| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Mycl
Australia1370 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote: Any way, I am yet to see an Australian politics thread. So feel free to discuss both the main article and any other issues. The reason we don't see many threads about Australian politics is because at the moment we don't have a functional government. Wasting time and breath discussing anything political when it comes to Australia | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:12 DoubleReed wrote: There is zero talk about churches being forced to marry anyone. If you think government shouldn't meddle with religion then how about people that believe that homosexual marriages are perfectly okay with their religion? Do you think they should have to register for "partnerships" while heterosexuals register for marriages? It's up to each church to set the rules regarding marriage. The swedish state church voted yes for gay marriage some years ago, but I think they would have voted no if there was another option for gay marriage that was considered by the government as equal to the old-fashioned marriage. That's the direction we should be heading instead imo. Religion is highly individual and needs to be seperate from the state. Being highly religious myself, I still realize that a whole nation united by God doesn't work in practice, since not everybody is willing to accept God. And since freedom of choice is the greatest virtue, the state needs to be 100% unbiased by religion. It's not a question of what's natural or what's right, it's a question of freedom. As they say, as long as two ppl do something in consent, and they are not hurting anyone else, then they should have every right to do whatever they want. I think the governments all over the world have a responsibility to offer alternatives that are seen as equal to church marriage. No religious person would object to that unless they were misinformed. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:34 dtvu wrote: Well it's not like I flaming or trolling, I merely presented my views with a comment. How can we have a proper discussion of people are instantly saying someone's views are wrong. There are no black and white, only grey areas. This is why there's discussion. Key note that I have no problem with gay marriages. It's funny how even if you are on their side, you have to say what they want you to say. This is reverse oppression isn't it? Yeah, I wasn't getting involved in your discussion, I can see you clearly stated you supported gay marriage, can't agree with the 'think of the children' bit but seems like your hearts in the right place. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6230 Posts
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage? | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On October 21 2011 09:31 vetinari wrote: As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes. What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks. Here's a review from the American Psychological Association You can check out the papers cited, if you like. That's only up to 2004, of course. Here's one that looks at Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use Among Adolescents With Female Same-Sex Parents. You can read more into it, but here's the gist: Analyses indicated that adolescents were functioning well and that their adjustment was not associated with family type. Adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported less delinquent behavior and substance use, suggesting that the quality of parent–adolescent relationships better predicts adolescent outcomes than does family type. This doc contains some good references Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). Differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers (Golombok et al., 2003; Parks, 1998; Perrin, 2002). Studies examining gay fathers are fewer in number (e.g., Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989, 1992; Miller, 1979) but do not show that gay men are any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men (for reviews, see Patterson, 2004; Perrin & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002). It's up to you to look into it and consider whether those studies measure up in your opinion, but the findings are very consistent and clear: "Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents." (from the APA review linked above) | ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:30 Charlatan wrote: As the OP said, I think the country is much too homophobic for this to actually pass. (And it's quite refreshing to see something besides an overzealous "patriot" talking about Australia. The minute I criticise anything about this country around my friends, I'm told I should find somewhere I think is better.) I don't know why people are arguing that it's unnatural. That's a flimsy suggestion, and seems like a cheap substitute for "God wouldn't allow it". I'd have to disagree, I've rarely come across anyone who has anything against it and despite some of the boganesque attitudes held by many, homosexuality seems to be very widely accepted from what I've seen. EDIT: Of course I don't know everyone, just saying this from the interactions I've had with people. | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage? If there are no differences, then why should there be any difference in the terms? The downside is that it separates gay couples from heterosexual couples. This separation has fairly significant effects on the mental health of, already often ostracized, gays and lesbians. | ||
|
Charlatan
Australia27 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:40 Phenny wrote: I'd have to disagree, I've rarely come across anyone who has anything against it and despite some of the boganesque attitudes held by many, homosexuality seems to be very widely accepted from what I've seen. EDIT: Of course I don't know everyone, just saying this from the interactions I've had with people. I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass. | ||
|
Bobble
Australia1493 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:47 Charlatan wrote: I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass. You most live somewhere pretty stuck in old beliefs then, It's the opposite situation for me. | ||
|
hippocritical
Australia465 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:47 Charlatan wrote: I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass. I think it'd be based more on geography. If you live in Sydney or Melbourne or other bigger cities, I think you'd find more liberal and accepting people if compared to living in a smaller rural community. Isolated communities tend to be fairly conservative, iunno they're always points of contention. Being from Sydney iunno it feels like there's a lot of socially progressive people turning 18 that don't mind it, most people have met gay people and aren't indoctrinated to hate them unconditionally at least in my experiences. | ||
|
Babs1337
Australia37 Posts
What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
| ||
|
ShatterStorm
Australia146 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage? Very good point here. If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship. Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble" After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition. | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote: Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action. What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father. Read my links above. Why do you think this about children's rights? Should single parents not be allowed to keep their children? | ||
|
albis
United States652 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote: Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action. What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father. Way to ignore all of the scientific evidence already presented in this thread, stop being ignorant, stop being bigoted, and go educate yourself. And slippery slopes are nonsense. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:58 ShatterStorm wrote: Very good point here. If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship. Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble" After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition. Marriage has social value. Being able to say that you are married is valuable, even if it's no functionally different from a civil union in a legal perspective. Using a different term is segregation, which is inherently unjust. | ||
|
Drizzt3
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
ShatterStorm
Australia146 Posts
On October 21 2011 11:17 Whitewing wrote: Marriage has social value. Being able to say that you are married is valuable, even if it's no functionally different from a civil union in a legal perspective. Using a different term is segregation, which is inherently unjust. I don't think using a different term is really unjust. Many gay people already refer to their significant other as their "Life Partner" or "Significant Other" rather than my "Wife/Husband". If there is already a whole other vocabulary in place to deal with the social dynamics of a same sex relationship, taking it to a formal level is simply giving them the recognition they desire. As long as the legalities equate similarly to mixed sex "permanent' relationships. then the differences in terminology shouldn't matter. For the sake of convenience though, a gay couple could still say "we are married and this is my Husband/Wife" if they wanted too even though the actual function performed was a civil union. People would know what they meant even if they never set foot in a church to be "Union-ed" | ||
|
Jemesatui
Australia94 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote: Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action. What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father. It's unfortunate that people like this are still around. When you pair conservatism with a low iq the outcome is a passionate, unwarranted, irrational and idiotic argument that cannot be supported by anything other than emotion. It's also unfortunate that the quantity of these kinds of people in the world is so enormous, significantly slowing the progress of our development. Sigh | ||
| ||
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Playoff - Day 1/2
Zhanhun vs DewaltLIVE!
Mihu vs TBD
Fengzi vs TBD
ZZZero.O186
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
WardiTV European League
ShoWTimE vs Harstem
Shameless vs MaxPax
HeRoMaRinE vs SKillous
ByuN vs TBD
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
WardiTV European League
Wardi Open
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
