes the bill, saying she does not want to ridicule or vilify anyone; in fact says many gay people are “of great worth”.

However she says she will hold true to her personal values. “It’s about respecting faith and core values, many who are shared by those in my electorate.”

It's not a cover story, far from it. There are many agendas, but they ARE out in the open. They are obvious for all to see, but you've been so blind you've missed them.

This has never been about sneaking anything.

The strange thing about discussion is this. The gay community want recognition for their relationships, ideally in the form of same sex marriage. The opposition would rather that gay relationships weren't recognised at all (some have even gone as far as to say they don't exist). There's not much to discuss there.

If they are out in the open, why is this called a rights issue? That is one question you cannot answer. It is not a rights issue at all, Marriage is a want. I have not once seen the gay community express that as a reason, and I suppose that is because it is not a valid reason.

If they gay community wants recognition, then they should forge their own way forth, and not assimilate and permanently modify a time honored tradition. The gay community does not have the right to alter historical practices. This is what they want to do, as we can see, the Gay Community has full access to civil unions, and countries are coming on board to allow equal rights. If the gay community really cares about it's own community, they would be making sure this law is enacted in Queensland is global, not seeking to alter tradition and definition. That's is what you are supposed to be about right? World acceptance? I am not so sure anymore. I think the gay community in the more prosperous part of the world have forgotten the downtrodden in favor of a fancy ceremony that they can pinch from someone else.

I have refrained from the ad homs, unlike yourself, but if you think I have been blind to this agenda, can you point out where it is clearly shown anywhere that this want for marriage is being lobbied for honestly?

I do not believe what you have written about being out in the open for one second, this is an underhanded way to dupe people into thinking they are voting for a right, when it is a want. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Just promises, and I have heard enough of them in my time. Can you prove your claim? Or is it just a claim?

Edited January 11, 2012 by psyche101

[shadowhive]

Simple fact is the straight community do not want same sex marriage that is why it is not commonplace. You lot keep pointing the finger at the Church, and although the Church has never been a supporter of gay unions, The Church hardly encompasses the entire speaking world. A lot more than just the Church has been in opposition for the last 2,000 years and in the past where the people have been in conflict with the Church, the people have won. This goes back as far as the historical uprising during the time if Thomas Becket. So why have the straight community been silent for the last 1,000 or so years? As a Gay Marriage is an alternative to traditional marriage, an alternative arrangement also needs to be made, that is plain common sense. Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. You have turned me against it due to your demands. Do you really think I will be the only one? There are people far more opposed than I, and fact of all the people I know, I am thew most benign on the issue. I have not met or personally spoken to one Queenslander that has said "that's great about the new laws!" but I have had people I know in other states call me and say what the hell is that government doing to you lot? One door opens, and that's it. We have to rewrite definition, change tradition, and alter the true meaning or marriage. I see why so many are concerned now, and feel that blindly opening doors is just not the way to go. Things are screwed up enough as it is, the last thing we need is more mess thanks very much.

It is hiding in the shadows, the gay community is underhandedly trying to assimilate marriage instead of standing up with their own ideas. For a community so proud of it's rights, you seem rather short on imagination, domination seems to be more the way that community rolls.

Yes, things are changing rapidly, and that seems to give the gay community more confidence to attempt to assimilate modern heterosexual society. I am going to fight to preserve heterosexual culture. I am not going to let the gay community dissolve it into one big sticky mess.

One thing you have held up that I acknowledge is that marriage is unanimous no matter where you are on the globe, Civil Unions can vary. That is where the hard work the gay community is required to do sits, and what the gay community will avoid, for the easy path of assimilating marriage. I do not feel barging into marriage is the way here although an easy path, I think that fighting and winning these rights one by one is the way to make the globe acknowledge that alleged struggle of the gay community, and what would earn respect, and the many varied instance I feel would lead to the gay community having it's own specialized form of union that immediately defines a couple as gay, and not gay/heterosexual. But I am seeing that path is too hard, and it is just easier to take marriage from the straight community and redefine it. Damn lazy I reckon.

To answer your first point, why straight people have been silent for the past 1000 or so years well that is rather obvious. You see the gay community had no voice. With no voice, the straight community were unaware of the existance of gay people. With no voice, the gay people in the community had no idea what their thoughts and feelings meant. Often they would repress and 'act normal' thus continuing the cycle. The gay community you will notice is fairly small in number, with no identifying features. As such it's only in recent years the gay people have been able to communicate and gather together to make their voice heard. With no voice the community is invisible and that is why it's only recently that things have been able to change and why, for along time, the straight community was utterly unaware gay people even existed.

There is a problem here of perspective. You see it as gay people 'barging' it's way into a place where it doesn't belong. You see it as 'assimilation' of a time honored tradition. You see it as insulting and that's why you oppose it.

Marriages are respected and the term carries a lot of weight. That is precisely why the gay community wants to be a part of it. They want their relationships respected as equal to yours. Having a whole other union doesn't strike anyone as 'equal'. It's creating a new term and building it from the ground up. You may see that as the right thing to do, but that's not how I see it andthat's not how the gay community see it either.

The gay community want equality desperately. They want acceptance and to be part of the culture and all you're doing is saying 'no'.

Civil unions do vary and that's part of the problem. Around the world civil unions are seen as noticably 'less than' marriage. That's why the gay community take it, but don't really want them. There's not the universal recognition that marriage has. And like I said, a lot of people see it as being a 'seperate but equal' thing, which they see as offensive and insulting. Often civil unions are at best seen as a consolation prize.

There is another thing and bothers me about what you say. You want the gay community to 'forge it's own way' with civil unions. How? By blocking them at every turn like you proudly say you will? Even civil unions are merely cast offs by the straight community, designed merely to appease the gay community rather then anything the gay cmmunity wants or creates for itself.

When it comes to the people you've spoken to, this is something I've tried to get across to you. The opposition don't want gay unions recognised AT ALL. How do you compromise with that? How do you have sensible discussions with people that think that way?

