I think Orwell was a brilliant writer, but not a good humanist! Although one cannot deny societies structure and how it’s designed to favour certain people, we as a church are not society.

We are called to be in the world not of it.

Yet as a church we get too hung up on the world, to the exclusion of God Children if they don’t fit the church ideal of a ‘good Christian’.

As a Christian for me marriage is about a commitment to God. Simple. If you are willing to make that commitment in the eyes of God good for you, no one should stand between you and God. In

Equality to for me means not having to worry about being discriminated against for ANY reason.

AS for if i were PM I would legalise gay marriage because if our government is secular, which theoretically they are, then they have absolutely no reason to deny gays the same right as everyone else. Sadly it’s not that simple.

As a Christian for me marriage is about a commitment to God. Simple. If you are willing to make that commitment in the eyes of God good for you, no one should stand between you and God.

AS for if i were PM I would legalise gay marriage because if our government is secular, which theoretically they are, then they have absolutely no reason to deny gays the same right as everyone else. Sadly it’s not that simple.

Hi holywoman,

Welcome to freedom2b[e]. Yep, it shouldn’t matter if you’re part of a gay couple. If you both want to get married then that should be available. Simple. Unfortunately as you say, politics is not that simple. Too many lobby groups and religious institutions against the idea. On a purely human rights ground, they haven’t a leg to stand on. But we can do our bit to eliminate the barriers of ignorance and fear that prevent gay marriage from becoming a reality.

Actually – Im probably a little out there on this issue….

BUT on this issue I would separate church and state…

I dont think the Church should have ANY say on who has legal recognition for their partnerships. By the same token. I dont think the State should say that the Church MUST marry this person or that person…

So – I would say – that a church wedding has NO legal recognition at all. (Rather like in Germany).

If you want Legal Recognition – YOU must go to the registry and sign ….

If you want Gods Blessing – then you can go to a church. neither have anything to do with each other… and in fact – If ONE minister wants to give you his blessing – it doesnt affect the fact that Jenson or Pell doesnt = because you are legally registered at the registry.

Thats the way I would set it up if I was PM

I cant speak the bit for common law – but I would point out – separating the religious issues and the legal issues on the matter resolves many of the problems (and this – as I said above – has been done in countries such as Germany that REQUIRE a separation of church and state)

I would note that there are legal rights given in the marriage act that are given no where else – so we are NOT equal in the law until we can marry. My understanding ( and IANAL – I am not a lawyer) is that these are mostly related to children so they dont relate to me personally BUT they do relate to many of my friends who either were married and had children heterosexually and are now in a lesbian or gay relationship OR who have children IN a gay relationship. THOSE children are denied legal rights that the children of MARRIED couples get.

So there is a definite discrimination there against a growing number of our community and I would say ¨think of the children¨. If the biological parent dies the children are in a legal limbo worse than I would be as an adopted kid even though I had no Biological ties to either parent – because they were married. That could be extremely distressing for the children (and the remaining partner).

In addition "Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either, so GLBT people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people" ? IS a bit of a straw man. Hetero sexual people DONT WANT TO MARRY people of the same sex so its an irrelevant argument.

Logic is a powerful tool but it allows you to posit impossible or incorrect statements without warning you (the classic one is the paradox – what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable force – – grammatical correct – but it cant exist)

The correct argument would be Hetero sexual people can marry the Consenting adult they want to – and so we should be able to.

As for sitting on the Fence – is that because it doesnt impact you ? what is the moral point here ? I have no great desire to get married. My partnership is legally recognised by the Aussie government and actually on record at the United nations (as I worked there for a little while)

however this is a MORAL question. others believe they need to be married to be equal. Others need to be married to protect their children and others need to be married because of their faith. Do you think they are wrong to believe that ? Many people Sacrificed a lot to win our legal freedoms and I think we should support others to complete the Job – if we think what they want is Ethical and moral even if it doesnt impact us personally.

We are family after all !

Thanks guys,

I think I will cut and paste & print your responses shadowboxer & ann-maree, just so I can show my friend, as you can imagine he has some strong views on this & of late he has been challenging especially, since I kind of "came out" to a few more people including him whilst arguing about homosexual rights & he was not impressed. But at least he is decent enough to remain friends even though he disagree with my "lifestyle" and my "immorality and sin" anyway ..

shadowboxer you said

I would note that there are legal rights given in the marriage act that are given no where else – so we are NOT equal in the law until we can marry

I'm not familiar with a lot of this, I was under the impression that civil rights gave GLBT people the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, is that right? anyone know? If so, would anyone object if States and Territories in Australia adopted civil unions allowing GLBT people from marrying? If laws were changed so civil unions have the same rights as heterosexual marriage would that be okay for those GLBT people who want to get married?

