Gay and Lesbian Unions

[wokie]

Wasn't sure weather to post this elsewere or start a new thread,

so I started a new thread. :) So forgive me if I should have posted elsewere.

Here in Canberra Australia Gay and Lesbian Unions are legal.

While they go through a ceremony its not classed as a wedding and its not recognised under the Marriage Act so its not a "legal wedding".

The ACT Government did try for legal marriage for same sex couples but was knocked back by the Federal Government due to same sex weddings contraviening the Marriage Act

Edited November 11, 2008 by wokie
more information

[Starfish]

Wasn't sure weather to post this elsewere or start a new thread,

so I started a new thread. :) So forgive me if I should have posted elsewere.

Here in Canberra Australia Gay and Lesbian Unions are legal.

While they go through a ceremony its not classed as a wedding and its not recognised under the Marriage Act so its not a "legal wedding".

I believe most states in the US offer that option, or something similar, also.

[Misshalfway]

I suppose I don't understand why they want marriage. Why aren't civil unions or other such unions enough of a compromise??

Perhaps someone can explain to me why, in the US, the civil unions are insufficient for the G/L activists.

[Oligith1]

I suppose I don't understand why they want marriage. Why aren't civil unions or other such unions enough of a compromise??

Perhaps someone can explain to me why, in the US, the civil unions are insufficient for the G/L activists.

The answer is manyfold.

In California, where I live, homosexuals can have Domestic Partnerships which do give them virtually every right that a traditional marriage has. I do hope you notice that I said virtually. There are still a few rights that marriages have that Domestic Partnerships don't have...I've heard something about visitation rights in prison and some inheritance stuff, but I haven't looked too deep into the subject. Hence, the Gay Activists are trying to get those last few rights by gaining marriage. This is the answer they give to the public to gain support for their side.

Of course, they could go about it in a different manner and just seek legislation that would grant Domestic Partnerships those last few missing rights, but there is a reason they don't take that path. That leads us to the second answer.

That answer is that they want official acceptance for their chosen actions and lives...even if they won't officially admit that they chose them, but that's another barrel of monkeys to discuss. Since there is a whole block of people who aren't swayed by Hollywood, pictures of old ladies embracing in joy, and empassioned cries for "equality," the Gay Activists have decided to force "acceptance" through official channels in a "you believe in majority rule, so if the majority rules in favor of Gay Marriage, then you have to accept our lifestyle as a good thing."

Another reason is the legal side of it all. Law is frequently determined by mere definitions of words. Change the definition, and you change effect of the law. Marriage has a great many strings attached in the legal world. Many States have laws which say that if you are "married" in another State that the first State will recognize that Marriage. Also, other States don't have Domestic Partnerships, so if a Gay couple want to move from California to most other states, they will lose the rights associated with the Domestic Partnership. On the other hand, were what they had a "marriage," they would have a leg to stand on in court to argue that the other State that they move to has to recognize their rights as a "married" couple.

Those are just the main reasons. There are many other varied minor reasons that a person might want it: an individual wants access to a trust fund that they can only receive when they become "married" but they can't stand the thought of marrying anyone of the opposite gender; they feel that if they can get married in a church to the person of the same sex that they love that somehow God will officially accept them as they "are;" they might just like the chaos that erupts in a crowd when you bring up such hot topics like this (yeah, I know a guy...); etc...

I do hope that helps clarify it all.

[Hemidakota]

As follower of Christ, we can and should never concede to same gender, living together, fornication, or even adultery. Any sin under any guise is dangerous for our mortal probation. To allow it, is conceeding to Lucifer plan of destruction for humanity.

We must stand together for Christ, no matter the culture, belief, or religion creed.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

I suppose I don't understand why they want marriage. Why aren't civil unions or other such unions enough of a compromise??

Perhaps someone can explain to me why, in the US, the civil unions are insufficient for the G/L activists.

I was partly watching with my beloved partner One Tree Hill while trying to retrieve some documents from an old hard rive this morning and was laughing when the girl who was lived together with another person, was angered in allowing another girl to sleep over. What I told my wife, since they are not sealed and not civic married, so what? I said, "What was the problem?" "He as no ties to you no matter the verbal agreement in living together." Horrorwood never seems to get it and wants to change moral issues to reflect their own sinful lives as normalcy.

[Starfish]

Isn't it ironic that some gays want marriage, when many heterosexual couples who can and should be married, choose not to?

I think they want general public acceptance.

[Moksha]

I suppose I don't understand why they want marriage. Why aren't civil unions or other such unions enough of a compromise??

Perhaps someone can explain to me why, in the US, the civil unions are insufficient for the G/L activists.

Currently, they don't come with the same rights and benefits and are not recognized by all states or the Federal Government. If they were, that should be sufficient and it could preserve the title of marriage exclusively for the heterosexual majority. Separate and mostly equal.

