Gay marriage

[Aractus]

---

Hi, is first post. Apologies in advance for my inadequacies with the English language.

Bored and can't sleep, I was wondering what people opinions were on gay marriage. I'll go first, to encourage discourse....... disagree please, and if my opinion makes you angry don't just shout at your screen. TYPE IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS


I was of the opinion that it the argument (at it's core) is merely different interpretations of what "God" wanted, that aside, if civil partnerships have the same rights as a married couples should atheists even care about then infighting of theists?

If we are to take sides, firstly by granting the premise of their "God", could we not challenge the homophobia prevalent within Christianity. Encourage an interpretation that was more tolerant to be taught, we seem to be stuck with religion........ why not warp it in something that's more inclusive than exclusive?

I suppose I want the Church to exclude lots of people on such grounds, gives ammunition for shyte throwing matches if nothing else.

---

Why do you word your question in such a nonsensical way?

In the ACT, we had civil unions, which I personally believe were too discriminatory - and that's because they were designed by the government simply for being "pro same-sex", I would have preferred it to allow full registrations of de-facto unions, not discriminating on age, number of partners or whether the couples are incestuous. It granted the same legal status as marriage - the same "benefits", etc. The only benefit it doesn't give is adoption but I'll get to that later. The left wing government thought it'd be a terrific idea to re-legislate it into marriage, and they did, and it was then thrown out in the High Court as I knew it would be.

Now, you're thinking but what if a 26 year old registers a relationship with a 12 year old?

Well the only law that could be broken is if they are having sexual intercourse, and if they aren't then their relationship isn't illegal. So my point stands that in my mind the civil union bill should have allowed full access to everyone, no matter how disturbing it might seem.

On to marriage. Marriage discriminates against age, where the person is already married (number of partners), incestuous couples and same-sex couples.

Finally, adoption. Children need both a father and a mother, and there are psychological studies that prove this. We also need two feet, two legs, two arms and two hands - people who lack one of these are usually classed as "disabled", giving the legal recognition that they are physically challenged.

If a child is born with only one arm, then unfortunately that is the cards that he has been dealt. But no one would advocate arbitrarily removing it at birth just because you can. In exactly the same way, no one should advocate deliberately denying a child a father or a mother from birth. The most suitable people for adoption are married couples, they are preferred above any others. It is the most stable environment for a child.

Now this doesn't, nor should it, stop people from adopting from family or friends, in any situations no matter what their relationship status is. But what it means is that the State considers applications made by married couples above others, and then assesses their suitability for state-controlled adoptions (eg, babies given up for adoption). After married couples, the state looks at other couples or singles.

In my opinion, and it's based as I mentioned on psychological studies, there is no way that same-sex couples should be preferred by the state, on the basis that it would be denying either a father or a mother for the child.