# Same sex marriage



## Fern (Aug 17, 2013)

Same sex marriage was passed into law in New Zealand on the 19 August, 13, by 77 votes to 44.
New Zealand will be the first country in Oceania and the fifteenth overall to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The argument 'for' has been, why shouldn't every couple have the opportunity to enter into a marriage like heterosexual couples if they so wish.
Growing up in a conservative era, I've always seen marriage as a relationship between male & female but that has been slowly eroded over the years. When Helen Clarke, past leader of the Labour party, was the prime minister, they passed into law, 'a heterosexual couple who had been in a relationship (partners) for 6 years or more, if they split up were entitled to the same property rights as a married couple.' 
This came into being to try and stem the flow of so many couples entering into a 'partnership' breaking up after a short period of time, leaving behind kids and one partner perhaps, out of pocket. As to its success who knows.
In 2004 to appease the gay rights brigade, of which Helen Clarke our illustrious leader at the time was/is part of, brought in  the 'civil union';


> *Civil union* has been legal in *New Zealand* since 26 April 2005. The Civil Union Act 2004 to establish the institution of civil union for same-sex and opposite-sex couples was passed by the Parliament on 9 December 2004. The Act has been described as very similar to the Marriage Act 1955 with references to "marriage"  replaced by "civil union". A companion bill, the Relationships  (Statutory References) Act, was passed shortly thereafter on 15 March  2005, to remove discriminatory provisions on the basis of relationship status  from a range of statutes and regulations. As a result of these bills,  all couples in New Zealand, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership, now generally enjoy the same rights and undertake the same obligations. These rights extend to immigration, next-of-kin status, social welfare,  matrimonial property and other areas. Non-married couples are not  however permitted to adopt children, although people in non-marital  relationships can adopt as individuals.


Within a few years it wasn't long before Civil union relationships were not enough for the 'gays' they wanted any relationship they entered into to be acknowledged as a marriage , (if they so wished) with all the rights of a heterosexual marriage, hence we now have the 'same sex marriage law.'
Quite a number of people see this as 'taking away' something special that was between a male and female. For myself I can't say that it doesn't bother me, but as the saying goes, 'we must move with the times'. Maybe now we won't be subjected to the half naked gay parades flaunting their sexuality, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 17, 2013)

I don't care about same sex marriage very much either way, I suppose it's fine for homosexuals to share the same benefits and rights through marriage as heterosexuals.  I don't feel threatened by it at all, even having grown up with the belief that marriage was between a man and a woman.  Like you say, the times are changing, and I see more and more people coming out with their ****** preferences every year.

As accepting as I am to one's right to choose their own lifestyle, I have to be honest about hearing of adoptions by gay couples.  In the back of my mind, I feel that babies and children shouldn't be in the family, unless already there by one of the adults in the union.  It kind of bugs me to see a bisexual couple adopt children, Neil Patrick Harris comes to mind. 

 I've also heard of homosexual men having their sperm mixed up, so neither of them really knew who the father was, and having a woman artificially inseminated for money to have a child for them...stuff like that I will never be comfortable with.  Not saying it's right, but it is what I feel.  I have concern for the children involved, whether warranted or not.

I grew up in a large city, where I was exposed to many homosexual people, sometimes they kept a very low profile, and other times dress and acted in a flamboyant manner, which I think added to some people's negative views.  I had a good friend when I was a teenager who was gay, and she was the nicest person ever.  She respected my heterosexuality, and was just a nice person to hang out with, along with my other friends.  As far as the parades, IMO, they do more harm than good for the gay community.


----------



## Murphy (Aug 17, 2013)

Gays should experience how miserable a marriage can be like the rest of us, however I am totally against 2 homosexual men adopting a child.

But why do gay men find it necessary to shove their sexuality in everyones face? We have a radio announcer here whose behaviour on a bus trip, I am told, was disgusting


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 17, 2013)

My mild resentment of the gay marriage issue is more with the politicizing of it than with the personal aspects.  The amount of attention the 'cause' receives is out of all proportion to the amount of people affected. 

