Same sex marriage debate...

[Cultured_Bogan]

Actually, there are several competing views of what the definition of marriage is.

Some argue it is for procreation, others believe it was for collection of rights, others as a right to sexual access and others as a relationship recognised by custom and/or law.

**You** define marriage by procreation, it doesn't mean to say that everyone else does.

The existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. It is between a man and a woman.
Procreation is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there is no getting around this fact.

It has only been specific for about a decade, although some are carrying on that it's been that way since the inception of the Marriage Act, and we didn't need a postal survey or a plebiscite to change it, a former PM went rogue on it. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there's no getting around that fact.

And if you want to argue specifics, although it is obviously most common, you do not require a "relationship" any more to procreate (sperm donors, IVF etc,) nor does a heterosexual relationship always result in procreation. Some couples cannot conceive, even with the aid of science, nor do they choose to have children. Should deny those people marriage as well since they cannot/will not procreate.

Homosexual relationships are different to heterosexual relationships. No amount of muddying the waters about IVF, sperm donors, fertility treatments etc will get around this irrefutable fact. This difference is recognised via marriage.

If you're to be so black and white about it, by extension barren couples and those whom choose not to have kids should not be married, if marriage is defined by procreation as you claim. If you can't/won't have kids, you can't get married.

It won't matter as soon as the ALP are next elected they'll have the opportunity to right their wrongs and remove the Johnny (Come Lately) Howard/Ruddock definition of marriage.

 

[Tiger_Pete]

I personally find the difference to be negiligable given gay people aren't sterile and can have kids the exact same way that hetereosexual couples, who are sterile or are struggling to have can between themselves, adoption and surrogacy.

I don't see how the defination of a word trumps equal rights.

We are having a survey on the definition of marriage. Nothing defines marriage more than procreation. Procreation is between a heterosexual couple.

Both forms of relationship are equal, but they are different. This survey is not about rights but the definition of marriage.

Actually, there are several competing views of what the definition of marriage is.

Some argue it is for procreation, others believe it was for collection of rights, others as a right to sexual access and others as a relationship recognised by custom and/or law.

**You** define marriage by procreation, it doesn't mean to say that everyone else does.

The existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. It is between a man and a woman.
Procreation is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there is no getting around this fact.

Yes, the existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. That's literally what this whole debate is about.

You also make a pretty big logic jump here. You start by stating the law is quite specific about what defines a marriage and then bringing procreation into it, which has nothing to do with the law. As others have pointed out, you can get married regardless of whether or not you can procreate.

 

[Tiger_Pete]

Basically I can't understand how anyone thinks their opinion matters when it comes to two consenting adults of any persuasion wanting to get married.

just because two people consent to something doesn't mean you are denying their right to do something. In many counties, prostitution is illegal even though it's "two consenting" adults. im not comparing SSM to prostitution just giving an example that just because it's between two people doesnt mean it's irrelevant to others.

and as i said previously, why can't we legalise polygamy as well. We need to figure out the legal ramifications of changing laws. What Abraham said about religious freedom is suppressed is a social ramificatoin which can happen as well.

Right now, ramifications are unknown and once you change it, it's done and irreversible. there need to be strict laws in regards to this. For e.g. idk how true it is but abortion agencies in USA are already favouring homosexual couples to show how liberal they are instead of heterosexual.

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be?

Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage.

The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

 

[4jtigers]

Basically I can't understand how anyone thinks their opinion matters when it comes to two consenting adults of any persuasion wanting to get married.

just because two people consent to something doesn't mean you are denying their right to do something. In many counties, prostitution is illegal even though it's "two consenting" adults. im not comparing SSM to prostitution just giving an example that just because it's between two people doesnt mean it's irrelevant to others.

and as i said previously, why can't we legalise polygamy as well. We need to figure out the legal ramifications of changing laws. What Abraham said about religious freedom is suppressed is a social ramificatoin which can happen as well.

Right now, ramifications are unknown and once you change it, it's done and irreversible. there need to be strict laws in regards to this. For e.g. idk how true it is but abortion agencies in USA are already favouring homosexual couples to show how liberal they are instead of heterosexual.

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be?

Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage.

