F65
Same Sex Marriage
November 08 2012
Comments
-
RHP User
13 years ago
-
RHP User
13 years ago
We have no problems, just keep it in the privacy of your bedroom. We dont want to see two guys or two girls kissing etc at the local shopping centre.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Two people who love each other and they want to make a public commitment to each other with a ceremony ..YAY I say.....bring it on.....go for it... Same sex couples have just as much chance as hetero couples of making it........and I wish any couple of any sex contemplating marriage, the very best of luck.........just rememberr to be kind to and respect each other :)..... We have no problems, just keep it in the privacy of your bedroom. We dont want to see two guys or two girls kissing etc at the local shopping centre. mmmmmmmmm.....why ever not ?........a unusual quote from a profile thats tag line has the word open minded included in it With so much hate and violence in the world I know which I would prefer to see....... :)
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Was this a serious post? I nearly spat my coffee over my laptop. Are there still people out there in Neanderthal land who still think this way???
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I think it's great to hear. Well done to Louise I say.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
And does it not depend on the kiss?Obviously two people getting a pash on at the local shops is possibly a little too out there. But a peck hello on the cheek? What's wrong with that?Why shouldn't gay and lesbian folk be able to conduct them selves in public just like anyone else?
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Perhaps Futurenomads are just very easily embarassed. It may be that they feel the same way about hetero couple pashing, hot and heavy, in public. Perhaps they blush and don't know where to look when a woman breast feeds her child in public. ...Then again, they may just be bigots, in which case, fuck 'em.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
We do not apoligise, we subscribe to what happens behind close doors is no one elses business, if we swing thats our business no one elses, if people out there disapprove thats their problem but we are not going to rub it in their faces with two couples doing a foursome kissing session at a shopping centre....a welcoming kiss yes thats expected. Two guys, two girls, a couple, two couples, making long intense sexual kissing and fondling no way.........Bedroom please! or club / party where its planned to happen as fun...but not a public shopping centre etc. We dont want to see it there but at a swing party we do! By the way:: open minded does not equal anything is on!
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I am all for it, nothing wrong seeing people shows love and affection to a degree in public area from one to another , wether they are straight,lesbian or homosexual we are all entitled to it, we are all have hearts, feelings and wants to express it ,as long its not over the top, why not ?!...i am in supported for gay marriage ,after all i live down the Valley and on sunday nite fluffy nite down town at the Family Nite club, i will walk home sometimes and will bumped to Man and man holding hands ,and woman and woman doin it the same, i will just smiled and happy for them, at least on sunday nite they can expressed themselves and hopefully without anyone goin to bashed them...this is 2012 time to wake up ,peeps...the other people nalso humans no diffrent to you or me and have the same right just like you and me
-
smo669
13 years ago
I'd love to see two girls kissing, anywhere
-
RHP User
13 years ago
So very true...these two words...opened minded or anything goes - does not equate nor are they related... And you should never apologise..ever, for your belief systems Just so sad.....in the year 2012....
-
RHP User
13 years ago
...then walk away, hand in hand, you could accept this as readily as a hetero couple, Futurenomads. That's fine, it's just that, in this light, your initial statement was somewhat superfluous.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
WHO CARES about same sex marriage? In most countries, you are legally married so you can get a tax write-off for when you produce new taxpayers (children).this might seem cold, but that is why governments recognize that couples need a tax break to have enough money to raise future generations of taxpayers, factory workers, and cannon fodder for wars.So WHY is the issue pushed for same sex marriage?I have known more than a few same sex couples who HATE the idea of other same sex couples pushing the issue, because they only want attention to their 'cause' and want a tax write off for being married, and it brings attention to couples who just want to be left alone.The gay/lesbian thing is nothing new, has been around for thousands of years, and people have LIVED with it for thousands of years.WHY FORCE someone else to accept a lifestyle they might not agree with, and make them PAY TAXES to support it?WRONG WRONG WRONG.do what you do in the privacy of your own home.The squeaky wheel gets greased the most.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
If you join a 'club', say the catholic church. you are bound by the RULES of that club. if you dont want to go by the rules, dont join and dont force them to accept your idea of right and wrong.There has been a fight for some time in the U.S. to allow 'gay' boys in to boy scouts.How a kid that is not in to puberty can figure out they are gay is beyond me.One of the 'promises' of being a scout is to 'be physically strong, mentally awake, and MORALLY STRAIGHT.this doesnt mean gays are not allowed in, this means that a boy scout should not engage in ANY sexual activity while he is a scout, with boys or girls.You can date, hold hands, etc, but must remain 'morally straight' and a respectable young man who is a model for society.Again, people push an AGENDA, and it has nothing to do with 'rights'. the gay/lesbian crowd has been around for thousands of years, mixed with regular society.forgive me for Bible bashing, but when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, he was destroying EVERYONE who was being sexually immoral.gays and lesbians should not feel offended because EVERYONE who was sexually immoral was wiped out(orgies, swinger groups, adultry, etc) so most of us here on RHP would have been cooked pillars of salt, reduced down to our basic chemical components.Watch the movie 'year one', with Jack Black. they were going to Sodom where the 'sinners are winners'BOOM!
