I was just about to sign a petition in favour of same-sex marriage outside Central when......

[Mike@Bonbeach]

Don't put too much effort into your first marriage, whoever you are, they're always rubbish. The 2nd one is well better!

Better for who?

Just celebrated our 52nd anniversary, if the 2nd marriage is so much better bring it on.

Mike and Connie

[Paul1Perth]

I am not going to argue with someone like you. Bit of advise to you, tread carefully.

 

What's that mean jack "tread carefully"? I wouldn't go around trying to upset anyone based on there sexual orientation mate, got a few friends that are gay and I don't have a problem with it.

[Paul1Perth]

Don't put too much effort into your first marriage, whoever you are, they're always rubbish. The 2nd one is well better!

 

I really hope I don't get to test out that theory. I reckon if we broke up for whatever reason there is no way I would get married again.

 

Don't know what it is about marriage but it seems to me that you meet someone and you like them for what they are when you meet them. Physical attraction is usually righ tup there first off of course.

 

Then when the relationship starts getting serious and leads in to marriage it seems to change to then wanting to change the person who you fell in love with into what you think is your ideal. From experience it's usually the woman wanting to change the guy. I get really pissed off sometimes that my wife tells me what to wear, how to shut or open a cupboard door, what I should be watching on TV, What I should and shouldn't be saying to some people, like the kids teachers for example. Trivial things really and as an easy going bloke I realise that it's all trivial stuff and let it slide.

 

After being married for a long time I'm pretty happy with my lot really. Great kids, good times with the wife still, love where we live and the lifestyle but I reckon I could get used to pleasing myself what I do and when I do it. Yep if we split up I would deffo have other relationships but if they started to impinge on my way of life I reckon i would just move on to the next one.

 

All hypothetical of course, Can't see us parting ways after all this time.:cool:

[MARYROSE02]

"I love you. You are perfect. Now CHANGE!"

[Guest littlesarah]

I really hope I don't get to test out that theory. I reckon if we broke up for whatever reason there is no way I would get married again.

 

Don't know what it is about marriage but it seems to me that you meet someone and you like them for what they are when you meet them. Physical attraction is usually righ tup there first off of course.

 

Then when the relationship starts getting serious and leads in to marriage it seems to change to then wanting to change the person who you fell in love with into what you think is your ideal. From experience it's usually the woman wanting to change the guy. I get really pissed off sometimes that my wife tells me what to wear, how to shut or open a cupboard door, what I should be watching on TV, What I should and shouldn't be saying to some people, like the kids teachers for example. Trivial things really and as an easy going bloke I realise that it's all trivial stuff and let it slide.

 

By the time I met my now husband, I was totally over the whole idea of having a 'relationship'. Anyway, we met, one thing led to another, and I realised that he was/is not perfect. But neither am I. Does it drive me mad when he shuts cupboard doors by just pushing them (so they bang a bit), and stirring tea so vigorously I can hear it in bed at 5.30 a.m.? Bl*^%y hell, it does! But I always figured if I can't live with his faults, I can't expect him to tolerate mine, so I don't say anything. (I wish he'd stop asking me what to wear - seriously dude, as long as it's clean and doesn't have holes in it, I don't give a rats'!!)

 

I should add, that I think OH must have the patience of a saint to put up with me and some of my 'little ways', so I can't expect to change who he is because I'd resist someone trying to change me!

[Bibbs]

First off, marriage is a purely religious symbol.

 

It isn't.

It has nothing to do with law.

 

It does.

Lawyers have made it a part of law, but marriage is first and foremost a commitment by a man and a woman, in the sight of God, to live forever in union. It is a moral/religious act.

 

It isn't.

[VERYSTORMY]

What does confuse me is couple who don't want the commitment of marriage but then go on to have children with that partner. For me the biggest commitment you'll ever have in life is to have children but your not ready to commit to their Father.

