|
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.
|
On October 21 2011 07:28 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Why would they even have to vote, they should let same sex marriage be. If 2 people love each other isn't that reason enough to get married? Come on, we don't live in the bronze age anymore. We have to be more tolerant and open minded.
|
On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people?
Because the government works for the people, and the people want it.
And if you need a scientific reason, civil unions between couples lead to more stable and productive communities. There's a direct correlation between stability of family and social upheaval (crime etc.).
|
On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? 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. Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:34 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? 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.
|
I hope I don't get banned for this, but I think that Julia Gillard's decision is a clear demonstration of backwards thinking. Sure, in 3rd world countries, this is a bit more excusable with the lack of education and information going around, and holds more merit as an innocent misconception. However, last time I checked, Australia isn't a 3rd world country. It's on Earth, and Earth is the 1st world. It's really inexcusable for this kind of thinking to still be going around in places that are supposed to be the front runners of being humane and demonstrating the "correct" way of life.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
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.
the population is smarter than u think they are just busy thats tthe whole idea behind a representative democracy,
also australian politics tends to work mostly by mutal agreement between the major parties, much of the stuff that u hear on news is the stuff they dont agreee aabout u hardly hear about the things that there is mutual support on as it tends to just be put to a vote and passed qquickly through the house.
|
On October 21 2011 07:41 Heathen wrote:
Why would they even have to vote, they should let same sex marriage be. If 2 people love each other isn't that reason enough to get married? Come on, we don't live in the bronze age anymore. We have to be more tolerant and open minded.
yeah so u propose to annoy both a signifcant proportion of ur party base who are already pissed at u btw as well as annoy ur grassroot donation base at a time when u have pretty much alientated most of ur traditional donors.
At the end of the day its not abhout rights and freedoms fundamentally it is how many votes will be gained by taking x position and at the moment there is more to lose than to gain.
BTW i support gay marriage im just pointing out the facts.
|
I don't know what the situation is in Australia, so I won't act like I do :S. But in my opinion, if there are no adverse effects of homosexual union upon Australian society, then I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed :S.
On October 21 2011 07:43 lowkontrast wrote:
I hope I don't get banned for this, but I think that Julia Gillard's decision is a clear demonstration of backwards thinking. Sure, in 3rd world countries, this is a bit more excusable with the lack of education and information going around, and holds more merit as an innocent misconception. However, last time I checked, Australia isn't a 3rd world country. It's on Earth, and Earth is the 1st world. It's really inexcusable for this kind of thinking to still be going around in places that are supposed to be the front runners of being humane and demonstrating the "correct" way of life.
User was temp banned for this post.
Damnit why didn't you see the first page of this thread before posting, man T_T :'(
|
On October 21 2011 07:40 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
5930 Posts
Well Julia Gillard thinking that way about gay marriage isn't surprising. Labor hasn't been remotely left leaning for a long time since they're trying to appeal to the same voters the Liberal party tend to go for like well off middle classes in in the Eastern suburbs. A lot of their current policies, such as their asylum seeker policies, are just as awful as their "more" conservative counterparts to say the least.
It doesn't help a lot of the party doesn't really have a backbone when it comes to ideological convictions. Penny Wong during the election actually made me angry and sad because it was like watching a stockholm syndrome victim.
|
On October 21 2011 07:07 FabledIntegral wrote:
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant.
In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights.
He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences.
If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
|
On October 21 2011 07:54 Phayze wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Totally agree. If three CONSENTING adults want to get married, go nuts. Doesn't affect me in the least.
Just don't go down the slippery-slope argument of marrying an animal, a child or whatever else. Those are immediately thrown out the door on the grounds of consent.
|
It's only a matter of time before Australia legalizes gay marriage.. I would say a very large percentage of the people I know (under 25) would vote to legalize it. It's te older generation letting us down but they will fade away soon enough.
It makes no sense to be against gay marriage, rationaly and logically, unless your homophobic.
Sexuality is not chosen, and it is only natural for gays to want to be treated like everyone else in society, regardless of the foundation of it's customs.
Realistically it's just a lack of education (emotionally/ intellectualy) that hinders the developent of society.. But that's just the way the cookie crumbles
|
On October 21 2011 07:57 olderbrother wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:07 FabledIntegral wrote:
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant. In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights. He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
I don't see where gays are asking to be married at Churches, though. They don't need their blessing, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd want it.
|
On October 21 2011 07:57 olderbrother wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:07 FabledIntegral wrote:
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant. In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights. He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
Ok? What's your point - I already said they generally don't want to get married in churches anyways.
|
On October 21 2011 07:59 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:57 olderbrother wrote:On October 21 2011 07:07 FabledIntegral wrote:
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant. In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights. He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere. I don't see where gays are asking to be married at Churches, though. They don't need their blessing, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd want it.
its mainly a legal thing u get a whole bunch of benifits and rights and such under the law for example if ur partner dies then u can access their supperannuation (401k) tax free assuming u are named but if ur not a partner then it can be the subjeeect of duties. Also if u are a partner of a solider then u get thier benifits if they die (e.g. ww2 veteran dies of old age wife is still covered under his benifit which is significantly better than most other benifits proveded by the governement).
|
On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? 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:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? 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?
|
On October 21 2011 07:54 Phayze wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The whole point in marriage is to unite two people.
But I suppose one could argue that it was the union of two heterosexual people, and turn it into a slippery slope.
Edit: Unite twice using one person twice and two others goes around this I suppose.
|
On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? 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:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