 Not even all gays like the idea of 'gay marriage', just a few very vocal, pigheaded ones.  I have a gay friend who'm I've known for over 30 years,  and he's just bewildered by this current trend.  He's had a few short term affairs, and a couple which lasted more years than many heterosexual marriages do and just doesn't see the necessity, or the benefit, in making the arrangement 'legal'.  His attitude is why complicate what he views as freedom to live a chosen lifestyle unencumbered by the legalities and responsibilities accrued by official marriages.

To paraphrase the bard "methinks they protest too much."  I may think a bit strange, (shaddup)  but to me it's more about exercising some right to be seen as special and somehow superior than to be accepted.  Do they really believe that they have the emotional attachment angle cornered?  Or don't they trust each other enough to stay together without a piece of paper?  Or then again, is it just about money and rights of inheritance and access to a deceased partner's estate??
Hell, don't we all get into tangles over those things?  We don't hear of too many problems being cured by marriage. 



I've just got this thing about fringe and splinter groups demanding equal rights to something they  essentially already have.  
That can only mean that they want more than equality, they want their views to over-ride those of the majority and be formalized as 'special'. 
 To be blunt I resent them trying to push me around as though I'm some lesser, and dumber being because I'm not into what they are. That just makes my  stubborn genes kick into overdrive.

They demand tolerance, respect, and the right to behave, and say, as they like from the hetero majority ,  but play the martyr when verbal fire is  returned, and spit taunts over any who disagree with their belief that they're something wonderful.  They're not. They're just different.

I chose not to marry, and chose never to have children,  so I'm free to say I can't for the life of me understand why anyone marries at all other than to adhere to an outdated culture of legitimizing children.  Gay marriage doesn't even do that so what purpose does it serve in today's changed society??

Too pragmatic?  Should my heart be between my ears like the others who judge priorities on emotional grounds?   Dunno, but it just seems a storm in a teacup to me.

As to demanding to be able to adopt children.  C'mon.  If homosexuality is so 'normal' then why can't they accept it's drawbacks?  Why are they so anxious to pretend that they are the heteros that they accuse of discriminating against them?  
A lot of heterosexual people are deprived of producing the children they desperately want too, it's not just them.  They ain't anything special.  Why don't they want to be truly equal in coping with that disadvantage too?  What exactly are they trying to prove at the cost of an infant who has no say in the matter??


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 17, 2013)

> As to demanding to be able to adopt children.  C'mon.  If homosexuality is so 'normal' then why can't they accept it's drawbacks?  Why are they so anxious to pretend that they are the heteros that they accuse of discriminating against them?
> 
> A lot of heterosexual people are deprived of producing the children they desperately want too, it's not just them.  They ain't anything special.  Why don't they want to be truly equal in coping with that disadvantage too?  What exactly are they trying to prove at the cost of an infant who has no say in the matter??


I thought like this until I had lengthy discussions with a lesbian couple on another forum. Slowly I began to realise that, just like mainstream heterosexual people, the same sex attracted folk are anything but uniform in their beliefs, needs and desires. Some have no desire for marriage and even despise it as an oppressive and anachronistic institution. Others see it as the validation of their commitment to each other. These people are the ones who feel discriminated against by the status quo. I can see their point. If I was denied the opportunity for a legal marriage for some reason that seemed irrational to me then I would probably feel the same. Actually, I know I would.

In addition I came to realise that children are already present in many of these unions, especially lesbian unions. One or both of the women may have had a child by a previous marriage or by AID. However the family is formed it is still a family but if the birth mother dies then the other parent has no claim to her child or children at all. The family can be split up, the children claimed by grandparents or estranged fathers. A court would probably decide the best outcome for the children but the timing, at the time of bereavement, couldn't be worse. It would be better for all concerned if the arrangements could be hammered out prior to a death as part of an application to adopt each others children.

As for gay men adopting other people's children, for some time now they have been allowed to be foster parents and are often the only ones prepared to look after some of the many handicapped children surrendered by their biological parents. 

As for marriage being between a man and a woman only, I certainly see it in those terms and it is on this fundamental coupling that is the principal foundation for a viable society but there is room for other arrangements too. Single people, communes and same sex couples, all enrich civilised society in their own way. In no way do any of these detract from my marriage to my husband so why should I insist that society push them to the margins. Let all take their place in the centre and feel welcome.