 

Because a couple choose not to get legally married it doesnt mean they are not as committed to each other. I have been with my "wife" for 18 years (living together) but we are not legally married. We regard ourselves as married and are 100% committed to each other. We simply choose not to bother with a ceremony as we dont think we have anything to prove to anyone about how much we love each other.

[MARYROSE02]

Because a couple choose not to get legally married it doesnt mean they are not as committed to each other. I have been with my "wife" for 18 years (living together) but we are not legally married. We regard ourselves as married and are 100% committed to each other. We simply choose not to bother with a ceremony as we dont think we have anything to prove to anyone about how much we love each other.

 

If you asked her to marry you, what do you think would be her answer?

 

If she asked you to marry her, what would be your answer?

[VERYSTORMY]

If you asked her to marry you, what do you think would be her answer?

 

If she asked you to marry her, what would be your answer?

 

Yes and Yes. We both have at various times. But just decided there are things we would rather spend the money on. If we had stayed in the UK we might have got round to it. But cant see us going back there just to get married and cant see people flying here if we did it here. so not point

[MARYROSE02]

Maybe try a,cash "incentive" when next you ask!?

[akiralx]

It isn't.

 

It does.

 

It isn't.

 

I'm glad you corrected him... marriage existed long before any religion.

[docboat]

I'm glad you corrected him... marriage existed long before any religion.

 

We have been living together in a relationship ever since the dawn of time. Marriage is quite another thing. But I do not expect you to recognise the difference.

[akiralx]

Marriage as it is understood today existed long before Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Roman emperors were married, for example, long before the beginnings of Christianity. That's all I'm trying to maintain.

[Bibbs]

The only reasons Churches were involved in the first place was due to every village having one, and being a good place to store records (along with births and deaths).

 

They were the original village council.

 

Before then, Marriage was just the union of two people under the law (and note I said 'people', not 'man and woman').

 

Religion piggybacked it, and now thinks it owns it.

 

Lets have a look at the types of marriage mentioned in the bible.

 

[docboat]

Marriage as it is understood today existed long before Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Roman emperors were married, for example, long before the beginnings of Christianity. That's all I'm trying to maintain.

 

I hear you. What I am saying is that marriage, as we have understood it in our culture now, and over the last several thousand years, has been a religious concept, and THAT is what is referred to as marriage, and that is what has been degraded over the last decades. We need to keep THAT concept of marriage sacrosanct, as a religious act, while the act of coupling, hooking up, living in a temporary arrangement, civic ceremony - whatever - THAT non-marriage should be open to any and all: opposite couples, same couples, partner and cat (that designer fella .... whatisname) who cares? Be free and be happy. But leave marriage alone

[Bibbs]

I hear you. What I am saying is that marriage, as we have understood it in our culture now, and over the last several thousand years, has been a religious concept, and THAT is what is referred to as marriage, and that is what has been degraded over the last decades. We need to keep THAT concept of marriage sacrosanct, as a religious act, while the act of coupling, hooking up, living in a temporary arrangement, civic ceremony - whatever - THAT non-marriage should be open to any and all: opposite couples, same couples, partner and cat (that designer fella .... whatisname) who cares? Be free and be happy. But leave marriage alone

 

So just because you borrowed the term a few years back, you now think it's yours?

 

Change the name you call it to 'religious marriage' and you can do what you like to it. You know, with rape victims and slaves, just like your 'good book' tells you.

 

Leave 'marriage' to change with the times and be the 'joining of two people under law'. Easy.

[docboat]

So just because you borrowed the term a few years back, you now think it's yours?

 

Change the name you call it to 'religious marriage' and you can do what you like to it. You know, with rape victims and slaves, just like your 'good book' tells you.

 

Leave 'marriage' to change with the times and be the 'joining of two people under law'. Easy.

