Karnal wrote on Jun 5
th, 2015 at 6:24pm:
Grendel wrote on Jun 5
th, 2015 at 4:52pm:
Agnes wrote on Jun 5
th, 2015 at 11:28am:
Grendel wrote on Jun 4
th, 2015 at 10:29pm:
Agnes wrote on Jun 4
th, 2015 at 10:00pm:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4
th, 2015 at 9:05pm:
A very short-ish answer from me - no I don't.
I dont have an issue with gay people. They can have relationships all they like, I also support their partner having the same legal reights as a de-facto regular couple.
I would ask they show a bit of decorum in public - but I would rather that across the board too.
I do believe though that the institution of marriage should be for a man and a woman.
I am ok for civil partnerships where a certificate can also be produced - but not a marriage.
I used to be of this opinion too but as I had a very close friend who was gay and I saw the love he had for his partener- it was not a seedy version of love- its wasn't a pretend game they were playing- they really were in love- and when his partner died he was cut very deeply and didnt partener ever again- he then died. He wanted to marry his partner and I realised he wanted to be married for the same reason anyone else does- it was a union he wanted recognised by law because he loved his partner - and wanted the same protections marriage afforded them as a couple-
The only concerns I have still about gay marriage is concerning children and that is only because of the stereotypical notion/concerns that most gay men are also peadophiles- someone corrtect me on that one..I want you too.
I voted in favour of gay marriage.
Oh puhlease... being in love with someone doesn't give you the right to marry them nor does it naturally follow that they will want to marry you.
Marriage is about more than just love.
I think initially it is about love and then other considerations are thrown into the mix.. if you dont marry for love you set yourself up for a lifetime of unhappiness uuumm Grendel.
You don't know much about marriage; it's history, traditions or other cultures then do you?
Exactly. For most of history and for about a quarter of the world today, marriage partners were/are chosen by parents.
Historically, marriage is a way of one generation controlling the lives of another - and ensuring their aged care.
Thank heavens the grown-ups are no longer in charge, eh?
Ooohh, it's aaall about power, says the old Foucauldian invert.
In Australia there is no legal notion of 'consummation of marriage' but in England there is.
And guess what?? The inverts are exempt!!! Because it is nonsensical to say that a 'gay marriage is consummated'.
2. Your marriage is defective - ‘voidable’ marriages
You can annul a marriage if:
it wasn’t consummated - you haven’t had sex with the person you married since the wedding (doesn’t apply for same sex couples)
you didn’t properly consent to the marriage - eg you were drunk or forced into it
the other person had a sexually transmitted disease when you got married
the woman was pregnant by another man when you got married OBVIOUSLY cannot apply to inverts, so they are exempt again.
So what is happening is 'marriage equality' means marriage on gay terms - on the terms of the 20% of the 2 % - ie on terms of the 0.04% that is gays getting 'married'.
So everyone who sensed from the beginning that this was nothing but a campaign to undermine an existing institution was correct. 'Marriage equality' is about marginalising heterosexual marriage as an essential bridge between generations.
Marriage is now about 'me me me', which is all that inverts bring to it.