Yes, your attitude is one way, there is no alternative but gay marriage, regardless of what freedoms are associated with an alternate form of recognition as far as you are concerned. If you cannot compromise, there is no way forward.

And yes, good people will suffer for the greater good of the many. That is what society is, and what the gay community seems to be not understanding here. I want capital punishment in Australia, and if I was wrongly convicted, I could sit in the chair and die an innocent man happily (well, maybe not happily, but understanding) knowing my death will save hundreds of other lives. I could understand why my life was lost, if my offspring will benefit a brighter and safer future, and I could accept that.

Civil unions are deceitful, Here I was thinking you lot were happy to be getting new rights, but it is just a stepping stone to assimilating marriage. There is no middle ground here, the gay community is not discussing this, they are saying "give it to me", not "lets talk about this" That is bullying.

Like I said, like the op makes out, like EVERY gay rights organisations make out: civil unions are acceptable, but marriage is prefered. There is absolutely no deceit involved. Compromise is accepted, but future progress from that is accepted too.

Your example there is a pretty poor one. Someone who is innocent would not take punishment for something they didn't do gladly, certainly not if that punishment was death.

Like I said, there have been discussions and the opposing side wants the gay community to have nothing. Compromising with them would mean no recognition at all. But the opposing side isn't 'bullying' is it?

Yes, my comparisons are not a distant country and a different law, like you who keeps spouting Shari'ah law. I used a working example from modern society. Neo Nazis are holding a concert in Australia soon, despite overwhelming protest. LINK - Petition to stop neo-Nazi concert I am trying to stick with what affects you and I, not extreme examples from completely different societies. That is what I call a fair debate. It's here, and now. There is also webpages where one can protest against the KKK. When was the last time a stoning took place in your country or mine?

My comparisons refering to women were accurate for the history of the Western world. NOW women have equal rights, but they are new. They had to fight for the right to vote, the right to have jobs and to have free choice. If the Western world historically treated women as equals then they wouldn't have had to fight for those rights. That is why I bought it up. They fought for rights and obtained them sucessfully.

Thanks for the link though, I've signed the petition.

My actions have been shaped by the greed of the gay community. When you get civil unions, and you screw your nose up and say, that will do for right now, tomorrow I want same sex marriage is pushing to much too fast. In fact I am a little surprised that such a basic fact eludes you. The Gay community need to be open and honest about the agenda and say, we have the rights, now we are going to take over the ceremonies. You are right, I do not want the Gay community changing my marriage, I want them to do what the straight community did, and develop their own ways and traditions. A gay couple is not going to procreate, so it is not the same as marriage. So it is not marriage, not be definition, not by lifestyle, not by gender, not by expectation. It is not marriage. It's a union. If it is a different thing, it should be classified as such. The real problem is that PC straight people like the gay community only see the honeymoon aspect.

Question: if the gay community instead said 'right, we'll take civil unions' and then said 50 or 100 years later 'ok can we have full same sex marriage now' would that still be unacceptable to you?

Is procreation an expected or required part of marriage? No. Are gay couples able and willing to have children of their own? Yes. If they didn't, gay couples wouldn't want to adopt and fight for their rights to do so as well. As well as adoption, there is also surrogacy and in vitro fertilisation. As to lifestyle, well what do you mean? Do all married couples adopt a set lifestyle? I've never heard of such a thing happen before.

And when did this start, Hrrm? 2001? And how many Counties have embraced this mess? 10? 12? And what official studies and results can you point me at to reassure me from this minuscule time frame by comparison to a 2,000 year time frame? I just wish it was possible to hold you personally responsible for all gay marriage, and it's impact. Then you claim of responsibility might mean something. There will be real problems, what you do not seem to factor is that the gay community is still human, and therefore subject to human nature, which can be very ugly at times, regardless of who or what you are.

You are making promises that you cannot possibly keep, that's not a great starting point. Where are these facts? How are you going to reassure me? Who can I hold personally responsible? Just by saying, well someone tried it, and that went OK?

10 countries (currently) have same sex marriages. Many more have some form of civil union. Comparing what happens over 2000 years compared to what happens over 10 is rather ridiculous and hardly a reasonable comparison. However you can compare hetrosexual marriage vs same sex marriage (or civil unions) in a given year. All the opposition would have to do is look at the statistics and see if hetrosexual marriage has declined or impacted negatively in the time period they've both existed. If hetrosexual marriage is impacted negatively then there'd surely be some form of evidence that would be visible in such a way.

The last study I read on it was a few months back. (I apologise for not being able to share the link, since I accessed it on a different computer and can't seem to find it.) The findings of it were rather curious. Instead of straight marriages declining, straight marriages actually increased when same sex marriage was introduced.

There may be problems, yes, but you've not highlighted any specifically.

As for reassuring you I'm not sure if there's anything that could. You don't seem terribly keen aon being reassured. You've become set in same sex marriage being a threat and nothing I say or do (or anyone would say or do) would likely change your mind.

I think married straight members of the community should have the say. They have the experience, and they know what marriage means. I do not feel that is is right nor fair to allow people without an inkling of marriage to vote on it's existence, and future. Letting one and all steer this path would be like letting a logger decide if a forrest should be cut down or not. They do not care or understand the bigger picture.

Did you read what I posted above? How does that show the straight community is not supporting the gay community? How does that describe only opposition? Can you elaborate? What I said was that the straight community is not being consulted here. And they deserve to be.

They do have their say. But you only seem keen on them having a say. You don't seem keen on the gay community being able to have a voice in the matter.

The straight community IS being consulted and rather openly at that.How much consultation with the straight community would be enough for you?

No, one person quit her job because the legislation was so radical that she could not live with her conscience. These are the people that you are affecting without a second thought, and blaming ignorance on their behalf with some sort of justification. No respect for elders is what I am seeing. None at all. I feel it is the gay community who is not taking in the big picture here, they just expect the globe to instantly conform, but all changes take time to implement.

