Civil Unions disallowed in ACT

Pages

AuthorTopic: Civil Unions disallowed in ACT
Shaper
Member # 5450
Profile Homepage #75
Dammit. A long way behind.

quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

Wow, I wouldn't have expected this from Australia.
Yeah well, John Howard is a dick.

--------------------
I'll put a Spring in your step.
:ph34r:
Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #76
quote:
Originally written by PoD person:

Gays and the other backers of gay marriage would like to use the government to pass a law in contradiction to that precept. In my opinion, this amounts to a symbolic statement of "#$%^ you, your institution is backwards and immoral." Of course, the religious counterpart of prohibiting gay marriage also amounts to "#$%^ you, your way of life is disgusting and immoral." In my opinion, government should not be used to say "#$%^ you" to anyone, no matter how much those damn fundies or those damn gays need a(n) "#$%^ you..."
The only trouble is, religious conservatives have been using the government for purposes of saying "#$%^ you, your way of life is disgusting and immoral," when in theory, religions should have no constitutional feet to stand on.

Perhaps fear and hate are strong, but it evokes a visceral response from me because these homosexuals are hurting no one. Nevertheless, these fundy religious groups are treating the word "marriage" proprietarily, essentially making it the water fountain for "whites only" from the pre-civil rights era; an ugly image, to be certain.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 15:34: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #77
Personally? Because I consider marriage to be something holy, and I consider homosexuality to be something unholy, and I consider combining the two to be a desecration of the former.

My political opinions on the matter are fairly similar to yours, in fact. I think the government should keep its hands well away from marriage in any form. In terms of tax benefits or other legal benefits, they should apply to anyone living together in a domestic partnership, regardless of what their relationship is - carer and dependent, brother and sister, sexual partners, whatever.

EDIT: Damn. I'm slow.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 15:41: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #78
Alright, I apologize for the blanket assertion - I hereby qualify it by inserting "for purposes of legal recognition."

As for polygamy, I don't necessarily disprove of it, provided that it doesn't limit the rights of women in any way.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #79
Since I am posting in this thread, I guess I should state my own opinion on the issue itself:

The whole issue is just a tool used by conservative and liberal extrimists to rally their bases. A very effective way to get your supporters to the polls is "OMG we are turning into Sodom!!!" / "OMG they are going to stone all homosexuals!!!"

Marriage is a very charged word, because it has always been a religious ceremony, so the best compromise is to just make a separate legal status for all people living in the same household. (For example, I find it pretty rediculous that health insurance can be extended to girlfriends, but not to parents.) The government is in the business of regulating financial matters, not religious matters, so it should be defining the term "domestic partnership", rather than "marriage".

EDIT: As for religious definition of marriage, whether that definition includes homosexuality depends largely on how closely the movement follows the Bible. The prohibition against homosexual relations is listed in the same place as prohibition against incest, definition of dietary laws, and other ceremonial, and mundane regulations. So the movements that don't really care about laws of Deutoronomy have much fewer problems with recognizing gay marriage than movements that derive their rules from the Torah. (It's hard to talk your way around a direct prohibition.)

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 16:05: Message edited by: Zeviz ]

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #80
EDIT: Zeviz, well said and agreed.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Does this look like a court of law to you? Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a moral one.
I think the principle that it's extremely rude to presume the worst of someone in the absence of evidence either way holds true in everyday life.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 15:59: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #81
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

I think the principle that it's extremely rude to presume the worst of someone in the absence of evidence either way holds true in everyday life.
That's not quite the same thing, though. "Absence of evidence" and "absence of proof" are miles apart.

Still, I don't disagree with you in this situation. One should be careful when generalizing, especially when making very broad generalizations.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
Profile #82
Man... A huge, country-spanning argument over one measly word.

That said, I agree with basically everyone here. All marriages should be "civil unions". Then the church can grant "marriage status" to whoever it likes, and everyone's happy.

--------------------
But I don't want to ride the elevator.
Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00
BANNED
Member # 7248
Profile #83
It sounds like everyone agrees. Except for Infernal, but everyone else agrees about Infernal.

You people are kooky. Some of you, very kooky.

--------------------
EDIT except for my sig.!
Posts: 30 | Registered: Wednesday, June 21 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #84
I'm getting into this debate a bit late, but Alan Dershowitz had a well reasoned view on the subject last year (op ed piece). Marraige and civil unions should be separate. Marraige would be a strictly religious action define by each religion for its members. Civl union would be the legal action for domestic partners defined by the government to handle inheritance, responsibility for making decisions for an incapacitated domestic partner, etc.

This way homosexuals could get the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples over property, insurance, and making decisions that are covered by law. Their union would not be a religious marriage as defined by church. The government's intrusion into legalizing marriage is relatively recent in law and could be separated with a little effort.

There is already a legal precedent working through the courts for divorce between homosexuals.

The Catholic church makes marraige permanent unless you get an annulment. Which is hard unless you're a Kennedy, Nicole Kidman, Madonna, etc.

Judaism has its own legal marriage contract and a long legal history of precedents for marriage and divorce.