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Oui oui nous Francaises sont plus libe're's qui la plupart des
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Same sex lovers liberated men who like men , woman who like woman are out if the closet but swingers non non le tabou
-
RHP User
13 years ago
That is one very cynical outlook to have on the world. I must seem odd to you for believing in happy endings. You know, recognising gay marriages falls a long way short of creating shot gun marriages for gays. The gays you know, who don't wish to get married, won't have to. Just like many hetero couples, they can continue to live together without formalities but my daughter wants to marry her girlfriend. They want to express their commitment to each other publically. It's about equality and freedom of choice. Even you would have to admit that this is an important step (only a step mind, not a solution) towards erradicating predjudice.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I think what icumfast says is pretty well right, "who cares" and if two girls want to hold hands and kiss with one of them dressed as bloke, or two guys want to talk in their unnatural hi pitch voices imatating a shelia. They can do all that in shopping centre. I find it entertaintaining, quite funny. Go for it: We all need a laugh.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
So, if two gay men were to approach each other, in a shopping center, kiss hello (no tongue) Quoting 'jensman1903'...then walk away, hand in hand, you could accept this as readily as a hetero couple, Futurenomads. That's fine, it's just that, in this light, your initial statement was somewhat superfluous.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'Futurenomads' Two guys, two girls, a couple, two couples, making long intense sexual kissing and fondling no way.........Bedroom please! or club / party where its planned to happen as fun...but not a public shopping centre etc. We dont want to see it there but at a swing party we do! I think you got the responses you did because you omitted the couple from your previous post, and only mentioned two guys/two girls kissing. As for the OP: Makes me very happ too!
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'icumfast' There has been a fight for some time in the U.S. to allow 'gay' boys in to boy scouts. How a kid that is not in to puberty can figure out they are gay is beyond me. One of the 'promises' of being a scout is to 'be physically strong, mentally awake, and MORALLY STRAIGHT. this doesnt mean gays are not allowed in, this means that a boy scout should not engage in ANY sexual activity while he is a scout, with boys or girls. I fail to see how this has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING. But maybe I'm being distracted by the sharp, sharp cutlery being oh so close to your cock...
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Still, I must be getting worse. I didn't even realise there was anything offensive in that post.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
hes going through all the hoops to get a sex change whether he lives his life as a guy or a girl he should be allowed to marry who ever he wants and the bible bashers should fuck off and mind their own business
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Strange two people of the same sex in a loving relationship is all wrong but Catholic Priest abusing young children is ok.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'Futurenomads' I think what icumfast says is pretty well right, "who cares" and if two girls want to hold hands and kiss with one of them dressed as bloke, or two guys want to talk in their unnatural hi pitch voices imatating a shelia. They can do all that in shopping centre. I find it entertaintaining, quite funny. Go for it: We all need a laugh. This comment really highlights to me how broad-minded the nomads are. Warm, I think its great news!
