Tuesday, 06 December 2011
-
Australia's Fight for Same-Sex Marriage
I'm not really too clear on Australian politics, but I understood enough to get the gist of what's going on in Australia right now. A couple of days ago, there was a huge conscience vote to support same-sex marriage across the nation. The vote swung, for the first time, away from a long-time opposition to same-sex marriage.In my understanding, what this means is that same-sex marriage isn't yet completely legalized. There are some states in Australia that do already grant the right and some that also allow civil unions. If and when Australia as a whole legalizes same-sex marriage, it will be an enormous win for the LGBTQ community around the globe.
Perhaps Australia will soon join countries like The Netherlands (the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage back in 2001). Other countries that recognize same-sex marriage are Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, and Argentina. In the U.S., only 6 out of 50 states (not including DC, which does recognize) have legalized same-sex marriage. If you support it and you don't live in DC, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Vermont, or New Hampshire, do what you can to help the LGBTQ community in your state.
It isn't a secret that same-sex marriage is an enormously popular topic of discussion around the world. It is, apparently, a secret that people in same-sex relationships are just as likely (if not more likely) to pursue long and happy relationships and families.
If you support it, let yourself be heard. If you don't, perhaps it's time you recognize that legalizing same-sex marriage has no direct effect on you. Just because the legal drinking age in the US is 21 doesn't mean that everyone over the age of 21 has to consume alcohol. Think about it.
Do you support same-sex marriage? What will you do to help the LGBTQ community? Do you think Australia will soon legalize as a nation?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to datingish's Datingish Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in datingish's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: TheDailyDane
- About Me: I'm Dane and I'm 21. Follow me on Twitter @danefeldman. I am a huge supporter of long-term relationships. What's the fun in knowing something will end in a week? Stick around for some long-term bloggin'.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 88 Views: 0 295248 Comments: 0 2688 View all posts by TheDailyDane
Comments (146)
Same sex marriage isn't about same sex marriage. It's about destroying the definition of marriage.
Male-female marriage is a standard that is in harmony with natural sexuality, procreation and complementarity.
If marriage becomes a matter of sexual preference than anyone with any sexual preference whatsoever will be eligible for marriage. There is nothing about homosexuality that makes it the preferred sexual preference.
Consenting brothers, consenting brothers and sisters, consenting sisters, consenting mothers and sons, consenting fathers and daughters, consenting families and extended families will all be eligible for marriage based on all the arguments that homosexuals make for why they deserve to be married.
Also, public school children in California, USA are now obligated to study gay/lesbian, bisexual and transgendered historical figures. Again, when did sexual preference ever have anything to do with inventing the light bulb or going to the Moon?
Gay rights is an assault on all rights because authentic human rights are based on our human nature which is equal among men regardless of sexual preference.
Granting rights based on sexual preference destroys the definition of human rights, too. And when that happens nobody is safe.
I support same-sex marriage. It's ridiculous that it's even up for debate. I don't understand why these people are being treated differently because of their sexual preference.
@homealivein45@xanga - Oh boo hoo, it's not an assault on shit! You're life wont be in danger and neither will your rights, so go away.
And since I don't get my panties in a twist over things that DO NOT AFFECT ME, of course I support same sex marriage. Good for Australia :)
@LoveeeLikeASunset@xanga - Like I pointed out, it does affect us. California, where gay rights are in full force, now tyrannizes it's children by forcing them to study gay/lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in their history classes.
And when anyone can marry anything simply by declaring a sexual preference the effects will reverberate throughout our entire society.
And when human rights are defined by sexual preference then no one will have human rights at all because the definition of human rights will have been destroyed.
@AbnormalButSane@xanga - There is another side to the story. Unfortunately we are all indoctrinated into thinking only one way. I have explained the basic reasoning for the counter argument in a previous comment if you are interested.
@homealivein45@xanga - No it doesn't affect us! The actual act of two men/women getting married will never affect you. Sure it influenced people to put it in the schools but that's different from actual same sex marriage. And so what if kids now have to learn about it? Guess what they all have to learn about other bullshit that doesn't matter in their life. Stop acting like a little princess. And obviously human rights are already defined by sexual preference since homosexuals can't get married.
You honestly sound like the biggest freaking idiot on this website. No one will have human rights? Are you fucking serious? Whatever drug you're on, please send me some! If my two gay friends can get married, that's not going to stop you from being able to get married.
@LoveeeLikeASunset@xanga - You obviously aren't reading my comments. Two gays playing house isn't the problem. It's everything that comes with it.
Also, your rudeness speaks to mental illness. I have an opinion that is different from yours. I should be able to express it without being subject to abuse.
I think everyone should have the same rights and I support gay marriage. Gay couples have been in this World as much as straight couples and it doesn't change one bit my perception of marriage and family the idea of them having the same right I have.
@homealivein45@xanga - Ok so what "comes with it" then? You being embarrassed to be a part of society that gives people rights? Sounds like immaturity to me.
In a perfect world, people like you wouldn't reproduce but since I'm not stupid, I realize that it's your right and really has no affect over me so I'm not going to get all bothered if you have a child. So why can't you show the same respect for homosexuals?