Islam has its own rules for marriage and divorce is relatively easy for men. In Iran instead of prostitution there are quicky marriages for an hour or two followed by a divorce for a fixed monetary settlement.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 19:26: Message edited by: Randomizer ]
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #85
quote:
Originally written by Ghost of Starman:

It sounds like everyone agrees. Except for Infernal, but everyone else agrees about Infernal.
This is quite odd... a political debate on Spidweb that reached page 4 without bloodshed of flamewars. With religion brought in to the debate, no less.

I believe this is a day that will live in infamy.

(cue the bloodshed and flamewars)

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 7171
Profile #86
quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

Replace "gay marriage" with "polygamy" in the above post and the reasoning still holds. However, for some reason I don't see opponents of polygamy being called "hate-filled fanatics".
Gay marriage is not inherently exploitative.

quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

EDIT: As for religious definition of marriage, whether that definition includes homosexuality depends largely on how closely the movement follows the Bible.
Judaism is not the only religion.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 19:35: Message edited by: Maimonides ]
Posts: 66 | Registered: Sunday, May 28 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #87
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Personally? Because I consider marriage to be something holy, and I consider homosexuality to be something unholy, and I consider combining the two to be a desecration of the former.
Correction: Opponents of gay "marriage" are motivated by fear, hate, disdain, or despite. Then again, that pretty much covers the reasons to oppose everything. Gay marriage opposition has less non-religious logical underpinning, but logic and politics aren't usually on speaking terms.

—Alorael, who has no objection to polygamy (that would include both polygyny and polyandry and ratios with a non-one numerator) besides the fact that he doesn't know any cases that work well. This is no doubt due to the combined effects of general censure of polygamy and the fact that human evolution seems to have picked monogamy.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #88
quote:
Replace "gay marriage" with "polygamy" in the above post and the reasoning still holds. However, for some reason I don't see opponents of polygamy being called "hate-filled fanatics".
Well, I think part of it is that homosexuality is a biological thing, something, by and large, that cannot be changed about a person. Perhaps not as immutable as "race" (the term is biologically suspect), but nonetheless a characteristic.

Polygamy, on the other hand, is more of a lifestyle choice than a genetic predisposition. That's where the difference is, I feel.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #89
Ash - The reason I asked "why?" was because you felt there was a need to discuss this bit of Australian political agenda. The concept of marriage has become highly charged as of late, with various governments deliberately using that term instead of civil union. I saw no net gain in entering the discussion, and the trollage was imminent. It looks like a lot of folks had fun though, even though non-Australians have a very hard time absorbing enough Australian politics to understand the ramifications of the decision.

You were asking because it was Australian politics, right? I would hate to think that you were putting forward another religiously motivated debate thread. Those get old, fast.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #90
quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

Replace "gay marriage" with "polygamy" in the above post and the reasoning still holds. However, for some reason I don't see opponents of polygamy being called "hate-filled fanatics".
嫌気

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Master
Member # 5977
Profile Homepage #91
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Tell me: Where does the idea of marriage come from if not religion?
Sigh... here we go.

It's an evolutionary benefit from way back when some sort of mate-bonding system was the best was to raise the kids and keep them alive. Really, it's not quite as essential as it used to be, but that's most likely where it came from.

I wanted to add to this, that humans are not the only ones who marry with eachother. There are some animals which do the same .Okay, they are not registered at the nearest tree-trunc, but they stay together for eternity: literally, until death seperates them. Its, as Ephesos said, a purely biological thing to do in the benefit of the species. With a nice word they call this: improving your own "fitness," fitness meaning, in this context, making the chances greater that your own genes are preserved. That is something we all want, no?

Sorry again for replying to old posts, but this topic goed so fast!

--------------------
Play and rate my scenarios:

Where the rivers meet
View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape.

Give us your drek!
Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 6908
Profile #92
Oh, I'm so late! Seems like I don't need to explain what I meant under "fully functional element of society", since I'll have to quote from almost all Drew's and Ash's posts.
However, I can give my two cents in everybody's agreements over here. In my opinion, state law shouldn't influence or make some pressure on society in case of "marriage". But speaking about "civil unions" I think government should follow the way "democracy" leads. I failed to think over the following paradox:
- a lot of people don't want to see same-sex civil unions in law
- they don't have a proper argument, they just find it terrible/fearful/disgusting
- gay look forward to see the legislation of their civil unions.
So making the law, legalising same-sex civil union will fulfil the democratic principles for the third. But people from the first part will never agree with that, no matter what motives they have. Since I think such is the bigger part of society, this may lead to some harrowing results in society. I may be wrong, however, speaking about "the bigger part". Anyway from the point of view of government, they need to protect the traditional civil unions, since, I think, it is a part of much more complicated task of protection of nation.
I also have a question. Are there many churches in US or Australia which agree to marry gays? Here in my city we have a fact of disassembling the whole church to the last log in the wall and to the last brick in foundation. That was made by the order of patriarch after he was informed of a fact of a gay marriage. The church then was rebuilt and its stuff replaced. Is such event availabló only in orthodox churches?