[LolaBella]

I'm sure homosexual couples want marriage for the same reasons heterosexuals do-To show their commitment to one another, and to gain the same rights. A gay couple could live together for 20+ years, and when one of them dies, their partner gets nothing. I feel this is wrong, as you should be able to state whom you want your estate to go to. I don't think people's personal opinions pon homosexuality matter that much. As Christians we should be tolerant enough to accept people's choices and lifestyles even if they differ from our own. If a gay couple want to get married and have the same rights as straight couples, why shoudn't they? It's not like they are going to canpaign for straight marriage to be outlawed. They want the same rights as the majority of the population.

Why is that difficult for some people to understand?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Although I do not believe same sex unions are approved of by God I also don't believe that forcing our standards on others who don't share them is approved of by God either. Here in England we have civil partnerships which are often referred to as gay marriages but they are not legally marriages, yet they do have all the same legalities. They are conducted in places other than churches and of course if the church were to be forced to conduct them then that would be a valid cause for objecting but as it stands I really don't see that we have the right to tell other people how they should live.

[countrygirl66]

I'm sure homosexual couples want marriage for the same reasons heterosexuals do-To show their commitment to one another, and to gain the same rights. A gay couple could live together for 20+ years, and when one of them dies, their partner gets nothing. I feel this is wrong, as you should be able to state whom you want your estate to go to. I don't think people's personal opinions pon homosexuality matter that much. As Christians we should be tolerant enough to accept people's choices and lifestyles even if they differ from our own. If a gay couple want to get married and have the same rights as straight couples, why shoudn't they? It's not like they are going to canpaign for straight marriage to be outlawed. They want the same rights as the majority of the population.

Why is that difficult for some people to understand?

Not difficult to understand. Just something I am unable to accecpt. Why? Children. If children were not in the equasion it might be different. But they will always be.

[Misshalfway]

Same sex families can't happen without the help of heterosexual unions. It is the man and the woman and their ability to have children that keeps societies going. If every union were same sex, the society would die out. I mean, this is just the way it is. SS relationships, while meaningful for those involved just aren't the same thing as marriage. Legislation can't make it into something it is not.

[DigitalShadow]

Same sex families can't happen without the help of heterosexual unions. It is the man and the woman and their ability to have children that keeps societies going. If every union were same sex, the society would die out. I mean, this is just the way it is. SS relationships, while meaningful for those involved just aren't the same thing as marriage. Legislation can't make it into something it is not.

Just for the sake of being a pain, I would like to point out that same sex families could happen without the help of heterosexual unions. If a gay couple and a lesbian couple both wanted a kid, the gay couple could artificially inseminate the lesbian couple fairly easily and then each of them keep a baby.

I would also like to point out that marriage is not just about procreation. If it is, should people who are sterile for any reason be allowed to get married? Every statement you just made could be just as eaily applied to a heterosexual couple where one or both are sterile.

[Misshalfway]

Alright. I will let you be a pain. But only this time. :)

Ok. Let me amend my statement. They need the help of heterosexual sex OR technology. But it ain't happening without the egg and the sperm. Know what I'm saying????

I believe that RELATIONSHIPS are not necessarily about procreation. But the reason legal marriage was instituted in the first place was about the protection of the wife and children. The love and commitment stuff is important too. But from a legal stand point.... love isn't essential.

I don't think we need to compromise the values and definitions of marriage to give SS couples rights. Perhaps we need to fight for more universal rights in this regard. I think, though, that the real fight isn't about rights. It is about acceptance and legitimization of said lifestyle. In my view, Civil unions could be just as loving or non-loving as marriage.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Misshalfway

[john doe]

Although I do not believe same sex unions are approved of by God I also don't believe that forcing our standards on others who don't share them is approved of by God either. Here in England we have civil partnerships which are often referred to as gay marriages but they are not legally marriages, yet they do have all the same legalities. They are conducted in places other than churches and of course if the church were to be forced to conduct them then that would be a valid cause for objecting but as it stands I really don't see that we have the right to tell other people how they should live.

I actually don't have a problem with that kind of an arrangement. The problem with the things going on in the US is that gays want to call it marriage and I believe that the ultimate goal is to force religions to accept gays into their churches whether their beliefs condone gay unions or not.

[DigitalShadow]

Alright. I will let you be a pain. But only this time. :)

Ok. Let me amend my statement. They need the help of heterosexual sex OR technology. But it ain't happening without the egg and the sperm. Know what I'm saying????

They could just as easily do it the "old fasioned" way if both couples really wanted a family, no "technology" needed

Would you care to comment on my other part of my statement?

[Misshalfway]

They could just as easily do it the "old fasioned" way if both couples really wanted a family, no "technology" needed

:) Well yes, I suppose they could, but that would undermine the fidelity of the marriage vow, now wouldn't it?

The other part.....let me see......

You mean this one?

I would also like to point out that marriage is not just about procreation. If it is, should people who are sterile for any reason be allowed to get married? Every statement you just made could be just as eaily applied to a heterosexual couple where one or both are sterile.

Now we are getting into the definition of marriage. It works because marriage is between a man and a woman. If the partners are not of the opposite gender then it isn't marriage. It is something else.

