Gay marriage - what's it all about then?

[Joseph27]

Tas she is unmarried atheist former student radical - for her to claim she is against gay marriage is disingenuous and simply shows what lengths she will go to for political expediency.

Of course you will have all sorts of claims on gay marriage and how it is somehow against the natural order.... Mr Frothy Rick Santorum argues that gay marriage leads to bestiality.... others say it undermines our entire society.... Over 50% of hetro marriages end in divorce - let's face how many others are simply little more than codependent couples staying together because its too hard to leave - its hardly a sacred life time ritual. Regardless though - deliberately excluded gay couples is unacceptable and quite frankly those opposing it are on the same side of history as those who opposed every other civil liberty - there is always an argument to oppose what is right and fair and the same people are usually there holding their bible and warning of the dire consequences of doing the right thing.

I put liberal rants like these in the same bucket and conservative rants, like Bolt readers. There is no difference when people go off name calling and not cutting through the emotive crap to debate the issue.

I swear society is becoming more and more fanatical.

The only person I am name calling is Rick Santorum - a far right fundamentalist religious follower who has argued against abortion in the case of rape and who has linked gay marriage to bestiality. This isn't a person who represents moderation. Now here is the tough part - I run a business and am economically quite conservative - just a side note but it means I find myself constantly arguing. If I am arguing the merits of a particular law or regulation, I will happily debate through each step in a methodical manner however if I am talking about civil liberty then there are I believe certain rights are intrinsic.

Tas - the childless part is meaningless - I don't believe Julia Gillard is personally opposed to gay marriage based on her record as a student activist, a trade union lawyer and a fairly politician.

[avatarless]

Ah, well, as I started about the UK, then I can continue about the UK.
...
So they have those rights in the UK. So what is the big issue? Why are gay people (or activists) and the Coalition government attempting to make gay marriages legal. There are equivalent rights in the UK and surely that is the issue, not the terminology?

I guess you've answered your own question. The issue is to avoid the stigma of separate but equal. Language counts.

[Tas]

"Tas she is unmarried atheist former student radical - for her to claim she is against gay marriage is disingenuous and simply shows what lengths she will go to for political expediency.

Of course you will have all sorts of claims on gay marriage and how it is somehow against the natural order.... Mr Frothy Rick Santorum argues that gay marriage leads to bestiality.... others say it undermines our entire society.... Over 50% of hetro marriages end in divorce - let's face how many others are simply little more than codependent couples staying together because its too hard to leave - its hardly a sacred life time ritual. Regardless though - deliberately excluded gay couples is unacceptable and quite frankly those opposing it are on the same side of history as those who opposed every other civil liberty - there is always an argument to oppose what is right and fair and the same people are usually there holding their bible and warning of the dire consequences of doing the right thing"

I put liberal rants like these in the same bucket and conservative rants, like Bolt readers. There is no difference when people go off name calling and not cutting through the emotive crap to debate the issue.

I swear society is becoming more and more fanatical.

The only person I am name calling is Rick Santorum - a far right fundamentalist religious follower who has argued against abortion in the case of rape and who has linked gay marriage to bestiality. This isn't a person who represents moderation. Now here is the tough part - I run a business and am economically quite conservative - just a side note but it means I find myself constantly arguing. If I am arguing the merits of a particular law or regulation, I will happily debate through each step in a methodical manner however if I am talking about civil liberty then there are I believe certain rights are intrinsic.

Tas - the childless part is meaningless - I don't believe Julia Gillard is personally opposed to gay marriage based on her record as a student activist, a trade union lawyer and a fairly politician.

But why on earth are the point unmarried or an atheist got anything to do with the price of green eggs in China either, I'd perhaps like to suggest these points too are meaningless.

[Kooky]

Well she lives with a male hairdresser and we all know he must be gay, right?

[Joseph27]

The link between unmarried, atheist and former student is to paint a picture of a person who would not otherwise be morally opposed to same sex marriage. Being childless has nothing to do with that hence I don't bring it up.

[Possum]

Can I enter a civil partnership with a person of the opposite-sex or would we have to marry?

[baloo]

In Australia would would already be considered in a common-law union. Singapore doesn't recognise it though. You need to be married here.

[Tas]

The link between unmarried, atheist and former student is to paint a picture of a person who would not otherwise be morally opposed to same sex marriage. Being childless has nothing to do with that hence I don't bring it up.

that is a projected view and terrible stereostype to link unmarried and athiest, and frig half the world is a former student. And radical is open to interpretation, personally the liberal student body types are the most frightening rabid types to come across, yet they are not labelled radical.

[baloo]

Even if J27's rants and assertions are correct, she's a lot older now. People's views, beliefs and values change with age, maturity and experiences.

