Homosexual Partnerships
MPs fear backlash on gay marriage. I don’t think that the twenty or so people in each electorate who believe marriages can be anything you want them to be when you wake up on any particular morning will impact on the upcoming election.
Misha Schubert, who must have a degree in Social Engineering conjures up dissent where there is none in this article in the Australian
I posted on this subject some months ago and have found no arguement to change my mind.
I said then;
The Prime Minister rules out supporting ‘Gay Marriages’. Way to go John. Stick with it. Same sex relationships are just that – relationships. Marriage is between a couple, male and female, for the purpose of procreation and providing a secure base for the next generation. Relationships, including ones legaly defined, certainly don’t need to borrow ‘Marriage’ as a base. Why do a small proportion of society feel a need to change that? Maybe they fight to get ‘alternative’ lifestyles accepted as the norm. Well it isn’t, they aren’t and never will be. This is not an anti-gay post as I’m happy to accept ‘different stroke for different folks’ but hey, us hetro’s thought up marriage – you think up something else.The important matters have been dealt with.
The superannuation changes would allow gay couples, elderly siblings who live together, or parents of a disabled child to leave their superannuation to each other without the present 30per cent tax penalty for someone other than a spouse, de facto spouse or child.That’s as it should be. Misha quotes Howard as ‘Defending his plan’. Against whom, Mischa? You?
Facebook
Twitter
As marriage has always been a ceremony between a man and a woman, it would seem that it is not John Howard that’s being discrimminatory here. That’s just the way it is. Man and Woman. Part of the marriage vows of most Christian weddings ask “will you accept children lovingly from god”? Well I’m definatley no Bible historian but I doubt when the good book was written that they meant through man/man relationships adopting them to complete the circle.
I always shake my head when gay lobyists lambaste the church and it’s values and in the next breath claim they want access to a religious ceremony or union that was meant solely for hetrosexuals. Same sex couples can consent to sex with each other and that’s their business but a wedding is a ceremony for a man and a woman. Some people do animals, doesn’t make it right though.
It’s amazing how often people scream “Discrimmination” if things don’t fall their way. Imagine the upraor if someone ran a hetrosexual mardi-gras or hetrosexual olympics..
Good on you Johnny I say.
To quote an oft said comment, not necessarily on this topic:
“Follow the money”
Tolerance that leads to acceptance of practices that most people consider perverted does not, and should not, mean approval of those practices.
Well done, John Howard.
Tolerance that leads to acceptance of practices that most people consider perverted does not, and should not, mean approval of those practices.
To an extent, that is the problem (getting off of the subject of gay marriges for a moment) – now the idea of ‘tolerance’ has come to mean that we must tolerate the intolerable.
Marriage is more than just an institution for the raising of children in a secure environment. Many people marry and do not have children. Many simply marry to demonstrate their love, and for the various benefits and protections it offers a couple.
It is also not solely a religious ceremony. Many people get married outside of church.
It should, and in my opinion eventually will, be offered to gay couples. I look forward to that day.
Yes. Marriage is a lot more than an institution for raising children. It is an institution that stabalizes society, protects women and children, creates a structure for the next generation and helps to advance socity through associated rules that prevents, for example, inbreeding.
I think it’s more of a case that some people marry and do not have children, not many.
The religious aspect of marriage only comes about because the early gurus brought in rules to make society work and in those days the bible was the means of communicating these laws. I don’t think it should have any currency in a debate being conducted up to 2 millenia after the book was compiled or written.
Marriage has been defined by all societies as a legal union between a man and a woman for a very long time now. To change this basic tenet should require a very vaild reason and I don’t think Gay activists or social engineers have come up with one yet.
The original reason given for the debate was financial and now that has been addressed I think we can move on.
If Gays want a union that is recognized by God then they have to accept that God only exists in the mind of Bishops and Popes and I can’t see them making much headway there.
Best think of another name that doesn’t wind up 90% of the population or make them feel their devotion to a marriage has somehow been devalued.
Again – Us hetero’s thought up the term marriage – they can think of another one.
That is the essential point, taking govt and marriage act out for sec, gays miss the point, acceptance of gay marriages can’t be compelled, and not least because, as Kev points up, its function. Now as a sound hetero male too, this is quite distinct from gays getting on with their lives and arrangements and freedom of property and its transfer and such like matters – same can be said of unmarried heteros. It’s not a matter of `homophobia’ (ridiculous word anyway) at all.
Next, it’s not a matter stirring the electorates, despite `gay activists’ very loud screams of oppression. There are far more pressing , serious matters like, how to get rid of the lunatics in Spring St. before they finish ruining Victorians once again.