Reply
Sat 26 Mar, 2005 06:21 pm
Hi all:
Its 2005 right now, in modern day contemporary Australia. As most of us would have seen, the issue of gay marriages is consistently arising as a most contraversial topic, both in terms of the law, politics, religion and the general public. I am doing a study into the position in Australia - should we legalise homosexual marriages, like what has been allowed in Holland, Denmark etc or should we not allow anything of the kind?
Should Australia keep with the position they are adopting now: admitting only CERTAIN rights to homosexual couples? And are there any other options?
Please note that any inputs (serious ones only!) from anyone of any background are welcome but please, as this is a very sensitive issue, all posts should adhere to the A2K guidelines - I think this is the most considerate approach.
Thanks. I look forward to a lively debate. Please note the poll will only go for 60 days.
Here are the guidelines, i believe:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2594
Mannerly conduct
As per the membership agreement, it is a given that flaming, rude comments, and personal attacks are not acceptable here. Intellectually vacuous and snide slanders such as 'DemoRats' or 'REPUGlicans' (or local variants if you live elsewhere than the US) are completely unwelcome. But, actually, we ask more of you than those obvious and fundamental rules.
Consider that you are joining a community marked by good will and a shared committment to learn and to help others learn. Thus it is expected that all discussion participants will:
- read others' posts with care and deliberation
- strive to understand the position of those who disagree with you
- value your own experience and knowledge, and allow the same for others
- write your own posts with care and deliberation
- don't hog...keep your posts to a size and frequency which allows others an equal place in the discussion
- respect the intention of the person who originally posted and keep discussion relevant to the topic or question if that is his/her expressed wish, or the wish of others engaged. Always feel free to begin a separate question yourself if a tangent seems particularly interesting or important.
- feel quite free to disagree, but engage in friendly disagreement
- remember that humor and a friendly manner can go far in encouraging your readers to 'hear' your opinion
- and, make your posts helpful to the whole community by following the rules of good scholarship below
Of course Australia should legalise homosexual marriages.
I should elaborate...where possible please try to back up your opinions with reports, articles etc. Thanks.
I do not think it needs much back up.
We have signed onto articles asserting that we do not support discrimination against people.
Some of our citizens are homosexual.
To deny legal marriage to such of these as desire it is discrimination.
I understand there are two homosexual judges on the bench of the HCA - one is Hon M Kirby...whose the other one? I have been assured it is not McHugh J, despite the fact that he and Kirby J agree on almost everything...
It would be news to the other five! As far as I know Justice Kirby is the only self-proclaimed gay. He'd probably be pro-homosexual marriage. As for the rest - I'd say they'd steer clear of the whole thing and let the Parliament/s slug it out.
I've just finsihed my study on Australia legalising homosexual marriages - and I have come up with the affirmative, based on constituitonal, religious and of course, governemnt and legal observations. How do I post an article in word doc on to A2K - is that possible?
My support for legalization is pretty simple: adult homosexual couples in committed relationships should be treated with the same respect & afforded the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples. I mean, why on earth not?
Well, now i have not seen your study, Pragmatic . . . are you still having problems posting it?
Will you be able to translate it into Strine, to facilitate the understanding of all of your fellow citizens?
Hi Setanta - I did exatly what you ordered but I didn't like the result - my essay has footnoting to acknowledge the other sources I used but when I pasted, the footnotes didn't come up and I don't want to submit it because its plagarising. What I intend to do is see if I can submit it onto my student assoication website and then you guys might see it then. If not - well...we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Sorry everyone...
Hey Setanta, whats the go with your girl my girl in the other thread? Didn't understand it...
pragmatic wrote:Hey Setanta, whats the go with your girl my girl in the other thread? Didn't understand it...
Edit Doh . . . .
When i wrote: ". . . have your girl call my girl and we'll do lunch . . . " i was referring to phoney Hollywood types who cannot make a luncheon engagement, so they suggest that the secretaries handle it. It has become such a byword for a despised class here, that it has become prosaic . . .
By the by, Prag, although i understand your reservations about not wishing to commit an act of plagerism, it is possible to present material here which is not footnoted, but which gives the proper citations.
I was asked about a particular topic related to the Second World War, and responded
here with full attribution for my contention.
Re: Should Australia Legalise Homosexual Marriages?
pragmatic wrote:I am doing a study into the position in Australia - should we legalise homosexual marriages, like what has been allowed in Holland, Denmark etc or should we not allow anything of the kind?
Yes. I think it would be a good idea, because it opens up new opportunities for gay couples while taking barely any opportunities away from straight couples.
pragmatic wrote:Should Australia keep with the position they are adopting now: admitting only CERTAIN rights to homosexual couples? And are there any other options?
Independently of the straight vs. gay issue, I believe it would be a good idea if the state stopped granting privileges on the basis of people being married, and started granting them on the basis of the couple raising children. I expect that this will make gay couples end up with fewer privileges on average, because I expect that most couples who can't bear children won't adopt any. But I think it's a good idea that gay couples, other things being equal, have the same rights and privileges as straight couples.
Re: Should Australia Legalise Homosexual Marriages?
Thomas wrote:Independently of the straight vs. gay issue, I believe it would be a good idea if the state stopped granting privileges on the basis of people being married, and started granting them on the basis of the couple raising children. I expect that this will make gay couples end up with fewer privileges on average, because I expect that most couples who can't bear children won't adopt any. But I think it's a good idea that gay couples, other things being equal, have the same rights and privileges as straight couples.
It appears that the states of Australia have allowed adoption rights. Our Prime Minister had wanted to overcome this state legislation by a federal legislation but it was turned down. So the current position is that they can't get married but due to state legislsation as well as the million complaints to the Human Rights Commission - they get adoption rights, supperanuation rights, medicare rights as though they are a normal couple.
Setanta wrote:I was asked about a particular topic related to the Second World War, and responded
here with full attribution for my contention.
Thanks setanta for the hint. :wink: And sorry I didn't understand the secretary-mygirl-yourgirl topic.
What I have decided to do is just give a quick summary of what I have said and then just acknowledge the sources with the brackets next to them or underneath it. Will do soon.
Have summarised my study and what I have decided to do is to post as a seperate post each heading I had in my study - or else my post is going to be way to long.
- any questions or background info reqd, please feel free to tell me (I have tried to give what I thought was sufficient in the posts)
- for a full copy of my study email me at
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION:
[A shorter version of the introduction will be given instead as I had to modify it for the purposes of putting it on this thread.]
On Friday 13th August 2004, the Australian senate voted to ban homosexual marriage by an overwhelming vote of 38-7 [Christian Coalition of America] so the law in Australia's Marriage Act 1961 (cth) is as follows:
- Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, section 5(1)
- And in regards to foreign marriages in Part VA of the act, marriage has the meaning given by subsection 5(1), as per section 88B(4)
[I believe the above was prompted by the prospective challenge to the Australian High Court by two Australians who had recently gotten married in Canada of Australia's legislation - they wanted to legalize their marriage in Australia and lawyers groups foretold a possibly successful challenge.]
- A union solemnized in a foreign country between a man and another man or a woman and another woman will not be recognised as a marriage in Australia - section 88EA(a) and 88EA(b).
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace