OzSTOC
No Parking Zone! => Off Topic, Off Colour, and non-motorcycle related => Topic started by: StinkyPete on September 19, 2017, 10:21:51 PM
-
The Same Sex Marriage survey is not about religious views & opinions about same sex marriage. It is simply about whether we believe that same sex couples should have the same rights and privileges under the law as heterosexual couples.
The religious arguments are red herrings in the discussion, for it will always remain the right of religious groups or individual pastors to determine if their sincerely held beliefs are in keeping with their willingness to perform a same sex marriage. The rites of Christian marriage, and marriage under the law are two separate entities.
The Australian Christian Lobby who urge a “No” vote, certainly do not represent the views of all Christians, for the views of the wider Christian community are as diverse as those in the secular community. However, Jesus' message of grace, love, forgiveness and acceptance in the eyes of God, was for all people, and he chose to mix with and deliver that message to those who were on the margins of society, including prostitutes, minority ethnic groups, tax collectors, members of the Roman occupational forces, the mentally ill, and those with physical disabilities. I wonder what Jesus would think of this survey?
-
Pete,
A wonderful dissection of this.
Friends and acquaintances in the LGBT community already go through the experience of ups and downs in relationships and life as any of us do. The difference is they are the same gender? We are all human.
I think it was who Churchill "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead". Well, I've spent too long in trying to write a short letter in response and while this is not a long letter, have decided to leave it at this as I'm finding it hard to further or better articulate a response.
-
Pete,
This is my take on the issue. And yes, I have LGBTQI friends and relations, so it's a Yes for me.
Shillas,
I couldn't write a short one. :grin
I thought sharing my background and experience might help explain my position on saying Yes to marriage equality.
When I joined the Army in 1980 it was very sexist and very homophobic.
I was there just after the first two female adult trade trainee electronics technicians started training. They were on the course before mine. There were arguments that they might get PMS and cry, or worse, throw tools around the workshop.
They would be too weak to lift the radios.
What if they got pregnant.
They were going to destroy the cohesiveness of the teams.
The Army would be ruined and would never be the same.
No-one questioned their technical aptitude or mental capacity to do the job.
They were the first of many good female technicians.
I was serving when the first female applied to be a motor mechanic apprentice.
All the previous arguments against were bandied about, plus she wouldn't be able lift gearboxes, not that any bloke lifted gearboxes on their own.
The Army would be ruined and would never be the same.
She passed the course, and being a solid country girl, could out-lift half the blokes.
There have been many more since her.
I was serving when Gays were going to be allowed to serve openly on the Defence Force.
Arguments of not sharing tents, showers, meals, etc with 'poofters' abounded. Rememember this was during the HIV outbreak.
Destroying the cohesiveness of the team etc.
The Army would be ruined and would never be the same.
One old wise Staff-Sergeant stopped a lot of the silliness in my section, by saying 2 things. The Army aren't making it compulsory to be gay", and "What makes you think you are so sexually attractive to gay men?"
They had already been serving, and had kept it to themselves. A large number still keep it to themselves, as it's no-one else's business.
The dire predictions didn't come true and gays continue to serve.
I remember the arguments against women going out on exercise.
What if the get their periods and how are we going to cope with pads and tampons.
They'll cause kaos with horny blokes out Bush missing their wives or girlfriends. etc.
They served well and one side effect was more civilised conversations and less bawdiness on exercise.
I remember when they decided it was OK to send women to combat zones. All the same silly arguments
They have since served with distinction in peace keeping missions in East Timor, the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of my friends are amongst them.
Not one of those issues ruined the Defence Forces.
None of the dire predictions came true.
The Defence Force still serves with distinction in many theatres of operations around the world.
It's been a long journey for me from homophobe to understanding (I won't use acceptance, as it is not a begrudging tolerance).
I was also a bit sexist back then. I've since grown to understand women are every bit my equal and sometimes (often) they are my superior.
So that's my foundations for thinking this won't destroy the society, the country or the world.
I've seen these anti-everything and anti - change arguments before, and in the end, it's all been a big beat up.
At the end of the day, I'll still be married and maybe some of my friends and family will also have the choice to be married.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
I was hoping this Forum would bypass this one, but since it's here now...
I'm not about to write a diatribe. For me it's a simple matter. Men and women marry. If they're fortunate, they have kids. The kids get a balanced upbringing. The man gets his rough edges smoothed, the woman derives security from her man. That's hugely over-simplifying the created order of things.
Same sex couples wanted equality before the law. They got it. Now some of them want their union to be called "marriage". For that to happen we have to negate most of "my" definition. Sure they can enhance each other's lives. Sure they can get medical intervention or surrogacy or adoption and so add children to their relationship. But it's still different.
We're warmly assured NOTHING will change for historical marriage or the rights of heterosexual parents. We are comprehensively told it's a completely different issue to so-called "Safe Schools" material. So why is it that the proponents of all these changes are the same people? What's the agenda?
Finally why can it be called "hate" when a conservative states their understanding of marriage? Yet a homosexual can brand a traditionalist with any number of harmful labels with impunity.
