However I am not fan of the phrase 'Homosexual Lobby' it has negative connotations. We are not a political party, or a group of developers, or a company - we are your brothers and sisters, your cousins, your friends and workmates. A disparate collection of people who are born a certain way. We are not a Lobby.
I also find the phrase "gay community" strange, for the same reasons.
I have a few gay friends, of both genders, and a gay family member. They couldn't be more different as people.
That's my thinking on it as well.Fascinating thread. I do have to ask hetrosexual (obviously) people who are against this, how it actually affects them personally whether two gay people are married or not? I presume a lot of them are married already and even if they are not yet, they are hardly at risk of a forced marriage to someone of the same sex are they?
This will be like the anti-divorce crowd from years ago telling us it'll be the end of the world as we know it. We'll look back years from now and wonder what all the fuss was about!
As a father of 2 young children, I would hate if one of my children had less rights and options than the other. Live and let live!
Firefly.
If parentage is irrelevant and marriage is to be stripped of it gendered nature for the sake of modernity why not boil it down further to be open to any two people, then all two person relationships will be equal (and equally valid) and everyone will be happy, surely.Does the "traditional" married couple have justifiable reason for special status because it is a demonstrably better environment to raise children? Not according to any research carried out. . . And that's what it boils down to, "gender-based" marriage is essentially a nice way of saying that they don't want same-sex people to have the same rights and protections that they do, whether it be financial, tax, insurance, property, inheritance, etc. And the only remaining argument against it is their sexuality, there simply is no logical, rational or demonstrable argument as to why same-sex marriage should not have equal status..
If parentage is irrelevant and marriage is to be stripped of it gendered nature for the sake of modernity why not boil it down further to be open to any two people, then all two person relationships will be equal (and equally valid) and everyone will be happy, surely.
Which is what is being asked surely...except I'm getting a scent of the Iona Incest card.
Yes, except relationships that are illegal such as when a party is under age or incest is involved etc.If parentage is irrelevant and marriage is to be stripped of it gendered nature for the sake of modernity why not boil it down further to be open to any two people, then all two person relationships will be equal (and equally valid) and everyone will be happy, surely.
Yes, except relationships that are illegal such as when a party is under age or incest is involved etc.
And another thing (I've been thinking about this!)...for all those who are against same-sex parenting, with the huge number of single parents out there, do you think a child would be better served with one parent or two same-sex parents?
Firefly.
Hmmmm, I think that's pizza you scent Scoob . . I haven't read anything that Iona have to say on the matter, in fact other than this thread I have been largely tuned-out of the issue....except I'm getting a scent of the Iona Incest card.
Incest is a separate legal issue and should be no impediment to, what might then be, the legal construct formally know as marriage (TLCFKAM) being available to ANY two mentally sound adults regardless or gender or relationship who aren't already party to a TLCFKAM.Yes, except relationships that are illegal such as when a party is under age or incest is involved etc.
Incest is a separate legal issue and should be no impediment to, what might then be, the legal construct formally know as marriage (TLCFKAM) being available to ANY two mentally sound adults regardless or gender or relationship who aren't already party to a TLCFKAM.
That's not what I'm taking from michaelm's post at all.Are you saying, as I can't tell from the post, that the referendum would allow incestuous marriages or that arguing for same-sex marriage is the same argument for allowing incestuous relationships or something else entirely?
Well, you posted that before you read the aboveIt's not easy to be the only contrarian voice in these situations and while I disagree with him I think his posts have been reasonable and reasoned.
No, I disagree with you but that doesn't mean you posts are inflammatory or unreasoned.Well, you posted that before you read the above.
Something else, nothing to do with incest. Various posts here seems to say that parentage and gender and sexuality are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements. If that is the case and we intend to extend marriage then it should be open to any two people who wish to enter that contract, including siblings and other relatives. If we only extend the current Adam and Eve model to Adam and Steve surely that discriminates against the caring and interdependent relationship of brothers Podge & Rodge, even if they don't share a bed.
Well, you posted that before you read the above.
That's not what I'm taking from michaelm's post at all.
It's not easy to be the only contrarian voice in these situations and while I disagree with him I think his posts have been reasonable and reasoned.
Excellent post.Is there something special about a "traditional" marriage relationship that isn't in a same sex relationship? Assume there isn't (for the purposes of this), next is there something different in a relationship between two non-related persons (irrespective of sexuality) commiting to live together, combine income, invest together and support each other that does not exist in interdependent siblings or relatives? Yes. It is an wholly different commitment and union. Are there similarities, yes, but the similarities are greater to being equal to with a same-sex couple and "traditional" couple, unless you feel current traditional marriage is comparable to an interdepenent family relationship?
Because it has been viewed, rightly methinks, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society which provides social cohesion, and, as the best model for the upbringing of children. The tax policy of Individualisation has weakened this status and redefining marriage will weaken it further. Ultimately every ad hoc arrangement may be afforded special status, and when all are special then none will be.Why is the "traditional" marriage afforded special status and the only union that requires incentive and recognition by the state?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?