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'kinabil'Strange two people of the same sex in a loving relationship is all wrong but Catholic Priest abusing young children is ok. Am sure if we look hard enough we will find the same in the same sex camp.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
One of the arguments against legalising homosexual marriage is that it would be a slippery slope - next would come legalising consensual adult incest marriage and so on. While this might seem horrific to you, think about it for a moment. If the basic premise behind legalising homosexuality is that we're all equal and should be allowed to marry regardless of who we choose to have sex with - assuming it's a consenting adult, then ... why not two brothers, a brother and sister, a father and grown-up daughter? Why not? Incest has existed since the beginning of time as well. Why validate homosexual marriage but not consenting incest marriage? And another aurgument against homosexual marriage - once homosexual marriage is legalised, the next minority group eg transgender will then have to step up and start their fight to be recognised as a the gender they identify as, so they can be married as such. This argument suggests that the fight to legalise homosexual marriage just reinforces minority discrimination and the discrimination will just pass onto the next minority group if the fight is successful. Therefore, the fight never actually ends. I don't support either of these arguments on a personal level, but intellectually, academically, both have some strength. In my heart of hearts I believe we're all equal and we should all be free to live as we choose, providing we do no harm to others. But if I REALLY believe that, then what's my argument against consensual adult incest and marriage? It can't be an argument based in sex, or what is and isn't 'natural' otherwise I'd have to use the exact same argument against homosexuality. For the record, I can't argue against consensual adult incest and marriage - tried, but can't. If it started as non-consensual adult/child incest that's a different matter, of course. Try unpacking your own morals and values and beliefs and challenging them with rational, academic argument, and see what happens. In the end the arguments for freedom of choice are a slippery slope, and they lead to MUCH more than same sex marriage. Controversial post, I'm sure :)
-
RHP User
13 years ago
courtesy of iPhone :) Grrrr.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Certainly, if you were to make that link between incest and homosexuality, it may be opening some doors best left closed but I don't see the connection. Same sex couples can not procreate, they can only raise children begat from another union (a right they already have, by the way). There are well known dangers to incestuous child rearing and it's this fact alone that has made incest a crime through the ages. Each argument should be judged on it's own merits. It's unfair to laden the Gay rights cause with this irrelevant issue.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'jensman1903'Certainly, if you were to make that link between incest and homosexuality, it may be opening some doors best left closed but I don't see the connection. Same sex couples can not procreate, they can only raise children begat from another union (a right they already have, by the way). There are well known dangers to incestuous child rearing and it's this fact alone that has made incest a crime through the ages. Each argument should be judged on it's own merits. It's unfair to laden the Gay rights cause with this irrelevant issue. And I'm not 'linking' homosexuality and incest. I'm simply saying that when you take the basis for supporting one change - e.g. legalising same sex marriage, and then apply that basis to other potential changes e.g. consenting adult incest marriage, the lines between what's ok and not ok become quite challenging. For example, one argument AGAINST same sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and homosexual couples can't procreate so shouldn't be able to marry. If that's the case, proponents of that argument would have trouble countering the position that consenting adult incest relationships can procreate, and therefore should be able to marry. They might counter it by saying incest is biologically wrong because it produces children with a range of disabilities. But if that's the case, 1) women over 35 having babies is also biologically wrong, and therefore should be illegal, and 2) consenting, SAME SEX adult incest relationships can't procreate, so therefore there shouldn't be a barrier to them marrying. I'm interested in your comment that "it's this fact alone that has made incest a crime through the ages". Historical accuracy? I don't think so :) I think you'll find that society's reasons for legalising and outlawing things have changed over the centuries, to suit the moral or political agendas of the time. I promise you I could counter just about any moral, religious, societal, politicall or biological argument AGAINST consensual adult incest relationships. That's the nature of logical reasoning - when you really test your thinking, most of the time it can be counter-argued convincingly. Having said that, we all have to make a personal choice about where our line in the sand is, about what we think is OK for us and for society. I think there would be much less conflict in society if we recognised that our line in the sand is just that - a subjective decision about what we're willing to accept and NOT equal to a universal right/wrong (there's no such thing anyway ;)). If we accept that our subjective decision is just that, we might find it easier to accept the views and decisions of others, and be less inclined towards moral superiority. Not that I'm suggesting you're being morally superior Jensman. I'm simply expanding the argument for the sake of clarifying my view. I've found that most of the time when people say something which relates to consenting adults is not ok, if you ask them why, and just keep asking why to each of their responses, they eventually run out of reasonable justification for their view. That's pretty interesting, I think. If they ultimately can't justify their view, how did they form it in the first place? That's the more important issue, I think :)
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I am very much in favour of same sex marriage. Ignoring religious doctrine, no body has given me a valid argument against gay marriage. It is going to happen. It is, in fact, happening as we debate it. Recognising Gay marriages is the right thing to do and nothing will stem the tide. I can not, in conscience, support incestual unions and I would argue vigorously against it. If you chose to campain for a ban on aged mothers, I would be a hypercrite to support you, as Jennylee was thirtynine when our youngest was born, but I would not offer opposition because our son is autistic and I feel conflicted. I don't believe you are trying to inflict injury with your comments, Brave_Heart but taking the discussion in this direction is painful for me so I'll be opting out now.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
What ever rocks your boat..As it doesn't have any impact on our lives..
