The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia?

Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 35
  10. 36
  11. 37
  12. All
Dear RObert,

Fair enough.

Dear Truthnow...,

If we're all products of our environment -
why are there so many differences between us?
Shouldn't we make allowances for individual
differences?

Dear Examinator,

I too support a person's right to believe or
not believe - but I wouldn't dream of forcing
my own beliefs onto others. Or try to convert
anyone to my way of thinking. I don't have
a "missionary" complex.

Dear Runner,

I know that you write from the heart, and I
respect that. But as I've said before,
intolerance isn't Christian - and it's not
our place to judge others.

Dear Houellie,

You can't make a person love you, or
like you. You can only stalk them and
hope for the best.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 6 November 2009 12:54:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh well Foxy, It doesn't really matter what we think about gay marriage, thanks to liberalism and diversity, the Taliban are gunning for Australia now -

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26312324-421,00.html

And I'm pretty sure they're against gay rights.
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Friday, 6 November 2009 1:12:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Haven't you heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

Col,

Oh yeah how did the Wedding go? Are there any pics? Which wine did you choose?

'where standards are abandoned and anything goes, provided some government functionary has stamped it.'

Oh I do think you're too late old chap.

'Every social order is founded on standards. Standards of law, standards of behavior and standards of conduct etc..'
Standards change all the time. Weekly in fact when the bureaucrats and consultants define 'Best Practice'. Do you think a lady should always wear gloves and a gentleman a hat and coat? I really think they should rename the 'glove box' in cars...

And what of the standards in Beer sizes. The latest invention in Sydney is the Schmiddie. A drink in a glass resembling a Schooner, but about 50 mls short.

Cornflower,

Hmmm. Well, the point I'm making is why don't we let people decide to 'commit' or not, rather than the government playing such a guessing game. That seems to me a pretty guaranteed measure of people's commitment to each other.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 6 November 2009 1:42:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First why?
Weddings after all are a Christian thing aren't they.
With some thought the Gay community can come up with a name for a ceremony that lets them express love and faithfulness, whatever they wish.
Even mainstream community's see many common law couples.
I think the real complaint is about lawful rights of gay couples.
Each year we get closer to equality here and I can think of no reason they should not have equal rights now.
And while Christians will not be pleased with my views, I see zero reason they should be involved IN law making ,for any of us.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 6 November 2009 1:51:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, "Why are straight marriages any
better than gay marriages?"

Why is homosexual sex in a pairing any more deserving of recognition and government support than a coupling where sex isn't a part of the relationship but nonetheless there is mutual commitment, intimacy, ongoing support and love? Specifically, why shouldn't any two or more people who share life together and intend to do so for as long as possible be formally recognised and supported by government if a homosexual couple should be?

What is being recognised here, is it just the sex or what?

Of course any government law discriminates, that is the whole purpose of laws and in interfering in the relationships of heterosexuals the government is playing its best cards to encourage population growth and ensure that as far as possible it is able to avoid the risks and costs of children roaming around without care and support.

If the Marriage Act discriminates against homosexual pairings it sure as anything discriminates against all other possible combinations and permutations of partnerships and couplings too, excepting the one that the State sees it is odds on to gets the most advantage out of (one man and one woman).

Of course the State has even gone further with heteros to say that it (the State) will jolly well tell them when they are in de facto relationships too, even though one or both partners might have other ideas on that. Not that is really an invasion of rights, especially where the State legalises bigamy where it suits it to do so and diminishes the rights of the legally wedded partner and issue therof.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 6 November 2009 1:56:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq, ".. the point I'm making is why don't we let people decide to 'commit' or not, rather than the government playing such a guessing game."

Who cares who commits to whom? In fact few care, but many like me strongly object to our taxes being wasted where there substantial proved value for money is not being obtained. Traditionally, most nations have seen advantage in supporting heterosexual unions. I am willing to go along with those arguments and pay more taxes although I cannot see myself or any of my family ever benefiting from the 'Gummint' handouts.

Further, while I accept that that (say) the pollies' or public servants' super schemes ought pay out to the spouses of deceased members (Marriage Act, I would wish) and child dependants, I thoroughly object to these taxpayer supported funds paying supporting pensions or part-pensions in all other cases.

Individuals choose their partners, not the State. If the state must support heterosexual unions in the interests of population growth and child raising then so be it, but try to explain to (say) a professional career woman who chooses not to marry or maybe even to have children why she should have to pay higher taxes to support Bob Brown's partner simply because he is Bob brown's partner while Bob is alive or has passed on to another place.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 6 November 2009 2:30:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 35
  10. 36
  11. 37
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy