Forums

Equality: What does it mean for you?

Page:
   Sign Up To Reply  
 
avatar
iplantolive
 
Joined in 2008
May 24, 2010, 9:49 pm

<h3><em>"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"</em></h3>


Many of us would be familiar with this phrase from George Orwell's book and film <em>Animal Farm</em>.


For me, Equality is having the same opportunity as anyone else to achieve my personal goals.


What does Equality mean for you as a LGBT person? If you were Prime Minister, would you legalise gay marriage? Why or Why Not?


avatar
holywoman
 
Joined in 2010
May 25, 2010, 11:18 pm

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.


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
May 26, 2010, 11:58 am

Hi holywoman


Welcome to the site! It’s good to have you with us and it would be lovely if you are able to share something of your ‘story’ in the ‘Teling our stories’ section.


In answer to your comments, I think the ideal church is meant to be different to society but in reality is often like a microcosm of the greater society surrounding it. Looking at 1st century church history illustrates that. Historians and scholars believe that in Jesus’ time, there were many christianities and diversity as there is today with different churches and versions of the faith. It has been said that ‘Peter’s people’, later gathering the support of the roman government, simply had more political clout, a dominant voice and a more organised campaign than other groups, resulting in the shaping of The Christianity that we’ve been taught existed in earliest times. So the politics of this world had it’s part to play in creating the church (as we interpret it) and subsequently during many times in history.


Now in answer to Pierre’s questions: I think equality is about being treated with respect and dignity, and generally being able to access the same supports that others can. With equality, there would be no such thing as discrimination which stops someone from having their basic human rights met.


The PM should definitely support gay marriage because denying it is an abuse of human rights. It doesn’t matter what his own personal beliefs are on this (and he’s entitled to those). The greater issue is about human rights and being merciful to the LGBT community who are discriminated against in this area and others. We need to be able to express our love and commitment with partners as our hetero counterparts can and be protected when spouses are ill/die, able to make decisions as next of kin because we are recognised as such.


Blessings,


Ann Maree


avatar
iplantolive
 
Joined in 2008
May 26, 2010, 10:02 pm

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.


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
May 27, 2010, 12:48 am

Hi again holywoman


I like your comments, including about the government being secular in theory and therefore able to support gay marriage. Good point. It would be great if church and state were completely separate but they are perhaps closer than many realise, which complicates things.


From my point of view as a non politician, it’s quite simple. Human rights are being breached and actions need to be taken to correct this. Somehow I think politicians need more than altruism to motivate them however. They need to know that major votes and seats will be lost if they fail to act.


I also agree that marriage is a commitment. For me it would be made to my partner as a declaration before God and my partner. And for others I know, who are non christian, it’s about the commitment to each other, involving the 2 people in the relationship. So why should this concern anyone else, and why should sexuality matter?


Thanks for your support anyway, holywoman. :)


Blessings,


Ann Maree


avatar
ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005
April 3, 2012, 9:13 am

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


avatar
Brunski
 
Joined in 2005
April 7, 2012, 12:12 am

Hi guys, welcome holywoman & hi Pierre, I notice you have been around since 2008 & yet, I don't think I have "met you" until now lol

thanks for posting, I was actually wanting to start a new discussion re: same-sex-marriage, wanting to get peoples opinions on the whole thing & low and behold there is already a discussion that kind of deals with this whole issue :)


I was having a conversation only recently with some Christian friends of mine who don't support same-sex marriage & they asked me what my opinion was, whether I support same-sex marriage or not? well I'm kind of on the fence with this one. I find it hard to go beyond the traditional view that marriage is union between a man and a woman. But I also believe that GLBT people should have the right to live as couples and be recognised as such by law & receive the same rights that Heterosexual people do. So I would support Civil Unions, which I think is the way this country should go. But my good friend raised some interesting points, which kind of got me scratching my head.

Is the whole same-sex marriage thing really about equality? Is it about rights? or is it just a "select minority group" as he put it, that wants to change the law, dictate how people should act in a civilised world (his words) & seek to pressure those in power to serve their own agenda? He pointed quite mischievously may I add that, "Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either, so GLBT people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people". That kind of threw me a little & I wasn't sure how to respond. He went about a host of other things that I may go into at a later stage, as its getting way past my bed time.

But the one statement that really threw me was that same-sex marriage is not a human right because it doesn't exist in common law, then of course he started going about all this legal stuff that went way over my head … anyway, the common law comment is way to complicated to get into, but just wondering what people think about the fact that "Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either, so GLBT people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people" ?


As for the PM supporting gay marriage, that is not going to happen (at least I very much doubt it) & if my bets are correct, we are looking at a coalition government next term (cant see our beloved female PM getting re-elected) so we will have Attack Dog Abbott at the control wheel and you can kiss any hope of getting any kind of same-sex marriage law past & made into law with the tiniest possibility if the Government is pressured enough, is legislation paving the way for legally recognised civil unions. NZ has gone down that path, so should Australia, that way the "gay advocates" lol are happy & the tradition definition of marriage remains and the marriage act is not changed, keeping the Churches happy :)

Gosh, it way past my bed time ….


avatar
ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005
April 7, 2012, 7:55 am

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 !


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
April 7, 2012, 8:12 am

Hi Brunski

You said:

Is the whole same-sex marriage thing really about equality? Is it about rights? or is it just a "select minority group" as he put it, that wants to change the law, dictate how people should act in a civilised world (his words) & seek to pressure those in power to serve their own agenda? He pointed quite mischievously may I add that, "Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either, so GLBT people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people".


This issue is very much about human rights and equality. I'm not particularly interested in marriage as such and I know plenty of LGBTI people who have no desire to be married, just as many heterosexual people are not into marriage. 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.

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?

I don't believe that advocating for equality is the same as power-seeking. The request for fairness and equal rights does not mean the LGBTI community will take over the world and corrupt so-called "civilised" society. In fact I think our society remains in the dark ages as long as it excludes LGBTI people from marriage. It doesn't bother me if others disagree with me. And it's no problem for me if certain priests or others don't want to perform same sex marriages – that's up to them. Everyone has the right to their beliefs and to act accordingly. But this issue is much bigger than beliefs or law. It's a human rights issue that needs to be rectified.

Blessings,

Ann Maree


avatar
Brunski
 
Joined in 2005
April 7, 2012, 11:41 am

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 :P


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 :(


avatar
Brunski
 
Joined in 2005
April 7, 2012, 11:43 am

what is the world happened there? sorry guys, I have NO IDEA what I did, to get my post totally out of wack like it is :( hope you can still read it or I may have to repost it without the quotes because it seems I haven't got the gist of it yet :(

Sorry!


avatar
Chris
Administrator
Joined in 2009
April 7, 2012, 1:07 pm

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)


avatar
Brunski
 
Joined in 2005
April 7, 2012, 4:30 pm

hey Chris, I think where I went wrong was that I put

at the end as well, rather than


hopefully, I will remember next time :)


avatar
ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005
April 7, 2012, 4:44 pm

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).


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
April 7, 2012, 6:51 pm

Thanks Shadow Boxer for your comments above. Very informative and well put. :)

Brunski, in answer to your question about whether this is a human rights issue, it most definitely is. When a practice or law causes disadvantage to groups in society, such as with the current Australian marriage act disadvantaging LGBTI people, that is a breach in equal rights for those people. Not having a recognised marriage causes grief and hardship as in the case of parents who are denied access and decision-making for their children if their partner dies or is incapacitated.

In the Old Testament, when practices were harsh or no longer relevant for minorities and disadvantaged groups such as widows, the law was changed to better care for them. Mercy and compassion have to win out over some relatively recent traditions. And if ever there was a case for the law to change now, this is it.

Do take a look at the link that Shadow Boxer has included above. I find it fascinating that in times gone by, the union of same sex saints was celebrated in the church and fully recognised.

Blessings,

Ann Maree


avatar
Brunski
 
Joined in 2005
April 11, 2012, 11:30 pm

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?


avatar
forestgrey
Chapter Leader
Joined in 2008
April 12, 2012, 12:09 am

These 'worse-case scenario possibilities' used by extreme Christian opponents to gay marriage are a bit like "a drowning man grasping at straws". That is, they are so desperate to bulk up their arguments that they resort to the nonsensical.


If you look at the history of other cultural changes (abolition of slavery, giving women the vote, allowing mixed race marriages, etc), you will find that the fundamentalist Christians of that era also used both biblical mistranslations and similar extreme 'end-of-society' arguments to support their opposition. But, as history shows, the world didn't fall in; civilization didn't collapse; life just continued as most people accepted the changes and adapted to them.


We need to see the 'scare campaign' and ridiculous scenarios for what they are. The opponents of gay marriage know they are ultimately going to lose the battle; they are throwing every little argument into the fray – no matter how ridiculous.


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
April 12, 2012, 7:56 am

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


avatar
ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005
April 12, 2012, 9:39 am

Hi Brunski

My answer is still the same from my previous post.

As I said, we don't 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 don't 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 fixed some legislation so now de facto relationships are 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 to my partner.

However – they DIDN'T fix one piece of legislation – the marriage act of 1961 …. so all the rights given by marriage – we don't have.

Laws are country specific and marriage is a legal institution. The definition of marriage and what rights it gives in one country is different to what rights (and obligations) it gives you in another country.

To call it a human right is complex…. because you would have to define what you mean by marriage. In the context of when you get married in Australia – that is defined by the marriage act of 1961. Therefore that is discriminatory as it gives rights over access to children ( to partners etc) that are not granted elsewhere. If a gay person wants to ensure his children will be looked after by his partner should he be away, in hospital or die, the only LEGAL way to do this is through the marriage act. LGBTIQ people cannot do this.

Laws overseas are likely different and as such the questions are very very different.

Now as for Biblical marriage – the Bible never defines it although Malachi 2:14 says this.

14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the LORD is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. (Verse 16 says Divorce is Violence by the way which we also don't believe and in fact we allow divorce to protect from violence). Most of what we talk about marriage is cultural and historical and many of the laws about marriage or the customs in the bible we now do not allow (for example – the marrying of your brother's widow or polygamy. So in fact Biblical marriage is not something we want to see.

What is marriage? I would say it's an overloaded term – that is – it's a word that actually has multiple meanings – although people probably aren't really aware of that – and how fuzzy those meanings are…. Is marriage the legal act defined by the 1961 Act in Australia? Romans says the authorities ARE established by God, so basically if we are married in law, it is then endorsed by God).

I have a Gay friend married Legally in New Zealand – by the established authority – therefore according to Romans thats endorsed by God – so he IS surely married. Is marriage a ceremony? Does it matter if there is no legal recognition or if a minister of religion blesses me or not? Does it matter which religion? I have a friend who is a wiccan priestess. When she marries people, are they married? If a Unitarian Minister or a Buddhist monk marries someone, are they married? If two heterosexual people have a marriage ceremony in a church and are registered with Births, deaths and marriages, are they married? What if they never have sex ? In some cultures, sex was needed to consummate marriage. What if they can't for some medical reason? (i.e. on the way to the hotel there is an accident) So are they not married as a result?

Some people argue the purpose of marriage is procreation. So if a person knows they are infertile, can they not marry ? These are questions you need to think through and establish a position for yourself…

Me – I think marriage is two consenting adults living together in a long term legal committed relationship. End of story.

If they want a spiritual blessing, then a church should have a right to bless or not bless. However a church shouldn't be able to stop someone having legal rights because they don't belong to that church. So whether the people have or don't have kids, are paralysed, quadraplegic, have an extra chromosome, are intersex, lesbian or gay – it shouldn´t matter to their legal rights.


avatar
Ann Maree
Chief Moderator
Joined in 2008
April 12, 2012, 8:23 pm

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


Page:
   Sign Up To Reply  
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 1.7; Page loaded in: 0.129 seconds.