Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[.:b-me:.]

of course they have super benefits!
but even if they are in long term relationships, because they aren't married, they don't have joint access to each other's super funds. i am aware that they get super.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by eviltama
----------
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
-------------
You can't be serious to use this and think it proves anything.
1) "Men and women" doesn't imply they must marry each other. And "have the right to marry and found a family" doesn't imply that the marriage has to be between a heterosexual couple, nor that a heterosexual couple is what defines a family.

Points 2 and 3 are fair enuff to a point. Tho to say that "The family is the natural and fundemental group unit of society", is sorta iffy. So since this obviously came from something much longer i'd advise you to supply either your source or perhaps some sort of link to the original piece of writing so that we can draw proper conclusions from what has been written.

Since alot of you have been carrying on about the "human right to marry" I thought you'd all know about the declaration of human rights.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by .:b-me:.
of course they have super benefits!
but even if they are in long term relationships, because they aren't married, they don't have joint access to each other's super funds. i am aware that they get super.

Actually, if their partner dies, homosexuals can access their partners super.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
I just want to state that I think if same-sex couples want to marry then they should have the same rights as straight couples.

I think that it is discrimination on the basis of sexual preference if this ban on same-sex marriages is legalised.

What John Howard stated on the issue is:
"There are certain institutions [marriage] that we understand to have certain meaning and why not say so?"

Personally I think that it is a step backwards for Australia if same-sex marriage is banned.

1) Same sex marriages are already disallowed. So this isn't a new 'ban'. Therefore Australia is pretty much staying where it is

2) It isn't discrimination. Discrimination is naughty. As i've said before, homosexuals do not have LESS rights than heterosexuals. Why should they be given an ADDITIONAL right.

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by neo_o
1) Same sex marriages are already disallowed. So this isn't a new 'ban'. Therefore Australia is pretty much staying where it is

2) It isn't discrimination. Discrimination is naughty. As i've said before, homosexuals do not have LESS rights than heterosexuals. Why should they be given an ADDITIONAL right.

1) I know that gay marriage was already banned, the point is Howard wants to clarify the marriage law to make sure that there are no loop holes which will allow for foreign gay marriages to be recognised in Australia.

2) How can it not be considered discrimination? Homosexual couples DO HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES. Point '1' proves that. Obviously if they can not be married if they want to, that is discriminaiton on the basis of their sexual preferrence.

Obviously it's discrimination!

 

[.:b-me:.]

umm...actually, they're only allowed access to this super after they pay a 22% "gift " tax.
which isnt the same access as heterosexual couples.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by poloktim
I was referring to one having the choice. I'm well aware that the environment in which a person grows up is a factor. I'm not aware that a person has a conscious choice to make in their lives, possibly because, according to most psychologists, including Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, homosexuality is not a choice.



I never said giving anyone specific the right to marry. I said allowing people to marry someone of the same-sex. This may benefit only one group, but marriage as it is now only benefits one group too. Broaden the law to be inclusive.



I said you're making yourself look like a bigger fucktard. I think I said that because you said that "allowing homosexuals to marry gives them an extra right." How many homosexuals do you see marrying people of the opposite sex? I'm aware there are exceptions, but most of these exceptions are for fraudulant reasons (such as immigration). Look at both sides of the scale before you make bullshit comments.


With secular government.


Polls are bullshit. The most fair way to obtain people's opinions would be an election. That way one person can't vote multiple times (for whichever side they chose).


Then why put up with my arguments, or eviltama's, or anyone's for that matter. Why not just use the ignore feature. It's there for a reason.



I didn't argue about genetics MUST. That's not true, the identical twins experiment proved that. In a set of identical twins, if there was a so-called "gay gene" then both twins would end up being gay. The majority of the time it was one or the other.

I disagree with your choice "theory." I don't think anyone has come to a crossroads in their lives where they decided who they liked. It was either one or the other (or both for bisexual people).

Links aren't necessary, search the Internet, or read books on Sigmund Freud's or Carl Jung's study of sexuality.



I argue that heterosexual marriage gives heterosexual people an extra right. Heterosexual marriage is something that homosexual people would never choose to use. You argue that homosexual marriage is an extra right to homosexual people, since it allows same-sex couples to do something that heterosexuals would never choose to do. Broaden the law out and get rid of the "man and woman", replace it with "two consenting adults" and problem solved. People can marry whoever the hell they want then, as long as they're both consenting adults.

I was throwing irony at your argument, though surprisingly, for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable, you missed it.

Remember, though, don't like me, ignore me. The feature is there for you to use.

1) Quotes/References please.

