Should Gay marriage be legal in Australia?

[Cybermat47]

Well, as many Australians know, our 2 main parties, the Crap Party and the Useless Party, recently voted to continue treating Gays as subhuman, while the one good party, The Greens, were leaning toward Gay Rights.

Well, I think that they should have done a plebiscite vote.

Despite being only 13, I would have tried to vote for Gay marriage.

But what would you have voted for?

Please, only Australian Citizens or Ex-pats voting (Unless you feel very strongly about Gay Marriage, either way)

[CCIP]

Actually, in Australia as everywhere, I'd say this: marriage shouldn't be the government's business in the first place, period. I think lawmakers need to stop wasting their time trying to milk social and personal issues (that they have no right to even touch) for support, and solve important things like, you know, the economy and geopolitics.

[Sailor Steve]

Well said, George. My first instinct would be to say that since I don't live in Australia it's none of my business, and for that reason once again I'm not voting in a poll that I don't take seriously anyway. The question, yes; the poll, no. But then I don't take most polls here seriously unless they address something that affects me directly.

But you're right, and I feel pretty much the way you do. This shouldn't really exist as a question at all.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

This shouldn't really exist as a question at all.

Sadly, it does.

The real irony is that the politicians only voted against gay marriage because they're afraid that the Church Leaders will turn against them, but the majority of Christians actually support gay marriage.
It's just like the current affair about Voluntary Euthanasia.

[Gargamel]

WhileI truly believe your polls are well intended, They are becoming somewhat redundant.

These are questions not answerable by simple polls, and require intense debate, as there are many points of view on each issue. Again, to narrow these down to black and white is wrong.

While these are valid topics, with the intent to show you are a mature person (and I believe you are, even for your age), they are bordering IMHO, on subtle trolling.

If you truly wish to discuss these topics, try finding a relevant article or current event that highlights the topic to foster discussion. This will also allow to you have multiple sources of differing view points.

Thats good advice in other avenues in life too.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^

Thanks for the advice.

[CCIP]

Well, in his defense, some of them did generate some pretty good debate!

(though usually after a requisite period of indignation and mud-slinging, but hey, that's almost every thread we get here.. )

[THE_MASK]

No .

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by sober

No .

Why do you think that?

[Skybird]

Should there be any sexes at all?

By social role model for children, is a homosexual man the same as a woman? Is a lesbian woman a man?

Is it indeed discrimination to call a women having children a "mother", as the EU gender legislation claims? Is calling fathers "father" and mothers "mother" discrimination? The EU says so.

Is it of importance and interest for society to make sure a future generation of children is being risen that is expected to pay future taxes and work and care for the elder? If it is, does that deserve special status and security granted for couples creating children - a status that is expressed in the form of marriage? Are these hcildren to be risen as sexual neutrons, or are they better served to be risen by one female woman - their mother - and one male man - their father? -

Why is it that the concept of marriage since millenia and in the overwhelming majority of cultures is based on the understanding of 1 man+1 woman? That is not just religious tradition. Biology had something to do with.

And so on and on. What friends I spend my time with, means nothing for society. adult people living together, means nothing for society. What is important - especially in our overaging, shrinking Western societies - is loving couples having children and rising them with love and attention. Status of these should be protected indeed, and priviliged. Two men or two women living together, means nothing for society, it simply is unimportant even if that fact hurts some egos. What do they expect special respect and equal status with families for? The destruction of the institution of families and the meaning of a loving home for children, already has created a social disster out there, and our societies reflect that in violence, lacking respect for each other, erosion of values, and an extraction of children from their caring family context as early as possible, even at the age of 1 year.

That is sick. Inhumane. And a declaration of moral bancrupcty of modern society committing suicide in slow motion.

Add to this gender engineering, and feminism. The idea that human get born as total tabula rasa and without any differences between boys and girls, because then the goal has been reached: no differences, total equality in all features and characteristics of two sexes. So, political ideology, feminism and gender engineering has an awful lot to do with the relativisation of marriage and family and the spotlighting of homo marriages.

Hm. I could swear we had threads on this issue in the past. Several ones. Did they ever end nicely? well, one reaps as one sows. True for this forum. True for Western society.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why is it that the concept of marriage since millenia and in the overwhelming majority of cultures is based on the understanding of 1 man+1 woman? That is not just religious tradition. Biology had something to do with.

Well, if we go that route, then arguably the historical institution of marriage has no less to do with cows, land, titles and children than it does with men and women. Everybody seems to conveniently forget that while marriage may have been co-opted by religious tradition, it arguably is, was, and always will be primarily an economic/social contract meant to secure assets and protect the genetic, economic and political legacy of people beyond the limits of their lifetimes. So yes, biology is involved here, but in the most abstract sense only.