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I don't really care about the issue but think it would be great for same sex people to marry. Why not have people being able to be happy together. The only issue that needs to be addressed is how will it be legislated. This seems to be the underlying sticking point about same sex marriage. Fine if a separate same sex marriage act is introduced...but not fine if the real agenda of gays and lesbians is personal frustration in being a minority so they want the current marriage act to be amended. Very simple...minorities will always be just that so more concentration should be on the issue or content of the issue not personal frustration that they are not recognised as mainstream. Awesome...all for same sex marriage as who has the right to deny anyone love in life....as long as it legislated correctly and about the issue which means a separate gay and lesbian marriage act.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'brave__heart' And I'm not 'linking' homosexuality and incest. I'm simply saying that when you take the basis for supporting one change - e.g. legalising same sex marriage, and then apply that basis to other potential changes e.g. consenting adult incest marriage, the lines between what's ok and not ok become quite challenging. For example, one argument AGAINST same sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and homosexual couples can't procreate so shouldn't be able to marry. If that's the case, proponents of that argument would have trouble countering the position that consenting adult incest relationships can procreate, and therefore should be able to marry. ... I promise you I could counter just about any moral, religious, societal, politicall or biological argument AGAINST consensual adult incest relationships. That's the nature of logical reasoning - when you really test your thinking, most of the time it can be counter-argued convincingly. Without engaging with everything you've said (just yet), I'll take a crack at it.The ban on incestual relationships/marriage is not merely biological (although that is a strong argument), but an important psychological one. It defers to the importance of the familial bonds in our society and the enormous role they play in our psychological development - in childhood explicitly, but right throughout life. Unlike homosexuality, incest throughout teenage years has time and time again been shown to be incredibly damaging as a direct result of the act (as opposed to as a product of society's reaction, which is how you might characterise the violence committed against gay teens) - this is primarily because sexual abuse is most often a factor, but you might also argue in terms of the importance of access to non-sexualised spaces during the difficult period of sexual maturity.So incestual relationships are taboo because we require the family unit to be above sexualisation - to normalise it and make it more acceptable for adults dilutes the 'purity' of those relationships, leading to even more highly charged environments where siblings are co-habitating.Though they may be consenting adults, there is not an equivalence - psychologically at least, there is no evidence that being gay IN AND OF ITSELF is harmful - the same can't be said for incest.PS. I'm not sure how much of that I believe. That's just my initial thoughts. As a libertarian, I guess there'd be a lot more angles to consider.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'Enigmaoflove' The only issue that needs to be addressed is how will it be legislated. This seems to be the underlying sticking point about same sex marriage. Fine if a separate same sex marriage act is introduced...but not fine if the real agenda of gays and lesbians is personal frustration in being a minority so they want the current marriage act to be amended. Very simple...minorities will always be just that so more concentration should be on the issue or content of the issue not personal frustration that they are not recognised as mainstream. The Marriage Act (1961) was only amended as recently as 2004 to insert the definition "Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life" - ie. they changed it to BE discriminatory, because they feared it could be open to a legal challenge which would allow for same-sex marriage. Also don't forget that every married couple on here is in violation of that act.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Read your arguments, and to be honest they prove my point. Most 'laws' simply reflect the moral or political agenda of the time. Strip those away and a whole range of possibilities arise. The anti-homosexual rights movement has argued that homosexuality is a direct threat to the family unit and the psychological strength of society for too long to remember. I recognise the issue is incredibly complex and a range of conditions would have to be met to satisfy some of the argument I presented, e.g. Adult consensual relationship with no history of child/adult non-consensual etc. A classic example is biological brother/sister raised separately, who meet as adults and form a relationship. There are many such relationships where, when the couple learns they're siblings they ultimately choose to stay together anyway. They weren't part of a family unit, as such. They pose no psychological threat (though I think that's a thin argument anyway).
