Australia living in the dark ages

[Booma]

Opposite sex couples who cannot procreate (for whatever reason) are not excluded from marriage, so the ability to produce children is not necessarily a key factor in marriage equality. T x

 

 

i didnt mean you had to be able to have children to get married or that it is a key factor. i was explaining why i think plural marriage is more closely aligned to the standard heterosexual marriage because both these marriages have the potential to procreate naturally.

 

if people are serious about marriage equality & think it is worth changing the law then i dont think its fair to limit the change to only include same sex couples because thats not fair to other people.

[Keith and Linda]

i didnt mean you had to be able to have children to get married or that it is a key factor. i was explaining why i think plural marriage is more closely aligned to the standard heterosexual marriage because both these marriages have the potential to procreate naturally.

if people are serious about marriage equality & think it is worth changing the law then i dont think its fair to limit the change to only include same sex couples because thats not fair to other people.

 

Your right, but where does it or indeed can it end? other cultures have child brides!

[Booma]

Your right, but where does it or indeed can it end? other cultures have child brides!

 

 

thats true. people talk about wanting marriage equality & the person who started this thread says oz is living in the dark ages but i wonder how far into the light people are willing to go in there pursuit of equality & if oz should go there at all.

 

denmark is well & truly living in the light with a woman winning the right to marry her horse. equal rights & all that.

 

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/denmark-woman-marries-own-horse-creates-legal-precedent/

[Diane]

Wanting more than one wife or wanting to marry an animal are lifestyle choices. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice.

[Booma]

Wanting more than one wife or wanting to marry an animal are lifestyle choices. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice.

 

its not that long ago that most people said the same thing about homosexuality. who are we to say something is just a lifestyle choice. you need to keep up with the times diane & embrace equality for all.

[Keith and Linda]

Wanting more than one wife or wanting to marry an animal are lifestyle choices. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice.

 

Not in some cultures. I am led believe it can be!

[Keith and Linda]

Brilliant answer.

 

How can that be so? did you actually read his post before passing comment? he thinks that all gays want everybody to be gay! He states that my views are fixed on limiting the rights of gay people and I have not said such a thing, and he also knows what other peoples, whom he has never met, views are! Yep pure brilliance indeed!

[Diane]

Not in some cultures. I am led believe it can be!

 

There is no point my debating with someone who holds such old fashioned ideas. I hope for your kids' sake that none of them are gay, they don't deserve to have to deal with such a dinosaur.

 

This type of thing is precisely why a plebiscite is a bad idea - it allows people such as you to vilify a whole group of people for something beyond their control, and reveal such a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you should consider the saying that 'it is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant, than speak and prove it beyond doubt".

[Parley]

Wanting more than one wife or wanting to marry an animal are lifestyle choices. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice.

 

Getting married is a lifestyle choice.

[Parley]

There is no point my debating with someone who holds such old fashioned ideas. I hope for your kids' sake that none of them are gay, they don't deserve to have to deal with such a dinosaur.

 

This type of thing is precisely why a plebiscite is a bad idea - it allows people such as you to vilify a whole group of people for something beyond their control, and reveal such a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you should consider the saying that 'it is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant, than speak and prove it beyond doubt".

 

That is disgusting the way you have vilified Keith.

[Keith and Linda]

There is no point my debating with someone who holds such old fashioned ideas. I hope for your kids' sake that none of them are gay, they don't deserve to have to deal with such a dinosaur.

 

This type of thing is precisely why a plebiscite is a bad idea - it allows people such as you to vilify a whole group of people for something beyond their control, and reveal such a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you should consider the saying that 'it is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant, than speak and prove it beyond doubt".

 

You are so blinkered by your view that you are not seeing nor understanding what is being written and it is people such as you that stir up such vilification! However I challenge you to re read my posts and confirm what my view is regarding equality to gays, you may quote as many of my posts as you like. Also can you provide any evidence you have regarding my children's sexual preferences and the way I treat or would treat them?

[ramot]

There is no point my debating with someone who holds such old fashioned ideas. I hope for your kids' sake that none of them are gay, they don't deserve to have to deal with such a dinosaur.

 

This type of thing is precisely why a plebiscite is a bad idea - it allows people such as you to vilify a whole group of people for something beyond their control, and reveal such a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you should consider the saying that 'it is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant, than speak and prove it beyond doubt".

 

One of the saddest things is that posters aren't allowed to have an alternative view. Lots of us are entitled to our own opinions whether others agree or not. Certainly shouldn't have offensive replies.

I am also "old fashioned" really have no problem with anyone's sexuality but still think that marriage is between a man and woman. I'm not right or wrong this is just my view.

I would like to see a civil partnership, de facto relationships all with equal rights, as lots of people choose not to marry these days but are in committed relationships. Very important to make a will.

Have been discussing the issue with friends over the last few days, and it is perhaps an age thing? but more are against than for, but we listened to each other's views, and respected them.

We are allowed to hold our own views, but should never insist that everyone must agree with us.

