Stedders' Supported XI
Tamim Iqbal, DA Warner, CA Lynn, *MEK Hussey, Shakib Al Hasan, JP Faulkner, +Mushfiqur Rahim, AC Agar, Mashrafe Mortaza, Taskin Ahmed, JP Behrendorff.
RIP Fardin. RIP Craigos. RIP Prince.
Have always been a supporter of civil unions but as time passes my the view against marriage has becomes weaker. Always felt, even thought not religious, that marriage was between a man and a woman, and also was aware from studies of mathematical logic, such a debate is not solved by reason alone (e.g. postmodernism for the humanties type) the main thing tipping the balance for is the harm principle, it doesn't really do anything to harm me. The main shift in opinon due to becoming more aware that the 'equality in financial' terms via legislation is only one aspect of the issue.
There really seems to be a disconnect for family friends who are gay can only really announce there sexuality dependent on their career. For example, one academic and an artist lead a life as openly gay, yet a doctor and teacher still don't feel comfortable, or don't feel it's necessary for their employers to know as parents and patients will become concerned. This type of problem doesn't really get solved by a legal loophole, and pigeon holes people into certain sectors of society where it is ok or not so a shift in the legislation could aide this process.
Attitudes will change over time and I think that even if viewed as mearly sybolism to some, the step towards giving equal recognition will lead to greater freedoms than just a piece of paper and lead to a more accepting community for future generations. As SS has made the point on, things like interacial marriage are generally accepted as the norm as we grew up in a time when it was accepted. I doubt current conservatives who claim they would have supported the issue then really would have, it's in conflict with their value system which requires constant challenge (but also provides a useful handbreak at times against the loopy left and crazy right).
Last edited by Redbacks; 06-03-2011 at 08:17 PM.
I'm supportive in principle of gays getting married. However I'm not supportive of gay adoption/surrogacy (which I know is legal in some states). I'm not yet convinced that gay couples being able to raise a child is a healthy situation. Call me bigoted or homophobic if you will, but I just think more research needs to be done into the impact that being raised by a same sex couple will have on the psychological development of a child. It's highly likely that they'd find there's less of an effect than that on kids raised by a single parent, but I still think it's something which should be examined. I wouldn't want to potentially put equality ahead of the health of a kid.
Gays can call it marriage when we get a street festival for being straight that closes down the CBD...and it must be called Mardi-Gras as well...equality etc.
post in jest.
Avatar now by choice. 5-0 in the Ashes and all.
'Copperfield,' said Mr. Micawber, 'farewell! Every happiness and prosperity! If, in the progress of revolving years, I could persuade myself that my blighted destiny had been a warning to you, I should feel that I had not occupied another man's place in existence altogether in vain.
- Wilkins Micawber
Jesus brings life eternal
remembering the life of Phillip 'The Prince' Hughes
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
Never really had strong feelings on this, but turning my mind to it, I always start from the general principle that if you're doing no harm, then you should be free to do whatever you like. On that basis, I don't have a problem with it. If two people love each other....etc etc
- Winner of the 2011 and 2012 CricketWeb AFL tipping competition
- Winner of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 CricketWeb NRL tipping competition
Reproduction in same sex couples: quality of paren... [Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005] - PubMed result
More research is always good but if you're going to deny some kid a loving home and keep him in an orphanage instead, it seems to me that the onus should be on the people who think it's dangerous, especially as what literature there is, shows pretty quickly that no harm is done to the child.
I can't believe some people would rather have kids grow up 'in the system' than in a loving home with parents who have a stable income and can provide for that child. It just boggles the mind, personally.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)