The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

Possible ramifications and this was in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-when-did-dissent-become-discrimination-20151119-gl31g3.html

 

[Yossarian]

Basically I can't understand how anyone thinks their opinion matters when it comes to two consenting adults of any persuasion wanting to get married.

just because two people consent to something doesn't mean you are denying their right to do something. In many counties, prostitution is illegal even though it's "two consenting" adults. im not comparing SSM to prostitution just giving an example that just because it's between two people doesnt mean it's irrelevant to others.

and as i said previously, why can't we legalise polygamy as well. We need to figure out the legal ramifications of changing laws. What Abraham said about religious freedom is suppressed is a social ramificatoin which can happen as well.

Right now, ramifications are unknown and once you change it, it's done and irreversible. there need to be strict laws in regards to this. For e.g. idk how true it is but abortion agencies in USA are already favouring homosexual couples to show how liberal they are instead of heterosexual.

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be?

Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage.

The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

Possible ramifications and this was in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-when-did-dissent-become-discrimination-20151119-gl31g3.html

Written by someone at the IPA… It's a speech not a news story

 

[tigerbalm]

Seems to me that the real problem in all this is the seemingly powerful yet homophobic bakers guild.

Vote no to wedding cakes and or deserts, friends. Together we can make a difference.

 

[jirskyr]

We are going back to square one with these questions you are raising. Your simplifying things to the point that they don't represent the reality we are weighing up.

My belief is that free speech is absolute.

If allowing gay people to marry means nobody else is effected, then fine.
If allowing gay people to marry means other people's rights are trodden on and freedoms are curtailed for a large section of society, for the benefit of literally a minuscule portion of the population, then absolutely no. That's not how freedom works.

The government needs to do this properly, not piece-meal, not play lets hide the legislation, and not allow people's freedom of conscious and freedom of speech to be impeded. They need to get it right, and they haven't got it right.

I'm glad you said "reality". Your sentence above that I've highlighted is the reality.

I'm not even clear about what specifically your objection is, and I've read a lot of your stuff over these 25 pages. I mean specifically, not vague future "catch-all" comments about freedoms and rights.

Can you actually be specific about a single right or freedom that could possibly be rescinded, threatened or overturned for Australians if a certain group of Australians are given a right (such as same-sex marriage)? Is this based on predictions, fear or experience?

Did something happen to "ordinary" Australians when women were allowed to vote across the Commonwealth in 1902, or indigenous Australians in 1962? What were the negative consequences for personal liberties when same-sex unions were deemed as de facto relationships under the Family Law Act 1975?

The government hasn't even proposed or debated legislation and you are saying they will allow freedoms to be impeded?

This is fear-mongering, nothing more.

The ABS are asking you should same-sex couples be allowed to marry. They aren't asking for your opinions about long-term consequences, future legislation, nation-wide civil liberties. You have to simplify these things because the vast majority of Australians are not qualified to develop, advise, or introduce legislation changes.

 

[4jtigers]

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be?

Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage.

The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

Possible ramifications and this was in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-when-did-dissent-become-discrimination-20151119-gl31g3.html

Written by someone at the IPA… It's a speech not a news story

are we going to have a debate now whether that's a speech or a news story? I don't get your point… I just gave you the link of possible ramifications... not sure if you even read it because you came to the conclusion that it's a "speech"... here's another link to the "speech" then:-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/catholic-church-has-discrimination-case-to-answer/6939942

 

[Tiger_Pete]

Basically I can't understand how anyone thinks their opinion matters when it comes to two consenting adults of any persuasion wanting to get married.

just because two people consent to something doesn't mean you are denying their right to do something. In many counties, prostitution is illegal even though it's "two consenting" adults. im not comparing SSM to prostitution just giving an example that just because it's between two people doesnt mean it's irrelevant to others.

and as i said previously, why can't we legalise polygamy as well. We need to figure out the legal ramifications of changing laws. What Abraham said about religious freedom is suppressed is a social ramificatoin which can happen as well.

Right now, ramifications are unknown and once you change it, it's done and irreversible. there need to be strict laws in regards to this. For e.g. idk how true it is but abortion agencies in USA are already favouring homosexual couples to show how liberal they are instead of heterosexual.