@LoveeeLikeASunset@xanga - I stated my case already in previous comments. I showed why human rights cannot be given on the basis of sexual preference.
There is no such thing as gay rights because human rights have nothing to do with sexual preference.
You might make an argument from the standpoint of justice but that doesn't hold up either. Not in theory or reality.
@homealivein45@xanga - You make absolutely no sense. But, that figures. I shouldn't expect an intelligent reason from someone who thinks like you do. I wasn't talking about "gay rights" I was talking about letting them get married. They should be able to do what we straight people can do.
"I showed why human rights cannot be given on the basis of sexual preference." But they can be taken away? Again, makes no damn sense. Thankfully I'm not like you lol
@homealivein45@xanga - Human rights does have something to do with the freedom of speech, believe, and of the pursuit of happiness. I think the major problem I find with your argument against gay marriage is you're confusing a malem in se with a malem prohibitum. Allowing gay marriage won't increase incest just like how education of same sex marriage does not turn people gay (sorry loose language).
@LoveeeLikeASunset@xanga - Actually my argument is based on reason, the definition of words and an understanding of what human rights are and where they come from.
Marriage has a definition that goes back thousands of years: The conjugal union of a man and woman in love. The sexual union between man and woman is consistent with natural sexuality. That is it is open to procreation.
Homosexuality is outside the purpose and design of nature with regard to procreative sexuality. So a union between two homosexual individuals would require a redefinition of marriage.
And if homosexuals are allowed to redefine marriage to suit their sexual preference then any other individuals with any other sexual preferences are allowed to redefine marriage to suit themselves also.
That would effectively destroy the meaning of marriage.
@Cho_0705@xanga - You can't say how the redefinition of marriage would affect incest or any other sexual preference.
That is unknowable.
But what is true is that marriage would be destroyed because it would become meaningless.
If gays can marry based on their sexual preference, then so can anyone else with any other sexual preference.
Maybe all the people who prefer incest just haven't come out yet. Gays of all people should understand why that would be.
@homealivein45@xanga - It's not a redefinition of marriage, its an expansion of the various types of marriage. And yes I can say that knowing about gay rights won't make people gay. I know about gay rights, I'm not gay. That's like saying if I learn about Judaism, or Buddhism, or Christianity it will convert me. Don't you think education against gay rights would be more harmful?
@Cho_0705@xanga - Because words have particular definitions, an "expansion" signifies a change of meaning.
If you expand the meaning of marriage you change its definition.
Changing, or expanding the definition of marriage based on sexual preference would destroy the meaning of marriage because it would allow for infinite expansion of the meaning of marriage.
@homealivein45@xanga - The definition is finite. You're worried about all other sexual preferences would then be allowed, but often those involve abuse and manipulation. This is different, it's two people who are purely and truly in love who want to be married, whereas incest is an Malem in Se (wrong by morals) same sex marriage at least to me is a malem prohibitum (wrong only because the law says so). And I can tell you I'm in Canada where same sex marriage is allowed, and you can rest assured, we don't have a spike in incest.
Denying them the right to be married is to deny them of the fundamental right to the freedom of expression, believe, and happiness what kind of justice is that?
I can already see we're not going to agree. No matter what you say, I will still support gay marriage so let's just agree to disagree
@Cho_0705@xanga - You are now changing your argument. You have conceded that "expanding" the definition of marriage actually changes the definition.
Okay. One down. Let's move on to your next assertion that opening the definition of marriage to anyone's sexual preference is finite.
Whether a definition is open to abuse or manipulation is an arbitrary value judgment that you just decided to apply. There is no reason why the union between two sisters or two brothers or a brother and a sister must be abusive or manipulative.
There is no reason why the union between a 36 year old mother and her 18 year old son would be abusive or manipulative.
Further, if you are able to "expand" the definition of marriage to suit your sexual preference why can't the definitions of abuse and manipulation also be expanded for the same reason?
Consequently, allowing the definition of marriage to be based on sexual preference allows for infinite changes of the definition therefore making marriage meaningless.
I'm Australian and I never voted on this topic where did you get this ' nation-wide vote' from?
@homealivein45@xanga - I can go on and on, and while i support gay rights,i don't' think it would be productive since you have your opinion, i have mine plus a few exams. Plus there's a difference between understanding a argument and disagreeing with it. I understand your argument, just no matter what you say, i won't agree with it.
@Cho_0705@xanga - It is not necessary to make a moral argument against homosexual marriage. I have not done that here.
My argument is based on reason, the definition of words and the meaning of human rights.
@homealivein45@xanga - So?? I just don't understand why you care so much if the definition gets changed. Definitions and other things get changed all the time. It's not that big of a deal.
@Cho_0705@xanga - Disagreeing with an argument "just because" is irrational and arbitrary.
Are all people to submit to tyranny "just because"?
You folks have to come up with logical reasons for wanting to destroy civil society. You can't expect freedom loving people to give up their way of life "just because".
@homealivein45@xanga - "But what is true is that marriage would be destroyed because it would become meaningless."
No, you know what is destroying marriage and making it meaningless? People who get married and get divorced because of boredom, and generally just people who get married not out of love, but because they feel like it's something that NEEDS to happen to them. Marriage has been destroyed for quite a while.