|
from what i hear Australian politics seem just as entertaining as american politics, its just unfortunate that real policies result from it lol.
|
On October 21 2011 08:49 MaverickSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
Usually bad post history, this was the final straw I guess.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:49 MaverickSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
Read page 2 of this thread;
Go to the Automated Ban List thread in the community;
Look in the Closed threads section for the ban reason.
It was martyring + poor posting history.
On October 21 2011 08:51 VTPerfect wrote:
from what i hear Australian politics seem just as entertaining as american politics, its just unfortunate that real policies result from it lol.
The funniest part is at the moment, real policies aren't even resulting from it.
Labor gets put in power through bribery and promises; attempts to enact said promises and gets shut down completely. So far they have done very little except spend a ton of money and disappoint a ton of people 
|
On October 21 2011 08:50 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]I'm assuming they don't want to but at this point it's too late to back out since the people would never accept not having marriage. They have to give everyone the same rights and as such gay marriage has to be legal. So does that means that tax breaks, etc are going to be rolled back for all married people? Technically, recognizing gay marriage is both a massive tax break and a massive increase in government expenditures. On October 21 2011 07:34 TOloseGT wrote:
[quote]
Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation. How does that apply in the gay marriage context. It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits. Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages. No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion. You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it. I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered. Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry.
Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder.
Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case.
Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage.
Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage.
I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias.
|
On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this?
really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;(
|
On October 21 2011 07:41 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:28 bkrow wrote:On October 21 2011 07:26 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 06:42 PanoRaMa wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them. You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.  AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though. Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit sure he wont lol i better wont write anythink at all As for the greens - their policies generally focus on ideals rather than practicality and greatly encumber our ability to remain competitive in the world. There are also a lot of their policies i dislike but i feel it would derail the thread terribly :p I think this comment reflects the problem in today's politics. Given the stupidity of most of the population, politicians are enticed to demagoguery and appeals to ideology. Practicality isn't required, only a strategic appeal to emotion and bias. This is the case with all public debates/discussion that politicians have, and reflects how scientifically ignorant most of the public is. This makes me recoil from Australia's political system given my exposure to scientific discourse and the empirical requirements that are made of you when making any claim, no matter how slight.
See this is where I completely disagree regarding the greens. To me they are the only part that have a policy platform that is consistent. Bob Brown has a conscience which is a dangerous thing in any political arena. The problem is that Labor has shifted drastically rightwards over the last 15 years and abandoned their progressive platform. The whole asylum seeker sideshow is a case in point. Pander pander pander and hope for the best.
The reason that the greens get labelled as ideolouges is because they are consistent and have been since eternity. You will note that dispite having the power to bring down the government they have compromised and managed to work with Labor. Of course this is in their interests but they are hardly actually like children.
Can't say the same for the other parties. The first time I hear something intelligent from Rabbot I'll eat my hat. Our prime minister is in a difficult position but her responses to everything have been frantic. The carbon legislation was torturous but at least it has passed.
I will say that the economics policies of the greens are scary but they are hardly in a position to make demands on this front. The labor and liberal party are singing from the same sheet so this does not actually concern me.
The greens have a policy platform. They are consistent and are trying to bring the national discourse back to a more central ground. You can say they won't compromise but their record shows this is not true.
Edit: On topic, legalisation of gay marriage has been Green policy for a long time.
|
Marriage is not sex. Marriage can imply sex, but it is perfectly possible for two people to be married and to not have sex. Therefore, legal arguments with regard sexual behavior is irrelevant to the discussion, do not apply to whether or not polygamists/zoophiles/relatives/etc. can or should legally get married.
The question everyone is repeating regarding gay marriage is that they love each other just like heterosexuals, and therefore we shouldn't discriminate against them and afford them the same equal rights. Can the above groups also not experience love in the same way? Put aside for a moment whether you consider it healthy or normal or desirable, etc. The question is, can people experience love for an object/animal/relative/same gender/multiple people/etc. And the answer to that is quite obviously yes.
So now we have to make a very clear decision and distinction:
1) Either marriage is completely about love, and we cannot and should not discriminate against anyone for the emotions and love that they feel, and therefore have to allow near-universal marriage to anyone and anything. To do anything else would be nothing more than blatant hypocrisy, bigotry, and discrimination.
OR
2) We have to acknowledge that love is completely irrelevant and that the criteria for marriage needs to be some other societal dictate which will allow us to discriminate regarding which legal unions are allowed and not allowed.
You can't have it both ways. Either marriage is about love and equal rights, or it is about the status quo. Saying "I support gay marriage of course but not polygamy or X, Y, Z" is nothing more than the height of hypocrisy.
|
On October 21 2011 08:54 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:50 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
So does that means that tax breaks, etc are going to be rolled back for all married people?
Technically, recognizing gay marriage is both a massive tax break and a massive increase in government expenditures.
