Gay marriage views?

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by SirBloody Idiot

But surely it's enough that people would inevitably call it "gay marriage" just like once upon a time they called it a "mixed marriage" or an "inter-racial marriage".

And it will change too, eventually, when people's values change.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

We are talking about legal codification not what people talk about casually. If a white man was defined as a 'man' and the black man was defined as something else, you bet there'd be a crazy outrage even if you used the argument that "well its just to differentiate, it doesn't mean any bias.". If you just want to differentiate, why not just call it same sex marriage like we refer to interracial marriage in a casual conversation. The law doesn't have to create that distinction.

In that sense - terms used in legal codification - I would agree with you.

[James90]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Why is it a fundamental difference, though? It's a legally recognised partnership between two consenting adults, for which they receieve a variety of tax benefits, easier access to their partner's property after death, a right to a split of mutually owned items if the marriage splits, and so on. That partnership is called marriage. Assuming that any sort of argument about the supposed inferiority of homosexual relationships is thrown out the window, how is it different just because it involves a gay couple?

It's a relatively meaningless debate when it comes down to it, but FWIW, "separate but equal" is not equal. If two consenting adults can recieve acknowledgement of their relationship by the state and that acknowledgement is called marriage, that's what it's called. There's no reason gay couples need a different name for it.

Incidentally I don't think the state should be involved in marriage in any way at all. If the church wants to have a ceremony and only let straight couples or people with blonde hair or people named Julio or whatever participate and they call it marriage, that's their business. Once the state is involved, you offer every couple the same title for their married state, as well as the same legal rights, or it's discrimination.

Was going to weigh in on this debate but Fuller has summed it up perfectly.

[Redbacks]

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).

[iamdavid]

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.

[ripper868]

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.

[Mr Casson]

Originally Posted by ripper868

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.

We can talk about this after you find enough straight people in Sydney to make it happen.

[Nnanden]

In.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by iamdavid

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.

Why? That's a terrible generalisation, to say people being raised by single parents have impaired psychological development. You can't say that, not one bit. It's beyond belief you'd make that generalisation, frankly.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Nnanden

In.

Out.

[Nnanden]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Out.

Turning me on Mr Burge.

[Burgey]

In.

[howardj]

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

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by iamdavid

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.

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.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by iamdavid

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.

dwta

[iamdavid]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Why? That's a terrible generalisation, to say people being raised by single parents have impaired psychological development. You can't say that, not one bit. It's beyond belief you'd make that generalisation, frankly.

Should've given alot more consideration to how I worded that, was not meaning to infer that being raised by a single parent necessarily hinders psychological development. Just using the single parent scenario for the sake of comparison as it's another scenario which may not be ideal from a child-raising point of view, and research may well suggest that being raised by gays presents no more of an issue than the single parent scenario which is very common and has widespread acceptance. But I still feel it (children being raised by same-sex couples) is something which should be looked at in more detail.