----------



## GDAD (Aug 18, 2013)

Having quite a few Gay friends, I am glad to hear what N.Z. have done.It give gay couple all the same legal rights as hetrsexual couple.
I see no problem in gay couples adopting children. Gay couple can can also have children with donor eggs & Sperm & a surroget womb.
*In answer to Michael: I have seen more Hetrosexual people charged with ****** crimes against children than gays. Come to think of it
I can't really remember a Gay person being charged.  DON'T CONFUSE A PAEDOPHILE WITH A GAY PERSON*.


----------



## rkunsaw (Aug 18, 2013)

As to demanding to be able to adopt children.  C'mon.  If homosexuality  is so 'normal' then why can't they accept it's drawbacks?  Why are they  so anxious to pretend that they are the heteros that they accuse of  discriminating against them?  
A lot of heterosexual people are deprived of producing the children they  desperately want too, it's not just them.  They ain't anything special.   Why don't they want to be truly equal in coping with that disadvantage  too?  What exactly are they trying to prove at the cost of an infant  who has no say in the matter?? 				


I fully agree with the above. Nature doesn't allow two of the same sex to reproduce. We shouldn't either.


----------



## Jillaroo (Aug 18, 2013)

_My honest opinion is that no matter what sex you are, no matter what partner you like, be it same sex or heterosexual we are all human beings with rights, what right have we to dictate to a couple in a same sex partnership that they can't be married and can't have children. We need to move with the times and accept people as they are not for what we try to make them be_


----------



## Pappy (Aug 18, 2013)

I know that I'm old fashion as hell, but growing up and through most of the first half of my life, I never heard or cared what other people did with their lives. It was, I figured, none of my business. I had a gay friend in the Army and he lived his life and I minded my own business.

It's when all this hub-bub about parades, TV, and throwing it in my face, almost daily, that I started to get a bad feeling about all this him and him and her and her. I don't CARE.!

Live your lives the way you want, please, just don!t keep reminding me constantly about how you want to live yours.

I told you I was old fashion at the beginning of this. I was a country boy and was taught to respect my elders and not judge folks who are different.


----------



## TICA (Aug 18, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> I thought like this until I had lengthy discussions with a lesbian couple on another forum. Slowly I began to realise that, just like mainstream heterosexual people, the same sex attracted folk are anything but uniform in their beliefs, needs and desires. Some have no desire for marriage and even despise it as an oppressive and anachronistic institution. Others see it as the validation of their commitment to each other. These people are the ones who feel discriminated against by the status quo. I can see their point. If I was denied the opportunity for a legal marriage for some reason that seemed irrational to me then I would probably feel the same. Actually, I know I would.
> 
> In addition I came to realise that children are already present in many of these unions, especially lesbian unions. One or both of the women may have had a child by a previous marriage or by AID. However the family is formed it is still a family but if the birth mother dies then the other parent has no claim to her child or children at all. The family can be split up, the children claimed by grandparents or estranged fathers. A court would probably decide the best outcome for the children but the timing, at the time of bereavement, couldn't be worse. It would be better for all concerned if the arrangements could be hammered out prior to a death as part of an application to adopt each others children.
> 
> ...



Well said.  Exactly my feelings on this subject!


----------



## That Guy (Aug 18, 2013)

TICA said:


> Well said.  Exactly my feelings on this subject!



Agreed.


----------



## JustBonee (Aug 18, 2013)

pappy said:


> it's when all this hub-bub about parades, tv, and throwing it in my face, almost daily, that i started to get a bad feeling about all this him and him and her and her. I don't care.!
> 
> Live your lives the way you want, please, just don!t keep reminding me constantly about how you want to live yours.



Amen


----------



## Knightofalbion (Aug 19, 2013)

I hold that the male with the female is the natural order of things... But that being said, if two people love each other with a pure heart and want to be together, then good luck to them. I wish them all the happiness in the world.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 19, 2013)

The view of my church is that people living in "right relationships" are fit for ordination. This includes married couples and same sex couples. It is promiscuity and infidelity (and a few other moral faults) that are the real barriers to leadership in the church. Of course, not everyone who wants to be a minister is accepted for ordination - they have to have a strong sense of calling and this must be endorsed by their worshipping congregation elders, but homosexuality per se is not a barrier in and of itself.

