Australian Politics Forum - Gay marriage and children

oceanz Gold Member Offline Auzgurl.. Posts: 3531 Gender:	Re: Gay marriage and children Reply #285 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 9:40pm FD - Quote: You are the one saying you 'catch' gayness by being gay raped. That was not what I said ... if you are going to repeat my words..do it in the context in which you know they were meant.
Back to top	&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins" IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53259 At my desk.	Re: Gay marriage and children Reply #286 - Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:53am As far as I can tell, that's what you said. Does it only happen in certain contexts? Can you explain your theory again please?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

oceanz Gold Member Offline Auzgurl.. Posts: 3531 Gender:	Re: Gay marriage and children Reply #287 - Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:19am freediver wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:53am: As far as I can tell, that's what you said. Does it only happen in certain contexts? Can you explain your theory again please? No.
Back to top	&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins" IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53259 At my desk.	Re: Gay marriage and children Reply #288 - Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:24am So the context is irrelevant? It happens in any context?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

oceanz Gold Member Offline Auzgurl.. Posts: 3531 Gender:	Re: Gay marriage and children Reply #289 - Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:35am btw..the fact you havent read a word of my previous posts is no surprise to me...it shows by your ignorant comments about what you think/thought I meant.
Back to top	&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins" IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Gay marriage and children
Reply #290 - Nov 17^th, 2008 at 10:39am

It's not a subject that I profess to know much about (gaiety, gayness whatever) but I think a lot of it must come down to what society regards as right.

My opinion is that Gay couples should not have the same adoption rights as straight couples. I can't put that opinion down to anything that's logically derived. It's just a gut feeling that it's not right to bring up kids in that kind of environment. If it came to a referendum, I'd probably vote against Gay marriage unless I could be sure that it didn't involve equal rights for adoption of kids.

I'm probably prejudiced in that regard, but who isn't prejudiced in some way?

Can we always define all that is right in terms of logical argument, or should gut feeling (just knowing what is right or wrong without being able to put a finger on it) play a part?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Gay marriage and children
Reply #291 - Nov 25^th, 2008 at 1:16pm

muso wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 10:39am:

Can we always define all that is right in terms of logical argument, or should gut feeling (just knowing what is right or wrong without being able to put a finger on it) play a part?

I think we can define things logically - at least in terms of what is right and what is wrong.

Gut feeling plays a large role in everyday lives. It helps us to evaluate things quickly in order to ascertain threats and to make predictions. This is mostly ok for simple day to day interaction on a small scale.

The problems are when you start trying to apply it on a larger scale where your the basis for gut reactions simply don't have enough information or experience on which to base a decision. We tend to be wary of anything that we don't understand, that does not make sense or 'click'.

This does not automatically mean it is bad.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jim Profit

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 439
Gender: male

Re: Gay marriage and children
Reply #292 - Dec 17^th, 2008 at 8:23am

I voted against gay marriage in my country, mostly because my view was that government should not be involved in marriage at all. Not straight marriages, not gay marriages, anything.

And to that extent, I figured it'd be better to dispromote government intrusion by ammending only straights could get married, that way marriage could not be meddled with anymore then it already is. Without it, marriage just becomes a beurocracy that they can change at will.

But I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality in and of itself, or homosexuals adopting children. Even if there was some scientific proof that gay parents make gay children, so what? So because they sleep with their own gender, they should not be entitled to a family?

If someone could explain to me how homosexiality is truly detrimental to society, I might reconsider. But evidently every argument about homosexuality ends up being about something else. Like radical socialism, or promiscueity, or secularism. These things have nothing to do with homosexuality, but supposedly are a side-effect to homosexuality. And I don't believe that.

Back to top

But I still believe there's something left for you and me.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: Gay marriage and children Reply #293 - Dec 17^th, 2008 at 8:47am It's worth considering that marriage has a very definite legal status, such as determining next of kin when allocating legal rights for inheritance of a partner's estate, for example. It's not just an issue of 'morality'.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

Jim Profit

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 439
Gender: male

Re: Gay marriage and children
Reply #294 - Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:37am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 8:47am:

It's worth considering that marriage has a very definite legal status, such as determining next of kin when allocating legal rights for inheritance of a partner's estate, for example. It's not just an issue of 'morality'.

No, but then that's why I said the best resolve would be no government involvement. The individual would be responsible for making his will and leaving his property to whomever he wants.

If he fails to, then the goverment seizes it. It's sortof a punishment for being lazy.

Back to top

But I still believe there's something left for you and me.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Gay marriage and children
Reply #295 - Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:14am

Jim Profit wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:37am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 8:47am:

It's worth considering that marriage has a very definite legal status, such as determining next of kin when allocating legal rights for inheritance of a partner's estate, for example. It's not just an issue of 'morality'.

No, but then that's why I said the best resolve would be no government involvement. The individual would be responsible for making his will and leaving his property to whomever he wants.

If he fails to, then the goverment seizes it. It's sortof a punishment for being lazy.

And if one partner is killed?

If there were no legal protections within marriage, I'm guessing most same sex couples wouldn't bother campaigning for the right to marry.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

mantra

Gold Member

Offline

ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female

Re: Gay marriage and children
Reply #296 - Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:23am

Quote:

And if one partner is killed?

If there were no legal protections within marriage, I'm guessing most same sex couples wouldn't bother campaigning for the right to marry.

Justice Kirby - the gay judge, has been campaigning for years to have these laws legislated. He made a salient point when he said that if a judge dies, his pension etc. immediately goes to the spouse, yet if he died tomorrow - his pension would cease and not go to his partner of so many decades.

It's a fair enough request - although going off topic - why are judges entitled to these astronomical pensions anyway?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jim Profit

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 439
Gender: male

Re: Gay marriage and children
Reply #297 - Dec 17^th, 2008 at 11:34am

Quote:

And if one partner is killed?

poo happens.

lol! I think I'd make that the country's offical slogan! Cheesy

Quote:

If there were no legal protections within marriage, I'm guessing most same sex couples wouldn't bother campaigning for the right to marry.

Precisely. It's fair and worthless. As marriage was intended to be. Tongue

Back to top

But I still believe there's something left for you and me.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Gay marriage and children
Reply #298 - Dec 17^th, 2008 at 11:44am

Jim Profit wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 11:34am:

Quote:

And if one partner is killed?

poo happens.

lol! I think I'd make that the country's offical slogan! Cheesy

Quote:

If there were no legal protections within marriage, I'm guessing most same sex couples wouldn't bother campaigning for the right to marry.

Precisely. It's fair and worthless. As marriage was intended to be. Tongue

But there are legal protections, as there should be. Marriage is also a financial contract.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Jim Profit

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 439
Gender: male

Re: Gay marriage and children
Reply #299 - Dec 17^th, 2008 at 11:56am

Quote:

But there are legal protections, as there should be. Marriage is also a financial contract.

You mean there can be legal protections and marriage can be a financial contract.

I'm not saying what it is, I'm saying what it should be.

Yes, at the moment it's a financial contract more then a religious ceremony blahblahblah. But I'm saying we should fight to reduce the effectiveness of marriage, not esculate it. That way we don't have to worry about being fair to anyone.

Cause why should only gays get to be married? Why can't my creepy uncle marry a twelve year old? Or my perverted friend have multiple wives?

All this just creates more beurocracy and more responsibility on the government and ultimately on the taxpayer. So it'd be easier for everyone to just drop the ball and say "figure it out for yourselves".

Back to top

But I still believe there's something left for you and me.

IP Logged