-
RHP User
13 years ago
For the record, the points I've offered are not intended to be personal in any way. It was an exercise in logical reasoning, albeit with a controversial subject, and I appreciate that kind if conversation and subject is not everyone's cup if tea. Definitely no hurt intended.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Marginalisation is bad news (just my opinion).
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'brave__heart' Read your arguments, and to be honest they prove my point. Most 'laws' simply reflect the moral or political agenda of the time. Strip those away and a whole range of possibilities arise. The anti-homosexual rights movement has argued that homosexuality is a direct threat to the family unit and the psychological strength of society for too long to remember. I recognise the issue is incredibly complex and a range of conditions would have to be met to satisfy some of the argument I presented, e.g. Adult consensual relationship with no history of child/adult non-consensual etc. A classic example is biological brother/sister raised separately, who meet as adults and form a relationship. There are many such relationships where, when the couple learns they're siblings they ultimately choose to stay together anyway. They weren't part of a family unit, as such. They pose no psychological threat (though I think that's a thin argument anyway). I partially agree with you, because it would be ridiculous to argue otherwise! Of course laws reflect moral and political arguments of the day. That's true by definition in a democracy!But it's this idea of one argument being equivalent to another because they're structurally the same where I disagree with you.Yes, the Christian lobby can say that gay-marriage destroys the family unit and the psychological strength of society. A Coke lobby could then say that Pepsi purchases also destroy the family unit and threaten the psychological strength of society. It's not the format of the argument that matters but the justification behind it.Logically, there is no good reason that stands up to interrogation for banning gay marriage - it relies on an appeal to religion and tradition (I think it was you who posted the link to the different kinds of logical fallacies the other day?)Similarly, there is no good reason that stands up to interrogation for banning Pepsi (well, Pepsi haters might disagree, but then why should their dislike of something limit my choice to drink Pepsi?)There is, however, a non-traditional, non-religious reason for banning pedophilia (the concept of consent, though recognising that it too, as well as 'childhood', is a social construct that's changed over time.) Same with marrying animals. They're not simply appeals to tradition or a 'higher moral authority'.In the situation you mentioned where the brother and sister weren't raised together - dunno! I guess the biological concern still comes into play, though to be honest I've never really considered the taboo of incest in any systematic way. Maybe there IS an argument to be made for relaxing restrictions on it. However, the point I'm trying to make is that making an 'equivalence' argument based on the form of the criticism is in itself a logical fallacy, since the substance of the concerns are not.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Two people can enter into a legal and binding contract of most any manner as long as it does not force contravention of the law, e.g. on our first anniversary you give me a kilo of primo, on the second you kill my mother-in-law. They can also invite others and have a celebrant present and exchange vows that they write with good intention for each other just like any other couple, some they will keep and others go flying out the window in spite of it all. As for the Holy Sanctimonious Sacraments of some Officious Officials of an organized religion, they all use the same phone when calling 'God'. They can also sue the knickers or jocks off each other when or if it goes wrong and without the disgraceful intervention of "Family Court' to prolong the process. Please point out any difference in the term 'marriage' and/or the level of commitment to the other person? It will be interesting to see in those countries or place that have 'legalized marriage' how the divorce rate eventually starts to be recorded by comparison, I doubt that will be different at all.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
It sadens me that this is still an issue, throughout human history homosexuality is present and normal.Its just been these past few thousand its been called 'bad'. Every primate does it, we're primates too...Julius Caesar promoted homosexuality amongst his troops knowing if they loved each other they would fight harder to protect each other...Its normal fun stuff moving on nothing to see here... (I really wish that was the case) It should just be normal for anyone to marry anyone of consenting adult age.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
it will just be more divorces to be settle in court when the relationships sour.long term relationships are slowly becoming a thing of the pastso who really cares ??I don't
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'neptune_drift' There is, however, a non-traditional, non-religious reason for banning pedophilia (the concept of consent, though recognising that it too, as well as 'childhood', is a social construct that's changed over time.) Same with marrying animals. They're not simply appeals to tradition or a 'higher moral authority' As you know Neptune, I never suggested pedophilia was at play in my points. Equivalence is exactly what I'm getting at - it's entirely possible to build conditions around a consenting adult incest relationship - e.g. the brother/sister raised separately example - that mean the relationship would stand up to the same tests of equality, fairness, moral safety and so on as other accepted relationships. In my view, in striving to be a truly compassionate and non-judgmental person, I must must must examine my social conditioning around such things, and test them against sound - though confronting - reasoning. For the record, I have a very close vegetarian friend who says "if it's ok to kill and eat animals, it should be ok to fuck them". But that's a whole other can of worms, better left alone ;)
-
RHP User
13 years ago
i have no problems with same sex relationships and think our country needs to get with the times....... but I strongly dont like it being called marrage, as this is between a man and woman. Sorry but it doesnt sit right with me, but I support the idea of same sex couples as similar to being in a defacto relationship. same qualities but different to the title married. perhaps we need another titlek? maybe I need to get with the timesk? but this is only my thought, please take it as that, and dont be offended.as for adoption, every case should be considered inderpendantly without discrimination of the family configuration.