There was a vote, she voted, she lost, she resigned. That is the basics of it and it really is that simple. If every politician left because they lost a vote, there'd be no politicians.

And from the OP Link:

Gladstone independent MP Liz Cunningham opposes the bill, saying she does not want to ridicule or vilify anyone; in fact says many gay people are “of great worth”.

However she says she will hold true to her personal values. “It’s about respecting faith and core values, many who are shared by those in my electorate.”

And this is typical double speak. she says gay people are 'of great worth' but here opposition to the bill equates to her thinking that gay relationships aren't of equal value and thus, are inferior.

If they are out in the open, why is this called a rights issue? That is one question you cannot answer. It is not a rights issue at all, Marriage is a want. I have not once seen the gay community express that as a reason, and I suppose that is because it is not a valid reason.

The gay community have always said they WANT the right to have same sex marriage. It is there, staring you in the face and yet you act like you've been 'lied to' and that it's 'not been there'.

If they gay community wants recognition, then they should forge their own way forth, and not assimilate and permanently modify a time honored tradition. The gay community does not have the right to alter historical practices. This is what they want to do, as we can see, the Gay Community has full access to civil unions, and countries are coming on board to allow equal rights. If the gay community really cares about it's own community, they would be making sure this law is enacted in Queensland is global, not seeking to alter tradition and definition. That's is what you are supposed to be about right? World acceptance? I am not so sure anymore. I think the gay community in the more prosperous part of the world have forgotten the downtrodden in favor of a fancy ceremony that they can pinch from someone else.

I have refrained from the ad homs, unlike yourself, but if you think I have been blind to this agenda, can you point out where it is clearly shown anywhere that this want for marriage is being lobbied for honestly?

I do not believe what you have written about being out in the open for one second, this is an underhanded way to dupe people into thinking they are voting for a right, when it is a want. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Just promises, and I have heard enough of them in my time. Can you prove your claim? Or is it just a claim?

I believe I've answered most of the first part already and don't seek to repeat myself.

World acceptance is, however, very important. This is just one issue of the overall big picture. You know, the one you accuse me of not being able to see? I see the big picture and I wish world acceptance would come easily. I see the downtrodden and hope that things get easier for them, that there was a way to help them more. However the gay community as a whole is trying it's best to help the downtrodden, to pressure governemnts to get rid of laws that violate human rights or even to get stop people being sent back to countries where their lives may be in danger.

Everyone deserves to live their lives with respect and diginity and that's what the gay community is trying to do.

It has been shown, numerous times that it is been lobbied for honestly. The very op says so. You're so desperate to believe you've been lied to, because then you have a case but the fact is no one has. You've now convinced yourself that it's a lie quite well, depite the op making it painfully clear that you've not been lied to for a second.

The only lying is to yourself.

Edited January 11, 2012 by shadowhive

[psyche101]

To answer your first point, why straight people have been silent for the past 1000 or so years well that is rather obvious. You see the gay community had no voice. With no voice, the straight community were unaware of the existance of gay people. With no voice, the gay people in the community had no idea what their thoughts and feelings meant. Often they would repress and 'act normal' thus continuing the cycle. The gay community you will notice is fairly small in number, with no identifying features. As such it's only in recent years the gay people have been able to communicate and gather together to make their voice heard. With no voice the community is invisible and that is why it's only recently that things have been able to change and why, for along time, the straight community was utterly unaware gay people even existed.

There is a problem here of perspective. You see it as gay people 'barging' it's way into a place where it doesn't belong. You see it as 'assimilation' of a time honored tradition. You see it as insulting and that's why you oppose it.

Marriages are respected and the term carries a lot of weight. That is precisely why the gay community wants to be a part of it. They want their relationships respected as equal to yours. Having a whole other union doesn't strike anyone as 'equal'. It's creating a new term and building it from the ground up. You may see that as the right thing to do, but that's not how I see it andthat's not how the gay community see it either.

The gay community want equality desperately. They want acceptance and to be part of the culture and all you're doing is saying 'no'.

Civil unions do vary and that's part of the problem. Around the world civil unions are seen as noticably 'less than' marriage. That's why the gay community take it, but don't really want them. There's not the universal recognition that marriage has. And like I said, a lot of people see it as being a 'seperate but equal' thing, which they see as offensive and insulting. Often civil unions are at best seen as a consolation prize.

There is another thing and bothers me about what you say. You want the gay community to 'forge it's own way' with civil unions. How? By blocking them at every turn like you proudly say you will? Even civil unions are merely cast offs by the straight community, designed merely to appease the gay community rather then anything the gay cmmunity wants or creates for itself.

When it comes to the people you've spoken to, this is something I've tried to get across to you. The opposition don't want gay unions recognised AT ALL. How do you compromise with that? How do you have sensible discussions with people that think that way?

Are you trying to say less gay people existed a thousand years ago, or that less people admitted to being gay a thousand years ago, because the incident with Thomas Beckets shows that if there was a movement that disagreed with the Church, that the people would overcome. And if you blame the Church for your woes throughout History, why have the gay community not sought the support from the straight community like today? Why do they have a voice now, and not then? You can't blame the Church there. I do not believe that the straight community did not know the gay community existed, if you believe that, then you have never read an ounce of History. Such was quite common in Ancient Greece as far as I know. Have you ever read much about Alexander the Great? Richard the Lionhearted?

On the barging and assimilation yep, on the nose, I see no reason why that is not a major concern. Your personal assurances have done naught to allay any of those fears.