Edited September 16, 2016 by ramot

[Keith and Linda]

One of the saddest things is that posters aren't allowed to have an alternative view. Lots of us are entitled to our own opinions whether others agree or not. Certainly shouldn't have offensive replies.

I am also "old fashioned" really have no problem with anyone's sexuality but still think that marriage is between a man and woman. I'm not right or wrong this is just my view.

I would like to see a civil partnership, de facto relationships all with equal rights, as lots of people choose not to marry these days but are in committed relationships. Very important to make a will.

Have been discussing the issue with friends over the last few days, and it is perhaps an age thing? but more are against than for. We are allowed to think this, but would never insist that everyone must agree with us.

 

Good honest post there ramot, and I think you have highlighted the most honest reason as to why some do not want a plebiscite to go ahead.

[newjez]

That's another one that tickles me, the left labelling their own thinking "progressive"

 

Isn't progressive the opposite of conservative?

[newjez]

How can a law be illegal ?

 

Is it illegal for me to marry 2 women then ?

 

What sort of silly question is that? Of course a law can be illegal. It is in clear violation of the discrimination acts.

 

 

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/employers/good-practice-good-business-factsheets/quick-guide-australian-discrimination-laws

 

As I have said, if someone launched a legal challenge it could save a fortune.

[newjez]

They want the law changed so that they have equal rights and everything else that goes with being married, I have no argument with this in fact I am in favour of that, but it is not marriage in the sense we know it.

There are countless terms which identify and differentiate - Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Sir, Madam, Dame, Lord, countess, Blues or maroon supporter, British, English, Scottish, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Catholic, Protestant etc. etc. and most titles are worn with pride for what they stand for, so leave marriage for what it stands for and just get a different name for gay union and be proud of it!

 

 

Since when do we live in a static world? Has the concept of marriage not changed since Roman times? Since when do titles cause a problem, or rather since when haven't titles cause a problem, as you highlight with your ms? What is all that about? Why do we need more terms? If you really want, we could have mrg and mrl. But I think the world would be easier if we jihad Mr and mrs and dropped the rest.

 

What does marriage stand for? Sixty years ago, the church would not recognise half the marriages people claim to have. My sister is married to a divorced catholic. Not that many years ago that wouldn't have been considered marriage. Some still don't consider it marriage. Marriage is a dynamic thing. Just ask parleycross how his life long union went.

 

When your arguments fall apart like wet paper, and you fall back to the childish, 'i don't like it', you do need to face the possibility that you may be wrong.

Edited September 16, 2016 by newjez

[ramot]

Since when do we live in a static world? Has the concept of marriage not changed since Roman times? Since when do titles cause a problem, or rather since when haven't titles cause a problem, as you highlight with your ms? What is all that about? Why do we need more terms? If you really want, we could have mrg and mrl. But I think the world would be easier if we jihad Mr and mrs and dropped the rest.

 

What does marriage stand for? Sixty years ago, the church would not recognise half the marriages people claim to have. My sister is married to a divorced catholic. Not that many years ago that wouldn't have been considered marriage. Some still don't consider it marriage. Marriage is a dynamic thing. Just ask parleycross how his life long union went.

 

When your arguments fall apart like wet paper, and you fall back to the childish, 'i don't like it', you do need to face the possibility that you may be wrong.

 

why personalise your post with a dig at another poster?

my marriage stands for 46 years together through thick and thin.

correction, 10 days to go to wedding anniversary, fingers crossed we make it!!!

Edited September 16, 2016 by ramot

[newjez]

One of the saddest things is that posters aren't allowed to have an alternative view. Lots of us are entitled to our own opinions whether others agree or not. Certainly shouldn't have offensive replies.

I am also "old fashioned" really have no problem with anyone's sexuality but still think that marriage is between a man and woman. I'm not right or wrong this is just my view.

I would like to see a civil partnership, de facto relationships all with equal rights, as lots of people choose not to marry these days but are in committed relationships. Very important to make a will.

Have been discussing the issue with friends over the last few days, and it is perhaps an age thing? but more are against than for, but we listened to each other's views, and respected them.

We are allowed to hold our own views, but should never insist that everyone must agree with us.

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=common+law+marriage&oq=common+law&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.6291j0j4&client=tablet-android-pega&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[Gbye grey sky]

i didnt mean you had to be able to have children to get married or that it is a key factor. i was explaining why i think plural marriage is more closely aligned to the standard heterosexual marriage because both these marriages have the potential to procreate naturally.

 

if people are serious about marriage equality & think it is worth changing the law then i dont think its fair to limit the change to only include same sex couples because thats not fair to other people.

 

I do not agree that the question of plural marriage - or indeed any other union that someone could come up with - should be linked to the issue of gay marriage. It is a quite separate thing. If you, Parley, or anyone else, in a democracy, feel a strong urge to make the case for plural marriage you should start by writing to your MP perhaps.

 

But this question is about gay marriage and bringing Australian policy on this in alignment with many symbiotic countries which have legalised gay marriage. As it is legally married gay couples are not recognised as married when they enter Australia. No such situation exists for plural marriage.

