Sensational-Adelaide.com

You tell me, it was your comment.

Rev, I agree with you (except for the "no fan of homosexuals" part), but I think the problem with your suggestion is that a 'civil union' would be exactly that -- i.e. it would give the same rights as marriage, but it wouldn't be called 'marriage'. And that, as I understand it, is what same-sex couples want -- not only the same rights as married couples, but also to (legally) be able to call it a 'marriage'. Hence my earlier questions about rights and legal vs dictionary definitions.

I don't disagree it should be referred to as marriage, in the common meaning of the word.
The reason I clarified by saying civil services or whatever, with a celebrant, is because I don't think that religious insitutions, like the Catholic Church for example, should be forced by government to accept same sex marriage. That is a religious matter, and people can't argue on the one hand they want separation of church and state, and then expect the state to force church to change it's ways just to be politically correct in the current age.

And like I've said before I think, what is stopping prominent homosexual's from forming their own Christian/Muslim/Jewish/whatever denomination, in which same sex marriage IS accepted along with heterosexual marriages?

Wouldn't that put more pressure on governments? Especially if say they have 100,000 people in their new denomination?

rev wrote:The reason I clarified by saying civil services or whatever, with a celebrant, is because I don't think that religious insitutions, like the Catholic Church for example, should be forced by government to accept same sex marriage. That is a religious matter, and people can't argue on the one hand they want separation of church and state, and then expect the state to force church to change it's ways just to be politically correct in the current age.

And this new push for a vote specifically says that churches will not be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.

Been thinking about the SA gay marriage legislation vs high court challenge concern.

Would it be cruel & unacceptable to gay couples married under new SA legislation only to have their marriages nullified by a successful legal challenge? What about costs incurred by these couples (marital ceremony, party, blah) if overturned?

Or would it be better if the state govt paid a bunch of constitutional lawyers to double/triple/quadruple check the proposed state legislation will stand the test of time, even though it may take a year or three to conclude?

I read an interesting take on this debate the other day. How about we change the Marriage Act to become the Civil Union Act... Then anyone - straight, gay or otherwise - can get 'civil unioned' (thus giving you the rights that marriage currently gives you). And if you want to get 'married', you go to a church and they decide whether or not they'll marry you. To an extent, it gets past the definitional issue. And presumably would also keep most of the religious folk fairly happy.

Maximus wrote:I read an interesting take on this debate the other day. How about we change the Marriage Act to become the Civil Union Act... Then anyone - straight, gay or otherwise - can get 'civil unioned' (thus giving you the rights that marriage currently gives you). And if you want to get 'married', you go to a church and they decide whether or not they'll marry you. To an extent, it gets past the definitional issue. And presumably would also keep most of the religious folk fairly happy.

Except the term "marriage" isn't exclusive to religion.

-

rev wrote:

crawf wrote:It would be great for SA to be the first state/territory. Though it's pretty embarrassing for Australia that New Zealand has already seen the light.

Seen the light?

Yes. Since then the UK have passed laws allowing same sex marriage.

A couple of years ago marriage was the last thing on my mind. But now I'm getting older and now in a long term relationship, I think it's wrong to deny the right for two loving individuals the right to get married. Yet there are some people who make a complete mockery of marriage, by lasting a couple of weeks or in Kim Kardashian's case 72 days.

Magda Szubanski summed it up well.

"We pay taxes, fight wars for this country, nurse you when you are sick, make you laugh, sing and dance for you, play netball for you, star in your movies, cook your meals, decorate your store windows.

"The law means that you could be a serial killer and have killed all of your spouses and yet you would still be considered fit to marry," she said.

"But if you are gay, then you are not worthy of these same rights."

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/ma ... 6270289668

rev wrote:Why is it embarrassing that New Zealand has legalized same sex marriage before Australia?
Is New Zealand a lesser country below Australia?

No it's not, but Australia is nearly five times the size of New Zealand and not even one state or territory have passed the law here. Plus I like to think we are a progressive and forward thinking country.

Fu** sake, is the use of the word progressive the replacement for calling everything world class?

Ah, and we have a Hollywood reference too.
So if Kardashian was in a same sex marriage, you think it would have lasted longer then 72 days?

Who cares what Magda thinks. Playing the sympathy, poor us, we are victims card. As if gay marriage is the biggest moral and ethical issue facing the world today.

Who cares how big Australia is compared to NZ?
What does that have to do with the topic? How does that relate to laws passed, to what is and isn't legal?

It may not be important to you, rev, but it's incredibly important to a lot of people who want the very basic right to celebrate their relationship with friends and family in the same manner as everyone else.

It's important to me, my partner, our respective extended families and our friends and work colleagues.

Pretty simple concept really - I want my country to treat my relationship with the same respect as everyone else's.

Get it done and we can all get on with our lives - and you won't have the inconvenient distraction of being so bothered by an issue that doesn't affect you.

rev wrote:Fu** sake, is the use of the word progressive the replacement for calling everything world class?

Ah, and we have a Hollywood reference too.
So if Kardashian was in a same sex marriage, you think it would have lasted longer then 72 days?

Who cares what Magda thinks. Playing the sympathy, poor us, we are victims card. As if gay marriage is the biggest moral and ethical issue facing the world today.

Who cares how big Australia is compared to NZ?
What does that have to do with the topic? How does that relate to laws passed, to what is and isn't legal?

What exactly is your point, Rev?

What possible reason* could you have in objection to two consenting adults having access to the same legal arrangements as everyone else?
(*note that a reason must by definition have reasoning behind it.)

You've posted a lot of scoffing and drivel recently, skirting around the issue. You're obviously against it, you're obviously not gay, so how does it affect you at all?

Actually, I think rev is gay.

[Shuz] wrote:...

Not that there's anything wrong with that, no ad hominems please.

I suggest you withdraw your remark Shuz.

monotonehell wrote:no ad hominems please.

Love your work!