Having a Union strikes me as perfectly equal, you just do not like the term as it is somewhat sterile, and it would be as it is an accurate description. As we have seen there is no legal issue, it's a mindset. The gay community likes the idea of marriage and wants a piece of it, straight community be damned if they want that or not. So you call it a basic right. That is where the lying comes in. Marriage is a term which has earned it's place over centuries by billions of men and women going through the ceremony. And again, respect is earned, not bought. The Gay Community seems to think they can buy the respect they desire. Not going to happen, we will just both lose. If that happens, I can see the current situation going backwards at an alarming rate, just as in my own example here. I find it a bit like Scientologists calling themselves a religion, except instead of for respect, they do it for the tax break. It's a sham and belittles what so many have practiced for centuries. Such total lack of respect for your fellow person is alarming. You do not care who you hurt and upset or what you may or may not destroy, as long as you feel respected, and make it snappy you straight lot! We want it yesterday!

How am I blocking a new path for Gay Unions? Because after I see how the desire is marketed as a right I have felt duped and therefore jaded? It would only take one gay group to grow a pair and stand up and make their own way for me to nod approvingly and offer them support. Until that day arrives, al I see is that the gay community just wants to engulf the straight community, I will not vote for that. You lot need to learn to stand on your own feet as far as I am concerned. That's just life. We all have to do that. You seem to think the gay community is exempt from the challenges in life the rest of us have always faced, and still do.

With the people I have spoken too, I am starting to see their fears quite clearly. And I think as people, they deserve to be heard just as clearly as the gay community on this issue. Yes they are opposing all rights, and I was trying to support them. Now you have one less vote. And I feel this will continue and worsen as long as the gay community offers demands, not discussion.

Like I said, like the op makes out, like EVERY gay rights organisations make out: civil unions are acceptable, but marriage is prefered. There is absolutely no deceit involved. Compromise is accepted, but future progress from that is accepted too.

Your example there is a pretty poor one. Someone who is innocent would not take punishment for something they didn't do gladly, certainly not if that punishment was death.

Like I said, there have been discussions and the opposing side wants the gay community to have nothing. Compromising with them would mean no recognition at all. But the opposing side isn't 'bullying' is it?

No, from the link in the OP,

a move dismissed by opponents as mimicking marriage but hailed by supporters as an important step towards equality.

This is a political argument about rights, and the bill offers civil unions equal rights, so what equality is this all about? You have it. The bill was passed. This is the lie in motion. Mimicking marriage? The rights are the same, but the definition is different, so it is not rights at all is it? Its the mindset. That is not honest, that is deceit.

My example pertained to my own self, how dare you tell me what I am thinking! You are patently wrong, if my life meant more for my kids, the question would not be so much as asked. I said, well not happily, but understandingly. Read the post again please.

There have been discussion from groups that want the gay community to have nothing, yet people come forth to help those people understand more, and then the Gay community shoots those straight people in the foot by bullying the remaining opposition. This has the potential to backfire on the gay community yet I feel.

My comparisons refering to women were accurate for the history of the Western world. NOW women have equal rights, but they are new. They had to fight for the right to vote, the right to have jobs and to have free choice. If the Western world historically treated women as equals then they wouldn't have had to fight for those rights. That is why I bought it up. They fought for rights and obtained them sucessfully.

Thanks for the link though, I've signed the petition.

NOW they have equal rights huh?

Have you ever heard of Eleanor of Aquitaine, Hatshepsut, Maria Theresa of Austria, Empress Theodora, Empress Wu Zetian, Isabella I of Castile, Elizabeth I of England, Empress Dowager Cixi, Catherine II of Russia, or Queen Victoria?

If women have never been considered as equals, how did the above women gain some of the most important and wealthy roles in History? Historical record is fluid, some periods were darker than others. Again, this is how the respect was earned, not bought. That is why women are decades, perhaps centuries in front of the gay movement. They did something about it, they forged their own ways. I respect that.

And thank you for signing the petition, I appreciate it, I would rather Australia just close it's doors to hate groups altogether. Nazi right is not earned, I have zero respect for that lot. Even if I oppose same sex marriage, I do have respect for the gay community, mainly due to the aspects I have seen from my lesbian friend. I am glad that her rights are equal to mine here in this state. She deserves it.

ETA How did you sign the petition? It seems to be restricted to Queensland residents only? Unless you have the permission of a local to use their details?

Question: if the gay community instead said 'right, we'll take civil unions' and then said 50 or 100 years later 'ok can we have full same sex marriage now' would that still be unacceptable to you?

Is procreation an expected or required part of marriage? No. Are gay couples able and willing to have children of their own? Yes. If they didn't, gay couples wouldn't want to adopt and fight for their rights to do so as well. As well as adoption, there is also surrogacy and in vitro fertilisation. As to lifestyle, well what do you mean? Do all married couples adopt a set lifestyle? I've never heard of such a thing happen before.

Yes it would by unacceptable, and I would expect that after 50 or 60 years that the gay community would not still be waiting (Like the many in the gay community in Tasmania Australia who are not opting for civil unions, and waiting for marriage to be introduced) but by then have it's own traditions blossoming, and perhaps even a term that is acceptable, and agreeable to both parties. I woud be surprised to find that 60 years later, gay couples are just sitting around hoping they will be able to assimilate the ceremony then. It's about definition, tradition, courtesy, and respect. Not who or what you are.

I feel procreation is still an expected part of marriage yes. Hollywood marriages are considered exempt, as they are for status gain. Many want to have children and cannot, that does not mean the expectation is not there. You know I will never in my lifetime support gay parents, I think you just threw that in there for some controversy didn't you? The situation with kids is bad enough. The last thing the world needs is to broaden that scope and allow more people to screw up. We should be refining the process, not expanding it.

Do all married couple adopt a set lifestyle? You tell me where the 2 parents, a dog, a car and 2.5 kids statistic comes from then? Why is that a stereotype? Never heard of that before? Not sure how that is possible. Yes, the majority of married couple have a house and kids. You cannot fathom that, but say you understand marriage?

