Links
Portal |  Forum | Core Values | 
MindRomp Forum  

FAQ Janitors Arcade
Go Back   MindRomp Forum > Culture, the Arts and Humanities > Human Endeavour

Human Endeavour Includes thinking really hard...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 13th March 2012, 06:30 PM   #29733  /  #1
Dirtyarris
Member
 

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.
Dirtyarris is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 13th March 2012, 08:11 PM   #29738  /  #2
Exi5tentialist
Senior Member
 
Exi5tentialist's Avatar
 

I'm against anyone who is against.
Exi5tentialist is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 13th March 2012, 08:27 PM   #29742  /  #3
Bobby Arthur
Bart's sock
 
Bobby Arthur's Avatar
 

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.
Bobby Arthur is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th March 2012, 03:14 AM   #29813  /  #4
PermanentlyEphemeral
Senior Member
 
PermanentlyEphemeral's Avatar
 

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.
PermanentlyEphemeral is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th March 2012, 03:29 AM   #29821  /  #5
Danny
understood, sir
 
Danny's Avatar
 

Danny is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
Majiffy (28th May 2015)
Old 14th March 2012, 04:33 AM   #29855  /  #6
Hermit
Innocent bystander
 
Hermit's Avatar
 

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.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th March 2012, 05:05 AM   #29862  /  #7
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
Why is the State needed to sanction any marriage, why are there privileges at all?
__________________
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th March 2012, 05:19 AM   #29869  /  #8
Bobby Arthur
Bart's sock
 
Bobby Arthur's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Why is the State needed to sanction any marriage, why are there privileges at all?
because it can. Power corrupts... yada yada.
Bobby Arthur is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th March 2012, 05:20 AM   #29870  /  #9
Hermit
Innocent bystander
 
Hermit's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
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.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th March 2012, 05:42 AM   #29884  /  #10
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
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:
__________________
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th March 2012, 07:38 AM   #29895  /  #11
Bolero
Lover, not a fighter
 
Bolero's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Brisbane, Australia
Send a message via Skype™ to Bolero
To quote The Onion:

"First the military, now marriage... Why do gays want in on our worst institutions?"
__________________
"Don't ask for kak, or you'll get what you ask for." Die Antwoord.
Bolero is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 7th May 2012, 11:22 PM   #39856  /  #12
CES
Member
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Arthur View Post
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.
CES is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 8th May 2012, 12:25 AM   #39872  /  #13
Dan B
Ravenous
 
Dan B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Arthur View Post
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.
Dan B is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 8th May 2012, 12:27 AM   #39873  /  #14
Bobby Arthur
Bart's sock
 
Bobby Arthur's Avatar
 

True, there has to be some system if the person doesn't leave a will.
Bobby Arthur is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 8th May 2012, 12:35 AM   #39875  /  #15
Dan B
Ravenous
 
Dan B's Avatar
 

That's as a clerical concern not a regulatory mandate.
Dan B is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 8th May 2012, 01:15 AM   #39891  /  #16
CES
Member
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolero View Post
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.
CES is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 8th May 2012, 02:09 PM   #40047  /  #17
CES
Member
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan B View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th May 2012, 05:24 PM   #41339  /  #18
CES
Member
 

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.
CES is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th May 2012, 05:27 PM   #41341  /  #19
Bobby Arthur
Bart's sock
 
Bobby Arthur's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CES View Post
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.
Bobby Arthur is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th May 2012, 05:54 PM   #41348  /  #20
gib
Volunteer
 
gib's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: the thin one out of Laurel & Hardy
agreed
__________________
communicating my inner something since 2017
gib is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th May 2012, 06:53 PM   #41365  /  #21
Dan B
Ravenous
 
Dan B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CES View Post
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.
Dan B is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 31st May 2012, 11:28 AM   #46303  /  #22
Magicziggy
vandal
 
Magicziggy's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Loadsamoney
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 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th August 2012, 02:40 PM   #57682  /  #23
Magicziggy
vandal
 
Magicziggy's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Loadsamoney
Watch the bit at the end as well
Magicziggy is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th August 2012, 05:58 AM   #58380  /  #24
charlou
arseist
 
charlou's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: residing on a mote of dust in the universe
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
charlou is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th August 2012, 11:18 AM   #58412  /  #25
Adenosine
Needs essential amino acids
 
Adenosine's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Australia
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.
Adenosine is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  MindRomp Forum > Culture, the Arts and Humanities > Human Endeavour

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2011-2012 MindRomp.org