Poll: If you were to vote to Australian Marriage Equality, what would that be?
Yes
No
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Australian Marriage Equality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2017, 03:13 AM
Australian Marriage Equality
Mod note: I cannot access subsection Intimacy and Relationships for no reason. Please grant me.

I am an adult and Australian citizen. The vote for Australian Marriage Equality is about time.

I am so far gay, homosexually attracted to select guys but I am also very social and romantic with girls. However, I am all against gay marriage equality for apt reasons.

First, for marriage between man and woman, marriage derives from terms of motherly love. So it might be a little hypocritical and double standards on part of gay couples demanding legal rights to same-sex marriage - the legal benefits of marriage, despite religious institutionalisation, apply to cover the costs of support for raising kids and starting families.

To balance the argument against same-sex marriage, it would be inconvenient to raise the kids for many identity reasons and kids would like balance, as far as my instinct goes and from my personal experiences. Personally as a future father, I always want to raise kids with my wife rather than husband.

Second, I unconditionally support brotherly love of any and all forms including personal, private to open and public, such as gayness and so on - I will always be with consensually indulgent humans and fight for rights to consensual gay pleasures. I would challenge and redefine the terms homosexuality and consider it as the most intimate form of brotherly love, and the same applies to sisterly love.

To counterbalance homophobic arguments, whilst 'homosexually' indulgent with select guys, I would vow differently for marriage. That is, I would stipulate respect from my future wife for my consensually brotherly love as much as I would respect her sisterly love - personal and private to open and public. In short, I wouldn't care about her consensually 'lesbian' sexuality, and so as long as we play safe whilst continuing to exercise integrity and mutual trust along the way.

I therefore will vote NO to Australian Marriage Equality.

I would like to leave this here, in the light of discussions anytime.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 03:40 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2017 03:49 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
For the record, nobody can access the I&R section without specific admin approval. If I remember correctly, this was a measure put in place to protect younger users from the potentially more graphic content which was at the time deemed to be unsuitable for youth consumption, and to provide a veneer of privacy for users away from randoms that could disrupt otherwise sensitive discussion.

I would be voting 'Yes' in the plebiscite were I able (why the hell did I need to re-enrol for an optional vote? And why did I need a passport or driver's licence to do it? Already on the register for every other vote... stupid bloody politicians).

I would vote in favour of marriage equality because... well it's in the name. Changing the current system to enable equal opportunity for marriage would be better than maintaining the current system of 'Separate and Unequal' silliness it is now. The more equal society is, the better off we are, or so i figure.

Marriage in function is just a contract of cooperation which is legally recognised and from such recognition is granted privileges. I see no compelling secular reason to exclude the gays from having access to this specific form of relationship and access to relevant subsidisation.

Marriage in Australia has only been defined strictly since 2004 with the introduction of the Marriage Amendment Act, so pretending that marriage is some legal tradition of long-standing rigid definitions is bollocks; it is an ages old tradition, but in this country the restrictive definition which officially precluded homosexuals their right is less than 20 years old. Furthermore in tradition here, marriage has always been understood to be one of partnership, not necessarily procreation. Procreation is not necessary for marriages and is not within the definition legislatively or in common law, and such a thing is not the basis of associated rebates and subsidies; childcare has its own specific set of tax breaks independent of marriage.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Free Thought's post
31-08-2017, 03:43 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2017 03:47 AM by Thinker.)
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
(31-08-2017 03:40 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  For the record, nobody can access the I&R section without specific admin approval. If I remember correctly, this was a measure put in place to protect younger users from the potentially more graphic content which was at the time deemed to be unsuitable for youth consumption, and to provide a veneer of privacy for users away from randoms that could disrupt otherwise sensitive discussion.

I would be voting 'Yes' in the plebiscite were I able (why the hell did I need to re-enrol for an optional vote? And why did I need a passport or driver's licence to do it? Already on the register for every other vote... stupid bloody politicians).

I would vote in favour of marriage equality because... well it's in the name. Changing the current system to enable equal opportunity for marriage would be better than maintaining the current system of 'Separate and Unequal' silliness it is now. The more equal society is, the better off we are, or so i figure.

Marriage in function is just a contract of cooperation which is legally recognised and from such recognition is granted privileges. I see no compelling secular reason to exclude the gays from having access to this specific form of relationship and access to relevant subsidisation.

Marriage in Australia has only been defined strictly since 2004 with the introduction of the Marriage Amendment Act, so pretending that marriage is some legal tradition of long-standing rigid definitions is bollocks; it is a ages old tradition, but in this country the restrictive definition which officially precluded homosexuals their right is less than 20 years old. Furthermore in tradition here, marriage has always been understood to be one of partnership, not necessarily procreation. Procreation is not necessary for marriages and is not within the definition legislatively or in common law, and such a thing is not the basis of associated rebates and subsidies; childcare has its own specific set of tax breaks independent of marriage.

I totally agree. You certainly challenge my thinking especially in the rationale for marriage - it is no longer a contract for procreation.