So if homosexual men and lesbian women may become ministers and marry other people, is it reasonable to deny them the marriage rite for themselves?


----------



## Jackie22 (Aug 19, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> I thought like this until I had lengthy discussions with a lesbian couple on another forum. Slowly I began to realise that, just like mainstream heterosexual people, the same sex attracted folk are anything but uniform in their beliefs, needs and desires. Some have no desire for marriage and even despise it as an oppressive and anachronistic institution. Others see it as the validation of their commitment to each other. These people are the ones who feel discriminated against by the status quo. I can see their point. If I was denied the opportunity for a legal marriage for some reason that seemed irrational to me then I would probably feel the same. Actually, I know I would.
> 
> In addition I came to realise that children are already present in many of these unions, especially lesbian unions. One or both of the women may have had a child by a previous marriage or by AID. However the family is formed it is still a family but if the birth mother dies then the other parent has no claim to her child or children at all. The family can be split up, the children claimed by grandparents or estranged fathers. A court would probably decide the best outcome for the children but the timing, at the time of bereavement, couldn't be worse. It would be better for all concerned if the arrangements could be hammered out prior to a death as part of an application to adopt each others children.
> 
> ...




another..'Well Said'


----------



## Archer (Aug 19, 2013)

I don't care either way as long as they're happy....
I'm just waiting for the *Hetero Parade* so I can run down King William Street with my "goodies" on show and announce to the world that yes, there are hetero sexuals amongst us...Shock horror...!!...


----------



## Ozarkgal (Aug 19, 2013)

Pappy said:


> I know that I'm old fashion as hell, but growing up and through most of the first half of my life, I never heard or cared what other people did with their lives. It was, I figured, none of my business. I had a gay friend in the Army and he lived his life and I minded my own business.
> 
> It's when all this hub-bub about parades, TV, and throwing it in my face, almost daily, that I started to get a bad feeling about all this him and him and her and her. I don't CARE.!
> 
> ...




_Double Amen!_


----------



## Fern (Aug 19, 2013)

Talking about the church, Anglican & Catholic religions will not accept homosexuality, they at least are staying true to the church & Bible. I am not religious, but I fail to see how any church can preach from the Bible and accept homosexuality, that is so hypocritical. 
I wonder how many are truly homosexuals and not just a lifestyle they have chosen for themselves which I believe is the truth of the matter.


----------



## Anne (Aug 19, 2013)

Fern said:


> Talking about the church, Anglican & Catholic religions will not accept homosexuality, they at least are staying true to the church & Bible. I am not religious, but I fail to see how any church can preach from the Bible and accept homosexuality, that is so hypocritical.
> I wonder how many are truly homosexuals and not just a lifestyle they have chosen for themselves which I believe is the truth of the matter.




Fern, it was my understanding that homosexuality was not mentioned in the New Testament; only in the Old, where it was not treated lightly.  I've not read the Bible in years (should, I guess), but that is what I recall also.

I don't feel I really can judge others, but I don't like the 'in your face' attitude of some groups, either...I agree that some have chosen that lifestyle for various reasons.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 19, 2013)

Allowing for the differences in language and translation, there are references to homosexual practices in the NT, all of them coming from letters Paul wrote to the early Christian churches.



> *Homosexuality in the New Testament*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Jesus talked about marriage in the context of a question about divorce. The question was a kind of verbal trap from his detractors. Some people interpret his answer as a statement that divorce is forbidden by God.





> And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made _them _at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”



Society has given up trying to force couples to be married for life, no matter what. Hypocrisy ? Not really. The hypocrisy lies in all of the various ways that people have found to get around this seemingly absolute statement. I refer to having the marriage declared invalid by the church through annulment and to the wide spread acceptance of mistresses, with the wife sidelined by her husband.

For anyone interested, this link is to a site that talks about some of the background to the marriage/divorce issue. This may seem like a distraction from the OP but if we are to take the scriptural statements about homosexuality as absolutes, then we really ought to do the same for the divorce statements.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/guzik/commentaries/4019.htm

I neither endorse nor refute the arguments. I'm just trying to show that scholarly opinions vary and that context is all important. As it was in biblical times, so it is today.