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be?

Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage.

The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

Possible ramifications and this was in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-when-did-dissent-become-discrimination-20151119-gl31g3.html

How can this possibly be a ramification of marriage equality when it happened two years ago?

There are already anti-discrimination laws in place, as you just proved. Marriage equality doesn't change that.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Seems to me that the real problem in all this is the seemingly powerful yet homophobic bakers guild.

Vote no to wedding cakes and or deserts, friends. Together we can make a difference.

We all know that carbs are the devil.

 

[4jtigers]

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be?

Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage.

The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

Possible ramifications and this was in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-when-did-dissent-become-discrimination-20151119-gl31g3.html

How can this possibly be a ramification of marriage equality when it happened two years ago?

There are already anti-discrimination laws in place, as you just proved. Marriage equality doesn't change that.

"Marriage equality doesn't change that" <– are you sure? have you got everything on paper have you? do you have a link where I can see the proposed changes to the laws?

 

[Geo]

Seems to me that the real problem in all this is the seemingly powerful yet homophobic bakers guild.

Vote no to wedding cakes and or deserts, friends. Together we can make a difference.

We all know that carbs are the devil.

I like Cake…

 

[Pawsandclaws]

We are having a survey on the definition of marriage. Nothing defines marriage more than procreation. Procreation is between a heterosexual couple.

Both forms of relationship are equal, but they are different. This survey is not about rights but the definition of marriage.

Actually, there are several competing views of what the definition of marriage is.

Some argue it is for procreation, others believe it was for collection of rights, others as a right to sexual access and others as a relationship recognised by custom and/or law.

**You** define marriage by procreation, it doesn't mean to say that everyone else does.

The existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. It is between a man and a woman.
Procreation is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there is no getting around this fact.

Yes, the existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. That's literally what this whole debate is about.

You also make a pretty big logic jump here. You start by stating the law is quite specific about what defines a marriage and then bringing procreation into it, which has nothing to do with the law. As others have pointed out, you can get married regardless of whether or not you can procreate.

Why? Is it such a leap to believe that the majority of marred couples in Australia would want to experience nature at its most beautiful by creating a child?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be?

Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage.

The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

Possible ramifications and this was in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-when-did-dissent-become-discrimination-20151119-gl31g3.html

How can this possibly be a ramification of marriage equality when it happened two years ago?

There are already anti-discrimination laws in place, as you just proved. Marriage equality doesn't change that.

"Marriage equality doesn't change that" <– are you sure? have you got everything on paper have you? do you have a link where I can see the proposed changes to the laws?

Pete's point is that if an event predates another event, it cannot be a ramification. You're arguing anti-discrimination that is already in place is going to be a ramification of something that has not been legislated yet.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Actually, there are several competing views of what the definition of marriage is.

Some argue it is for procreation, others believe it was for collection of rights, others as a right to sexual access and others as a relationship recognised by custom and/or law.

**You** define marriage by procreation, it doesn't mean to say that everyone else does.

The existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. It is between a man and a woman.
Procreation is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there is no getting around this fact.

Yes, the existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. That's literally what this whole debate is about.

You also make a pretty big logic jump here. You start by stating the law is quite specific about what defines a marriage and then bringing procreation into it, which has nothing to do with the law. As others have pointed out, you can get married regardless of whether or not you can procreate.

Why? Is it such a leap to believe that the majority of marred couples in Australia would want to experience nature at its most beautiful by creating a child?

Nature at it's most beautiful!? Next time you think of that phrase imagine David Oldfield frogging Pauline Hanson and tell me that's beautiful. Or your parents.

Also, the law, inclusive of Howard's amendment, does not define procreation as a stipulation for a marriage to be legitimate.

Plenty of people have kids by accident and have no intention of marrying. Makes the institution of marriage being about procreation a bit of a joke when plenty of kids are born out of wedlock.

 

[Geo]

Did someone say Ramifications…?

Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?", said the clerk.
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers?? You can't get married."
"Why not?? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've claim they'd been denied equal protection under law.
If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June,
June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me.
All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says?? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.
Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Anderson."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself?? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together.
Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

 

[jirskyr]

The existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. It is between a man and a woman.
Procreation is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there is no getting around this fact.

