| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Marriage: it is really for everyone? |
| YES: Same sex couples should be allowed to marry. |
|
20% |
[ 12 ] |
| YES: Same sex couples should be allowed to marry. |
|
20% |
[ 12 ] |
| NO: But they should have the same rights as heterosexual Defacto couples. |
|
15% |
[ 9 ] |
| NO: But they should have the same rights as heterosexual Defacto couples. |
|
15% |
[ 9 ] |
| No: Give em nothing. |
|
15% |
[ 9 ] |
| No: Give em nothing. |
|
15% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 60 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Eunos
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Good luck Tess.
I see this thread devolving into the normal God vs Gay bunfight.
Sorry. |
|
|
|
 |
Joel 
Joined: 23 Mar 1999
Location: Mornington Peninsula
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Yeah, I can see that happening as well. |
|
|
|
|
Eunos
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh, and I voted "Yes" btw.
Live and let live. I do not feel I have the right to deny any person the right to happiness and therefore I do not have the right to deny them all the rights i have as a person. |
|
|
|
|
mandy 
Joined: 03 Jun 2001
Location: Glen Iris
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Eunos wrote: | Oh, and I voted "Yes" btw.
Live and let live. I do not feel I have the right to deny any person the right to happiness and therefore I do not have the right to deny them all the rights i have as a person. |
Ditto |
|
|
|
|
Birdy
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: | |
|
They are not being denied the same rights as we have. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and receive the same benefits just as everyone else.
Marriage is for the purpose of building families. It shouldn't be used to satisfy the interests of every minority relationship. The same kind of logic can be used to allow polygamy. Marriage and the families they produce defines culture, not the other way around.
I voted for the thrid option although I'm not yet completely sure about the second. |
|
|
|
|
Daks 
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne.
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Eunos wrote: | Oh, and I voted "Yes" btw.
Live and let live. I do not feel I have the right to deny any person the right to happiness and therefore I do not have the right to deny them all the rights i have as a person. |
I agree also. I don't feel that it's natural, but why deny them happiness? If i was a homosexual, i would expect people to respect me for who i am, and i would also expect to have the same rights as everyone else. Afterall, they are people, too. |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Must say I agree with Birdy on this one(but you already knew that). These people should have all the same rights as hetero people. And be allowed to mary just like hetero people. Man and women, husband and wife. Why is it only the gay loby we need to make special rules for? Why cant we make laws to accomodate those who want to have sex with animals and dont forget peadophiles. If homosexuality is ok these things must be as well. Hey if a man or woman is free to make up their own mind who are we to stand in their way?
_________________
Genesis 1:1 |
|
|
|
|
Eunos
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nuxta wrote: | | Why cant we make laws to accomodate those who want to have sex with animals and dont forget peadophiles. If homosexuality is ok these things must be as well. |
Nice attempt to derail the discussion by focusing on something not included in the poll.
If you want to know why bestiality and pedophilia are different to homosexual love then consider this. Neither the animal nor the child are able to give consent. A different situation with adult practicing homosexuals. |
|
|
|
|
Birdy
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So you would have no problem with marriages based on incest or polygamy? |
|
|
|
|
Joel
Joined: 23 Mar 1999
Location: Mornington Peninsula
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Eunos = Nostradamus.....or maybe he just knows that, that's how predicatable this thread was/is going to be. |
|
|
|
|
Eunos
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Birdy wrote: | | So you would have no problem with marriages based on incest or polygamy? |
Again, not the topic of the poll or this thread.
Any chance you can stay on topic?
How about answering the super question?
How about telling me who makes the decision on a dead partners organs where no marriage is involved?
This thread is about giving gay couples the right to live their lives as a committed couple in the eyes of the law.
This comment by you,
| Birdy wrote: | | I voted for the thrid option although I'm not yet completely sure about the second. |
Shows you have not even researched any option bar that already in your mind. The second option at least gives life partners the right to the deceased superannuation. It gives them the right to arrange burial and the appropriate services. It gives them the right to donate life giving organs.
I'm amazed that even the religions would deny these rights to ordinary human beings. |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Why are you surprised Eunos. Why should a Religion deny its beliefs to accomodate what it teaches as sin. Only the religions are expected to comprimise.
_________________
Genesis 1:1 |
|
|
|
|
Eunos
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nuxta wrote: | | Why are you surprised Eunos. Why should a Religion deny its beliefs to accomodate what it teaches as sin. Only the religions are expected to comprimise. |
Yes, only the religions are expected to compromise because they are not flesh and blood and cannot have feelings.
Besides, its the Law that must change, not religion. Separation of state and church anyone?
Again, answer me why these people should be denied the right to super, organ donations etc, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Birdy
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Eunos wrote: | Again, not the topic of the poll or this thread.
Any chance you can stay on topic?
How about answering the super question?
How about telling me who makes the decision on a dead partners organs where no marriage is involved?
This thread is about giving gay couples the right to live their lives as a committed couple in the eyes of the law. |
There were two separate issues raised in the first post. One being marriage, and the other being super and all the rest. You do not need to change the definition of marriage to give gay couples rights regarding the latter. The Government has already said laws on super will recognise interdependant relationships, so problem solved.
| Eunos wrote: | | This comment by you, shows you have not even researched any option bar that already in your mind. |
No, it's just being cautious. Any ground conceded to these activists could allow gays to start walking down the aisle together. I don't really care about half of those laws, it is marriage and adoption which is my main concern. There are many out there who will jump on any opportunity they can get to make the world gay. |
|
|
|
|
Eunos
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
How do you "make the world gay"?
Are you suggesting that as a heterosexual I could be turned if the right man came along? If that was true then surely I am already gay.
I have yet to see the study that proves people bought up by a gay couple turn out gay themselves. I have seen a few TV programs showing the opposite, but maybe I'm just selective in my viewing.
Turning the world gay is not possible, even you guys would admit that you are or you aren't.
Now if the super issue has been resolved, then Yippee!!!! 1 down, several to go. Have they given the right for organ donation yet? Have they given the right for funeral arrangement yet? Tip of the iceberg I know, but very important to couples I'm sure.
Tess, I'm very interested in your opposition to gay marriage. I know you are not gay, but given your circumstances, where does this law leave you? Can you ever be married? |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