----------



## Ozarkgal (Aug 19, 2013)

*Boy (formerly girl) meets girl (formerly boy)*
*They look like any other happy couple – but each is going through gender reassignment. Kate Hilpern hears an unusual love story.
*




Dang..this world gets more mixed up and crazier everyday.......
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/boy-formerly-girl-meets-girl-formerly-boy-8775000.html


----------



## JustBonee (Aug 20, 2013)

Ozarkgal said:


> *Boy (formerly girl) meets girl (formerly boy)*
> *They look like any other happy couple – but each is going through gender reassignment. Kate Hilpern hears an unusual love story.*
> Dang..this world gets more mixed up and crazier everyday.......
> 
> ...




:saywhat: ..Seems to me,  they could have saved a lot of time and money if they had left things alone. ..(just my simple mind at work) :lol:


----------



## MercyL (Aug 20, 2013)

I have always thought marriage was a religious institution. AS such, governing bodies in the USA really have no business granting certificates of marriage. Governments should grant certificates for civil unions for both hetero and homosexual couples. If the  couple wants the marriage license, they should go to their church to have that ceremony.

As irritating as the practice is for some, this is why gay people remind us that their relationships are treated differently. The government, that taxes everyone,  supports a religious institution that excludes a segment of the taxpaying public.

Nothing changes if the majority is comfortable with the status quo. The reminders remove that comfort leveling the effects of discrimination so that everyone is uncomfortable with the status quo.


----------



## That Guy (Aug 20, 2013)

I had a hetrosexual friend who lived in a very homosexual community tell me he was a "closet straight" . . .


----------



## GDAD (Aug 20, 2013)

Fern said:


> Talking about the church, Anglican & Catholic religions will not accept homosexuality, they at least are staying true to the church & Bible. I am not religious, but I fail to see how any church can preach from the Bible and accept homosexuality, that is so hypocritical.
> I wonder how many are truly homosexuals and not just a lifestyle they have chosen for themselves which I believe is the truth of the matter.



Fern; the Catholic Church is hypocritical, look at all the paedophilia that has been going on! They should practice what they preach!..
........I went to De La Salle school for six years here in Sydney.


----------



## Fern (Aug 20, 2013)

GDAD said:


> Fern; the Catholic Church is hypocritical, look at all the paedophilia that has been going on! They should practice what they preach!..
> ........I went to De La Salle school for six years here in Sydney.


Have to agree with you there, Gdad.


----------



## Fern (Aug 20, 2013)

Archer said:


> I don't care either way as long as they're happy....
> I'm just waiting for the *Hetero Parade* so I can run down King William Street with my "goodies" on show and announce to the world that yes, there are hetero sexuals amongst us...Shock horror...!!...


I hope you don't send people blind.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 21, 2013)

MercyL said:


> I have always thought marriage was a religious institution. AS such, governing bodies in the USA really have no business granting certificates of marriage. Governments should grant certificates for civil unions for both hetero and homosexual couples. If the  couple wants the marriage license, they should go to their church to have that ceremony.
> 
> As irritating as the practice is for some, this is why gay people remind us that their relationships are treated differently. The government, that taxes everyone,  supports a religious institution that excludes a segment of the taxpaying public.
> 
> Nothing changes if the majority is comfortable with the status quo. The reminders remove that comfort leveling the effects of discrimination so that everyone is uncomfortable with the status quo.



I'm not sure what the situation is in the US but in Australia marriage is not exclusively a religious institution. The Commonwealth government has passed laws about marriage and currently the law, not the churches, stipulate that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. There are certain conditions that must be met for a marriage to be considered legal i.e. both partners must be free to marry and cannot be legally married to someone else. They must be 18 years or older and enter into the contract of their own free will. Some of the wording of the marriage ceremony is mandatory for the marriage to be legal. The ceremony must be carried out by a licensed and registered celebrant.

Ministers of the word are considered to be celebrants with one condition - they are only permitted to perform marriage ceremonies where at least one of the couple is an adherent of their faith. A Presbyterian minister for example cannot marry two Hindus but can marry a Christian to a Buddhist if asked to do so. This is why they sometimes ask whether baptism has occurred.