Yes, the existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. That's literally what this whole debate is about.

You also make a pretty big logic jump here. You start by stating the law is quite specific about what defines a marriage and then bringing procreation into it, which has nothing to do with the law. As others have pointed out, you can get married regardless of whether or not you can procreate.

Why? Is it such a leap to believe that the majority of marred couples in Australia would want to experience nature at its most beautiful by creating a child?

Nature at it's most beautiful!? Next time you think of that phrase imagine David Oldfield frogging Pauline Hanson and tell me that's beautiful. Or your parents.

Also, the law, inclusive of Howard's amendment, does not define procreation as a stipulation for a marriage to be legitimate.

Plenty of people have kids by accident and have no intention of marrying. Makes the institution of marriage being about procreation a bit of a joke when plenty of kids are born out of wedlock.

More than this, I personally know a gay guy who provided sperm to a lesbian couple. Newsflash to Paws: women don't need to have sex with a man any more to have children.

And anyway procreation has nothing to do with this survey, because gay couples can already have children through adoption or insemination.

And hetero couples can use IVF or altruistic surrogacy, and there's nothing traditional about those either.

 

[Yossarian]

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be?

Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage.

The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

Possible ramifications and this was in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-when-did-dissent-become-discrimination-20151119-gl31g3.html

Written by someone at the IPA… It's a speech not a news story

are we going to have a debate now whether that's a speech or a news story? I don't get your point… I just gave you the link of possible ramifications... not sure if you even read it because you came to the conclusion that it's a "speech"... here's another link to the "speech" then:-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/catholic-church-has-discrimination-case-to-answer/6939942

There's no debate - it's an oped piece written by a conservative think tank. Surely you can understand how this differs from news reporting? Ramifications speculated by the IPA - I'm just pointing out the context. Of course I read it - I'm not sure what your argument is. It's clearly an opinion piece.

Abe raised the Tasmanian case a few pages back. Of course you know this event occurred under Tasmanian state law and that amending federal legislation would have no impact on this already existing structure. You'd also know that the complainant withdrew the complaint and the matter was dismissed on that basis.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be?

Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage.

The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

Possible ramifications and this was in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-when-did-dissent-become-discrimination-20151119-gl31g3.html

How can this possibly be a ramification of marriage equality when it happened two years ago?

There are already anti-discrimination laws in place, as you just proved. Marriage equality doesn't change that.

"Marriage equality doesn't change that" <– are you sure? have you got everything on paper have you? do you have a link where I can see the proposed changes to the laws?

This is pretty sad and I feel sorry that the situation has come to this in Australia.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/its-not-okay-to-be-homophobic-canberra-contractor-sacked-for-vote-no-facebook-post/news-story/4ed027f47b5810e87036450054a8b6dd

 

[Pawsandclaws]

Yes, the existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. That's literally what this whole debate is about.

You also make a pretty big logic jump here. You start by stating the law is quite specific about what defines a marriage and then bringing procreation into it, which has nothing to do with the law. As others have pointed out, you can get married regardless of whether or not you can procreate.

Why? Is it such a leap to believe that the majority of marred couples in Australia would want to experience nature at its most beautiful by creating a child?

Nature at it's most beautiful!? Next time you think of that phrase imagine David Oldfield frogging Pauline Hanson and tell me that's beautiful. Or your parents.

Also, the law, inclusive of Howard's amendment, does not define procreation as a stipulation for a marriage to be legitimate.

Plenty of people have kids by accident and have no intention of marrying. Makes the institution of marriage being about procreation a bit of a joke when plenty of kids are born out of wedlock.

More than this, I personally know a gay guy who provided sperm to a lesbian couple. Newsflash to Paws: women don't need to have sex with a man any more to have children.

And anyway procreation has nothing to do with this survey, because gay couples can already have children through adoption or insemination.

And hetero couples can use IVF or altruistic surrogacy, and there's nothing traditional about those either.

Thanks for the mind movies :smiley:

I say this with the greatest respect that we've discussed the non natural conception methods which only serve to muddy the waters. The issue is procreation via a heterosexual couple which differentiates the relationship from a homosexual couple.