Arguably modern society has already developed ways of preserving economic, political, intellectual and even genetic legacy of people that do not require 1 man and 1 woman. So why stick to that as the only possibility? We might as well go back to insisting that marriage be an "exchanging of cows" while we're at it, after all that's how people in many cultures have done it for thousands of years...

And let's not confuse marriage with procreation and sexuality, or sexuality with procreation for that matter. Marriage is a social contract. Procreation is a biological function. Sexuality is a set of psychological tendencies. The links between the three are very tenuous and have at no time in human history been perfectly aligned. We just like to pretend that in the "good old times" they somehow magically were.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Actually, in Australia as everywhere, I'd say this: marriage shouldn't be the government's business in the first place, period. I think lawmakers need to stop wasting their time trying to milk social and personal issues (that they have no right to even touch) for support, and solve important things like, you know, the economy and geopolitics.

DITTO....and not voting either.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Well, if we go that route, then arguably the historical institution of marriage has no less to do with cows, land, titles and children than it does with men and women. Everybody seems to conveniently forget that while marriage may have been co-opted by religious tradition, it arguably is, was, and always will be primarily an economic/social contract meant to secure assets and protect the genetic, economic and political legacy of people beyond the limits of their lifetimes. So yes, biology is involved here, but in the most abstract sense only.

Arguably modern society has already developed ways of preserving economic, political, intellectual and even genetic legacy of people that do not require 1 man and 1 woman. So why stick to that as the only possibility? We might as well go back to insisting that marriage be an "exchanging of cows" while we're at it, after all that's how people in many cultures have done it for thousands of years...

And let's not confuse marriage with procreation and sexuality, or sexuality with procreation for that matter. Marriage is a social contract. Procreation is a biological function. Sexuality is a set of psychological tendencies. The links between the three are very tenuous and have at no time in human history been perfectly aligned. We just like to pretend that in the "good old times" they somehow magically were.

Indeed marriage is a social contract, and i also is a social convention. But that does not make it a random outcome, or arbitrary. A convention that was formed to its shape over centuries and millenia. Why in this form and shape, and not differently? Because all in all, considering pros and cons, it worked better than the alternatives, it seems.

And just for the record, over the better part of the past 5 thousand years, the majority of people did not live in wealth and glory, but were poor, were farmers, often oppressed, threatened by wars, starvation, tyranny, disease, taxes. The argument that princess brides were used to seal political contracts, numerically has little or not argumentative weight.

You see, feminists for long decades seriously argued that in the past males suppressed females by marrying them and having them locked to the oven, the kitchen, the bed, and the children, while glorious men did all the heroic stuff and had all fun in life. But even most feminists now admit, that that was right, and that the typical gender-roles of men and women in the socially accepted contexts more likely were the result of needs and distributing the different works to be done in the way they then were distributed between males and females. Which led to the females and mothers caring for the house and imminent farmwork, the males for the risky things, hunting, strength-depending farm work and travelling. Splitting the jobs and workload was necessary, and the way it was split and distributed was the pragmatically best working solution posing the smallest risk to children, and procreation chances. Pregnant women doing heavy field work for example have a significantly higher risk to lose their babies. It was self-recommending then if this was left to men, and women stying closer to housework, and easy field-.work. that was not males supressing females. It was just that it made more sense this way, than in a different way.

I think the understanding of 1 man, 1 women= marriage is the result of a similar sharpening of optimisation chances for social issues and societies interests in a next generation being risen. For society, whether there are two men or women living together and loving each other, or not, simply is uninteresting, and unimportant. Being gay is no accomplishment, and it does not contribute anything to society. So why should society give it the same privilieges it gives to couples producing babies?

would the privilige given to coup0les not mean a dsicrkiminatrion of signles then, by the same logic that now it is called a discrimination of gays if they are not given equal status and privilige to hetero couples and families? I must protest against this discrimination of people like me. We singles have rights, too. The same rights like families, even if we do not contribute to society any babies and children-raising. It's about human rights!

Same debate, same arguments, no needed to run it all once again. I recommend we leave it to this reminder of our different positions. I just had two major collisions yesterday, I am not yet motivated to just headjump into the next hot rumble so short after.

[JU_88]

Who cares what Gays do, why is it even a subject for debate? Homosexuals actually do man kind two massive favours,
1) they free up more single women for hetrosexual men.
2) they cant reproduce easily so they help keep the population down.
Let them get married.
The world has real problems like poverty, corruption, crime, and a failing economy, Id suggest we work on those before we worry about the stupid stuff.

Is it indeed discrimination to call a women having children a "mother", as the EU gender legislation claims? Is calling fathers "father" and mothers "mother" discrimination? The EU says so.

What utter bull from Sky yet again


As for the topic, is there any actual real reason why it shouldn't be allowed?