mozzaok wrote on Jun 13
th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
I think that there is at least one aspect of this debate, that makes it more problematic, for people such as myself, who oppose "Gay Marriage", simply upon the basis that it is an incorrect use of language, in that "Marriage" is the word that has ALWAYS described the legal, and religious union, between a man and a woman.
Firstly marriage predates any known religion on the planet, people where getting married without the Church (and people still get married without the Church) for thousands and thousands of years.
And it has not ALWAYS been so, there are more than twenty jurisdictions around the world that currently recognise same sex marriage as well as numerous examples of this having historically been the case.
Quote:When society started to "nominate" DeFacto Relationships, as DeFacto Marriages, THEY broadened the use of the word Marriage to include people who were not married, but lived in a relationship similar to, or in most ways, virtually the same as, a normal Marriage relationship.
In my experience this has never been the case, there has always been a distinction between being married and being in a defacto relationship. For those who don't understand the difference they're generally happy to stay in a defacto relationship and that's ok.
In my mind what marriage is all about is an outward showing of committment. The opportunity to gather together all the people in your life and say to them, under law, we are pledging to live the rest of ours lives together as a couple.
A defacto relationship is doing that by default until something better comes along.
There is nothing to convince me that same sex relationships do not hold the same qualities and characteristics as other relationships, given this, how can they not have the same recognition?
Quote:I suppose from the point of view of the Gay community, their argument could be that society already recognises heterosexual relationships, not formalised in any way, as "marriage", so why should they be excluded?
I can sympathise with that, but personally default to the two wrongs do not make a right, position.
The fact that naming defacto relationships as a marriage, has become commonly accepted, already diminishes and blurs the use of the word marriage, from it's true meaning.
I would be in favour of that stopping, and be happier with defacto couples being called, just that, a DeFacto Couple.
I would also be in favour of homosexual defacto couples being called defacto couples.
Defacto does not equal married - Same sex couples can already have a defacto relationship, have been able to for some time, what they can't do is take the next step and get married
If you're so hell bent on making sure there's a distinction between a defacto relationship and a marriage (which I agree with btw) how can you propose to exclude a class of people from that group and go on to claim that it's not discrimination?
Quote:I am also in favour of homosexual couples, who do wish to engage in a civil commitment ceremony, to be able to call themselves a Civil couple, or Civil Union, or they can "CREATE" a NEW word if they wish to do so, to describe their homosexual life partnership, but it should be something other than "marriage", that word is already taken.
Do you see what you're doing here? Marriage is essentially a civil union, many people also like to tag a religious emphisis to it, which is fine, but in essence it's a civil union.
We already have an act of law which deals with this but what you're proposing it to set up a seperate class of civil union purely for same sex couples. They call that discrimination.
Sort of like the black people can drink in the pub but only if it's in their section?
Quote:I also foresee a potential problem in changing the marriage act to declare homosexual unions as marriage, in that it could lead to calls upon existing institutions, like certain religions as an example, to perform Homosexual marriages, despite these religions specifically opposing any form of homosexual unions, and charges of discrimination being made against any who wish to not perform such ceremonies.
Sound far fetched???
IF the Marriage Act was changed, I would put money on just that type of thing happening.
Any change to the Marriage Act should (and will) contain a specific clause which states that no religious institution can be forced the perform same sex marriage ceremonies. We have a right to religious expression, this should not be setting government for those who are not part of that religion.
There are plenty of religious institutions which are happy to expand marriage to include same sex couples, its all about choice
This isn't controversial and is similar to what has happened in most of the jurisdictions where they now have same sex marriage.
Quote:I am 100% supportive of Gay rights, but I think that the determination that a Gay Union should be able to be recognised as equal in all legal ways to a Marriage, it should never be presented to the community as being exactly the same, as they are equal, but also, DIFFERENT.
Then you're not 100% supportive of gay rights, sorry but it's just that by definition. If you don't support the right of same sex couples to get married, particularly after you've stated your strong belief that marriage is a seperate right to being in a defacto relationship, then you do not 100% support gay rights.
Forum
Pages: 
Why R Homos and Greens so rude? (Read 21509 times)