10 countries (currently) have same sex marriages. Many more have some form of civil union. Comparing what happens over 2000 years compared to what happens over 10 is rather ridiculous and hardly a reasonable comparison. However you can compare hetrosexual marriage vs same sex marriage (or civil unions) in a given year. All the opposition would have to do is look at the statistics and see if hetrosexual marriage has declined or impacted negatively in the time period they've both existed. If hetrosexual marriage is impacted negatively then there'd surely be some form of evidence that would be visible in such a way.

The last study I read on it was a few months back. (I apologise for not being able to share the link, since I accessed it on a different computer and can't seem to find it.) The findings of it were rather curious. Instead of straight marriages declining, straight marriages actually increased when same sex marriage was introduced.

There may be problems, yes, but you've not highlighted any specifically.

As for reassuring you I'm not sure if there's anything that could. You don't seem terribly keen aon being reassured. You've become set in same sex marriage being a threat and nothing I say or do (or anyone would say or do) would likely change your mind.

Hrrmzz 2,000 years vs ten years. And then you try to say a 12 month head count is valuable and tells the real story? Who are you trying to kid?

So if marriage increased, what was the divorce rate of those couples wed in that year? Lets look at the big picture huh? Not how people react whilst a gay wedding is performed. How it affects their lives to have that institution changed. Does it still mean the same to them? You need to recognize that a marriage extends beyond the honeymoon. 12 months is piffle.

One concern to highlight, which I have previously broached, is that the Gay Community hates the Church, and the Church is a large part of the ceremony. That is very likely to culminate in adverse reactions. And I have said that although you do not believe it, the idea that marriage is an institution which is suddenly not as per tradition, is going to affect the tradition, and I personally am not happy to change the tradition. To me it takes the meaning out of marriage. You can deny that all you want, but it is a real concern, and will not go away with the wave of your hand.

You know what I would find reassuring? Discussion and compromise. Understanding that barging in on marriage is indeed an issue for many, and not telling us "don't be silly, it's all good!" but actually listening to the concerns of the straight community, and most importantly of all, addressing those issues. I want to know why the gay community needs marriage, because I do not see a good reason so far.

They do have their say. But you only seem keen on them having a say. You don't seem keen on the gay community being able to have a voice in the matter.

The straight community IS being consulted and rather openly at that.How much consultation with the straight community would be enough for you?

Like now? What say is there in gay marriage? It's take it or leave it, no middle ground. Civil Unions are only accepted as a quick fix. It strikes me that the gay community do not see this as a step forward for rights, but a step toward marriage. Marriage should be on the back burner, implementation of Queenslands push forward for rights should be the global agenda. As marriage is a more prominent issue, I am feeling that the gay community only cares about the well of gay community. And I wont vote for part of the gay community ever, I will vote for all of them. In that sense, I think the straight community takes the issue of actual rights more seriously than the gay community does.

Try this for a reaction from the straight community:

We ask, they tell: Queensland MPs on gay marriage There you go, the people themselves, is that the result you were expecting?

There was a vote, she voted, she lost, she resigned. That is the basics of it and it really is that simple. If every politician left because they lost a vote, there'd be no politicians.

And this is typical double speak. she says gay people are 'of great worth' but here opposition to the bill equates to her thinking that gay relationships aren't of equal value and thus, are inferior.

It was due to personal conviction, which you see as unimportant, and that self serving attitude is what will kill your cause every time. Some people need time to change, the gay community does not acknowledge that by insisting on marriage as opposed to civil unions.

The gay community have always said they WANT the right to have same sex marriage. It is there, staring you in the face and yet you act like you've been 'lied to' and that it's 'not been there'.

From the OP:

One of those who was in the public gallery for the passage of the bill, Mathew Burke, of Annerley, says the civil unions victory is “just another step on the road to equality”.

In striking down a gay marriage ban in 2008, the California Supreme Court called same-sex marriage a right in its argument - LINK

Chick-fil-A's charitable arm has said explicitly that they do not support same-sex marriage. Activists have said the company's association with groups like Focus on the Family and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes have left a bad taste in their mouths.

"It's about civil rights," Ken Howard, one of the organizers of Saturday's protest, told Patch. "It's not anti-Christian. It's pro-civil rights and against hate groups." - LINK

Why are all these people calling marriage a right they have been denied? That is not the case. It's a want, Queensland has shown that a civil union can be equal in rights.

I believe I've answered most of the first part already and don't seek to repeat myself.

World acceptance is, however, very important. This is just one issue of the overall big picture. You know, the one you accuse me of not being able to see? I see the big picture and I wish world acceptance would come easily. I see the downtrodden and hope that things get easier for them, that there was a way to help them more. However the gay community as a whole is trying it's best to help the downtrodden, to pressure governemnts to get rid of laws that violate human rights or even to get stop people being sent back to countries where their lives may be in danger.

Everyone deserves to live their lives with respect and diginity and that's what the gay community is trying to do.

It has been shown, numerous times that it is been lobbied for honestly. The very op says so. You're so desperate to believe you've been lied to, because then you have a case but the fact is no one has. You've now convinced yourself that it's a lie quite well, depite the op making it painfully clear that you've not been lied to for a second.

The only lying is to yourself.

If the downtrodden are your concern, why not get them actual rights like you have with civil unions then? Why does same sex marriage garner so much media, and yet this nothing? Where are the gay groups pushing to make what Queensland has the norm?

Yes, everyone does deserve respect and dignity, but you have to earn that. It is not bought. And I do not respect a group who has just been recognised when they want to change the way of things to suit themselves. One wonders why the group was taken seriously to begin with.

Like I showed you, the OP also calls this a right, but it is not a right, it remains a want. That is not lying to myself, I am being brutally honest with myself - Do I want to repress a group? No, Do I want to change the definition of marriage? No.

Mr Burke plans to join a rally outside this weekend’s national Labor party conference in Sydney, where delegates will discuss changing the party’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

Think about their own marriage, think about their own lives, think about their own children, then think about others and the right for equality,” he says.

