1. 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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jets, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    The word is important.

    Those who are anti-gay marriage generally believe at least one of the following:

    a) Same-sex relationships are morally wrong.

    b) Same-sex relationships aren't as valid, real or valuable as hetro relationships.

    There is also a group who don't prescribe to the above but just believe that an essential ingredent for a marriage is 1 man, 1 woman. But I personally think this is a small group. Usually people are against for esentially, the above 2 reasons.

    If, as a society, we agree that same-sex relationships are NOT morally wrong, if we agree that these relations ARE valid, valuable and real to the same extent as marriges are - how can we NOT allow them to use the same word?!

    To force them to call their relationship something else simply re-enforces beliefs a) and b) and continues the in-equality.

    The sad thing is that what the word 'marriage' means to me, what it requires and what it says about my relationship with my wife may be totally different to another man and his wife. But what has that got to do with me? Do I have a right to tell him that what they have is NOT marriage?
    GaffaCHinO and Braveheart81 like this.
  2. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,470

    In Australia, what religions ignore the different symbolic meanings of others?

    I won't disagree with your second point, and I'm not really arguing with you in any case. If equal rights could be achieved whilst still using the word marriage then I'd be all for it, but it's becoming clearer to me that it is the sticking point. And taking an all or nothing approach will, for now, sadly result in them getting nothing.

    RE your third point, I am not arguing the correctness of what is happening. I am simply trying to point out that there may be a way to move this forward sooner rather than later.
  3. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,470
    Can you back this up, because IMO it's BS. In my experience, the a and b groups are the small ones.
  4. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    22,844
    There is nothing left to be gained except for being granted the right to marry the person they choose.

    Four states and one territory already have civil unions.

    De facto couples are on the most part treated the same as married couples under the law (in terms of taxation and property rights).
  5. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,470
    Fair enough. I think I said at the beginning of this recent lot of postings of mine on the topic that I simply didn't know enough about the legal side of things to really get in to it but was simply hypothesising that perhaps some significant gains could be made if it weren't for the use of the word 'marriage'.

    From my limited understanding, I was under the impression that gay couples did not get the same rights with regard to many legal issues in Australia (ie tax and tax benefits etc). If you say this is not the case then that is a good thing, if all that is left to do is argue over the use of the word then I think you may be right in suggesting that it will be a battle of attrition. I have no doubt it will change with time, I was just hoping there was a way that the legal equality could be achieved in the interim.
  6. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Like you, I don't know what the legal rights are here in Aussie and if there are legal differences, you are right that there may be gains to be had if the word 'marriage' is taken out of it.

    I just think that it is still discriminatory and doesn't change the status or public perception of their relationship outside of the court room.
  7. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,470

    No it doesn't stop that. Like BH81 and many others have said, it will happen, it is inevitable. But if we can kick a few goals sooner then I say we do.

    I find the all or nothing approach to be frustrating, because I see it getting them no whereat the moment but I say this having the luxury of being able to have already marry my wife and there is almost certainly a level of naivety in that statement as a result.
  8. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Being in a bit of a minority (a christian who publicly and actively promotes this cause) I have this conversation fairly regularly.

    Churches and christian groups are one of the biggest groups of people who are actively and vocally anti-gay marriage.

    For what reason? A lot of them don't like to admit it but it basically boils down to a belief that same-sex relationships are considered sinful and morally wrong (to the point of of being called an 'abomination' by many) and therefore they cannot support or even stand-by quietly and allow gay marriage. This is the same group of people who were against the de-criminalisation of homosexuality. Each step towards gay rights, gay marriage etc etc is a step away from a godly society in their eyes.

    Now, there are group of people who aren't religious but still against gay marriage. A lot of them see gay couples as somehow not quite the same as a husband and wife. Their relationship may not be wrong, but it ain't right - or it ain't natural. Some of them can't actually vocalise or explain their dis-like but they just can't equate a gay relationship with being a normal, natural and happy relationship.

    Yes - these are generalisations (hence why I said 'generally' in the original post) but this is my experience anyway.

    But I'm still to hear anyone, here or in any of the other discussions and conversations I've had on this topic, actually provide a reasonable, logical arguement for why gay marriage shouldn't happen. It all has to do with individual beliefs and morals.
    The Red Baron, Braveheart81 and Scoey like this.
  9. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,470
    Cheers for that. I appreciate where you're coming from but I will continue to disagree. IMO experience the people that view a gay relationship as sinful, immoral or even somehow lesser than a hetero one are the minority. They are most certainly noisier but in terms of numbers, I think they are the fewest. This obviously depends entirely on who we each talk to but. ;-)

    Again it is semantics but for some people, theory and science etc. rules supreme. For others, individual beliefs, morals and spirituality is the ruler of their existence. To the former it is clear cut, to the latter, for them it is also clear cut. This is why generally neither side gives any ground.

    Logic and reason is so subjective. There are people that will do things that seem quite strange to you, but will make perfect sense to them. You both may have perfectly reasoned and logical reasons why you agree/disagree with what they are doing and can both be right. The same applies here to a degree.
    Bullrush likes this.
  10. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    So what are the reasons that you've heard people give for why they are against it? Not trying to be argumentative or anything but I'm genuinely interested.

    I understand what you say re: "Logic and reason is so subjective" and that's fine for how I choose to live my life eg. I can't leave the house without knocking on the front door twice and locking it twice otherwise something bad will happen to me. Totally illogical to some but perfectly logical to me. I can live that way if I like.

    But to force everyone to do the same is ridiculous.
    Scoey likes this.
  11. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,470
    No that's fine. There are no ground breaking arguments out there though and they are generally as you alluded to above about a belief that marriage is simply something that is between a man and a woman and usually based on traditional grounds. The thing is though that there shouldn't be an automatic link between this way of thinking and an assumption that the person holding this view somehow views same sex relationships as being worth less than theirs. The two are not dependant on each other.

    Re your second point, that is a great analogy. You shouldn't force everyone else to do the same but nor does anyone else have the right to tell you that you're wrong to do it, because they don't.
  12. Hugh Jarse Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    10,842

    With a lot of my peers on their second marriage, I wonder about the statement you make about marriage being the commitment of two people to the exclusion of all others.

    What is the actual divorce rate nowdays? Is family life/society better off now that couples aren't forced to stay in loveless marriages "for the sake of the kids" or because "that is what you do" as many apparently were in the 50's and 60's?

    With the hetro community setting the bar rather low in terms of their commitment to each other to the exclusion of all others, do they keep stats on the rate of Gay and Lesbian civil unions breaking down?


  13. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    I think they do and - not surprisingly I guess (and if I remember correctly) - they are pretty much the same.
  14. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    Interesting tonight when Tim Wilson incoming human rights commissioner was asked about the "word" issue he made the point that marriage could be left to the religious institutions and civil union to others. All should be equal under the law in all circumstances for other matters.
    He is also an openly gay man.
  15. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324

    ..and???
    Slim 293 likes this.
  16. Hugh Jarse Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    10,842
    ^^^ Plenty of openly heterosexual folk don't really care too much for marriage either.

    On another note:

  17. matty_k Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    1,037
    He was also a member of the Liberal Party.
    Bullrush likes this.
  18. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    Follow the thread please
  19. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    So??
  20. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    22,844
    I didn't say it had to be for life. People getting divorced and remarrying doesn't really change the issue.

    Considering that our secular country recognises marriages, the horse has bolted on differentiating between religious and non-religious marriages and calling them different things.

    One gay man not desiring to get married changes nothing. The whole point of this is allowing people who want to get married to get married because it has no impact on anyone else's decision or marriage.
    Bullrush likes this.

Share This Page