The Forum > Article Comments > Does the Commonwealth Marriage Act inadvertently facilitate gay marriage? > Comments
Does the Commonwealth Marriage Act inadvertently facilitate gay marriage? : Comments
By Rodney Croome, published 18/4/2005Rodney Croome argues that the Commonwealth Marriage Act may inadvertently allow the states to legislate for gay marriage.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Page 10
- 11
-
- All
Posted by Deuc, Saturday, 30 April 2005 4:21:26 PM
| |
Deuc,
I offered the argument regarding intestacy. See above. I have plenty more but I see no reason to submit them here and it is impossible to do so anyway given the restrictions of this forum. I have submitted them on several occasions where they count - to parliamentary committees considering gay law reform. Regarding homosexuality in history, see: - Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1-6, 1776-1788. - Peter Green, trans., Juvenal: The Sixteen Satires, Penguin Books, 1967 (especially 2nd satire, where he slams homosexuality). - Unwin, J. D., "Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior," address to Medical Section of British Psychological Society. - Lively, Scot and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, 4th edition, Veritas Aeterna Press, 2002. Regarding importance of heterosexual marriage in society see: - Vico, Giambattista, The New Science, 3rd Ed, trans. by Max Harold Fisch and Thomas Goddard Bergin. - Unwin, J. D., Sex and Culture, 1934. "a priest denouncing homosexuality is not [homophobia], but a priest who denounces homosexuals for being promiscuous is." Why? Homosexuals ARE promiscuous - that is a fact. See the admissions of homosexuals themselves in: - K. Jay et al, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gays Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles 275 (1979) - Garrett Prestage, et. al., Sydney Men and Sexual Health. Sydney: HIV AIDS & Society Publications, 1995. This report found that 26% of homosexual men had 21 to 100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41% had 101 to 1000 partners; and 17% had over 1000 partners. Like homosexuality itself, promiscuity is a moral issue, and a priest - or anyone else for that matter - is free to make such moral judgments. "because homosexuality is an innate or at least deep-seated part of their personality, many see no reason to draw a distinction" Homosexuality is not innate part of a person. Many homosexuals reject such "genetic" determinism. Many have in fact changed sexual orientation. True, homosexuality is usually deep-seated, but so is Christianity to Christians. Attack Christianity all you like - I won't take it personally. Posted by Aslan, Saturday, 30 April 2005 11:08:53 PM
| |
You were being serious?!
*Sees "The Pink Swastika"* Look Aslan, I don't think there's anything that anyone can gain from continuing this, so I won't, but for the lurkers I'll finish up. It's not the easiest distinction to see and others may reasonably disagree with my particular example. A priest denouncing homosexuality because homosexuals are more likely to be promiscuous would not be homophobic. Nor is the priest in my example necessarily a homophobe, but there are indicators: attacking homosexuals instead of homosexuality, attacking them as a group/stereotyping, drawing an unnecessary distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. These things suggest that the contempt is not limited to homosexuality. Being against gay rights is not the same as disapproving of homosexuality; the former is homophobic because it harms homosexuals and (duh) does nothing to stop homosexuality. Innate is not equivalent to genetic, and Aslan would have a hard time finding any evidence to support his claim that "many have in fact changed sexual orientation" except from obviously biased sources. Posted by Deuc, Sunday, 1 May 2005 10:28:29 AM
| |
Aslan,
Even though I know it won't have impact on your entrenched views, you should know that your argument that same sex marriage should not be allowed because of the issues you have with intestacy legislation is completely without basis. All states and territories, execept SA, already recognise same sex de facto relationships in intestacy legislation. Thus, a surviving same sex de facto partner is treated the same way as a surviving opposite sex de facto or married partner. It is also grossly inaccurate to say "many homosexuals...were once married to women and have children". That's simply not true either. And, FYI, peer review is not irrelevant. It is what distinguishes informed and accurate writing from self-serving propagantist drivel. Having read your many comments on this forum, I can't help but wonder if you've ever actually met a "homosexual". I suspect not, otherwise you'd realise that most of what you write simply does not reflect the realities of the lives of Australian gays and lesbians. Posted by RAM, Monday, 2 May 2005 5:04:37 PM
| |
RAM - luv the moniker. R U new to OLO?
No doubt Aslan won't get what U're sayin' - no matter there're plenty here who do. I figure nows as good a time as any - maybe I'll get pilloried from both sides of the political fence (which is somehow appropriate) 'cos I'm bi - have always found both sexes attractive - which can be very difficult sometimes being somewhat betwixt and between. I find I go thru phases where I'm more attracted to one sex than the other. If, a very big if because I really doubt I would want to marry, but I would like to think that the person with whom I wanted to spend the rest of my life would be able to marry me if thats what we wanted. It would be no one else's business - least of all Aslan's. I don't see how me marrying a woman would mess with Aslan's life or anyone else's. MY LIFE people. Posted by Xena, Monday, 2 May 2005 5:50:05 PM
| |
Deuc,
Deuc says homophobia implies "attacking them as a group/stereotyping" Speaking of stereotyping, dismissing anyone who objects to homosexuality and the agenda of gay activists is automatically branded as "homophobic", "bigoted", "intolerant", "narrow-minded", "ignorant", "nazi" etc etc. If this is not stereotyping then I don't know what is. Deuc says: "Being against gay rights is not the same as disapproving of homosexuality; the former is homophobic because it harms homosexuals and (duh) does nothing to stop homosexuality." No-one is against gay rights as such. They deserve legal protection like anyone else. The issue is the prohibition of gay marriage. "Innate is not equivalent to genetic" Then what does innate mean if not reference to genetics? "Aslan would have a hard time finding any evidence to support his claim that "many have in fact changed sexual orientation" except from obviously biased sources." See: http://narth.com/menus/cstudies.html http://www.idoexist.com Deuc would have a hard time refuting all the evidence supporting re-orientation therapy and its successes, except from obviously biased sources. RAM, I am aware of the current status of intestacy laws. I was speaking specifically of SA where such provisions for gays do not presently exist. Yes, I had several homosexual friends. 2 are now dead - from AIDS. Died in their early 30s. You say: "most of what you write simply does not reflect the realities of the lives of Australian gays and lesbians" Most of what I write comes from the self-reporting of gays and lesbians eg. SMASH Report, The Gay Report, Andrew Sullivan's books/articles, After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen, The Male Couple by McWhirter and Mattison. etc etc. Posted by Aslan, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 2:42:11 PM
|
"Homosexual activists have indeed said this."
No one in this thread has said that, and any "homosexual activists" who have seriously suggested it are very few and far between.
"Peer review is irrelevant - the evidence speaks for itself. Recent writing is irrelavant - especially in relation to historical analysis."
I don't know what the evidence says, or if it is accurate. Peer review would give me a good idea of the study's veracity. There have been many historical discoveries in the last 70+ years Aslan, and newer studies would be open to better criticism.
"When homosexual activists/supporters use the term "homophobe" they mean ANYONE who objects to homosexuality."
That is clearly a false generalisation. The "strict" homophobe is one who hates or fears homosexual people, and they are not rare at all. In many situations a person may be using it in the wrong sense or it may seem like it is being used incorrectly when it actually isn't. Often a person's language or claims demonstrate that they have contempt for homosexuals in addition to contempt for homosexuality. Eg. a priest denouncing homosexuality is not, but a priest who denounces homosexuals for being promiscuous is. It is also understandable that many people don't know the proper meaning of the word, that it doesn't refer to homosexuality and it doesn't refer solely to fear. Also, because homosexuality is an innate or at least deep-seated part of their personality, many see no reason to draw a distinction.