-----------------------------------------------
The voices have lost the topic's idea long before the end of this thread. The only thing they tell me is that union of religion and state is not only dangerous for "heretics" of that religion, but for any citizen, since the taxes for the church can be endless, all under cover of "for HIS sake". I think such times have passed long ago.

--------------------
9 masks sing in a choir:
Gnome Dwarf Slith
Giant Troll Troglo
Human Nephil Vahnatai
"If the mask under mask to SE of mask to the left of mask and to the right of me is the mask below the mask to the right of mask to the right of mask below me is the same, then who am I?"

radix: +2 nicothodes: +1 salmon:+1
Posts: 203 | Registered: Tuesday, March 14 2006 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
Profile #93
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

As for the suggestion raised here that the government stop granting "marriage" licenses and start granting legal statuses that are equivalent but called something else, I agree, but I worry about how to convince the American people that this is a good idea. How could one sell this solution?
Those who are worried that only religious marriages would be officially called marriages would probably want a religious marriage anyway.
Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6489
Profile Homepage #94
quote:
Originally written by *i:

Homosexuality is a biological thing, something, by and large, that cannot be changed about a person. Perhaps not as immutable as "race" (the term is biologically suspect), but nonetheless a characteristic.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, using that argument never works because most conservative religious groups will not admit this.

--------------------
"You're drinking liquor because you're thirsty? How nasty is your freaking water?" —Lazarus
Spiderweb Chat Room
Avernum RPSummariesOoCRoster
Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things.
Posts: 1556 | Registered: Sunday, November 20 2005 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
Profile #95
YOu know, in honor of Slarty leaving I should take an unyeilding position and argue ad nauseum on that point.

"God is love, God is acceptance. The end."

Depends on which God you are referring to. IF it is the Christian God, you couldn't be more wrong. Facets of God include judgement and rejection - Hell is eternal separation from God.

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #96
quote:
Originally written by Hurling Frootmig:

I failed to think over the following paradox:
- a lot of people don't want to see same-sex civil unions in law
- they don't have a proper argument, they just find it terrible/fearful/disgusting
- gay look forward to see the legislation of their civil unions.
So making the law, legalising same-sex civil union will fulfil the democratic principles for the third. But people from the first part will never agree with that, no matter what motives they have. Since I think such is the bigger part of society, this may lead to some harrowing results in society.

The way I get around this problem is that I say that the right to have a family is a basic human right, and human rights supercede the opinion of the majority. I don't care if the majority of people want slavery or not; it's still a basic human right to be free, so the opinion of the majority hardly matters. Human rights transcend the will of the masses.

That said, it's still kind of hard to get legislation across that most people disagree with, which is why I think about how to communicate the right idea to people effectively.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #97
quote:
Originally written by Mc 'mini' Thralni:

humans are not the only ones who marry with eachother. There are some animals which do the same .Okay, they are not registered at the nearest tree-trunc, but they stay together for eternity: literally, until death seperates them. Its, as Ephesos said, a purely biological thing to do in the benefit of the species. With a nice word they call this: improving your own "fitness," fitness meaning, in this context, making the chances greater that your own genes are preserved. That is something we all want, no?[/QB]
Groan... sometimes I hate my brain. I'm reminded of an argument-derailing point here... not all species that follow a general mating pattern go monogamous.

Bonobos, anyone? They have sex with just about anyone in their group, for just about any reason. They're about as far from monogamous as primates get. This has been attributed to their generally matriarchal social setup, but it could be anything, really. But either way, their species survives just fine. I'm not really sure what this means for the argument at hand, but it's out there, and they're rather closely related to us.

Next point:

quote:
Originally written by Hurling Frootmig:

I also have a question. Are there many churches in US or Australia which agree to marry gays? Here in my city we have a fact of disassembling the whole church to the last log in the wall and to the last brick in foundation. That was made by the order of patriarch after he was informed of a fact of a gay marriage. The church then was rebuilt and its stuff replaced. Is such event availabló only in orthodox churches?
Well, not completely related, but the Episcopal Church in the U.S. has recently refused to stop electing gay bishops. They're kind of apologizing to the rest of the Anglican church, but not for the elections themselves. Just for the outrage that it caused from sources outside the American branch. Here's a link to the same story on NPR.

So, if anyone in the U.S. is going to allow gay "marriages" in the religious sense, the Episcopalians will be among the first (if they don't already... I can't remember). I can't help but feel proud of my former denomination. :D

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
La Canaliste
Member # 5563
Profile #98
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

In terms of tax benefits or other legal benefits, they should apply to anyone living together in a domestic partnership, regardless of what their relationship is - carer and dependent, brother and sister, sexual partners, whatever.

I agree totally. Restricting the availability of civil partnerships to one particular type of relationship created a kind of parody marriage.

--------------------
I am a mater of time and how .

Deep down, you know you should have voted for Alcritas!
Posts: 387 | Registered: Tuesday, March 1 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #99
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

So, if anyone in the U.S. is going to allow gay "marriages" in the religious sense, the Episcopalians will be among the first (if they don't already... I can't remember). I can't help but feel proud of my former denomination. :D
Among the first, yes. The Quakers have inconsistently allowed gay marriage for quite some time now, though.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages