Closed Thread
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 108
  1. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    25
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    5
    Reviews
    0
    An interesting debate which I'm sure no doubt will decend into oneuping and the time honoured tradition of rejecting other's opinions based on fear and misunderstanding

    My WIFE to be and are expecting our first child in Feb and we have all but accepted the fact that we might end up being perpetually engaged because the country that we both been born and raised in is unable to extend to us the same basic human rights as our heterosexual peers. We have the same rules imposed on us in every aspect of our lives together as a married couple would, yet we are unable to say we are married or even able to plan for a time when we will be married. And don't get me started on the unions...

    I would much rather be able to say "we got married" as oposed to "we got unionised". A civil union or a civil partnership or whatever you want to call it doesn't exactly conjure up images of white dresses and cake toppers... more likely of boardrooms and binding contracts. A marriage is not a business trasnaction and a gay marriage does not deviate from any of the characteristics of a heterosexual marriage so why is there a need to call it something different?

    As for the polygamy debate - open relationships aren't illegal. A man or woman can be married and have as many mistresses or boyfriends as they like, wouldn't it be better if it was all done above the board and out in the open? Who cares.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to alwaysinthekitchen For This Useful Post:

    Benji  (12-12-2011),misskittyfantastico  (13-12-2011),rainbowchild  (12-12-2011)

  3. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,311
    Thanks
    2,387
    Thanked
    4,599
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    DL - I'm sure you saw Abbott's comments today about the Shadow Cabinet endorsing the Coalition's existing position on same sex marriage and no conscience vote.

    Interesting times ahead!

  4. #73
    DaddyLarge's Avatar
    DaddyLarge is offline I put on my robe and wizard hat...
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    865
    Thanks
    485
    Thanked
    1,165
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Yep. Abbott isn't particularly popular within the party room, but it's no secret that they'll be able to ride the News Ltd wave into power at the next election. They won't risk losing that golden ticket by dumping Abbott.

    And Abbott won't tolerate being leader of a party that doesn't oppose gay marriage to the death. So they (and we) are stuck.

  5. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,311
    Thanks
    2,387
    Thanked
    4,599
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    It's the little old ladies of the party that ensured Abbott became leader - and to be fair to him he did knock off Rudd - but MPs are going to have to spend the recess very seriously thinking about the electorate's mood on the issue and they'll bring that back to the Party Room in the new year.

    He's more popular than Turnbull was as leader in the party room, but that is largely because Abbott has a lot more experience in dealing with them.

  6. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    .

    Lucy, you can believe what you want. Are you a Christian? If not, you probably aren't in the best position to speak on their behalf.
    Father, are you a homosexual? Just wondering, since you wish to make such a huge decision on THEIR behalf.

  7. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    Ana Gram  (13-12-2011),Deserama  (17-12-2011),Hootenanny  (13-12-2011),misskittyfantastico  (13-12-2011),NancyBlackett  (13-12-2011),rainbow road  (13-12-2011)

  8. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Sorry for not replying to everyones questions directed at me. They are pretty much all the same. My generic response will be - "this is how I feel, and I am entitled to such an opinion". The perils of a free society I guess.
    So if I was of the opinion that black people/old people/people with physical disabilities should not be allowed to marry, you'd be ok with that because I'm "entitled to such an opinion", right? Even though it is blatant discrimination against a group? Even though having a law preventing marriage for anyone in these categories would be a clear breach of human rights? Father I'm sorry but this is not a matter of opinion, it's not acceptable by world standards to deny access to marriage to anyone based on gender or sexuality. To stick to the letter of the wording in our constitution we would also have to ban divorce and criminalise infidelity (consensual or not). Why are you so hung up on the "male and female" part when the other two requirements in our constitution's outdated definition are clearly and legally bypassed?

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    Ana Gram  (13-12-2011),msbreeze  (13-12-2011)

  10. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    So if I was of the opinion that black people/old people/people with physical disabilities should not be allowed to marry, you'd be ok with that because I'm "entitled to such an opinion", right? Even though it is blatant discrimination against a group? Even though having a law preventing marriage for anyone in these categories would be a clear breach of human rights? Father I'm sorry but this is not a matter of opinion, it's not acceptable by world standards to deny access to marriage to anyone based on gender or sexuality. To stick to the letter of the wording in our constitution we would also have to ban divorce and criminalise infidelity (consensual or not). Why are you so hung up on the "male and female" part when the other two requirements in our constitution's outdated definition are clearly and legally bypassed?
    To answer your first question - No I am not a homosexual.
    And no, I am not making a decision on their behalf. There is no decision to be made, as it is not legal. Nor do I have the power to make such a decision. The only thing I can do is vote for a party with a policy that I agree with. And I would hope that that party would then adhere to the policy that I had voted for.