 

The easy part is letting marriage be degraded into what it is now. That is so universal now, your argument actually holds water. But the point I am making is this:

 

1. If you want a union, in law, go for it. No issues

2. If you think this is "marriage" you are wrong. But so is almost everyone else - marriage has been redefined, so therefore, as things have changed, I am actually the one who is "wrong". But then again, I think the word "gay" means a state of happiness, not a sexual orientation.

3. That marriage has changed with the times is indisputable. So has the amount of extreme social distress in one-parent families, juvenile delinquency, social degradation, acceptance of violence as a normal part of society, loss of manners in social interaction, general respect for others (let alone elderly and weak) - and I cannot but help wonder whether the loss of moral values and loss of religious attitudes has not greatly contributed to a decline in social fabric.

4. Which leads me back to my point - if you want to have a civil union (forget a religious union - that is now meaningless, as you have yourself pointed out) - go for it. But leave marriage alone.

[Bibbs]

I'll have to leave it at that, as I'll end up typing something offensive.

 

What you see as 'social distress' I see as normal (it's always happened, our parents and grand parents all moaned about the same things), and the slow eradication of the poison that is religion, as a good thing. It's also funny how the majority of criminals are religious .. go figure.

 

It's also a shame that your think a union of two people of the same sex is 'below' a union of different sex couples (your use of 'degraded').

 

 

But, I'm sure in only a few years, same sex unions will be legal, and called 'Marriage'. No matter how distasteful you find it.

[docboat]

I am sure you are right.

[Paul1Perth]

I'll have to leave it at that, as I'll end up typing something offensive.

 

What you see as 'social distress' I see as normal (it's always happened, our parents and grand parents all moaned about the same things), and the slow eradication of the poison that is religion, as a good thing. It's also funny how the majority of criminals are religious .. go figure.

 

It's also a shame that your think a union of two people of the same sex is 'below' a union of different sex couples (your use of 'degraded').

 

 

But, I'm sure in only a few years, same sex unions will be legal, and called 'Marriage'. No matter how distasteful you find it.

 

I think he has a point on the "social distress" front Bibbs. Sure our parents and grandparents used to moan, but I don't think it was about the same things. We always had respect for others, police, the law, older people, generally just other people. I watched "cops" again last night, it was from Nottingham this time and the police being interviewed were asked if there is respect for the uniform and them. Every one of them spoken to said there used to be, not long ago either, but there is virtually non now.

 

It showed in the program too. Just about every case they showed, whether it be just pulling someone up for a road traffic offence to families fighting, the poor cops had to put up with abuse as soon as they tried to speak to someone. Their hands are tied so much in how they can respond now they basically just have to put up with it. Of course the younger generations have seen the lack of respect getting ever worse and with social media and TV now telling everyone they have "rights" they seem to have taken this to the step where one of the "rights" is to do whatever you want to whoever you want and not get into trouble for it. Then when a cop tries to pull you into line attack the poor sod for getting involved.

 

Wouldn't be a cop for a million a year at this time.

[Guest littlesarah]

Although I myself have a faith, I don't consider that marriage is 'owned' by any religious or other organisation. Marriages may be religious or secular, that is mandated by law and is applied in practice - both are considered equal in law. As such I don't think that any religious organisation should be allowed to determine what is legal when it comes to marriage - it is a State-sanctioned institution now, and as such should be governed by the law of the land. Having said that, I do think that it should be up to each religious organisation or celebrant to decide which marriages they are willing to perform, and that is a matter that should be sorted out between them and the couple seeking to marry.

 

I don't buy the argument that legalising same-sex marriage is the first step on the path to moral degradation of society - there are many other factors that lead to some of the social ills that we currently seem to face. Yes, babies are born into unstable environments and there are often consequences to that, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that such circumstances are exclusively the result of procreation outside marriage or as a result of relationship breakdown.