Is this what you call consultancy? It's from the link in the OP. It is not being discussed as anything but marriage. No alternatives are on that table. And civil unions are a stepping stone to marriage. I find that view overly presumptuous, and rude. That's not lying to myself, neither is the link above were the actual voters speak out.

I think it is high time that the gay community realised that they are upsetting and cheesing of a lot of people, and that is going to impact negatively. Take aim at foot, and fire.

Edited January 11, 2012 by psyche101

[shadowhive]

Are you trying to say less gay people existed a thousand years ago, or that less people admitted to being gay a thousand years ago, because the incident with Thomas Beckets shows that if there was a movement that disagreed with the Church, that the people would overcome. And if you blame the Church for your woes throughout History, why have the gay community not sought the support from the straight community like today? Why do they have a voice now, and not then? You can't blame the Church there. I do not believe that the straight community did not know the gay community existed, if you believe that, then you have never read an ounce of History. Such was quite common in Ancient Greece as far as I know. Have you ever read much about Alexander the Great? Richard the Lionhearted?

I am saying that percentage wise there was the same amount of gay people back then. However when you are surrounded by straight people and have no idea that other gay people exist... well, people defaulted at trying to be straight. You see that happening even today. With individual people being silent, there was no real way for the community to form since most people didn't know they were even apart of it.

Why people have a voice now is rather obvious: improvements in technology and communication. For 1000s of years if you were attracted to someone of the same sex what were your options? Your only choice was to talk to somene (who would likely say your feelings were not 'normal' or not understand) or hide. Today we have the internet. Which gives people the option of finding out the information themselves. It also helps give an otherwise scattered community together and helps them organise themselves.

Prior to the church ancient cultures had some understanding of the gay community but there's no escaping that the church purged such understanding wherever they found it.

When you look at it, it's really quite simple.

On the barging and assimilation yep, on the nose, I see no reason why that is not a major concern. Your personal assurances have done naught to allay any of those fears.

Having a Union strikes me as perfectly equal, you just do not like the term as it is somewhat sterile, and it would be as it is an accurate description. As we have seen there is no legal issue, it's a mindset. The gay community likes the idea of marriage and wants a piece of it, straight community be damned if they want that or not. So you call it a basic right. That is where the lying comes in. Marriage is a term which has earned it's place over centuries by billions of men and women going through the ceremony. And again, respect is earned, not bought. The Gay Community seems to think they can buy the respect they desire. Not going to happen, we will just both lose. If that happens, I can see the current situation going backwards at an alarming rate, just as in my own example here. I find it a bit like Scientologists calling themselves a religion, except instead of for respect, they do it for the tax break. It's a sham and belittles what so many have practiced for centuries. Such total lack of respect for your fellow person is alarming. You do not care who you hurt and upset or what you may or may not destroy, as long as you feel respected, and make it snappy you straight lot! We want it yesterday!

The thing here is your blatant exagerations. 'You don't care who you hurt or upset'. Who, exactly is being hurt? You use that term an awful lot, that people are going to be hurt but you don't say how, you don't say why and you don't offer any evidence.

The opposition seem much less concerned with who they 'hurt or upset', even though they can be shown how, why and there is evidence that such hurt and upset is happening.

The second thing here is that you seem offended by a right being called a right because straight people have owned the right for 2000 years. That's your core arguement.

How am I blocking a new path for Gay Unions? Because after I see how the desire is marketed as a right I have felt duped and therefore jaded? It would only take one gay group to grow a pair and stand up and make their own way for me to nod approvingly and offer them support. Until that day arrives, al I see is that the gay community just wants to engulf the straight community, I will not vote for that. You lot need to learn to stand on your own feet as far as I am concerned. That's just life. We all have to do that. You seem to think the gay community is exempt from the challenges in life the rest of us have always faced, and still do.

With the people I have spoken too, I am starting to see their fears quite clearly. And I think as people, they deserve to be heard just as clearly as the gay community on this issue. Yes they are opposing all rights, and I was trying to support them. Now you have one less vote. And I feel this will continue and worsen as long as the gay community offers demands, not discussion

And there we go again, another absurd statement. How are the gay community intending to 'engulf' the straight community? There is a certain sense of paranoia here that is shockingly common in the opposition.

Both sides are heard, the problem is making a workable solution. You can't satisfy both sides, they're just too contradictory and any compromise in between is either problematic to one side, the other or both.

No, from the link in the OP,

a move dismissed by opponents as mimicking marriage but hailed by supporters as an important step towards equality.

This is a political argument about rights, and the bill offers civil unions equal rights, so what equality is this all about? You have it. The bill was passed. This is the lie in motion. Mimicking marriage? The rights are the same, but the definition is different, so it is not rights at all is it? Its the mindset. That is not honest, that is deceit.

My example pertained to my own self, how dare you tell me what I am thinking! You are patently wrong, if my life meant more for my kids, the question would not be so much as asked. I said, well not happily, but understandingly. Read the post again please.

There have been discussion from groups that want the gay community to have nothing, yet people come forth to help those people understand more, and then the Gay community shoots those straight people in the foot by bullying the remaining opposition. This has the potential to backfire on the gay community yet I feel.

That is the quote I keep referring to. Like I said, it's seen as a 'step'. There is no lying, no deceit there.

Question: Would you really be that happy and accepting of death if the person that had committed the crime was out there? After all, they could still do it again and again while you would be an innocent man, dying for something you didn't do.

I've not seen the 'bullying' you keep constantly referring to.

NOW they have equal rights huh?

Have you ever heard of Eleanor of Aquitaine, Hatshepsut, Maria Theresa of Austria, Empress Theodora, Empress Wu Zetian, Isabella I of Castile, Elizabeth I of England, Empress Dowager Cixi, Catherine II of Russia, or Queen Victoria?