-
Genius_Ironman
13 years ago
To my way of thinking, legitimising a personal relationship I may choose to have with another, or several other adults is about as far from the function of government as you can get. How does Canberra get to decide this sort of thing?
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Try this for a way to avoid the argument altogether:Suppose the Federal government gets out of the marriage business altogether. then people can get married by any organisation they wish which accepts them. End of debate.Personally I have always thought that there were some things that should be done between consenting adults in private, and the M word is one of them. However since others like to do things in public...People (and their children) whose relationships break down need a legal framework to govern the access rights to kids, property distribution, etc etc, whether or not they are legally married. This has now been partially recognised, as although state and territory law governs the breakdown of de-facto relationships, the Commonwealth Family court now rules on what happens with the children, perhaps it should deal with the property as well for de-facto relationships, so that people have equal rights across the nation.Why have two sets of rules, one for those who have signed a register and one for those who have shacked up? What actual purpose does it serve having a marriage law in this country when such a large number of long term relationships are outside it?If people want or need to make a public commitment to each other, fine, go ahead, do it, invite all your friends and family: just don't get the state involved.End of problem?
-
RHP User
13 years ago
-
RHP User
13 years ago
...as KrissyG's thread on the subject has been deleted I may as well. UndercoverloverO, language evolves. Currently, the word 'marriage' can be defined as any close or intimate association or union. Example cited, "The marriage of words and music in a song", or even the merger of two companies has been described as a "marriage made in heaven", the marriage of strawberries and cream etc. The argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation is also obsolete. Many hetero couples wed who can't or won't have children but this does not have an impact on the recognition or validity of their marriage. The issue is that gay couples deserve the same rights and recognition as hetero couples
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Hey jensman could not have said it better myself
-
RHP User
13 years ago
same sex couples should already be enjoying all the same rights etc as the rest of us.... including marriage and adoption..no issue for us here at all...... it doesnt matter what combination the parents are either....so long as the children are raised with love and care....
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'mikeandshel'same sex couples should already be enjoying all the same rights etc as the rest of us.... including marriage and adoption..no issue for us here at all...... it doesnt matter what combination the parents are either....so long as the children are raised with love and care....
-
RHP User
13 years ago
OMG Brave_Heart I am shocked and I am not even going to go there. I will say marriage is an outdated concept. We should get rid of it all together. How long has marriage been around does anyone know?
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'Meeka100'OMG Brave_Heart I am shocked and I am not even going to go there. I will say marriage is an outdated concept. We should get rid of it all together. How long has marriage been around does anyone know? if we get rid of it...how then do we distribute property and wealth when the relationship falls over? who is our 'partner' in the eyes of the law? what happens when someone dies? what if theres no 'will'....who decides who our 'spouse' is ? how do they decide this? what about 'super'? insurance? paternity/maternity? etc etc...the 'institution' of marriage is a complicated thing, that affords protection to the 2 who are married, their families, and to anyone who has any dealings with either party... its not something to be pushed aside on a whim, without something that looks very much like it being placed in its stead..... this is what same sex couples are fighting for, and what theyve so far been denied, by bureaucrats and do gooders, and bigots and bible bashers.....dont take it away from them before theyve even had a chance to properly sample it.....