2) Why should the law be broadened? Additionally, should we broaden the law for people who want to marry their siblings?

3) It doesn't matter if they exercise the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex, they still have it. btw try to cut down the swearing and act your age ok?

4) Yes I know we have a secular government but you said and i quote

Not from a country which is democratic and secular in nature.

You said COUNTRY not Government. Changing your argument eh?

5) An election considers other policies as well as gay marriage, so obviously not.

6) This is a politics forum and a debate. You don't block people because they have a different opinion. Additionally you dont call people "fucktards" or "idiots" because they have different opinions to you.

7) "You think" should i dredge that comment that you made carrying on about how you'd only consider the opinion of an "expert"?

8) We are arguing about additional rights being given to minority groups, not rights given to the majority. Also, heterosexual marriage does not give heterosexuals an extra right, since homosexuals have the same right, they just choose not to use it.

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by neo_o
8) We are arguing about additional rights being given to minority groups, not rights given to the majority. Also, heterosexual marriage does not give heterosexuals an extra right, since homosexuals have the same right, they just choose not to use it.

No, they don't have the same rights. If they did Same-Sex marriage would not be banned!

Heterosexuals = can marry if they chose.
Homosexuals = can not marry if they chose.

HENCE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
1) Same sex marriages are already disallowed. So this isn't a new 'ban'. Therefore Australia is pretty much staying where it is

2) It isn't discrimination. Discrimination is naughty. As i've said before, homosexuals do not have LESS rights than heterosexuals. Why should they be given an ADDITIONAL right.

wasn't the point of this whole thing to make sure that gays couldn't get married overseas and then have that marriage recognised in australia? that sounds like losing their current rights to me

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
No, they don't have the same rights. If they did Same-Sex marriage would not be banned!

Heterosexuals = can marry if they chose.
Homosexuals = can not marry if they chose.

HENCE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.

insert neo saying 'but they can marry their opposite sex just like everyone else'. you don't bother actually responding to criticisms of your argument, you just are just a broken record stuck in a loop

 

[.:b-me:.]

quite clearly, homosexuals have less rights than heterosexuals.
1. older age of consent
2. have to pay 22% gift tax if they want to access the superannuation of a dead partner
3. not allowed to adopt

i could go on, but i'm supposed to be doing an assignment, not debating whether gay people have more or less rights..

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by .:b-me:.
quite clearly, homosexuals have less rights than heterosexuals.
1. older age of consent
2. have to pay 22% gift tax if they want to access the superannuation of a dead partner
3. not allowed to adopt

i could go on, but i'm supposed to be doing an assignment, not debating whether gay people have more or less rights..

1. The age of consent was lowered
2. I dont know about that
3. They are allowed to adopt in WA and the ACT (ahh you can do anything in canberra )

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
insert neo saying 'but they can marry their opposite sex just like everyone else'. you don't bother actually responding to criticisms of your argument, you just are just a broken record stuck in a loop

Im the one responding with the same response, to the same argument. Your the one stuck in the loop darling

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
insert neo saying 'but they can marry their opposite sex just like everyone else'. you don't bother actually responding to criticisms of your argument, you just are just a broken record stuck in a loop

Haha so true, Neo, you should realise that you are not making sense... The issue has already been concluded as same-sex marriages being illegal and that being the source of discrimination.

If you do not understand I say you discontinue your participation in this discussion.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
Since alot of you have been carrying on about the "human right to marry" I thought you'd all know about the declaration of human rights.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

i like how this did not relate to evil's post at all, or in anyway address her criticisms of your argument

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
Im the one responding with the same response, to the same argument. Your the one stuck in the loop darling

HAHAHAHAHA

i know you are, you said you are, but what am i?

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
i like how this did not relate to evil's post at all, or in anyway address her criticisms of your argument

Dude, read her post, she asked for a link.

Jesus.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
1. The age of consent was lowered
2. I dont know about that
3. They are allowed to adopt in WA and the ACT (ahh you can do anything in canberra )

if we are going by individual states, then the age of consent for nsw, nt and qld is higher for gays than for heteros

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
Dude, read her post, she asked for a link.

Jesus.

ummm...what about her comments on the the article? what about how she pointed out the article actually supports a gays right to marriage?

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
Haha so true, Neo, you should realise that you are not making sense... The issue has already been concluded as same-sex marriages being illegal and that being the source of discrimination.

If you do not understand I say you discontinue your participation in this discussion.

If you can't understand that by GIVING HOMOSEXUALS THE ABILITY TO MARRY we are GIVING homosexuals an additional right "I say you discontinue your participation in this discussion."