It is the government that controls the marriage laws and in this country all that needs to happen is to remove the section of the act that stipulates that it is between a man and a woman to allow same sex marriages to become legal. This would not mean that ministers, priests, rabbis etc would be compelled to perform marriages that conflicted with the tenets of their faith.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 21, 2013)

> It is the government that controls the marriage laws and in this country  all that needs to happen is to remove the section of the act that  stipulates that it is between a man and a woman to allow same sex  marriages to become legal. This would not mean that ministers, priests,  rabbis etc would be compelled to perform marriages that conflicted with  the tenets of their faith.



This is the crux of it really though isn't it Warri?
  The noise that some of them (not all) are making is directed at the church.  They give the impression that they want to beat down Church standards into forcing ministers/priests to perform the ceremony.  They maintain that only a religious ceremony gives them the 'real' marriage, even though the religion they insist they adhere to explicitly denies them that right.  ... no, I don't see that logic either...

If it was as simple as civil ceremonies being enough for them there wouldn't be a problem.  

As you well know I'm no supporter of religion at all but it galls me that these  people, 'the velvet mafia' are demanding that the rights of those selling religion be subjugated to accommodate their own. 

 I don't care if a priest/shaman/whatever is a believer or a snake oil salesman he has a brand to protect and the right to adhere to whatever principles form the basis of whatever religion he's selling.  His flock/customers have the right to expect that what they buy/believe in is a pure product, neither contaminated, nor altered, at the whim of current whim/fashion/or politics.  

If it's supposed to be divinely written then unless homosexuals can perform miracles and exude haloes then they're not quite yet gods enough to alter that.  They can either believe their religion is founded on 'God's' rules and accept that, or they can admit that it's just a power play to validate their own deviation from those rules.  If homosexuals think that God's rules should be altered to accommodate them then they aren't really 100% believers and have no right to demand that those who are change a damned thing for them.

Homosexuals demand that we accept and tolerate their lifestyle without question, yet have no compunction in denigrating and doing their damnedest to dismantle the lifestyle of others. 
 It's purely their egocentric hypocrisy that puts me offside with them, nothing to do with religious beliefs, I don't have any.  
But I do have a genetic tendency to combat bullsh*t when I see it, and too much of this gay marriage, new agey, emotional blackmail rhetoric just stinks of it.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 21, 2013)

Wandering down a side track for a moment, in Christian terms the minister or priest does not actually marry the couple. They marry each other by their commitment and their vows. The religious celebrant is acting as a witness to these vows on behalf of all the members of the church and blesses the union. 

I used to teach a short course on marriage to the Year 9 students at the catholic schools. We taught that marriage could be considered from three angles - a contract recognised by the state (de jure marriage), a sacrament of the catholic church like baptism, reconciliation, eucharist and holy orders and it can also be a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman with or without the blessing of state or church (de facto marriage). Same sex couples can avail themselves of the last form and with a very simple amendment to the law, could have the first form as well. I think hell will freeze over (metaphor) before they will be able to receive the blessing of the catholic church but for some years now some Uniting Church ministers have conducted ceremonies acknowledging and blessing their unions. These ceremonies have no legal status whatsoever.


----------



## That Guy (Aug 21, 2013)




----------



## basefare (Aug 21, 2013)

This has been a topic of discussion in the news for many years. I am of two minds on the subject. Most in my circle of friends are okay with same sex marriage. It has been a crime in many states for two centuries. I find it hard to readily sign on to this arrangement. I suppose like many other changes in the way things are done, acceptance will come in bits and pieces. Still...


----------



## Fern (Aug 21, 2013)

There's an age old saying "trust your instincts, your inner voice", something that I've adhered to all my adult years & I have to say not once have my instincts let me down. When I see 2 men kissing in a manner that leaves nothing to your imagination (that's the simplest way of putting it) my instincts react ,&  not in a positive way, the same goes if it is 2 women in the same scenario. There's nothing wrong with a friendly gesture, but not with ****** connotations. 
According to some medical science, some people are 'born that way' for one reason or another. That I can handle albeit with reservation, but those who choose homosexuality as a lifestyle, it's an absolute no no.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 21, 2013)

I have a bigger problem with prostitution because it involves exploitation of one person by another.


----------



## Fern (Aug 21, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> I have a bigger problem with prostitution because it involves exploitation of one person by another.