[Pinklepurr]

Nobody has mentioned in all of this that perhaps gay couples just want to get married because they love each other and want to commit to each other by getting married. Doesn't have to be religious or political or anything else. It is sad that they can't do this simple thing without all the hoohah.

[Kooky]

Nobody has mentioned in all of this that perhaps gay couples just want to get married because they love each other and want to commit to each other by getting married. Doesn't have to be religious or political or anything else. It is sad that they can't do this simple thing without all the hoohah.

I agree, but thought that was implicit in my first response

[Fat Bob]

Can I enter a civil partnership with a person of the opposite-sex or would we have to marry?

In the UK you would have to marry a person of the opposite sex whilst have a civil partnership with those of the same sex.

[Fat Bob]

Nobody has mentioned in all of this that perhaps gay couples just want to get married because they love each other and want to commit to each other by getting married. Doesn't have to be religious or political or anything else. It is sad that they can't do this simple thing without all the hoohah.

In the UK they can have a civil partnership which has all the same rights as a marriage.

[Pinklepurr]

Perhaps it does FB, but maybe it doesn't mean the same thing to them. Just sayin'

[Joseph27]

Unmarried implies that she is not tied to traditional relationship notions - being an atheist reinforces that to an extent. If someone is a devout Muslim then I don't expect that they will ever welcome same sex marriage nor would a strict christian in most cases, I wouldn't for a minute expect a religious person to accept same sex marriage but this isn't about what religion says is acceptable... it's about having a modern civilized society bestow the same rights onto both same sex and male female couples. That isn't asking too much for the state to recognize that a loving couple can enter into a marriage that is lawful and provides the same legal framework. Hell maybe far right american christians are on the money and gays will burn in hell for all eternity and thats no problem but the state should recognise their rights in this realm.

Tas - must say years ago I was one of those liberal radicals... and a lot of my politics is still driven by an appreciation of supporting small business... they werent that bad then but lack the inspired rhetoric of their leftist counterparts

[Joseph27]

So Obama has come out in support of same sex marriage - I can't see anyway it really helps his reelection campaign - in fact in the key swing states, it may end up hurting him so hats off to Mr POTUS for taking the moral high ground.... bad luck the Aussie PM lacks that sense of integrity or honestly.

[slinky]

I agree he took somewhat of a risk to come out and say he supports it, so, yes, he gets some credit for that. However, he does apparently need some help with his own base and this certainly could help that, so I'm not thinking he's totally on any moral high ground here (and I'm fully willing to admit I'm a cynic knowing full well he's up for re-election in Nov). Plus, while he did say he supports gay marriage he also went on to say 'but it should remain up to the individual states to decide.' So, basically, he's not going to get out there and lead the charge for the cause or anything. I just don't see a lot of grand meaning or altruism behind this to be honest.

[Morrolan]

Obama was forced to come out (see what i did there?) because Biden did. this forced his hand, no high ground involved...

[Morrolan]

i think it's much more interesting that Romney is now outed as having been a gay basher in his youth...

[slinky]

i think it's much more interesting that Romney is now outed as having been a gay basherin his youth...

This happened in 1965! Now I'm not saying it was right, but if I have to be honest, I know I did a few things I wish I hadn't when I was a teenager - didn't we all?? This is precisely the kind of garbage I loathe about what US elections have become. Dig up all sorts of ancient history and see if you can find something you can make stick All any of it tells me is, yet again, I have no real decent choice in another election, ffs

[Lili Von Shtupp]

mystery solved

[slinky]

Lili

[Morrolan]

i think it's much more interesting that Romney is now outed as having been a gay basherin his youth...

This happened in 1965! Now I'm not saying it was right, but if I have to be honest, I know I did a few things I wish I hadn't when I was a teenager - didn't we all?? This is precisely the kind of garbage I loathe about what US elections have become. Dig up all sorts of ancient history and see if you can find something you can make stick All any of it tells me is, yet again, I have no real decent choice in another election, ffs

no, it does not make it right, and i don't know about you, but i didn't get involved in gay bashing when i was young, thank you very much.

this says quite a fair bit about the general character of the man: he's a bully. a bully aiming to become the president of arguably still our most powerful nation. i don't care when it happened, but that makes it very relevant. once a bully, always a bully.

[Morrolan]

mystery solved

brilliant!

[slinky]

no, it does not make it right, and i don't know about you, but i didn't get involved in gay bashing when i was young, thank you very much.

this says quite a fair bit about the general character of the man: he's a bully. a bully aiming to become the president of arguably still our most powerful nation. i don't care when it happened, but that makes it very relevant. once a bully, always a bully.

I didn't say anything about it being right, M. And, no, I wasn't involved in gay bashing either as a teenager (obviously). I guess my main point was the level of mud-slinging that has apparently become the norm in elections. Frankly, I don't think either of them are all that great and I'm tired of having to try and pick the lesser of 2 poor choices.