 

Not sure about the comment that the majority of criminals are 'religious' - I guess that depends how one defines 'religious'. Lots of people will tell you they're 'C of E' if you ask them their religion, but they don't deliberately practice any form of Christian worship or lifestyle. For a criminal in jail, perhaps saying you've 'seen the light', found God and want to change your ways may be considered more convincing to a parole board than just saying you've realised you made a mistake and will now try to do the right thing.

[Bibbs]

Not sure about the comment that the majority of criminals are 'religious'

Just comes from the USA stats where (I think it was) 10% of the country is 'no religion' but only 0.2% of the people in prison are.

 

http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

 

But i think this is trying to discredit it with numbers of 32% and 10% (population and prison) :-

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/29/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-pew-forum-offers-an-answer/

[jimmyay1]

To the OP. Ok whilst I don't hate Abbot (well not as much as I did Julia Gillard). And whilst gay marriage isn't the most serious issue in my life, I do however that the fact that two men or two women cannot marry and have the same equality that others have is very wrong. If only people like Tony Abbot (whose Sister is in fact a Lesbian wanting to marry her female partner) could understand the plight of Homosexual people. I'm bisexual and I cant tell you of just how hard it all is.

 

Two of the biggest things that occur in someones life is marriage and kids. Knowing you may be unable to have either of those, its hard to take. Sometimes as a guy, I feel if I end up with another guy, I will be redundant as a person. Unable to reproduce, unable to father. That really plays on your mind and it makes you feel less of a person. Society isn't designed for people like us. My parents say their wedding day and having me (I'm an only child) were the two best things that happened in their life. Feeling like I may never have either makes me really sad.

 

It hurts a lot to have to go through all of that but then to know the law dosent support you either makes you feel even more weak. I think it makes you really question your own existence and just quite how unimportant people must view you. Its hard enough for gay people to find love anyway but too add further punishment to their plight is just cruel if you ask me.

 

To be honest as much as gay marriage not being legalized in Australia upsets me, the whole gay adoption thing upsets me a lot lot more. Currently If I did end up with a man, my only chances of adopting are If I lived in WA or NSW. We live in 2013, how is this the case? Think of all the children out there with noone? And think of all the people of same sex desperate to have children. Its just adding to their already difficult lives.

 

I think its one thing allowing us to be the way we are born but its another for us to finally be treated equally and have the same rights as everyone else and for us to stop being treated like second class citizens.

 

I am sure in time you will be able to , don't lose heart. Australia is just a little bit behind on this issue, it will come, there are many countries now where you can get married and adopt children if you like, and if you go to the ACT and get married , and live in NSW, then you could adopt children too.

 

i feel sad reading your post. i don't want kids myself but it is gutting and makes me angry how this affects people who do but can't under current laws when they would often make a lot better parents than some straight people.

[Paul1Perth]

I am sure in time you will be able to , don't lose heart. Australia is just a little bit behind on this issue, it will come, there are many countries now where you can get married and adopt children if you like, and if you go to the ACT and get married , and live in NSW, then you could adopt children too.

 

i feel sad reading your post. i don't want kids myself but it is gutting and makes me angry how this affects people who do but can't under current laws when they would often make a lot better parents than some straight people.

 

Same old "Australia is behind" argument again when things don't go some peoples way. It might never change and who's to say Aus isn't right and the other countries that accept it are wrong and "behind".

 

As for the having kids thing. People shouldn't be able to just choose to have kids because they think it's the thing to do as they're now "a family". It's not like getting a puppy. There's a lot more to having and bringing up kids and if you're not in a relationship that makes it possible to do it naturally then I reckon you should have to accept that and get on with life without them. Whether you'd make good parents or not is irrelevant IMO.

[MARYROSE02]

I'm not sure of the legal principles, but perhaps the ACT govt was rash to try to legalise same-sex marriage, when it is not within state or territory govts' powers to do this. Australia has a written constitution and a federal form of government, that strictly defines the powers of both the central government and the states. I assume that the High Court has simply confirmed that this is an issue for the Commonwealth, not the states?