As for sitting on the Fence – is that because it doesnt impact you ? what is the moral point here ? I have no great desire to get married. My partnership is legally recognised by the Aussie government and actually on record at the United nations (as I worked there for a little while)

Sitting on the fence is because part of me still has the mindset & belief that marriage is between a man & a woman & I fin bit hard to get past that.

Ann Maree you said

The issue here is that heterosexual people can CHOOSE if they want to marry or not. They also receive the legal benefits that come with marriage. Civil union rights are NOT the same.

again, I just assumed without doing any research that civil unions gave GLBT people the exact same rights with the exception of being defined as married, if that makes sense. Just like de-facto relationships. Then again, I dont know much about de-facto relationships either, so I should just be quiet

You also said

Your friend seems to be making light of a very painful issue for many. I know of a lesbian couple who had a daughter together. The biological mother and daughter were in an accident and critically ill. The daughter had to have emergency surgery and the other mother was not permitted to sign the consent form for her. It was life and death and fortunately the biological mother woke up and signed the form and they survived. Can you imagine the helplessness of the other partner though? And sadly this is not an isolated case. There are countless others who have been denied recognition as Next of Kin and if the family of origin are homophobic or don't like the partner, their wishes can override that of the partner's. This is an absolute travesty and can you imagine the stress and grief that places on the gay person/s involved, especially in an already stressful medical situation? Similarly when a partner dies, a civil union may not be recognised like a marriage and the surviving partner may find that the will can be contested more easily than if they were legally married. Your friend's comment that LGBTI people have the same rights as heterosexuals misses the point because straight people would have no desire to marry someone of the same sex. It's about being able to love someone of your choosing and to have the same rights around that and not be disadvantaged. How would your friend feel if he was denied the right to be with the one he loves?

Again, excuse my ignorance, but I thought the law was changed a few years ago or something changing that the whole not being able to sign consent form or having same rights as heterosexual partners when someone is ill, even if they are not in a civil union situation, but perhaps I am wrong again lol

It's a human rights issue that needs to be rectified.

Some disagree saying this has nothing to do with human rights, I think that in France the highest court there said that it was not a "universal human right" I'm not sure what they said it was, but then again, you can't trust the French.

One thing is certain, it is a complicated issue that stirs up great emotion and mixed opinions. And (I think I said this before) I think GLBT will have to wait a little longer to get their call for justice because the Gillard government wont allow for a conscious vote I think and Julia Gillard has already gone of record saying that she opposes same-sex marriage & of course, when Abbott gets into power which is likely to be whenever the next election is held because I can't see Gillard getting another term in office. So there is hope in hell for an Abbott led government to ever pass any laws to allow for same-sex marriage or to change the marriage act

I've edited your post to what I think it ought to look like.

Main thing to remember is that when you start with a [ quote ] you need to end with a [ /quote ] (note the slash denoting the end of the quoted text)

Heya

Now when you say

"I was under the impression that civil rights gave GLBT people the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, is that right? anyone know?"

Civil rights is a meaningless term in the context of this debate. What matters are the specific rights under specific legislation.

And as I said we dont have the same rights because there are specific rights in the marriage act – especially to do with children – which do NOT exist in any other legislation.

The example that Ann Maree gave is a prime example of such a right we dont have that married couples do have.

Now you ARE correct that a little while back there was a big push to fix discrimination in legislation. They went through and identified legislation and fixed them so now for example – de facto relationships are now gender non specific. and superannuation legislation was changed so I can leave my benefit to my partner – rather than having to leave it to my estate and then from my estate to my partner.

However – they DIDNT fix one piece of legislation – the marriage act of 1961 …. so all the rights given by marriage – we dont and cant have.

Now as for marraige being between a man and a woman I would challenge that in a number of ways

Firstly – people generally invoke that for historical reasons but historically – marriage was both polygamous (which the church is now dead set against but God doesnt seem to have a problem with as there is a LOT of it in the bible), and with cousins and brothers widows etc – quite a number of practises we frown upon now. So in fact we are continually redefining Marriage ( and often for good reasons such as in breeding)

Secondly – the church has historically married same sex partners and its a more recent thing for them to NOT marry same sex partners (thanks to english politics I have read although Im sure its complicated) .