Not always. Now that prostitution has become legal there are many women/girls on the streets or have set up their 'business' in their own home, they certainly are not being exploited and you can bet their 'customers' certainly wouldn't say they are being exploited.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 21, 2013)

Nup. I don't see it that way Warri, unless  you mean that pros exploit men. 

 
As usual we seem to have different views of 'morality'.  

Totally aside from 'sex slavery' which is not prostitution as such, and  the disease aspect of the trade,  I have no problem with prostitution at all.
Any woman who chooses that path to make money is in a service industry and doing society a favour. I don't see her as lesser being for her choice of occupation, just a braver one than me.  

On thinking about it, all PCness, and eggshell tippytoeing aside,  I guess my reactions are more like Fern's, it's the way we're wired I guess.
 Seeing a prostitute at work doesn't elicit the same instinctive and uncontrollable reaction of distaste that seeing two blokes, or women, pashing in public does. Guess it's my 'problem' eh??  

 Logic tells me that homosexuality exists, always has, and what they do is their business but I don't want to see it, or hear about it.  It's private.

The flaunting of it is what burrs me up.  I've never reacted by wanting to launch a crusade against it, I simply find it a distasteful human trait that we don't need to have constantly shoved into every damned aspect of our daily lives.  It's just not that important. 

We especially don't need to be including it in an election campaign as  though a candidate's tolerance level to them is a priority to be  considered in choosing who should be entrusted to run the Country!   We shouldn't for a second consider that we should vote for those with their brains between their legs over those with brains between their ears!   A Nation needs more than ****** orientation to base it's constitution and economic future on.
The subject of same sex marriage has no place whatever in an election campaign!   aaaaagh!

A question for you Warri,  how come normal male behaviour, is seen as patronising misogyny and triggers cries of outrage and gibber about glass ceilings and exclusion by the 'old boy network' from feminists,  while  homosexual behaviour, elicits their supportive tolerance??

 The velvet mafia look after their own in society, politics, and in the  workplace too, they don't cut 'normal' women any slack either when it  comes to the choice of promotion.  The 'old boys' aren't the only ones  who network.  I've seen the 'velvets' networking, but am yet to see a  cabal of  prostitutes keeping women from furthering their careers.  Pick your  poison. 



Heterosexual male behaviour is perceived by 'feminists' as an aberration which needs to be changed, yet homosexual behaviour is 'normal' and acceptable??
It's okay that homosexuals are 'born that way' but not okay that heterosexuals are??
 I don't get that thinking process at all, sorry.  Logic doesn't live there.  




So, what is it?  Double standards on principles and morality or have they been hoodwinked by the emotional hype ??


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 21, 2013)

By prostitution I did not mean prostitutes. I mean the whole industry. Girls and boys too are often exploited, trafficked, abused and have their health destroyed. I am naïve about a lot of things but I don't buy the idea that this is an industry like any other. I place it on a par with child workers in mines.

Any way, we were talking about same sex marriage, and if prostitution is acceptable and legal, why are we objecting to same sex monogamous relationships being legally recognised? Aren't all 'abominations' equal or is there a hierarchy?


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 21, 2013)

[*Joust alert*. 

]
(_*Note:* The arguments stated are for the purpose of debate and while in the main honestly held at present, don't preclude the possibility of them being changed in future to either make a point, or being stretched to breaking point. 

)
_
Yes there is a heirarchy Warri.  Paeodophiles claim to be 'born that way' would it be discriminatory to deny them equal right under the law to 'marry' a 10 year old??  

Of course not, and of course I'm stretching the point, (as usual), but where is the legal line to be drawn?  
Who's gross out factor is to be held as the 'abomination' benchmark??
When does Democracy become Anarchy?  
How many minority cause driven amendments need to be applied before a law stops being relevant to the majority any more?

You see the subject on an emotional and ethical level, I see it on a political and agenda driven level.    While you see it as an enlightened acceptance and tolerance of a very small minority I see it as the latest assault on breaking down the rules that have held our particular brand of society together for millenia by a very focused and egocentric group.   I don't include all homosexuals in that group, just the 'crusaders'.