It's a "no" from me. I fully understand it's a futile gesture, because the LGBTI lobby won't ever stop until they get everything they want. That's their purpose in life. I'll get on with mine, insofar as I'm permitted by the ever-encroaching law.
-
:dred11 :blk13
Same sex couples wanted equality before the law. They got it. Now some of them want their union to be called "marriage". For that to happen we have to negate most of "my" definition.
LGBTIQ DO NOT HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS, when it comes down to medical power of attorney, property disputes after death of 1 partner, superannuation, LGBTIQ don't have the SAME legal standings as a heterosexual married couple.
We're warmly assured NOTHING will change for historical marriage or the rights of heterosexual parents. We are comprehensively told it's a completely different issue to so-called "Safe Schools" material. So why is it that the proponents of all these changes are the same people? What's the agenda?
THERE IS NO AGENDA, its simply to change the discriminating change that John Howard made making the wording itself discriminating. 'male and female at the exclusion of ALL others'. The voting population was NOT asked for our opinion when they made it DISCRIMINATING! Nor did they waste $122million on a plebiscite.
Finally why can it be called "hate" when a conservative states their understanding of marriage? Yet a homosexual can brand a traditionalist with any number of harmful labels with impunity.
I have read many posts where the no campaign are trying to include all these other issues and have claimed a link with Paedophilia. I think most of the religious 'NO' campaigners think it convenient to ignore that all religions have been linked to long term sexual, physical and mental CHILD ABUSE and PAEDOPHILIA. Unlike what some 'YES' campaigners call the no people, bigot, the dictionary clearly states that people who deny others the same rights are BIGOTS, and homophobes, well most comments I've read or have been spoken to by no voters imply that they are, homophobes. Not all no people are homophobes though. The safe schools stuff is already out there and will continue as is and has nothing whatsoever to do with what the LGBTIQ community want, They just want EQUALITY, not part of it. They want the same protections in all aspects that 'heterosexual couples have. They also don't want to marry many, or do they want to marry dogs, cars trees or anything else. They want to 'marry the person they love.
Bill everyone is entitled to their opinion and beliefs.I voted 'YES as my gay family members and friends are also entitled to have all the protection offered to heterosexual people under the LAW. I believe we are all equal and as such the laws should represent everyone, not those that the reigning government think should be above others in our community. Howard was wrong in changing the marriage act to DISCRIMINATE against all others that didn't suit his personal beliefs.
-
Just to be uncontroversial I voted no. :wht11
-
I know that this could be a contentious issue. As long as the posts continue to be open minded and thoughtful, the thread will remain open.
I will not tolerate any heatedness or personal attacks.
-
I am really stuck with this vote, my son is gay and in a long term committed relationship (will soon be longer than my first marriage) which I support. But I believe that marriage is a commitment made between a man and a woman. In this age of many new words why doesn't someone develop a word that that describes a commitment between two people of the same gender? How will I vote? It will be a Yes with marriage crossed out and replaced with a word I have yet to come up with, any suggestions appreciated.
-
Glen,
If you change the wording, then your selection will be invalidated. Make sure you re read the instructions before you do it.
I wonder if it will allow de facto relationships to be recognised as well..
-
Glen,
If you change the wording, then your selection will be invalidated. Make sure you re read the instructions before you do it.
That is the risk I take
-
I am really stuck with this vote, my son is gay and in a long term committed relationship (will soon be longer than my first marriage) which I support. But I believe that marriage is a commitment made between a man and a woman. In this age of many new words why doesn't someone develop a word that that describes a commitment between two people of the same gender? How will I vote? It will be a Yes with marriage crossed out and replaced with a word I have yet to come up with, any suggestions appreciated.
union · alliance · fusion · blend · amalgamation · combination
That is an interesting point Glen, and something that I heard discussed the other day.
The discussion boiled down to...
Instead of Marriage create something that covers all the same legal rights but without any religious overtones and call it something else.
This would not only be an option for the LGBTQI but for men and women that don't believe in any religion.
It was an interesting discussion.
-
You are missing the point we are voting on whether we want the politicians to vote on this or not and that is all it is about
-
The bit i don't get is i hear a lot of people talk of marriage as a religious thing and God would not be happy if same sex marry etc etc.
I wasn't married in a church nor was my ceremony carried out by a church minister. This is true for a lot of people, so is this not that along the same line as what the no voters as arguing against.
For the No Vote to really be true, then EVERY MARRIAGE should only take place in a certified church by an ordained minister of God. Otherwise it has to be YES.
Just about every argument i hear for the NO vote, always comes back to some sort of religious meaning, yet we are willing to tolerate celebrants to pair up a man and a woman, out side of the church, why cant they pair up the same sex as well?
Having the right to marry will not change the fact that there will be same sex couples, nor will it stop Male/Female marriages, it just makes it fairer for some one that has found their soul mate.
Mr2u :blk13
-
Marriage isnt necessarily a religious institution, agnostics, and atheists can marry in a civil ceremony. Even Defacto relationships are recognised by Law. Gay relationships are not currently recognised in any fashion.
-
Gay relationships are not currently recognised in any fashion.
Nup.
Civil Union it's called.