[quote]
How does that apply in the gay marriage context. It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits. Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages. No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion. You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it. I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered. Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc. Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry. Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage. I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias.
Not at all.
Gay people have to adopt.
Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is.
Exactly, but what is the trend?
Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first.
|
On October 21 2011 08:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:38 vetinari wrote:On October 21 2011 08:33 bkrow wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 GeyzeR wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world. Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days. I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.) The reason he was perm banned rather than temp banned is usually due to his poor post history. There is discussion about the ban in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=594#11882On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote:
I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition. The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden. However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson. I am not only talking about homosexual marriage. What? You want slavery and nonequality for women's rights? Death Penalty for Gays? Death Penalty by stoning? Modern morals do not align with those primitive religious beliefs at all.
He's actually correct from a political point of view. It's unfair towards certain people, but every political system aims at a strong society rather than equality or justice, even though some do it explicitly, and other implicitly. I think that if it wasn't for the boom of communications, especially the internet, things wouldn't have changed, and people would all be turned against homosexuals. Luckily, this isn't the case anymore.
It's a difficult topic, because of society likes being hypocritical on this very problem. I've been - let's say discriminated for not being gay once, and if I hadn't known an awesome gay person I'd probably be homophobic as hell :D. Plus, in my country the popular definition of gay is as follows :
(spoilered for being disgusting)
+ Show Spoiler +
(spoilered for being disgusting)
We even had that guy's ass on a billboard @ the centre of the capital city, right in front of a statue of a national hero, and somehow this was unpunished x_X. So while people can profit from showing gay guys as the most disgusting thing ever, society won't be fully tolerant.
As for the main topic - I don't really care too much about gays getting married. But modern society has a strange trend - marriage is getting outdated, while gay marriage is the shit, lol. I'm afraid that gay marriage being legalized (At least in my country) would not lead to gay people who love each other get married. Instead it would lead to people who want cheap popularity show off their sexuality in an ugly explicit way, forcing an ever bigger lack of tolerance towards homosexuals. So while I'm not against the idea itself, I think that (at least where I'm from) it's too early for legalization, and many homosexuals would agree
|
On October 21 2011 08:50 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]I'm assuming they don't want to but at this point it's too late to back out since the people would never accept not having marriage. They have to give everyone the same rights and as such gay marriage has to be legal. So does that means that tax breaks, etc are going to be rolled back for all married people? Technically, recognizing gay marriage is both a massive tax break and a massive increase in government expenditures. On October 21 2011 07:34 TOloseGT wrote:
[quote]
Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation. How does that apply in the gay marriage context. It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits. Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages. No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion. You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it. I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered. Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
It's also hard to raise children with a low income, or as a single parent. An insanely large proportion of marriages in the military are fake. I don't understand why it wouldn't convey the same benefits, nor do I understand the substantial new burdens it would create.
|
On October 21 2011 08:59 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:54 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:50 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits. Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages. No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion. You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it. I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered. Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc. Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry. Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage. I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias. Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first.
Gay people can also use invitro and a number of other ways to birth a child. I don't understand how this is even in the discussion. What does the difficulty of receiving a child have anything to do with gay marriage?
You're correct that fraud is an arguable point. Are there statistics that gay marriage, when legalized, result in an increase in marriage fraud? Do you have evidence that it is the "tradition of marriage" that inhibits fraud?
As for emotional and physical benefits of gay couples v. hetero couples, further studies need to be done. The studies that have been done up to this point show that gay couples are just like any other couples. There is no evidence pointing to a dysfunctional trend in homosexual families. On the contrary, because gay couples have greater flexibility in choosing when to have a child, they are much more likely to raise a child in a household that is ready to receive that child.
Removing benefits is another matter.
|
???
Is it bad that I just found out about this through TL?
|
United States41958 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:49 MaverickSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
Check the ban reason. He was banned for martyring, not his opinion.
|
On October 21 2011 09:06 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:59 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:54 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:50 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits. Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages. No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion. You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it. I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered. Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc. Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry. Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage. I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias. Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first. Gay people can also use invitro and a number of other ways to birth a child. I don't understand how this is even in the discussion. What does the difficulty of receiving a child have anything to do with gay marriage? You're correct that fraud is an arguable point. Are there statistics that gay marriage, when legalized, result in an increase in marriage fraud? Do you have evidence that it is the "tradition of marriage" that inhibits fraud? As for emotional and physical benefits of gay couples v. hetero couples, further studies need to be done. The studies that have been done up to this point show that gay couples are just like any other couples. There is no evidence pointing to a dysfunctional trend in homosexual families. On the contrary, because gay couples have greater flexibility in choosing when to have a child, they are much more likely to raise a child in a household that is ready to receive that child. Removing benefits is another matter.