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Not quite sure what shocked you - I certainly haven't said anything that hasn't been heartily debated for a long time, as part of the same sex equality debate. These complexities of the debate - the fear that legalising same sex marriage is a slippery slope - are a large part of what has stalled things. Not the only part of course, but in a deeply conservative country, they have a significant influence. At the heart of it all is just fear though. A sad indictment on the decision-makers, but true. Abandoning marriage altogether has it's attractions, though I'm not sure it solves the problem of deep-rooted fear and prejudice that legalises discrimination - not being able to marry - on the basis of sexual preference. And now, I think I've said enough on this topic :)
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Thought police? Key words they pick up on? So much for freedom of speech. Say anything you want....as long as you agree.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
So they would love each other? Sorry, out of context big time. That's like saying judas kissed Jesus because he was gay. I must carefully choose my words as thought police are monitoring (shhhhh!). Sex among the troops was promoted to curtail the obvious things that would happen to the female population of the people they conquered. This was so the conquered people didn't have as much animosity against Caesars troops. As long as they were merrily doing it with each other, they didn't have to worry about their wives and daughters being violated. Hope this post makes it. Key words? Hmmm.... Thought police everywhere. 1984: George Orwell. Here and now. Equilibrium.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I reckon the reason why same sex marriage should be made available, is so that we can just not worry about the sydney mardi gras....but that would probably cost too much in revenue eh?? And for those who get their knickers all tied and up and defensive on my arse, it's a light hearted comment, which doesn't carry any malicious intent, judgement or insensitivies, aimed at anyone. My honest opinion is the gay and lesbian community are the ONLY community that welcomes people with open cheeks...I mean arms!! ooo look I made another funny.....
-
RHP User
13 years ago
You don't have to be married to be legally entitled to your fair share mike. Love that same sex marriages are on the agenda.. Good for them. Leesa
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'mikeandshel' if we get rid of it...how then do we distribute property and wealth when the relationship falls over? who is our 'partner' in the eyes of the law? what happens when someone dies? what if theres no 'will'....who decides who our 'spouse' is ? how do they decide this? what about 'super'? insurance? paternity/maternity? etc etc...the 'institution' of marriage is a complicated thing, that affords protection to the 2 who are married, their families, and to anyone who has any dealings with either party... its not something to be pushed aside on a whim, without something that looks very much like it being placed in its stead..... this is what same sex couples are fighting for, and what theyve so far been denied, by bureaucrats and do gooders, and bigots and bible bashers.....At the risk of repeating myself... these are indeed real concerns, so real that the law already takes care of them, just that it can vary in each state and territory. Now if the 'legal institution" was done away with, everybody would be treated equally by default - married or not, gay straight or whoever.Wouldn't that be simpler, fairer, and more achievable?Just surprises me that our PM, in a de-facto relationship herself ,doesn't advocate this solution.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'thealicecouple' Just surprises me that our PM, in a de-facto relationship herself ,doesn't advocate this solution. There wouldn't be enough votes in it for her.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'couplesint'You don't have to be married to be legally entitled to your fair share mike. Love that same sex marriages are on the agenda.. Good for them. Leesa the mariage act was amended in 2009, giving defacto's, or common law marriages the same rights as those who'd actually done the whole ceremony thing...kinda sad that same sex couples dont even have the basic rights afforded the rest of us...defactos are now considered 'married' in the eyes of the law, and i think that they dont even have to live together any more to be called defacto..its about how many night a week you share meals and a bed. its a crock that its so cock eyed and unfair...i know gay couples who have no rights to the others property, or even super etc, yet they've 'coinhabited' since the late 70's......