    To the post above:
    Yes, you are entitled to that opinion. Of course you are. It is not discrimination to have an opinion. It may be controversial, but not necessarily discrimination. It shows how dangerous the current system has become, where people can't make a comment without people throwing out the 'discrimination', 'homophobia', or 'racist' card.
    Am I being discriminatory against the young by saying that 17 year olds should not be allowed to get married? Is this in breach of their 'human rights'?

    Which leads me onto the 'human rights' card. Is marriage a human right? Really? I have had a bit of look at some human rights websites, and the 'right to marry' really isn't a player. If it is a human right then why can't 5 year olds get married. Wouldn't stopping them getting married by your definition be against their 'human rights' too? You are a human at 7 years of age afterall. Can you name another 'human right' that is not applicable to a 7 year old?

    In regard to criminalising infidelity and divorce, I would be happy with that. I think marriage has lost some of it's meaning in recent decades. It used to be 'till death do us part', but this doesn't seem the case anymore. And I am very much against infidelity, that I would not have a problem if that was illegal - because in my eyes, it is. So I am not just 'hung up on' the male and female part only.

    This aside, I have no problem with what people do behind closed doors (provided it is legal), I just don't think that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it was originally intended for.

  11. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Riiiiight.. there. Where I'm pointing. See it?
    Posts
    5,304
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked
    356
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post

    In regard to criminalising infidelity and divorce, I would be happy with that. I think marriage has lost some of it's meaning in recent decades. It used to be 'till death do us part', but this doesn't seem the case anymore. And I am very much against infidelity, that I would not have a problem if that was illegal - because in my eyes, it is. So I am not just 'hung up on' the male and female part only.

    This aside, I have no problem with what people do behind closed doors (provided it is legal), I just don't think that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it was originally intended for.
    and you know marriage went down that slope with straight people getting married. gay people marrying is hardly going to make it any worse. marriage was designed to legally bind people who love each other together. i don't get how that changes if gay people get married?

  12. #79
    Opinionated's Avatar
    Opinionated is offline Winner 2009 - Best Avatar
    You know you love me.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Leeee View Post
    marriage was designed to legally bind people who love each other together.
    I don't believe that. Marriage is about the transferance of property, ownership and children. That's why most marriages were originally arranged. The love part is secondary.

    What I don't understand is why it is a big deal to anyone if gay people are allowed to have civil marriages. What will it change for anyone else except the people involved? I just don't understand what people are scared of. What do you think will happen if gay people marry? It would be a boon to the economy, imagine all those gay weddings. Earlier this year I flew to the other side of the world to attend the wedding of Australian citizen to his partner. How ridiculous that he couldn't get married here at home. It was probably the most touching wedding I have ever attended.

    Equal rights for all Australians.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Opinionated For This Useful Post:

    Witwicky  (13-12-2011)

  14. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Father, are you a homosexual? Just wondering, since you wish to make such a huge decision on THEIR behalf.
    Best reply ever.
    It amazes me that people feel that they are justified in making decisions for others, don't like it? Don't do it.
    People who are gay don't need to be treated like naughty children who need your guidance and control exerted over them, this change is going to happen, it's just a matter of when. And I will cheer and cry and be grateful that I don't live in a world where I can be married because I am 'straight'.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Hootenanny For This Useful Post:

    Alexander Beetle  (13-12-2011)


 
Closed Thread
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 151
    Last Post: 30-11-2012, 22:17
  2. Do you agree with the government funding of non-government schools?
    By mej210390 in forum Preschools and Schools
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 18-06-2012, 19:49
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-04-2012, 14:01

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Bamboo Lulu
Unique, non-toxic wooden eco toys for babies. Water-based paints, saliva-resistant & baby safe. Super soft, prints & basics for baby, made from bamboo & organic cotton. Hypoallergenic - great for eczema relief. FREE gift with purchase. Code BUBHUB
sales & new stuffsee all
CarmelsBeautySecrets
Growing your own natural nails is easy. Years ago, I devised a simple and very effective technique which really helps boosts the nails' growth in as little as three days! And most importantly keeps them that way.
featured supporter
KindyROO
KindyROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. Classes are available at three Brisbane and two Gold Coast locations. Enrol today & help your child to reach their full potential. Visit the website to find out more.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!