Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
peterm13

Gay Marriage...For or Against?..and why?

NS Gay marriage  

85 members have voted

  1. 1. Gay Marriage?



Recommended Posts

Voted For, however on one condition it not be called called marriage. Why change the definition and not create a new name for it. Its not as if new names or titles aren't created for new/different things.

 

Why not call it marriage? Is it not the union of two people committed to one another as per a heterosexual marriage?

 

It is, however the current definition of marriage is between a man and woman. Why the necessity to change that definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been with my girlfriend/partner for a fair while now, we are both in our 40's and i dont believe marriage is an essential part of a loving relationship, but except in a legal terms which can be sorted by seeing a lawyer to sort out wills, power of attorney and all that shit to get two people in a partnership/relationship all the same rights of a married couple even regardless of gender type relationships (fags or carpet eaters). I believe same gender couples should be able to have a civil union to get the similar rights but you cant call it marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted For, however on one condition it not be called called marriage. Why change the definition and not create a new name for it. Its not as if new names or titles aren't created for new/different things.

 

Why not call it marriage? Is it not the union of two people committed to one another as per a heterosexual marriage?

 

It is, however the current definition of marriage is between a man and woman. Why the necessity to change that definition?

 

Because laws need to change to reflect societal progression. Further, gay couples are fighting to have equal recognition under the law, changing the very definition of the law governing marriage is precisely what they want, there is no better equality than being included under that same law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know what happened when we gave females rights... Maybe this will be similar :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a different name for the same thing differentiating whether you're straight or gay is discrimination.

Even in this day and age.

 

So the "different name" will never Happen.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for gay marriage, as long as both chicks are hot :P

 

In all seriousness though, it shouldn't even be called GAY marriage. It's the marriage of two people, who gives f**k what their sexual preference is. If two people want to get married they should be able to and it should just be respected and recognised as their union, not a gay marriage.

 

Yeah, specific labels not required.

 

You're either married, or you aren't.

 

I'm for it, because as others have said, it doesn't bother me who marries whom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that haven't seen this:

 

 

Voted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the bill was passed in NZ moments after this speech ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For, then all the little faggots around here could marry each other ans stop living with thier mums past 25. Hahaha, sorry morphines a hell of a drug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted For, however on one condition it not be called called marriage. Why change the definition and not create a new name for it. Its not as if new names or titles aren't created for new/different things.

 

Why not call it marriage? Is it not the union of two people committed to one another as per a heterosexual marriage?

 

It is, however the current definition of marriage is between a man and woman. Why the necessity to change that definition?

 

Because laws need to change to reflect societal progression. Further, gay couples are fighting to have equal recognition under the law, changing the very definition of the law governing marriage is precisely what they want, there is no better equality than being included under that same law.

 

Laws can just as easily be added to reflect societal changes. To add, equal rights can also easily be afforded to gay couples but why must the word marriage be used/its current definition be changed.

Look at people in long time defacto relationships with/without children, the same rules apply as if they had been married, the only difference is that they have not stood in front of a celebrant/religious figure and have a piece of paper. To which makes sense as they have not met the same requirements as marriage for those reasons.

Having a different name for the same thing differentiating whether you're straight or gay is discrimination.

Even in this day and age.

 

So the "different name" will never Happen.

 

Of course its discrimination, the moment you describe/choose/select something as different from the other, you are discriminating. That doesn't mean its a bad thing. Just because the way discrimination has been used horribly against gays does not mean that discriminating is a bad thing.

Edited by 180BOBO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted For, however on one condition it not be called called marriage. Why change the definition and not create a new name for it. Its not as if new names or titles aren't created for new/different things.

 

Why not call it marriage? Is it not the union of two people committed to one another as per a heterosexual marriage?

 

It is, however the current definition of marriage is between a man and woman. Why the necessity to change that definition?

 

Because laws need to change to reflect societal progression. Further, gay couples are fighting to have equal recognition under the law, changing the very definition of the law governing marriage is precisely what they want, there is no better equality than being included under that same law.

 

Laws can just as easily be added to reflect societal changes. To add, equal rights can also easily be afforded to gay couples but why must the word marriage be used/its current definition be changed.

Look at people in long time defacto relationships with/without children, the same rules apply as if they had been married, the only difference is that they have not stood in front of a celebrant/religious figure and have a piece of paper. To which makes sense as they have not met the same requirements as marriage for those reasons.