-
RHP User
13 years ago
so as to not confuse things....i'm absolutely in favour of the whole marriage concept....its a wonderful wonderful place to be, and something that i'm very proud to be a part of. i love that my wife wanted nothing more than to take my name, and share that with all our family, all our friends and everyone around us.....its where we both wanted to be, its where our lives were always going to take us..... i love being introduced as "Mr and Mrs ......."........its sensational. what i dont like is that others who want to share in this, who'd like to rejoice and celebrate their life, their commitment and their happiness with other...cannot, because of the protests of do gooders, of so called welfare experts, and of bible bashers who are so ridiculously out of touch that its not funny.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
As I said mike, you don't have to be married to spilt stuff. Just commenting on the post you did on page3 Leesa
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'couplesint'As I said mike, you don't have to be married to spilt stuff. Just commenting on the post you did on page3 Leesa i know...was just expanding a little......funnily enough we'd been having a similar convrsation at work...and..... i went thru a defacto collapse about 10 years ago..... she took everything, and i had not a leg to stand on.... sucked big time
-
RHP User
13 years ago
So do away with legal marriage, just have the same rules for dealing with defacto relationships irrespective of gender.Level playing field, end of controversy.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
If same sex people want to call it marriage marry let them......... Lets see what churches will do that and good luck to them......and a problem for Rome! Some people or should we say the majority we imagine like a nice family wedding, Bride in white at a church...why take this away?For the first wedding...Have girls stopped dreaming of this and the love of their life forever? .......But agree once that is experianced and divorce happens....the 2, 3. or 4th serious relationship, white and a church seems kind of inappropiate.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Hi! warmandwilling:) Thanks for the topic.. Frankly I don't see any reason to be Married unless to legitimize your children. A stronmg commitment can be shared by couples be they Hetro Gay or Lesbian Couples etc without this out dated system my view only.. Everyone has the Potential to enjoy this Amazing intimacy with a Special other whatever their Sexual Inclinations are. It should no business of the Govts or Churches to decide what's correct in society what's not.. As for showing their affection in a Public place.I feel there's not enough of this very special Connection displayed. However there are degrees what's deemed acceptable on that occassion .. I adore watching Lovers embrace who ever they are kiss lovingly but I don't wish to see them in the throws of a sexual encounter/orgy whilst I'm doing My shopping I might get envious ha!ha!... By all means enjoy your Patners/Lovers/Friends in very Intimate ways. If you want to kiss me too I'm going to embrace the experience as long as you don't have a dirty great cold sore!! Then a kiss on the cheek and a hug will do ..Cheers Lu:)
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I adore my wife and value the commitment we've made to each other. This is my second marriage as I screwed the first one up but this one is for real. Our union is more than a simple piece of paper so to me marriage is not outdated. All this talk of doing away with marriage would find far more opposition than simply including gays. Why is it so important to some people to keep marriage away from gays that they'd be happier to do away with it all together?
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'jensman1903' I adore my wife and value the commitment we've made to each other. This is my second marriage as I screwed the first one up but this one is for real. Our union is more than a simple piece of paper so to me marriage is not outdated. All this talk of doing away with marriage would find far more opposition than simply including gays. Why is it so important to some people to keep marriage away from gays that they'd be happier to do away with it all together? So, especially if it is 2nd time round - does signing the register mean you will try harder? Or is it the public commitment?Surely commitment is between the two of you, you are the ones who have to work on your relationship, why does your 'legal' status make a difference? That's the bit I have just never understood.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
It has nothing to do with 'signing a register'. Our wedding was not as much a ceremony as a celebration. I have embraced marriage this time around because it was a more informed decision. The first time was very foolish for both my ex and myself. As with many of the topics we discuss, no one is telling you that you have to do it. We don't require you to get married so don't fret. Don't try to take it away from us. As a married couple, whether official or defacto, a hetero couple have certain rights denied gay couples. This is the issue at hand. Gay people want the same rights as everyone else and I want to see them get them.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Im all for same sex marriages, like I have said before... Love knows no boundaries.. regardless of race,sex,colour, height, etc etc. How can some condone this? If they want to hold hands, hug or even kiss in public.... so what? LOVE IS LOVE.. regardless. If this makes the couple( mm or ff) happy. then how can one say that is wrong? Boo to homophobics and their narrow minds, And congrats to the people regardless of gender... who find love. We arent alive for very long...so follow your heart, where ever it may take you.Thats just my thoughts on this matter. xxTRIPSxx
-
RHP User
13 years ago
We are off to our nices wedding....it will be a church all the aunties uncles grandperants there, bride in a white wedding dress, afterwards a reception that will go till midnight...wedding photos , speaches. This is what the kids wanted, no one forced them, its their first time. We will not be suggesting to them...weddings churches etc are dated and not required ....its their very special day. Thinking about it, we have never been to wedding along those lines 2nd time around!
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 15119 Comments: 88292
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1417 Comments: 10255
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2519 Comments: 11672
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2506 Comments: 9772
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 1005 Comments: 5238
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1302 Comments: 5788
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 782 Comments: 1993
-
LGBT
Topics: 170 Comments: 869
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share