[newjez]

why personalise your post with a dig at another poster?

my marriage stands for 46 years together through thick and thin.

 

 

When having a debate on marriage do you not think the actions of the individuals with respect to their own marriage is not relevant? Historically, in many countries, parleycross would not have been able to re marry. In the modern age, that has changed. It makes a mockery of the idea that marriage is some static thing with a static definition which can never be changed. The definition of marriage is constantly changing. In fact the Australian govt changed it in 2004!

[JockinTas]

Since when do we live in a static world? Has the concept of marriage not changed since Roman times? Since when do titles cause a problem, or rather since when haven't titles cause a problem, as you highlight with your ms? What is all that about? Why do we need more terms? If you really want, we could have mrg and mrl. But I think the world would be easier if we jihad Mr and mrs and dropped the rest.

 

What does marriage stand for? Sixty years ago, the church would not recognise half the marriages people claim to have. My sister is married to a divorced catholic. Not that many years ago that wouldn't have been considered marriage. Some still don't consider it marriage. Marriage is a dynamic thing. Just ask parleycross how his life long union went.

 

When your arguments fall apart like wet paper, and you fall back to the childish, 'i don't like it', you do need to face the possibility that you may be wrong.

 

 

 

What does marriage stand for? There's a question. We've been married 40 years next month. Not in church - just the local registry office. I have been bridesmaid and matron of honour at a fair few church weddings and more than half of those ended in divorce. Some of the various couples have gone on to marry two or even three times since then. I worked with a woman who has 4 children and she and her partner don't intend to marry at all. Really, I don't know what marriage stands for even after all these years. Good luck to them all and that includes gay marriages.

[Gbye grey sky]

One of the saddest things is that posters aren't allowed to have an alternative view. Lots of us are entitled to our own opinions whether others agree or not. Certainly shouldn't have offensive replies.

I am also "old fashioned" really have no problem with anyone's sexuality but still think that marriage is between a man and woman. I'm not right or wrong this is just my view.

I would like to see a civil partnership, de facto relationships all with equal rights, as lots of people choose not to marry these days but are in committed relationships. Very important to make a will.

Have been discussing the issue with friends over the last few days, and it is perhaps an age thing? but more are against than for, but we listened to each other's views, and respected them.

We are allowed to hold our own views, but should never insist that everyone must agree with us.

 

Well said. Of course it is a view you are entitled to hold. I am sure that many of us older posters hold old-fashioned views of one type or another.

 

My issue is with having the right and ability to impose that quite narrow view on a small minority. When all is said and done what possible harm can be inflicted on the rest of society by permitting a loving couple to wed each other?

 

In what way could it impact personally on you?

[Keith and Linda]

Since when do we live in a static world? Has the concept of marriage not changed since Roman times? Since when do titles cause a problem, or rather since when haven't titles cause a problem, as you highlight with your ms? What is all that about? Why do we need more terms? If you really want, we could have mrg and mrl. But I think the world would be easier if we jihad Mr and mrs and dropped the rest.

 

What does marriage stand for? Sixty years ago, the church would not recognise half the marriages people claim to have. My sister is married to a divorced catholic. Not that many years ago that wouldn't have been considered marriage. Some still don't consider it marriage. Marriage is a dynamic thing. Just ask parleycross how his life long union went.

 

When your arguments fall apart like wet paper, and you fall back to the childish, 'i don't like it', you do need to face the possibility that you may be wrong.

 

Ms is an old word which was resurrected in the 20th century by those whom did not want to be identified as being single or married, so looks like some things just don't move on, but become the times again!

What do you mean by 'all' my arguments? I only have one opinion and that is to keep marriage what it is now and that another term needs to be given to other unions beyond that between a man and a woman. so no wet paper here but I can see egg on someones face!

Could you please tell me what I could possibly wrong about?

[Parley]

What sort of silly question is that? Of course a law can be illegal. It is in clear violation of the discrimination acts.

 

 

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/employers/good-practice-good-business-factsheets/quick-guide-australian-discrimination-laws

 

As I have said, if someone launched a legal challenge it could save a fortune.

 

Don't be ridiculous.

The law is what makes something legal or illegal.

 

A law itself cannot be illegal.

[Gbye grey sky]

I though everybody already knew this! and I am not sure as to how you can think that gay people want everyone else to be gay! totally stupid suggestion really. However the quest is for the same rights as that of a married man & woman.

 

Fair enough but it was not clear to me what the quest was that you were alluding to.

 

I still consider that you attach a superior tag to the term marriage thereby inferring that the relationship we share with our respective spouses is inherently better than any such gay union could be. Why indeed even come up with another word solely to describe a union of two gay people. Would you want a different word for men and for women perhaps?

 

It comes over as splitting hairs tbh and you regrettably end up on the same side of the argument as people who frankly are completely intolerant of homosexuality as any vote (if it happens) will be a single question, yes or no. There is no multiple choice in a plebiscite or referendum.