Having a different name for the same thing differentiating whether you're straight or gay is discrimination.

Even in this day and age.

 

So the "different name" will never Happen.

 

Of course its discrimination, the moment you describe/choose/select something as different from the other, you are discriminating. That doesn't mean its a bad thing. Just because the way discrimination has been used horribly against gays does not mean that discriminating is a bad thing.

 

Discrimination is not a bad thing??? What the actual f**k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know.. Let's support a law where all Gay and Lesbian people must where a rainbow patch on their clothing when in public.....

 

It's not discrimination because we are saying we're giving them the same "rights". They just have a different label for all to see.

 

tostjerner.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted For, however on one condition it not be called called marriage. Why change the definition and not create a new name for it. Its not as if new names or titles aren't created for new/different things.

 

Why not call it marriage? Is it not the union of two people committed to one another as per a heterosexual marriage?

 

It is, however the current definition of marriage is between a man and woman. Why the necessity to change that definition?

 

Because laws need to change to reflect societal progression. Further, gay couples are fighting to have equal recognition under the law, changing the very definition of the law governing marriage is precisely what they want, there is no better equality than being included under that same law.

 

Laws can just as easily be added to reflect societal changes. To add, equal rights can also easily be afforded to gay couples but why must the word marriage be used/its current definition be changed.

Look at people in long time defacto relationships with/without children, the same rules apply as if they had been married, the only difference is that they have not stood in front of a celebrant/religious figure and have a piece of paper. To which makes sense as they have not met the same requirements as marriage for those reasons.

Having a different name for the same thing differentiating whether you're straight or gay is discrimination.

Even in this day and age.

 

So the "different name" will never Happen.

 

Of course its discrimination, the moment you describe/choose/select something as different from the other, you are discriminating. That doesn't mean its a bad thing. Just because the way discrimination has been used horribly against gays does not mean that discriminating is a bad thing.

 

Discrimination is not a bad thing??? What the actual f**k?

I know.. Let's support a law where all Gay and Lesbian people must where a rainbow patch on their clothing when in public.....

 

It's not discrimination because we are saying we're giving them the same "rights". They just have a different label for all to see.

 

tostjerner.jpg

 

Have a look at what discrimination means other than the hatred, attempted destruction and or persecution because of race, homosexuality, Religion (Specifically Jewish seeing as you provided the picture.) The bigger point you inadvertently raise is how that discrimination is treated or therein the justification of that treatment.

 

For the sake of adding another word to dictionary, I highly doubt people will end up in interment/re-education/prison camps.

 

What that pictures represents is the end result of the justification of ostracism, mass genocide, castration, imprisonment, rape, torture, forced conversion (often feigned) conversion of homosexuals. Based on discrimination.

 

I'll Help you along.

noun

 

[mass noun]

  • 1the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:victims of racial discriminationdiscrimination against homosexuals

  • 3 Electronics the selection of a signal having a required characteristic, such as frequency or amplitude, by means of a discriminator.

(right out of the oxford dictionary)

 

Notice how out of the three base level descriptions provided above only one has anything to do with mistreating people.

 

I Have discriminated against Y The moment I Choose X or Distinguish X over Y. It is how I treat Y that counts. This goes for everything you do in life, do you go out with that girl or the other one you like, do you buy the Subaru BRZ or the Toyota 86, do you know right from wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point you are missing is the fact that giving these two people a gay specific title for the rest of their lives will serve as a constant advertisement and reminder that they are and always will be different.

 

The core definition of marriage is two people bound by love forever. The sex of those two people should not matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

180OBO, you are missing the point entirely. The concept of same sex marriage is based on the ideal of equality. There is no definition of discrimination in any dictionary that provides a synonym for equality, in fact in most definitions you provided there is always a party in the equation who's drawn the short straw, even though most definitions you presented are completely out of context. Your argument is stating that they can get close enough but no cigar.

 

Also marriage has become incredibly superficial these days. the number of f**kwits in a rush to get married only to divorce within a couple of years is astounding. What's also astounding is that media has found ways to materialize and desecrate what was once 'sacred' by harping on about dresses, rings etc. The wedding has become less about a celebration of a union and more a chore of keeping up with the joneses.