If women have never been considered as equals, how did the above women gain some of the most important and wealthy roles in History? Historical record is fluid, some periods were darker than others. Again, this is how the respect was earned, not bought. That is why women are decades, perhaps centuries in front of the gay movement. They did something about it, they forged their own ways. I respect that.

And thank you for signing the petition, I appreciate it, I would rather Australia just close it's doors to hate groups altogether. Nazi right is not earned, I have zero respect for that lot. Even if I oppose same sex marriage, I do have respect for the gay community, mainly due to the aspects I have seen from my lesbian friend. I am glad that her rights are equal to mine here in this state. She deserves it.

ETA How did you sign the petition? It seems to be restricted to Queensland residents only? Unless you have the permission of a local to use their details?

I cannot speak for all of them (my history classes didn't cover them all). However in the cases of the British royal family male heirs were always preferred. If there were two children, one male, one female, the male would always get the throne first regardless of age. Females only gained the throne if they were no males. Once on the thrne the woman had complete power only until she got a husband, then the husband took the greater share of it (hence Elizabeth I not wanting to marry).

As for how these women gained those positions, well that's a curious thing. They didn't earn those roles, they were born into them. They didn't 'earn respect' they were simply born into the right families and married the right people. So how exactly did they 'earn' anything?

Those weren't the women that led the movement for equal rghts for women, yet they're the ones you are holding up as examples.

Well I'm glad your lesbian friend helps in that regard. It's that sort of thing the people you've spoken to are in desperate need of, to interactwith a gay person on a human level. It's easy for the oppsition to be against something that is, essentially, faceless.

I went to sign it after making that last post, then realised I'd be unable too late. I did send the link to someone I know down there though, so hopefully she'll be able to sign it.

Yes it would by unacceptable, and I would expect that after 50 or 60 years that the gay community would not still be waiting (Like the many in the gay community in Tasmania Australia who are not opting for civil unions, and waiting for marriage to be introduced) but by then have it's own traditions blossoming, and perhaps even a term that is acceptable, and agreeable to both parties. I woud be surprised to find that 60 years later, gay couples are just sitting around hoping they will be able to assimilate the ceremony then. It's about definition, tradition, courtesy, and respect. Not who or what you are.

I feel procreation is still an expected part of marriage yes. Hollywood marriages are considered exempt, as they are for status gain. Many want to have children and cannot, that does not mean the expectation is not there. You know I will never in my lifetime support gay parents, I think you just threw that in there for some controversy didn't you? The situation with kids is bad enough. The last thing the world needs is to broaden that scope and allow more people to screw up. We should be refining the process, not expanding it.

Do all married couple adopt a set lifestyle? You tell me where the 2 parents, a dog, a car and 2.5 kids statistic comes from then? Why is that a stereotype? Never heard of that before? Not sure how that is possible. Yes, the majority of married couple have a house and kids. You cannot fathom that, but say you understand marriage?

Perhaps, we'll see.

I didn't throw gay parenting in there to 'cause controversy', just to answer a point. When it comes to gay parents they fight to gain children and so have to prove they can't 'screwup'. As for straight couples well... pretty much any one of them can pop out a kid and they don't have to prove to anyone that they are able of looking after any child they may have.

I have heard of that statistic before. Every married couple will be two people (that's a given) and live in the same accomodation (not necessarily a house). However do all of the married people you know have one car? A dog? 2.5 kids? My point is that's merely a stereotype, it's not something every married couple has (indeed you can't have .5 of a child). Some have more than one car (or none), or some other pet (or none), or more, less or no children.

If all married couples fit into the same cookiee cutter style life you'd have some form of point, but they don't.

Hrrmzz 2,000 years vs ten years. And then you try to say a 12 month head count is valuable and tells the real story? Who are you trying to kid?

Comparitive studies are done over the same time period. Comparing 10 years against 2000 is never done because it's an impossible comparison to make.

On a purely basic level do we have all the information of marriage over 2000 years? Every record of marriage and divorce for that period of time? Simply no. It's just too long a period and some records have been lost completely since back ups weren't kept. Now ten years, that is smething we can compare. We have full, accurate records so that is something we can do.

So if marriage increased, what was the divorce rate of those couples wed in that year? Lets look at the big picture huh? Not how people react whilst a gay wedding is performed. How it affects their lives to have that institution changed. Does it still mean the same to them? You need to recognize that a marriage extends beyond the honeymoon. 12 months is piffle.

Then how long would be a reasonable length of time to study? A decade? Two? Three? What would be enough for you? All I'm seeing from you is what you won't accept, not what you will.

One concern to highlight, which I have previously broached, is that the Gay Community hates the Church, and the Church is a large part of the ceremony. That is very likely to culminate in adverse reactions. And I have said that although you do not believe it, the idea that marriage is an institution which is suddenly not as per tradition, is going to affect the tradition, and I personally am not happy to change the tradition. To me it takes the meaning out of marriage. You can deny that all you want, but it is a real concern, and will not go away with the wave of your hand.

Now we have a point I can actually address and it's one I addressed awhile ago. However I'll do so again.

The church is taken into account. The gay community is actually fine with churches keeping it's own say on marriage. In fact where civil unions/same sex marriage comes in, there is always clauses enabling churches to maintain their tradition. Of course there is also an allowance for churches that are fine with it to be ableto do the ceremonies if they wish. As such, it's not as much as a problem as you seem to make out (or that the church makes out).

You know what I would find reassuring? Discussion and compromise. Understanding that barging in on marriage is indeed an issue for many, and not telling us "don't be silly, it's all good!" but actually listening to the concerns of the straight community, and most importantly of all, addressing those issues. I want to know why the gay community needs marriage, because I do not see a good reason so far.

Well I've tried discussing it with youand you just say 'it's barging in' and don't want to calm down for a second and listen, because you have that ideafirmly in your head. The gay community tries to address issues, but only when you say what the issue actually is instead of being vague.

Why does the gay community need marriage? Well, this is actually an issue I've been trying to address with you. I'll put it in several points.