Here is a post that discusses this VERY issue

http://www.freedom2b.org/forums/the-history-of-gay-marriage-t1852/

So in fact its the ban on Gay marriage that is modern and a change from accepted practise

Finally – there are in fact more Genders than Male and Female. The case of intersexed people

We have long known about about hermaphrodites – people who had male and female genitals. This is now called Intersex. There are a number of ways to be Intersex and many of them are not visible to the Naked eye and require a lab test (extra chromosomes for example)

Now these people are Intersexed – Not male nor female (or both or in fact an alternative) and yet many of these HAVE been married by the church and the state happily IN Ignorance in the past – and this shows what a sham the whole male and female thing is. For example. One study in the USA found a number of people with Male Genitals and Female Brains. What Gender are they ? These are complex questions and I dont know the answer and in fact I dont think anyone does. There is a great documentary about this the ABC had on

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc1/201201/programs/DO0904Q001D2012-01-29T220319.htm

Phoebe had undescended testes so they were removed (as they can become cancerous) and she became a woman.

She has a Husband – is he Gay or straight ? Its a question he has asked himself – and then hs said – he loves phoebe and thats all that matters. However my point is = it shows that the line can be blurred – and we dont know how often it is. How many people who are happily married would not pass rigorous tests ???

Where should the line be drawn ? The more we learn – the more we know that we know we are wrong to assume that you can judge by peoples Genitals.

Now Most people tend to talk about marriage equality being a human rights issue – but Ill leave that for others to discuss those (or Google it – theres heaps on that on the web).

oops, sorry shadowboxer, typo error you quoted me as saying

"I was under the impression that civil rights gave GLBT people the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, is that right? anyone know?"

what I meant to say was that, I was under the impression that civil UNIONS gave GLBT the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, NOT civil rights LOL Is that the case?

I came across a survey conducted by sexton marketing back in February 2011, which revealed that only one in seven Australian's are strongly in favour of changing the Marriage Act & although 58% believed that "same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples to get married" only 49% supported changing the Marriage Act,

I think a majority of people on a sentimental level don't oppose same-sex marriage on the basis, that they think there is discrimination involved & they don't want to be associated with discrimination or risk being labelled homophobic. I was speaking to some of my gay friends & they were raving on about equality which is certainly worth fighting for, but I wonder if there can ever really be equality in the case of marriage. Homosexual couples are not "equal" to heterosexual couples, any more than a female footballer is "equal" to a male footballer.

Is it really a rights issue or a legal issue because a same-sex union or marriage is not recognised under Australian law. So isn't it more of a legal issue or perhaps a combination of the two.

Certainly the European Court of Human Rights doesn't seem to agree that same-sex marriage is a universal human right, in its March 18, 2012 ruling, the court stated that same-sex marriages are not a human right, following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French Courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

An article appeared in the Catholic Weekly not long ago, my neighbour still had a copy & was going about how homosexual marriage will lead to destruction … anyway, the article used the findings of a study that showed 76% of Americans could not see any reason not to legalise Polygamy if same-sex marriage was legalised. I guess what they were saying was that, if we grant gay couples the right to marry on a human rights level, then why stop at gay marriage. Going by that same logic, what right do we or the government have to deny those same rights to a man who wishes to have more then one wife or a woman wishing more than one husband? It opens a whole can of worms doesn't it? I know that the argument from a lot of Churches especially, the Catholic Church is that legalising same-sex marriage "will lead to Polygamy" I'm not sure I would go that far, but I can see their argument to some degree. What right would we have to deny someone who wishes to marry more than one partner? Or as farfetched & clearly wrong this is, what right would the government have from denying someone the "right" to have a "loving relationship" with his or her dog or as NSW Christian Democratic Party candidate Peter Madden said, "why stop at same-sex marriage, why not allow adults to marry children?" what right would anyone have to deny a person's "right" to marry a child purely on the basis that people should be allowed the right to a "loving and committed relationship" regardless of their sexuality (race, culture, religion, gender …) can we say same-sex marriage is a right & Polygamy is not a right or bestiality is not a right, if someone seeks to go down that path, regardless of how wrong and perverted it is. Who are we to say it is not their right to do so?

Thanks forestgrey. Very well put.

As well as that, opponents of gay marriage are quick to forget that polygamy was quite an acceptable practice in biblical cultures and exists in a harmonious way in other cultures today. And as for gay marriage opening the door to child abuse or beastiality, well that's just silly.

Blessings,

Ann Maree

Hi Shadow Boxer

Thanks for your very thought provoking post. It's true marriage can be defined and experienced in many different ways and this plays a bearing on how it impacts certain people in our society. And you're right – people don't look deeply enough into that. As you say, the main issue is when same sex couples are banned from legally recognised marriage as they are in Australia and other places. It becomes a human rights issue for them and their children because they are disadvantaged, mostly in regards to care of their children as we've both pointed out previously.

Blessings,

Ann Maree