 

My point is why shouldn't those of the same sex who legitimately love each other unconditionally be allowed to engage in marriage, when shitheads like kim kardashian can shit all over the concept of marriage only to divorce 72 days later? All whilst televising the event?

 

Why do bible bashers harp on about the religious idea of marriage when the idea of marriage preceded the bible?

 

The only reason that can remotely justify the opposition of same sex marriage is the risk of insurance fraud and that just means that insurance companies need to work harder and be more thorough in their checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point you are missing is the fact that giving these two people a gay specific title for the rest of their lives will serve as a constant advertisement and reminder that they are and always will be different.

 

How does a different title mean they aren't equal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to me, marriage is a christian thing, and the church hate gays so why do they even want to do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do bible bashers harp on about the religious idea of marriage when the idea of marriage preceded the bible?

 

Every Christian would agree that marriage preceded the Bible.

 

It's whether or not Marriage is an institution formed by God OR just a social convention ( like driving on the left side of the road )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point you are missing is the fact that giving these two people a gay specific title for the rest of their lives will serve as a constant advertisement and reminder that they are and always will be different.

 

How does a different title mean they aren't equal?

 

Here's a counter. Why is there a need to drum up another title?

 

If marriage under god is a christian concept, why are hindus, jews, buddhists, muslims, and atheists allowed to get married?(that's for frenchi1001)

 

Wouldn't the fact that itis a 'christian' concept make it religiously exclusive?

 

Also I'll repeat a question. If marriage is a sacred commitment, what relevance would your sexuality have in regards to making that commitment and getting the proper recognition for it? Why make the effort to segregate when its far easier to amend?

Edited by spongeboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do bible bashers harp on about the religious idea of marriage when the idea of marriage preceded the bible?

 

Every Christian would agree that marriage preceded the Bible.

 

It's whether or not Marriage is an institution formed by God OR just a social convention ( like driving on the left side of the road )

 

But therein lies the contradiction. firstly we are a secular state, and Secondly marriage is a concept that transcends religion, so why bring religion into it the first place?

 

Also social convention has the ability to evolve and emulate the times. These days we as a society are more tolerant and accepting of diversity. Are more studied and aware of the world around us. What was taboo 75 years ago is a social norm today.

Edited by spongeboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a new title is created for gay marriage the flow on is that all marriage celebrants then need another certificate to be able to marry gay couples. New laws then need to be created, new training courses, etc so the celebrants are legally able to wed gay couples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we live in mostly christian country, marriage is done in churches (mostly) thats why its a christian concept to me. i am not saying thats what it is i am saying thats how a i view it. i guess a rephrase would be its a mostly religious ideal which most religions not accepting of homosexuality.

 

yeah, todays world is so accepting. espically russia.

Edited by frenchie1001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not a Christian country, Christianity is the largest religion here but the church & state are separate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not a Christian country, Christianity is the largest religion here but the church & state are separate.

i meant its our main dominant religion

Edited by frenchie1001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But saying Australia is a Christian country is just as misguided as saying turkey is a Muslim state. All of our legislature is secular. If we were a Christian state religious education would have a far greater role in public education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not a Christian country, Christianity is the largest religion here but the church & state are separate.

i meant its our main dominant religion

 

So how does that equate to the marriage of two people being any business of the largest religion in Australia? This is sounding like a broken record but marriage IS NOT a Christian concept, it does not belong to Christianity. To associate marriage with Christianity and oppose gay marriage on that ground is illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never said anything about living in a secular country, i meant and still mean its our main dominant religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not a Christian country, Christianity is the largest religion here but the church & state are separate.

i meant its our main dominant religion

 

But again, since when do the majority of Australians get up every sunday morning and haul ass down to church? It seems the vast majority of Australians view their faith as a formality and nothing more. So yes christianity may be our dominant religion but there f**kload more atheists and agnostics out there who couldn't give 2 shits about what christians believe when it comes to same sex marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not arguing there.

 

what i was trying to say, its marriage to me is a mostly religious concept, and most religious arent accepting of homosexuals so why do they want it? seems to me more of a case of wanting what they cant have rather than anything else

 

they are trying to buy into something that alot of the time ends bitterly.

 

again i dont actually care if they do or dont it just seems stupid to me. espically people who still value marriage so highly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×