*Marriage is universally recognised. A marriage performed in the Uk is recognised in Australia, Russia, America, Japan and everywhere inbetween. By comparison a civil partnership in the Uk is not.

*Civil unions, in the places they are, are spotty at best. Some offer essentially equal rights, some offer half or less. Again, marriage is recognised the same everywhere so doesn't have this problem.

*Marriages are instantly respected, civil unions are not. Even with equal rights thereare arepeople that still consider them inferior.

Like now? What say is there in gay marriage? It's take it or leave it, no middle ground. Civil Unions are only accepted as a quick fix. It strikes me that the gay community do not see this as a step forward for rights, but a step toward marriage. Marriage should be on the back burner, implementation of Queenslands push forward for rights should be the global agenda. As marriage is a more prominent issue, I am feeling that the gay community only cares about the well of gay community. And I wont vote for part of the gay community ever, I will vote for all of them. In that sense, I think the straight community takes the issue of actual rights more seriously than the gay community does.

Try this for a reaction from the straight community:

We ask, they tell: Queensland MPs on gay marriage There you go, the people themselves, is that the result you were expecting?

It's seen as both, a step forward in rights and a step towards marriage. Again, this isn't exactly veiled. It is seen as a step forward in rights, but it's not exactly the step forward that's wanted.

I'm not terribly surprised by that, disappointed yes, surprised, no.

It was due to personal conviction, which you see as unimportant, and that self serving attitude is what will kill your cause every time. Some people need time to change, the gay community does not acknowledge that by insisting on marriage as opposed to civil unions.

Again, people vote on issues important to them all the time, they don't quit every time they lose. If hshe had the conviction you say she would have stayed and made sure she continuedto have her say. As such, she chose to leave instead. The key part is she chose to leave on her own accord. She wasn't forced out or pressured, she made the choice herself. If she was pressured or forced out, then you'd have an arguement.

From the OP:

One of those who was in the public gallery for the passage of the bill, Mathew Burke, of Annerley, says the civil unions victory is “just another step on the road to equality”.

In striking down a gay marriage ban in 2008, the California Supreme Court called same-sex marriage a right in its argument - LINK

Chick-fil-A's charitable arm has said explicitly that they do not support same-sex marriage. Activists have said the company's association with groups like Focus on the Family and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes have left a bad taste in their mouths.

"It's about civil rights," Ken Howard, one of the organizers of Saturday's protest, told Patch. "It's not anti-Christian. It's pro-civil rights and against hate groups." - LINK

Why are all these people calling marriage a right they have been denied? That is not the case. It's a want, Queensland has shown that a civil union can be equal in rights.

Is same sex marriage a right that has been denied? Yes, because same sex marriages aren't recongised/allowed.

If civil unions were equal in all aspects everywhere they would thusly be consdiered equal to amrriage and we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

If the downtrodden are your concern, why not get them actual rights like you have with civil unions then? Why does same sex marriage garner so much media, and yet this nothing? Where are the gay groups pushing to make what Queensland has the norm?

Yes, everyone does deserve respect and dignity, but you have to earn that. It is not bought. And I do not respect a group who has just been recognised when they want to change the way of things to suit themselves. One wonders why the group was taken seriously to begin with.

Why indeed? I think it's pretty obbvious that it's down to the pposition. The opposition puts a great deal of money and timeinto it and thusly it becomes a much bigger issue. Then the media comes in and bam! It's widely reported. The downtrodden as a whole don't get much attention, straight or gay, regardless of how much effort is put in to help them.

The group was taken seriously because it's had to fight to gain recognition since it became organised. The thing here is you don't see that as enough, you want them to earn more respect by jumping through the hoops you say they should.

Again, that's another thing I find rather odd with you. Yes marriage will be expanded, but hetrosexuals will still be ableto marry, so that side of it won't be changed at all and thusly will continue as always. The way you act is that the change is more than what it is.

Like I showed you, the OP also calls this a right, but it is not a right, it remains a want. That is not lying to myself, I am being brutally honest with myself - Do I want to repress a group? No, Do I want to change the definition of marriage? No.

Mr Burke plans to join a rally outside this weekend’s national Labor party conference in Sydney, where delegates will discuss changing the party’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

Think about their own marriage, think about their own lives, think about their own children, then think about others and the right for equality,” he says.

Is this what you call consultancy? It's from the link in the OP. It is not being discussed as anything but marriage. No alternatives are on that table. And civil unions are a stepping stone to marriage. I find that view overly presumptuous, and rude. That's not lying to myself, neither is the link above were the actual voters speak out.

I think it is high time that the gay community realised that they are upsetting and cheesing of a lot of people, and that is going to impact negatively. Take aim at foot, and fire.

His wrds are qite accurate. People, especially the opposition, need to think. If the oppoition spent more time thinking about the issue they'd quickly realise how their position cmesoff and the damage they do.

I have said, time and again that civil unions are a stepping stone to marriage. The op says it as well. There is no hiding that's what the gay community sees it as well. No lies, no deciet. You're acting like this is new information presented to you, yet it's been obvious from the very start.

What is also very obvious is you. You want the definition of marriage to remain the same, you don't want it to change. No reasoning is good enough for you, because to you that definition is set in stone. If anyone wants to add to that definition, you rebuff them, simply because you are so resistant to change.

The gay community wants marriage, you don't want them to have marriage. That's what it comes down to.

Your efforts seem more focussed on keeping gay people out of marriage rather then trying to make sure that civil unions are held in higher regard. Surely pushing the gay community towards civil unions, instead of merely away from marriage would at least be an eattempt at a solution.

Edited January 11, 2012 by shadowhive

[+Link of Hyrule]

I think we can all agree that discussion is going around in never-ending circles here and moved completely away from the topic of the thread. I think it's time this thread was laid to rest once and for all. If you wish to continue this discussion feel free to take it up via PM