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 > Article Comments > Gay rights - a Liberal issue > Comments

Gay rights - a Liberal issue : Comments

By Richard Kings, published 13/12/2005

Richard Kings argues Liberal principles require support for gay rights.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
DFXK, really mate, get a life homosexuals are no different to you and I with one exception, they fall in love with their own sex, it may be difficult for some to accept, however when one really thinks about this issue, it is difficult to deprive people of their sexual orientation, simply because we don't have the same orientation. Humans are humans, they come in all forms, and as far as I'm concerned, because they are different to me, I don't condem them. I know a lesbian woman, she is good company, and a lovely human being why should I judge her on issues I cannot possibly undersatand, she is a human being as I am, with a different sexual preferennce, so what, there are much more important issues in life to deal with, people are starving to death, being oppresed, I see sexual preference as small bicies, compared to survival, I may be wrong, however I think life is more important tha sexual preference, please correct me, if you think I am wrong, there are a lot of homophobics out there.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 15 December 2005 2:39:45 AM
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
Liberals views:

'...individuality and acceptance of responsibility.' I don't think that these two terms should be used in the same sentence.

'the interests of all legitimate minorities must be protected.' What constitutes 'legitimate' and who judges?

'We believe social liberty based upon and limited by a conception of social justice.' I think it is more practical to examine the converse - that social justice is based on a conception of social liberty.

'We believe in social justice: in encouraging the strong and protecting the weak.' As long as we are willing to recognise qualitative as well as quantitative strengths.
Posted by tubley, Thursday, 15 December 2005 2:45:00 AM
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
Some informed comment here as well as the usual homophobic dross. There seems to be some confusion about what marriage actually is. Someone ignorantly referred to marriage as a sacred commitment. It ain't. Becoming a nun is a sacred commitment. Marriage is defined in this country by the Marriage Act 1961. It's a contractual obligation. You can have a marriage in a church, on a beach or in space if you like. What matters is the piece of paper you sign. If it was a sacred commitment then why are so-called religious types so keen to keep the very secular, non-spiritual Marriage Act 1961 the way they want?

In terms of how to go about making same-sex relationships equal with others, I'd be just as happy to have a Civil Unions Act - so long as its provisions were identical to the Marriage Act.

And by the way, it's "AIDS" not "Aids" - unless you're referring to things which can help you. Quite different really.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 16 December 2005 6:42:47 AM
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
DavidJS, a contract but a very dodgy one. No redress for gross breaches of contract etc. I'm guessing that the following are as valid for gays as they are for hetro's.

A civil unions act could be great but rather than just following the marriage act why not allow for a much wider range of options. Let those entering into the contract agree upfront what is contracted and what breach of contract will mean.

Provisions might include
- fidelity etc. Not sure how this would work but it would be nice to have some ability for couples to agree up front about sexual activity - fidelity with a partner who uses sex as power (or the lack thereof) is something people don't expect.
- contributions - does either party expect the other to work, not work etc.
- nagging and other forms of DV (what is acceptable or not)
- period. Maybe fixed term contracts with an option to extend would provide a different approach for some. Likewise some want a "for better or worse, till death do us part" approach.
- consequences for various breaches of contract.

Plenty of other things which could be considered. The current mess and lack of reliable options is tearing people apart. Committments are made up front but hold no weight when broken.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 16 December 2005 8:23:36 AM
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
Robert raises some interesting points about marriage provisions etc. I had a look at the Marriage Act on Austlii and the amazing thing is that the content of marriage doesn't really come into it. There's stuff about what a marriage is, what it isn't (a man and man, for example), what constitutes an illegal marriage (such as marriage between adults and minors), registration of celebrants, what overseas marriages can be recognised. But very little in the way of content.

So, you can sign the papers and then never see each other again and that is a marriage. You can abuse your spouse and children but still be married. You can behave in any type of outrageous manner and as long as you meet the criteria of the said parliamentary Act, you are married. And this is what pisses off many in the gay community. Badly behaved heterosexuals get a "package" of rights (flowing onto Commonwealth and state legislation) which gays are effectively excluded from.

That said, no government can enforce model behaviour within marriage. Governments can punish you (and rightly so) for beating up your kids or stealing from your spouse. But they can't make you produce children, be a nice person to your family or refrain from secret adulterous affairs. Gay people, being human, also behave badly. But we are looking for the opportunity to be equal in line with our sexual orientation. In other words, I don't want to encourage sham marriages between gays and straights which the currently legislation effectively allows. It's absurd how Liberals and Nationals (and the ALP for that matter) see same-sex marriage as such a threat to the institution of marriage. Because there is no institution as such. Only marriage legislation.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 16 December 2005 9:33:57 AM
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
DavidJS, I agree when you say there's no such thing as the "institution of marriage" in our laws. The "institution of marriage" is the set of cultural rules which underpin the history of marriage.

Thus it's not an argument about whether or not homosexual activity is right or wrong, it's about what the role of the "institution" is. There are two divergent views.

1. "Traditional"
- Marriage is union of man and woman - represents a greater union of the two halves of mankind.
- Is proper place for the rearing and bearing of children.
- Has three constants - love, children and symbol of unity of mankind - it was a duty to love one's partner even when in an arranged marriage.
- Is NOT a heterosexual union. Millions of homosexually inclined people in the world marry due to a belief in these principles, and have fulfilling and loving marriages.

2. "Not traditional"
- Sees marriage/civil unions as being about the individual over society.
- Sees children more as choice rather than duty.
- Views traditional marriage as a heterosexual institution and a thing of social marginalisation.
- Extreme proponents argue for polygamy.

I fall in line with the first group as, in Australia, we're unwilling to tackle the cause of our social malaise - the redefining of civil partnership away from a traditional definition. To agree with the idea of traditional marriage is not to say that homosexuals cannot have happy and fulfilling lives with a partner, it is to argue that the state must promote social stability. To agree with traditional marriage is to see it as an institution - like the courts, or parliament, or schools - that plays a part in civil society's stability.

I feel that the push for society to recognise any type of union which reduces it to just sexual orientation and love is to invite social disintegration. Thus I disagree with benefits given to defacto relationships, unless they contain children. To argue for "gay marriage" is to be intolerant of traditional marriage, and to impose a new meaning upon it.
Posted by DFXK, Monday, 19 December 2005 1:05:02 AM
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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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