[Hemidakota]

Currently, they don't come with the same rights and benefits and are not recognized by all states or the Federal Government. If they were, that should be sufficient and it could preserve the title of marriage exclusively for the heterosexual majority. Separate and mostly equal.

So should we give the same benefits for those who live together?

[DigitalShadow]

I actually don't have a problem with that kind of an arrangement. The problem with the things going on in the US is that gays want to call it marriage and I believe that the ultimate goal is to force religions to accept gays into their churches whether their beliefs condone gay unions or not.

I have heard that argument used as justification before but it doesn't make any sense to me. Why would a same sex couple even want to be a part of a church or be married by a church that thinks they are going to hell and committing a huge sin? Why do so many people perceive allowing same sex marriage as an "attack" on their religion?

I really do want to understand this point of view and I'm not saying this just for the sake of argument.

[Misshalfway]

I have heard that argument used as justification before but it doesn't make any sense to me. Why would a same sex couple even want to be a part of a church or be married by a church that thinks they are going to hell and committing a huge sin? Why do so many people perceive allowing same sex marriage as an "attack" on their religion?

I really do want to understand this point of view and I'm not saying this just for the sake of argument.

Well, I don't think everybody wants this. But I do think that their is a great need for forced acceptance, validation, etc and there are some that want achieve such approval even if they have to legislate to get it.

[Hemidakota]

I actually don't have a problem with that kind of an arrangement. The problem with the things going on in the US is that gays want to call it marriage and I believe that the ultimate goal is to force religions to accept gays into their churches whether their beliefs condone gay unions or not.

Though I don't agree with this statement "DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM", since we must follow the Savior statements regarding any form of sin is dangerous for our eternal progession, but I do see your point on proving to the people of the land the normalcy of being married no matter the gender partner. As it was in the late 1800s, we will again be forced by the government to enact the law of the land. John, as I stated in other threads, they choose to counterfeit a true principle of truth.

Thanks John, this is another angle that I didn’t realize.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Before I forget, keeping tabs of both sides of this Cali story, Family Leader, national e-mail with the latest tactics of those who wish to undermined those who voted to overthrow the State Supreme Court...

Desperate Tactics to Undo Prop 8

Legal challenges to Prop 8 continue to pile up, this time from forty-three California Democratic state legislators including the leaders of the Senate and Assembly who are appealing to the California Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people and invalidate the amendment.

Some people think they are so elite and important that their vision of the world should overshadow what the majority wants.

These lawmakers make the rather lightweight argument that a "bare majority" of the people cannot "compromise the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law."

In their brief they state, that in effect Prop 8 is a revision of the constitution because it eliminates "a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group."

"If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights or minorities," it says.

Attorneys Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher wrote, "The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary and often short-lived majorities."

What this means in plain English is that this new-found "right" of same-sex marriage, subscribed to by slim 4-3 majority of the court is now so basic to the California constitution that the people should have their voice stolen away.

In plainer English it says, 43 Democratic legislators want to trample the people's voice because they didn't like the outcome-and they have only one hope-if the court is arrogant enough to discount the will of the people.

Though Family Leader takes this law suit seriously and we are considering filing an amicus brief in the case, it must be obvious to the California Supreme Court that if they issue a ruling that invalidates the will of the people, the consequences to the reputation of the judicial system would be critical---and this when Justice George would up for a retention vote in two years.

What is at stake here in California is not just the future of Prop 8, but the role of judges in our society. Is our government about "we the people" or "we the judges"-those unelected lawyers in black robes. Can these judges rewrite our constitutions to be something they never were? Can they magically create rights that were never intended? Can they overlook things that are written in our constitutions that are plain?

[applepansy]

I'm sure homosexual couples want marriage for the same reasons heterosexuals do-To show their commitment to one another, and to gain the same rights. A gay couple could live together for 20+ years, and when one of them dies, their partner gets nothing. I feel this is wrong, as you should be able to state whom you want your estate to go to. I don't think people's personal opinions pon homosexuality matter that much. As Christians we should be tolerant enough to accept people's choices and lifestyles even if they differ from our own. If a gay couple want to get married and have the same rights as straight couples, why shoudn't they? It's not like they are going to canpaign for straight marriage to be outlawed. They want the same rights as the majority of the population.

Why is that difficult for some people to understand?

Leaving a Will takes care of this issue. Many married people have left their estates, or portions of their estates, to someone other than their spouse.

applepansy

[Misshalfway]

Yes Hemi. I like the word counterfeit because I think that SS unions want to "be" what hetero couples are.

I can't condone this lifestyle from a religious or moral standpoint. But from an American one and in the spirit of upholding equity for all, I do think that legal rights should be awarded.....just not at the expense of the traditional values that uphold the family.

I think they want it both ways. And I think that things like Prop 8 try to communicate that the interests of the one shouldn't replace the interests of the other. Equity yes. Equality.....in this case no.

[Misshalfway]

It is a comparison between apples and oranges. Some apples are really angry because they aren't being allowed to call themselves oranges.

Why not fight for the rights of apples and be glad with the label of apple and then work for the apples and the oranges to get coexist in peace.