MindRomp Forum

MindRomp Forum (http://mindromp.org/forum/index.php)
-   Human Endeavour (http://mindromp.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Gay Marriage (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=706)

Dirtyarris 13th March 2012 06:30 PM

Gay Marriage
 
Im all for it, lets face it, not as if the human race doesn't need more declarations of love.

U.K. government has suggested making it legal in civil ceremonies, but as usual the meddling R.C. church is swiftfully organising itself in opposition to this.

What do you people think? Silly question, I suspect most are in favour.

Exi5tentialist 13th March 2012 08:11 PM

I'm against anyone who is against.

Bobby Arthur 13th March 2012 08:27 PM

I am against Government having anything to do with marriage whatsoever. Gay, straight, plural, whatever. It's not the states fucking business who I'm fucking, living with, or who gets my shit when I die.

PermanentlyEphemeral 14th March 2012 03:14 AM

It can be the states business who gets your shit when you die if you owe some shit to people other than the ones you want to give it to.


IIRC a bishop threatened then PM Paul Martin with excommunication if he made gay marriage legal.

Danny 14th March 2012 03:29 AM

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h...t9CAAAEWF_.jpg

Hermit 14th March 2012 04:33 AM

I don't care much for the concept of marriage itself, but since millions of people do, why not allow two consenting adults of the same gender who love each other the same right as heterosexual ones? The arrogance of churches to insist that their religions' value system ought to also apply to everybody else who does not share those values is breathtaking. On the bright side, the number of people who have no objections to same-sex marriage has dwindled over the years. We've come a long way since homosexuality was a gaolable crime. More social change is needed, but it is continuing.

Jerome 14th March 2012 05:05 AM

Why is the State needed to sanction any marriage, why are there privileges at all?

Bobby Arthur 14th March 2012 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME (Post 29862)
Why is the State needed to sanction any marriage, why are there privileges at all?

because it can. Power corrupts... yada yada.

Hermit 14th March 2012 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME (Post 29862)
Why is the State needed to sanction any marriage, why are there privileges at all?

I'd say it's an overhang from the days of theocracy. In the past few decades the importance of marriage has significantly eroded, For instance, in Australia today the difference in legal terms between couples that are formally married and those who live together informally is almost zero. A previous Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, initiated serious legislative reforms to that effect between 1972 and 1975. Other Prime Ministers built on this, and Kevin Rudd identified and did away with 52 inequities concerning pension, superannuation, inheritance and other such matters until 2010. I would think similar developments occurred in other socially liberal democracies.

Jerome 14th March 2012 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seraph (Post 29870)
For instance, in Australia today the difference in legal terms between couples that are formally married and those who live together informally is almost zero.

I knew there was a reason I liked Aussies.

:blinksmile:

Bolero 14th March 2012 07:38 AM

To quote The Onion:

"First the military, now marriage... Why do gays want in on our worst institutions?"

CES 7th May 2012 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Arthur (Post 29742)
I am against Government having anything to do with marriage whatsoever. Gay, straight, plural, whatever. It's not the states fucking business who I'm fucking, living with, or who gets my shit when I die.


Well, as for getting your shit when you die, typically the state will allow you to pass stuff off to your heirs, but if you don't specify, the state has to have some system to determine who gets what. Otherwise, nobody would know if your wife gets everything, or if everything has to be divided among wife and kids, or even more remote relatives.

If the state would get out of the business of taxing people differently based on whether they have a spouse or children, then I'd be all for getting the State out of the marriage business. But, I would still want to have a default inheritance law in cases where people die without a will or trust.

Dan B 8th May 2012 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Arthur (Post 29742)
I am against Government having anything to do with marriage whatsoever. Gay, straight, plural, whatever. It's not the states fucking business who I'm fucking, living with, or who gets my shit when I die.

:thumbsup:

Bobby Arthur 8th May 2012 12:27 AM

True, there has to be some system if the person doesn't leave a will.

Dan B 8th May 2012 12:35 AM

That's as a clerical concern not a regulatory mandate.

CES 8th May 2012 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolero (Post 29895)
To quote The Onion:

"First the military, now marriage... Why do gays want in on our worst institutions?"

Let them get married. It's about time they were as miserable as the rest of us. :rofl:

CES 8th May 2012 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan B (Post 39875)
That's as a clerical concern not a regulatory mandate.

To the person who would inherit $1,000,000 under one system of inheritance, and $0 under another system, it is a bit more than clerical.

CES 10th May 2012 05:24 PM

I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

My preference would be to eliminate the word "marriage" from the law at all, and indicate that two people at one time can form a civil union which is governed by laws applicable to civil unions, including divorce, taxation, fringe benefits, parental responsibility and family law, paternity/maternity laws, etc. However, "marriage" would be governed by church or mosque or other religious rules -- but, they would not be recognized in any way, or encouraged or disabled by the state or government.

Bobby Arthur 10th May 2012 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CES (Post 41339)
I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

My preference would be to eliminate the word "marriage" from the law at all, and indicate that two people at one time can form a civil union which is governed by laws applicable to civil unions, including divorce, taxation, fringe benefits, parental responsibility and family law, paternity/maternity laws, etc. However, "marriage" would be governed by church or mosque or other religious rules -- but, they would not be recognized in any way, or encouraged or disabled by the state or government.

I'm 100% on board with this.

gib 10th May 2012 05:54 PM

agreed

Dan B 10th May 2012 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CES (Post 40047)
To the person who would inherit $1,000,000 under one system of inheritance, and $0 under another system, it is a bit more than clerical.

I was speaking to the State's interest, not the individual's.

Magicziggy 31st May 2012 11:28 AM

From today's Australian news via the ABC News app

Quote:

The New South Wales Upper House has voted in favour of a motion supporting same-sex marriage.

There was applause as the motion passed this afternoon, 22 votes to 16.

The motion calls on the Federal Government to change the Marriage Act.

The vote had been delayed for a week because so many MPs wanted to speak to the motion.

Both Coalition and Labor MPs were given a conscience vote.

Seven State Government members gave their support, including Nationals MP Trevor Khan and Liberal MP Scott MacDonald.

Labor's Luke Foley was among those who voted against the motion, along with MPs from the Shooters and Fishers and the Christian Democrats.

Greens MP Cate Faehrmann, who introduced the motion, was celebrating.

""What we've done today is send a very strong message to the Federal Parliament that they should act on amending the Marriage Act," Ms Faehrmann said.

"It's very significant because MPs from the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Labor Party and the Greens all voted for marriage equality, given a conscience vote.

"Tony Abbott needs to take note of that. MPs do want a conscience vote to be able to vote on these issues.

"When they're able to consider marriage equality and give it due thought and consideration, they vote for or against it but it's always a very respectful debate and that's what needs to happen in the Federal Parliament."

Magicziggy 10th August 2012 02:40 PM

Watch the bit at the end as well

charlou 14th August 2012 05:58 AM

Quote:

THE premiers of South Australia and Tasmania have told gay rights supporters they will legislate for same-sex marriage regardless of what federal parliament does.
The Australian

Adenosine 14th August 2012 11:18 AM

Hooray!

Meanwhile in Queensland the Civil Union and Surrogacy laws have been changed by The Christian Fascist Regime to only apply to heteros. You know, the ones that need them less.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2011-2012 MindRomp.org