Same effect at law- wills, insurance, Superannuation etc.
http://tinyurl.com/PaulKeeting (http://tinyurl.com/PaulKeeting)
-
Should gays be allowed to marry?
The demographics are IMPLACABLE -- one in twenty five births world wide, regardless of family status, ethnicity, religious affiliation of parents, results in a gay or lesbian child. So if you have several children, the statistical chance increases of having a gay/lesbian offspring.
These individuals have NO CHOICE in their sexuality.
So we have three options
1. Remain in a life long companionless lonely single state.
2. Marry an unwitting heterosexual in the forlorn hopes of a "cure".
3. Find a loving mate of the same sex, for intimacy companionship, sharing, camaraderie, support, love, affection.
The prestigious long term FRAMINGHAM HEART STUDY found that married men had a FORTY SIX PER CENT lower premature death rate than men who had never married.
Why would we cruelly deprive our gay offspring of this blessed benefit, more particularly, when the proposed same sex marriage law, has ZERO religious component.
It is merely a CIVIL act with multiple civil benefits for the participants in taxes, estates, and a host of other beneficial bonuses!
Not to mention the bonding of love and affection and the joys of companionship.
-
Marriage in Australia legally is a secular process. Governed by the Marriage Act of Australia 1960, which has been amended 24 times.
The States and Territories make their law to comply with it.
It isn't legally a marriage until the both the Register and the Certificate are signed by 5 people.
The current definition was put into the Marriage Act on 2004, after three ACT legislated for marriage equality. Just 13 years ago.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
So we have three options
1. Remain in a life long companionless lonely single state.
2. Marry an unwitting heterosexual in the forlorn hopes of a "cure".
3. Find a loving mate of the same sex, for intimacy companionship, sharing, camaraderie, support, love, affection.
I know several people who took option 2, and finished up divorced after having kids.
Allowing them to marry who they are attracted to in the first place will decrease the divorce rate and improve marriage and family stability.
-
Homosexuals have formed Civil Unions for many years, giving them the companionship everyone needs.
This does not involve any religious aspect, as Gadget says, it's a secular process. It's not called marriage and doesn't need to be called that for all the benefits of the arrangement Lindsay listed to be enjoyed. They want it to be different, so why now want it to be called the same in name only?
-
Explainer: what legal benefits do married couples have that de facto couples do not?
http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-legal-benefits-do-married-couples-have-that-de-facto-couples-do-not-83896 (http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-legal-benefits-do-married-couples-have-that-de-facto-couples-do-not-83896)
Note Well: Different states treat de facto relationships differently!
-
I can marry parts together like wheel bearings into the rim and it can be called a marriage.
Marriage has only existed in the English language since 1250 to 1300 CE.
Nero married several people, including at one stage, a man.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
I can marry parts together like wheel bearings into the rim and it can be called a marriage.
True, but unfortunately the rim was not legally entitled to any of the bearing race once the Wheel bearing was departed
:blk13
-
I can marry parts together like wheel bearings into the rim and it can be called a marriage.
True, but unfortunately the rim was not legally entitled to any of the bearing race once the Wheel bearing was departed
:blk13
:grin
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
This topic has been pretty much done to death, but I felt I had to share this, knowing the struggle some here have had, or are having.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/how-time-and-the-same-sex-marriage-survey-helped-settle-my-familys-feud (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/how-time-and-the-same-sex-marriage-survey-helped-settle-my-familys-feud)
-
This topic has been pretty much done to death, but I felt I had to share this, knowing the struggle some here have had, or are having.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/how-time-and-the-same-sex-marriage-survey-helped-settle-my-familys-feud (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/how-time-and-the-same-sex-marriage-survey-helped-settle-my-familys-feud)
That was an interesting read.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
There is no doubt that a LGBT relationship is not equal to a marriage relationship in either a legal or practical sense. Some of these inequalities are mentioned by LindsayGT.
If I vote No the inequality remains. I was tempted to vote No because of the texting incident and the annoying vitroil flowing from the Yes proponents. However, the No proponents have not been angelic in their rhetoric.
The Government, having decided to shift the responsibility for the issue, has not given us an opportunity to vote on total equality for LGBT relationships by employing a different noun, other than marriage. I would prefer that the term “marriage” not be used for LGBT relationships. Changing the definition of “marriage” to suit 10% of the population is similar, IMHO, to banning Christmas festivities in our schools to suit 10% of the population.
Like many others I have LGBT family and friends. However, this is not my reason for voting Yes.
The basis for my Yes vote is the inequality that exists between a marriage (as currently understood) and a LGBT relationship.
As Yorkie said a Yes vote only gets the issue debated in Parliament. I look forward to watching that on TV.
-
It will be interesting to watch.
However, I'm not even sure the Government will hold together long enough for it to get to the floor of the house.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
Seems to me that the people who oppose are ones who it will never affect.
Personally, it doesn't affect me. I have never wanted to marry another man, and very much doubt I ever will. So I don't see why I should stand in anyone else's way. It is stupid that it has come to this postal survey.
I agree the religious arguments are moot.
I voted Yes.
Besides, why should straight men be the only ones who have to suffer marriage.... :o