Removing benefits is an essential prerequisite. If you accept any of the caveats.
|
On October 21 2011 09:10 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:06 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:59 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:54 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:50 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:
[quote]
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits. Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages. No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion. You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it. I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered. Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc. Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry. Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage. I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias. Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first. Gay people can also use invitro and a number of other ways to birth a child. I don't understand how this is even in the discussion. What does the difficulty of receiving a child have anything to do with gay marriage? You're correct that fraud is an arguable point. Are there statistics that gay marriage, when legalized, result in an increase in marriage fraud? Do you have evidence that it is the "tradition of marriage" that inhibits fraud? As for emotional and physical benefits of gay couples v. hetero couples, further studies need to be done. The studies that have been done up to this point show that gay couples are just like any other couples. There is no evidence pointing to a dysfunctional trend in homosexual families. On the contrary, because gay couples have greater flexibility in choosing when to have a child, they are much more likely to raise a child in a household that is ready to receive that child. Removing benefits is another matter. Removing benefits is an essential prerequisite. If you accept any of the caveats.
Actually not. You can also assume that providing benefits is an essential prerequisite. That works equally well with the caveats provided.
|
On October 21 2011 08:59 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:54 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:50 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits. Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages. No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion. You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it. I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered. Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc. Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry. Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage. I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias. Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first.
So should infertile hetero-couples or couples who don't want children be banned from marriage too?
|
I think this issue really hit the emotion buttons of everyone. Marriage itself in this day and age is pretty much a contract that legally bind two person to share their asset and income. There are already laws that govern child support and de facto relationships, so Marriage is an issue about recognition of the gay community in the eyes of the public more than anything else.
Since so many are getting divorce, the argument of sanctity of marriage have gone out the window. Religions oppose gay marriage due to their beliefs and gay people want the same rights. The arguments on both side are really emotionally charged, however, the issue is whether giving gay people the right to marry complicates law and order of society as a whole.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity.
|
On October 21 2011 09:13 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:59 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:54 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:50 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits. Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages. No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion. You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it. I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered. Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc. Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry. Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage. I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias. Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first. So should infertile hetero-couples or couples who don't want children be banned from marriage too?
Its not about marriage, its about marriage benefits. Without the assumption that a family that will raise children who will become good citizens is the result the entire reason for them is eliminated. Gay marriage is a leap in that direction, which necessitates changing the legal system in order to accommodate it.
|
On October 21 2011 08:27 raviy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:17 sevencck wrote:On October 21 2011 07:54 Phayze wrote:On October 21 2011 07:40 sevencck wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman). Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not? Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared. Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate. If the defence for gay marriage is largely based off of freedom, then the same should apply to polygamy. If they're changing societal norms by making changes in the definition of marriage then there is no reason polygamy should also be restricted. People against gay marriage are biased against it, you're being biased against polygamy in the same way. I dont see why marriage is so important to cause this much controversy. And you don't need to, you only need to respect that it's important to others. I didn't say carte blanche freedom, I made a distinction. I'll also remind you that being critical of polygamy in the name of freedom makes more sense than supporting it in the name of freedom, because polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them. Straight marriage is OK, because we value the desires of a man and a woman to be together, therefore gay marriage should be OK because we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together. Yes this system of marriage can give rise to problems, abuse, violence etc. but it's fundamentally designed to empower two people to celebrate their love (barf). Polygamy as a system has become almost tailor made to give one person options, and leave others with none. I'm sorry but polygamy's track record on planet Earth is abysmal, and whether it can exist without all the exploitation is irrelevant, since we already know marriage between two (gay or straight) people can. Again, polygamy is irrelevant to this discussion. We already have a marital structure that works, and only needs to be made universally applicable to all people regardless of gender/orientation etc. Talking about a new marital system is beyond the scope of this discussion. It's in no way hypocritical to support gay marriage in the name of freedom while having reservations about polygamy. I agree, you're not being hypocritical. Because your reason for legalizing gay marriage is that you "equally value the desires of a man and a man ... to be together". Which, for me, is a pretty weak argument, because it basically states that if the majority of the population does not value the desires of people of the same gender to marry, then it should be illegal. Also, "polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them." Yeah? So have monogamous marriages. Traditionally, married women were denied all sorts of freedoms by their husbands, and were essentially household slaves. Until recently, wives were regarded by the law as the property of the husband. Women could not divorce their husbands, commence litigation alone, etc.
In your two posts, you've given me too much to respond to, and I'd rather keep this short. I will point out the incongruity of espousing polygamist marriage since polygamy exists regardless of our stance on its marital status, while suggesting that gay marriage might be problematic due to HIV in the homosexual community (which of course exists regardless of our stance on gay marital status). I'd also like to point out that increased HIV rates wouldn't morally invalidate our support for two gays getting married even if it was relevant.
What is at the core of this discussion is a simple fact. What is most inclusive for humanity is not necessarily what the majority of the population will support.
If you want to argue about how polygamy and homosexuality are different or the same I'm game, but since I keep saying that polygamy is irrelevant to this issue, please explain how it's relevant first.
|
On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity.
Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children.
I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper.
As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
