• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Marriage Equality

Status
Not open for further replies.

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
No gents I support their position but sometimes to get ahead you needd to compromise.

If you support their position then ask for equality not just a half arsed compromise.

It will just take even longer to reach the goal.
 

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
Now your just offensive.

No gents I support their position but sometimes to get ahead you needd to compromise.
What is there even to compromise on? What are people who are against gay marriage actually giving up in this compromise?

They don't own marriage and therefore are due no compensation.
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
What is there even to compromise on? What are people who are against gay marriage actually giving up in this compromise?

They don't own marriage and therefore are due no compensation.

Simple.
Change takes time.
Many conservatives believe the word marriage is theirs and has special significance to them due to centuries of history.
The reality is that it will come but in the mean time accept a bit of compromise. perhaps the others won't move but if both sides diig in it will take longer.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Simple.
Change takes time.
Many conservatives believe the word marriage is theirs and has special significance to them due to centuries of history.
The reality is that it will come but in the mean time accept a bit of compromise. perhaps the others won't move but if both sides diig in it will take longer.

As others have said, there is no reason for there to be a compromise on this issue because there is nothing to compromise. No one is losing out by allowing others to have the same rights as them.

It is a question of asking for the same rights as everyone else. Asking for less rights is not a compromise, it is just discrimination.

I seriously doubt that if you allow gay people to have civil unions instead of a marriage it will result in same sex marriage being legalised sooner.
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
As others have said, there is no reason for there to be a compromise on this issue because there is nothing to compromise. No one is losing out by allowing others to have the same rights as them.

It is a question of asking for the same rights as everyone else. Asking for less rights is not a compromise, it is just discrimination.

I seriously doubt that if you allow gay people to have civil unions instead of a marriage it will result in same sex marriage being legalised sooner.

If you don't compromise the time frame may well take a lot longer. By all means have equal rights in content under the law .e.g inheritance super, etc. By having talked to a number of religiously conservative folk they view the word as theirs.

On the highlighted point I agree 100% but we are in a real world.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
If you don't compromise the time frame may well take a lot longer. By all means have equal rights in content under the law .e.g inheritance super, etc. By having talked to a number of religiously conservative folk they view the word as theirs.

On the highlighted point I agree 100% but we are in a real world.

Agreeing to accept less than everyone else is not a compromise.

That's like saying that the pathway for women to receive equal pay to men is to agree to accept 80% of the pay men receive as a compromise.

I'm sure that's really going to help people reach equality.

You're suggesting that the way to achieve equality is to agree to inequality along the way. That is not a compromise.

Compromise involves both sides giving up something. Giving up your right to discriminate isn't exactly a compromise.
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Agreeing to accept less than everyone else is not a compromise.

That's like saying that the pathway for women to receive equal pay to men is to agree to accept 80% of the pay men receive as a compromise.

I'm sure that's really going to help people reach equality.

You're suggesting that the way to achieve equality is to agree to inequality along the way. That is not a compromise.

Compromise involves both sides giving up something. Giving up your right to discriminate isn't exactly a compromise.

Your not dicussing this with me who agrees. As I say the reality is that it will take time. And getting everything but the word at the moment would be a wonderful step forward.
 

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
Your not dicussing this with me who agrees. As I say the reality is that it will take time. And getting everything but the word at the moment would be a wonderful step forward.

Why should it take time? It's already happening on New Zealand, Austria, over a third of the US states, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Mexico, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, UK and Uruguay. Some of those countries are arguably more fundamentally Christian than ours.

We already have civil unions what other intermediate step is there?
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Why should it take time? It's already happening on New Zealand, Austria, over a third of the US states, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Mexico, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, UK and Uruguay. Some of those countries are arguably more fundamentally Christian than ours.

We already have civil unions what other intermediate step is there?

How many call it marriage?
 

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
I'm just curious, what is your position now Runner? Should a compromise still be sought?
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
I'm just curious, what is your position now Runner? Should a compromise still be sought?

Reality

In some of the countires you have listed it occurred due an act of parliament. Others due to Constitutions which has rights built in which where used to gain legal "over rides" of parliament'

In the USA it is only 14 states.

There are 20 countires with legal unions but not all called marriage.

Australia doesn't have such constitutional possibilties so it has to be an act of parliament. A majority in both parties at the moment oppose same sex marriage. They may not oppose same sex union if it were put.

Happened due to legal processes due to constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Portugal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_South_Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Brazil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Mexico
Act Of Parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iceland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Uruguay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands
Number of countires with same sex :marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Close to the number where it has the death penalty or other severe restrictions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
It's an interesting point that Runner makes. If homosexual couples could get equal legal rights by calling it a civil union or whatever, just not a marriage, wouldn't that be a good outcome? Particularly if the sticking point was a matter of semantics?
Would it seriously be worth pushing for the word marriage and risk not getting anything?
I don't know enough about the issue to know if this is what is happening but it just got me thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
I'm not sure I'm following what you are trying to say but I'll give a response to the bits that make sense.

You'll have to work out which bits are responding to which because some reason quoting your post has too much info.

Who cares how they got there. Marriage equality is legal in those countries.

18 US states according to the Wikipedia page you linked hence why I said a third.

I have no idea why you have linked to countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality. To me that argues in favour of legalising it.

You still haven't put forward anything that makes me think we shouldn't fully legalise it.
 

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
It's an interesting point that Runner makes. If homosexual couples could get equal legal rights by calling it a civil union or whatever, just not a marriage, wouldn't that be a good outcome? Particularly if the sticking point was a matter of semantics?
Would it seriously be worth pushing for the word marriage and risk not getting anything?
I don't know enough about the issue to know if this is what is happening but it just got me thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Civil unions already exist. They don't provide the full rights a married couple have. And it has been said before that this is still discrimination.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
Why do we think we should give gay rights equality but call it something else just to calm the sensitivities on the religious and conservative?

'Here black people, you can use this tap to drink from. But you must call it a tap - we will call our one us white people use a faucet.'

'OK ladies, we're gonna allow you to cast a 'ballot' at the next general election. Let me make it clear that you cannot 'vote' but you may have your 'ballot' while us men vote.'

It's pretty fucken dumb really......
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
You both missed/ignored the point. At the end of they day gay people should have the same legal rights as hetero people. So if what is stopping that from happening is purely what it's called then digging your heels is over a matter of semantics is also pretty fucken dumb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
You both missed/ignored the point. At the end of they day gay people should have the same legal rights as hetero people. So if what is stopping that from happening is purely what it's called then digging your heels is over a matter of semantics is also pretty fucken dumb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I might be wrong but I think they do have the same legal rights already don't they? I know in NZ, civil unions have the same rights as marriages.....but we still decided to give gay couples the ability to get married - because they should be able to call their equal relationship the same as a hero couple do.....
 

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
You both missed/ignored the point. At the end of they day gay people should have the same legal rights as hetero people. So if what is stopping that from happening is purely what it's called then digging your heels is over a matter of semantics is also pretty fucken dumb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it's pretty fucken dumb to dig your heels in over semantics, of what magnitude dumb is it to discriminate against one group because it offends you religion despite the actual thing being debated having no material affect on anything to do with your religion?

The straw man here is that religion has any say in marriage. Modern abrahamic religions neither invented or own the rights to marriage and should be told to fuck of and hate amongst themselves.
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
I don't believe they do BR. Not in AUS anyway. And that's the main problem.
I just find it frustrating that so much of it gets hung up on one word. I would hate to think that the inequality is prolonged because of the use of one word.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top