I don't see why society should change, and upset many, to accommodate the need of some small minority to boost their own self esteem by forcing society to validate their difference. 
I'm not against changing the rules as circumstances, technology, even majority attitudes change. But only logically beneficial changes.  Not changes to cater to the whims of minority cult beliefs, twitter fads, ****** orientations, or despot's visions.

How will this emotionally enlightened negation of the basic foundation of the marriage laws benefit society as a whole exactly?  Other than to shut the velvet mafia while they plan their next move towards superiority?
Marriage as an institution is about knackered anyway so why bother at all??

Let's get the emotion out of it.  Allow all  that romantic tosh be 'solemnised' by spiritual ritual by all means, but that shouldn't be the legal version.  
My druthers are that they scrap it entirely as it stands and make the legal version a straight out business contract signed and sealed for a set number of years to protect accrued joint assets and 'legitimize' progeny.  When the time's up the contract is void unless renewed.  No lawyers necessary, other than for the inevitable dust ups over who gets to control the children. 

 No alimony on bust ups, penalties for early termination of contract, no support from the 'losing' party in custody settlements, just 50/50 split of the assets....  yeah, dreamin'.   Maybe then neither of them would want the kids. 



   btw:  Contracted marriage wouldn't have to be gender exclusive, just a third box ticked 'other' would suffice under law.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 22, 2013)

> How will this emotionally enlightened negation of the basic foundation of the marriage laws benefit society as a whole exactly?  Other than to shut the velvet mafia while they plan their next move towards superiority?
> Marriage as an institution is about knackered anyway so why bother at all??


We have a meeting of the minds on that point, at least.


> My druthers are that they scrap it entirely as it stands and make the legal version a straight out business contract signed and sealed for a set number of years to protect accrued joint assets and 'legitimize' progeny.



Now you're talking Sharia law. Limited term marriage contracts are a feature of Islam.
:lol:


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 22, 2013)

> Now you're talking Sharia law. Limited term marriage contracts are a feature of Islam.



Fair dinkum???  Didn't know that.  Well well, proves even stopped clocks are right twice a day.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Aug 22, 2013)

Having grown up as a church-going Christian, I have been taught all my life that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, as the Bible says it supposed to be . My mind is not apt to change in that thinking. 
However, I also realize that a person who was not brought up believing the Bible was holy, and not taught Christian principles would not necessarily think the same way. 

I do not believe that we are supposed to try and push our religious beliefs on anyone, so even if it is different than my belief, then they have the right to their own lifestyle, as long as they are not trying to force their lifestyle on me either.

I think there is a huge difference between something being religiously acceptable, and being legally acceptable, and I do not think that church and state belong together; therefore, if the law says that two men or two women can marry legally, I have no quarrel with that law, even if it is distasteful to me personally. 

I agree that it should not be publicly flaunted, but neither do I think that anyone of ANY ****** persuasion should be involved in public display of what is meant to be private.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 22, 2013)

> I think there is a huge difference between something being religiously acceptable, and being legally acceptable,







That sums it up nicely HFL, wish I could keep it short like that. .... bet others do too.


----------



## MercyL (Aug 22, 2013)

Fern said:


> There's an age old saying "trust your instincts, your inner voice", something that I've adhered to all my adult years & I have to say not once have my instincts let me down. When I see 2 men kissing in a manner that leaves nothing to your imagination (that's the simplest way of putting it) my instincts react ,&  not in a positive way, the same goes if it is 2 women in the same scenario. There's nothing wrong with a friendly gesture, but not with ****** connotations.
> According to some medical science, some people are 'born that way' for one reason or another. That I can handle albeit with reservation, but those who choose homosexuality as a lifestyle, it's an absolute no no.




AS long as one's disapproval is guideance for their own lives, all is well. That disapproval should not extend beyond one's self. 

People living peaceful lives and contributing to society in a positive manner, should be allowed to live, unmolested by bigotty.


----------



## MercyL (Aug 22, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> I have a bigger problem with prostitution because it involves exploitation of one person by another.




There are prostitutes who have chosen sex work for many reasons, one of them  being their need to make a living "wage" while having more control over their time and the sorts of customers they must deal with. Far from being forced, they cultivate their own clientele without being used by pimps or standing on street corners.

Exploitation exists everywhere. Employers, outside of sex work, exploit employees just as much as pimps exploit prostitutes.


----------