I totally agree with the idea of gay marriage equality in that it engenders equity for all and an inclusive state in which all can enjoy freedom and protection from such religious and homophobic persecutions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 04:24 AM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
Well, that was quick.

Those in favour ... two
Those against ... zero.

Motion carried.

Undecided

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
31-08-2017, 04:33 AM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
(31-08-2017 04:24 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Well, that was quick.

Those in favour ... two
Those against ... zero.

Motion carried.

Undecided

In principle, I'm all for gay marriage equality but I'm still terribly confused!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 04:47 AM
Australian Marriage Equality
I find your arguments unconvincing in the extreme. Marriage is just contract between willing individuals and their sex should not play role in this. There's no reason for which two men or women should not be able to marry other than primitive taboos of those who still believe in sky daddy in this day and age.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Szuchow's post
31-08-2017, 05:10 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2017 05:13 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
Hello Thinker! Big Grin

Here's quick, off the top of my head counter point to your openning post. Thumbsup

So, while you and I are welcome to our veiws and opinions... sadly this is not actually what 'The Law' is for.

'The Law' is a set of guide lines which can effect what we, as individuals, can and can not do. It's kind of as simple as that.

So... if you have a freind seriosly ill in hospital... You can't go and see them at your perogative but must abide by the requests/requirments of those acknowledged as 'Family'.

Currently the set of 'Family' is ascribed to biological or marital affiliation.

So... if two people of the same gender are together... within the guide lines of 'The Law' they are simply "Just really good freinds" and not able to have access to everything that every one else in the comunity have access to.

I know it seems like a little quibble... but... emotionally and such, it can be a really big and devastating divide.

Much cheers to all.

Not at work
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Peebothuhul's post
31-08-2017, 05:22 AM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  First, for marriage between man and woman, marriage derives from terms of motherly love. So it might be a little hypocritical and double standards on part of gay couples demanding legal rights to same-sex marriage - the legal benefits of marriage, despite religious institutionalisation, apply to cover the costs of support for raising kids and starting families.

I don't understand your point here at all. The origin of the term isn't important to me at all because words evolve in meaning over time and what is important is how it is used today. In the secular view, marriage is a legal contract between two individuals and I have yet to see a valid reason to limit that contract by the genders of the individuals involved.

I'm not sure where you see the legal benefits of marriage being used to cover the costs of starting families. In any event, why would the need be different for 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 1 woman, a single man, or a single woman? I'm much more concerned about whether they provide a safe, loving home than what sex positions they enjoy in private or whether or not they are even married, let alone to whom.

Quote:To balance the argument against same-sex marriage, it would be inconvenient to raise the kids for many identity reasons and kids would like balance, as far as my instinct goes and from my personal experiences. Personally as a future father, I always want to raise kids with my wife rather than husband.

It is up to the parents to expose the kids to "balance" and a wide variety of people and situations to prepare them for life. A gay couple that do that would be far better in my opinion than a straight couple that sheltered the kid in a toxic religious environment. I don't see that simply having a mother and father instead of 2 moms or 2 dads automatically provides balance or is even more likely to provide balance.

I also don't see why the issue of kids is key to the discussion of whether two legal adults can enter into a marriage contract. I'd also suggest that you look for studies about the effects on kids of being raised by gay parents. I think you will quickly find that they don't turn out any different than kids raised by straight parents. It's the parenting ability, not the preferred sexual acts, that determine that.

Quote:Second, I unconditionally support brotherly love of any and all forms including personal, private to open and public, such as gayness and so on - I will always be with consensually indulgent humans and fight for rights to consensual gay pleasures. I would challenge and redefine the terms homosexuality and consider it as the most intimate form of brotherly love, and the same applies to sisterly love.

That actually strikes me as mildly homophobic. Love is love and categorizing it as "brotherly" or "sisterly" implies a distinction that I do not see. Sex is not the same as love.

Quote:To counterbalance homophobic arguments, whilst 'homosexually' indulgent with select guys, I would vow differently for marriage. That is, I would stipulate respect from my future wife for my consensually brotherly love as much as I would respect her sisterly love - personal and private to open and public. In short, I wouldn't care about her consensually 'lesbian' sexuality, and so as long as we play safe whilst continuing to exercise integrity and mutual trust along the way.[quote]

That also is not clear to me. It sounds like you are advocating gays getting into heterosexual marriages for the sake of appearances but having open relationships where they can have same sex relationships on the side. If so, that can work for some but I wonder who you are keeping up appearances for and why you care what they think. If that's how you want to live then more power to you but why would you require that others do the same if that's not how they want to live?

[quote]I therefore will vote NO to Australian Marriage Equality.

I would like to leave this here, in the light of discussions anytime.

I don't understand denying rights on the basis of your personal preferences.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
31-08-2017, 08:30 AM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
Actually I have always wanted to settle with boyfriend husband but despite longstanding cognitive dissonance and some counterarguments in my local area, all of you remind and help revive my original attitudes... I will vote Yes!

Sent from my CPH1609 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 02:04 PM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
Yay!

Hug

Heart

Thumbsup

Much cheers to you and yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: