Tag Archives: lesbian

Everyone’s talking about it: Gay Marriage

Gay marriage!

So here are a few arguments, for and against, from the comments section of Australian news websites. Real people, with real opinions, telling us what they really think (usually with incorrect grammar and spelling).

It’s wrong:

Opposition comes from the position that there is a morally right way of expressing sexuality, and a morally wrong way of expressing sexuality. Homosexuality is viewed as morally wrong by those who oppose it.

– Issac, here.

The ever-present animal comparison:

There is no reason to allow gay marriage. Love is not a legitimate reason to allow it, as some people love kids or animals in the same way. But we’re not going to support marriage to children or animals, are we? Then be consistent people!

– Ryan, here.

Is it time to allow people to marry animals too?! get real. A marriage has been between a male and female for 4000-5000 years! why suddenly change?

– Hooda, here.

Choose another word; not marriage, because those eight letters are just so precious to us heterosexuals:

Civil unions is a formal recognition for gay people. Marriage is clearly defined in legislation (rightly so) between a man and a woman. The gay community need another word, not marriage.

– Simon, here.

If same-sex couples want to live together, then they can. But don’t call it marriage!
Marriage is a holy and sacred covenantal agreement between a man and a woman before God and others. Please don’t steal our word and make it mean less than that.

-BethyBennett, here.

The Bible says ‘No’:

No. This is a predominantly Christian community. Over 70% of Australians identify as Christian. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.

– Jenny, here.

And the counter-argument:

The bible also says that to show your love to your child you should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24), and that if your child curses you they should be put to death (Lev 20:9) – do you do that?

The bible also says it is a sin to eat shellfish (Lev 11:9-12) – have you eaten prawns or lobster latety?

Have you run around killing Muslims, Buddhists and those of other religions lately – after all that is commanded by your Bible (Ex 22:20, Deu 17:2-7)? What about atheists, killed any of them lately to bring about peace (2 Chr 15:15)?

You may wish to pick and choose a selection of rules from an iron age story – but don’t expect the rest of us to, nor that you can impose your religious beliefs on everyone else.

– rob1966, here.

We are Christians God damn it, and the human race, 9 billion strong, depends on us heterosexuals fucking to survive:

This is a christian nation – that is where our great nation began – on good moral ground – and we need to stand our ground on issues like this. If we took this argument to its logical conclusion, then humanity’s survival is at stake – without a “mummy and a daddy”, there would be NO human race!

– SusieT, here.

What discrimination?

The Marriage Act applies to one man and one woman, there is nothing ‘discriminatory’ in that. I notice that the gay lobby and the Greens do not think that it is discriminatory to refuse Muslims the right to more than one wife although Centrelink already accepts such arrangements.

– Jessica and Josh, here.

The country is in crisis; it is not the time to talk about gay marriage. Let’s postpone this debate until the nation is growing and happy and fuel prices are back at 60c/L.

No time should be taken up by Parliament with gay rights. As they obviously can’t produce children, they don’t need any other rights other than to be able to live together, which they can do at their own choice now.

– Tracker, here.

Well done Adam Brandt, get yourself into feeding off the tax payer then your big aim in life is this. What about the 25,000 homeless children in Australia ?

– Trump, here.

Another minority group:

I do not believe that the majority of people support gay marriage. There is no good reason for legalising gay marriage. It makes no difference to the legal standing of the relationship. This is another push by a minority group to impose their views on the rest of society.

-Terry, here.

You’re a dickhead:

To call a same sex union a marriage defies the language and once you start to stuff around with the definition of language all other definitions are under threat as well as all legal and the meaning of legislated law.

– Deiter, here.

I don’t care, therefore no one cares:

Give us a break! Most people are sick to death of a minority’s sexuality issues thrust in our faces everytime we want to read the news. I’m seriously thinking about going to other media outlets for my news. There is no balance here.

– Simon, here.

The totally uneducated:

It’s not a human rights issue a. we have never had the right to marry so its not something that has been taken away from us and b. do those straight couples who choose not to be married or those that just cant find a partner are they also in breach of their human rights? Hardly.

– ChrisG, here.

It is an illness. Treatable with counselling/jail etc. Allowing gay marriages will also increase the risk of AIDS.

GoBigOne, here.

You’ve almost persuaded me:

Who said Guy marrigers must get the nod, it is immoral & against nature, to explain it in the simplist terms we are here to keep the species alive. Look at the Dinosausers, they all turned gay, now were are they ?

– Dale, here.

Do you support gay marriage?

The rights of homosexual citizens…

Earlier this week the Prime Minister’s office revealed they were preparing a submission to review the rights of homosexual couples (ABC). Conveniently revealed during Syndey’s annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (the PM is a clever little fella), the laws would give citizens in same-sex relationships equal rights as people in heterosexual unions, in areas such as superannuation, tax and welfare.

However, the Prime Minister has twice rejected ACT legislation which would have recognised civil unions. This state legislation would have given homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples and would have recognised their relationship as a legal union (Your Guide: Canberra, IBN News). It seems the Prime Minister, while recognising that homosexuals shouldn’t be financial disadvantaged, doesn’t believe he has any obligation to correct social inequality.

In the Prime Ministers words:

Well I don’t criticise gay people for that lifestyle, that’s their choice. What I do say, and I don’t apologise for saying, is that there are certain benchmark institutions in our society that ought to be defended and promoted and marriage is one of them and the reason I don’t support gay marriage is that I think it in different ways reduces the status of marriage as so commonly understood in our society, that is partly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition of our society, it’s also influenced by other things as well, it’s not only people of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which is obviously the dominant one in our country, who hold that view, others hold it as well, but there has to be a point at which you stand up for certain benchmark institutions. I don’t think that’s intolerant, I think it’s common sense because they contribute to the continuity and the stability of society. (emphasis added: Radio Interview: 891)

Lifestyle choice? Defend Marriage from what? Benchmark institutions? That gays would corrupt, corrode? Reduce the status of marriage?

The Prime Minister believes that the institution of marriage is far more important than the rights set out by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He thinks that because we are influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition, people are allowed to be discriminated against for the stability of society (which happens to be exactly the same argument Mr Bush uses).

Why does the Prime Minister believe that if 5-10% of the population married within their gender the whole institution of marriage and society at large would crumble to its knees? Heterosexuals have done a pretty good job of recking the institution of marriage on their own – Hollywood stars stay married for about the same time it takes to tie my shoelaces.

The Prime Minister’s reason for defending marriage is also a dangerous one. He cannot say that because our society was based on a religion which had certain values, that we can forsake the rights of citizens which don’t fit with that religion. The Christian religion didn’t value women, yet society hasn’t crumbled because women are allowed to vote or have the freedom to choose a career. Many Muslim countries restrict women’s rights. Does that mean because the Muslim religion allows this discrimination we shouldn’t be concerned?

Would society really crumble because gays and lesbians were allowed to marry?

tag: , , , , , , ,

Read my essay on the rights of homosexuals in Australia.