Full list of articles on same-sex marriage vote · Q&A What you need to know Gay lives should no longer be a matter for 'public debate' · Kathy Sheridan · Kathy.
It has been happening for years.
Taiwan to enact separate law on gay marriage
What the children onl pick up on quickly though, is that their same sex parents do not have are civil unions for gays only same rights as other parents. This will have the effect of teaching them that Australia does not value homosexual citizens as much as heterosexual ones. Despite your statement to the forr Jensen does believe children are the primary reason for marriage. Using the caveat that if they don't covil along it is still representative of 'twoness' of marriage, doesn't hide ohly fact that all marrying couples should have the intention of having children.
Your claim that what matters is that the 'foundation is laid' for having children puts lie to your claim that Jensen doesn't believe marriage is for procreation. Marriage has gay vampire love stories many meanings over the years, to claim that changing the definition 'this time' is simply disingenuous. Ok as you have given no examples where you feel I have "ignored or misrepresented so much" obviously I cannot respond as I would like to your claim.
Could it be because you have no examples to cite and as I suspect the claim is all 'smoke and mirrors'? I simply summerized my understanding of Dr Jensens article and disagreed with you in regards to its context. Nowehere in his article has he stated that childless couples should not be married. Perhaps that 'interpretation' by you says more about your own negative bias but of course I wouldnt know. I didnt ignore the fact that same sex unmarried couples 'have' children but fail to see how aknowledging that adds any weight to any effective debate?
It is however not the societal norm whichever way you want to paint it and I challenge anyone to explain to me definitively how anyone has the 'right' to decide that a child wont have either a biological mother or father directly. Its not a mute point because as others have suggestted, many feel the the long term agenda of SSM is the easier facilitation or access to surrogacy and IVF treatment via a third party.
Indeed one poster who fro a SSM supporter has argued to me that if the technology becomes available for a womans uterus to be transplanted into a male to allow HIM to carry a child that this should be totally acceptable as it would be his 'right' to access such technolgy!!!
Are civil unions for gays only dont think I need comment more on that one I have no doubt at all that there are very loving same sex couples raising wonderful children BUT gay los angeles sports bar I myself were faced with having no children because of my gender and sexual orientation or taking a child from a poor third world country to be raised by myself and my same sex partner To do so would be entirely selfish I feel What a child will pick up very quickly is that they DONT have a mother or father apernting them For the record I never stated that Dr Jensen fro beleive in marriage for procreation but clarrified that he recogised that not all maraiges result in children.
I apologise that you feel I gave no examples where you have 'ignored or misrepresented so much', as you can see from the examples I provided where you ignored or misrepresented my comments, this wasn't my intention. Here we go again. Taking your lead, the 'only actual argument' are civil unions for gays only favour of gay marriage is: The gay marriage lobby really should be more discerning about who it allows to speak on its behalf.
Hey mike, are civil unions for gays only though I am not sure, I will assume you are replying to me. I am procrastinating anyway. It is a shame you believe wanting the same rights as everyone else is a 'Me, are civil unions for gays only, me! Jensen's argument boils down to this. Heterosexual couples can have are civil unions for gays only with each other. Marriage is the best place to have children, therefore Heterosexual couples can Marry.
Homosexual couples can't have children with each other, therefore are civil unions for gays only is no need for them to get married. The common denominator in his argument is children. Either he believes marriage is about children or he does not. If he does, only people who can have and want children should get married. If he does not, what does it matter if we have 'Gay marriage'?
Also, I am speaking on are civil unions for gays only behalf of no one but myself. I believe all people should have equal opportunity and equal rights. Sometimes this means I am on the 'popular side' on this site marriage equality and onlly it means I am on zre unpopular side men's rights.
Adman, it's a shame you pretend to be across this topic when your statements about the opposite view are nothing but straw men. It's not about what accessing a gay bi chatroom believe, it's the way you put your case.
Which rights do gays not have? They have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. Which bit don't you understand? Why do you keep making up nonsense about gays not having equal rights when, if they didn't, it would open the way for legal action under antidiscrimination legislation? I'd give you a good reason but The Drum has are civil unions for gays only deleted it half a dozen times. What does that tell gay body builder have sex about this topic being debated in good faith?
Thus any man could marry, but only women up to Once again, people fail are civil unions for gays only see that those who oppose same sex marriage and support laws that force others to do as they see is bigoted.
Normally I'd agree with you that the hnions is more important than the individuals.
May 25, - Same-sex marriage, which Taiwan's top court ruled in favour of Wednesday, Some European countries only allow homosexuals to enter into civil partnerships, Opening ceremony of Gay Games 9. Video: Foreign consulates share Cantonese videos wishing Hongkongers a happy Year of the Pig.
But not in this case. Bigotry is a character flaw that should not be tolerated.
Bigots invite ridicule gayd it is a nasty position by definition, and one that is condoned under law. For those who wish for a liberal society, there is no place for bigotry. However, you may find a place in Russia if you are o. I could suggest that you are demonstrating bigotry towards those that dont share your views on same sex marriage.
Im sick and tired of anyone communicating a different viewpoint to the one promoted by are civil unions for gays only SSM supporters photography and dallas and gay being labelled with the same old tired and to be frank The only thing we can agree with within your post is that bigotry should never be tolerated Trying to make repsonses 'personal' is are civil unions for gays only provovative and pointless IMO.
Caroline, Firstly, your definition provided contradicts your own argument. Secondly, I don't care if you are sick and tired of how I communicate on this issue. Your discomfort is nothing compared to the discrimination and exclusion people of unionx gay community must endure, some of which is written into law. Such laws are anti-libertarian and utterly inappropriate for a free and equitable society.
This is a human rights issue that has cost people their lives, not some silly debate about fashion or similar trivial matter. It is about personal freedom and the right to be who you are.
Whilst I understand that people have the right to be bigots, I also have a right to not like their attitude and express it in those terms. Actually it's not my definition but rather one that can be found in any dictionary. It's not my problem that this definition doesn't suit your arguments. I agree that discrimination free ts gay dating sight never acceptable and I support the rights of same sex are civil unions for gays only to the same legal protections as heterosexual couples.
For example should a same sex couple decide to end their relationship they should have the same legal rights to access shared investments property etc.
I've never stated any differently and for you to suggest otherwise is misleading.
My point has been consistently the same. That same sex couples should have legal recognising of their unions but call forr something other than marriage which I believe and so do many others When it comes to the 'rights' of same sex couples to access surrogacy however, I don't feel that as a society we have fully considered the ramifications and consequences are civil unions for gays only a child born within those circumstances.
I've explained why elsewhere on this forum. Yes gay couples already are parenting children and in some cases I'm sure very happily but I think that as a society we owe children the right to have a mother and father raise them SSM I suspect has the real potential to place pressure on agencies to facilitate motherless and fatherless families and I don't believe that a healthy or ideal situation for any society.
Gay people in Australia do have the right to be who they are I don't see any cupboards anymore and in my own family we have gay members. But just because someone has a different sexual orientation doesn't are civil unions for gays only they hold the high moral ground and can people bigots and other stereotypical labels.
I have not heard yet one stephanie zimbalist gay relationship argument as to why the term 'marriage' must be used when there are other terms that.
Could be used without aiming to dismantle what are civil unions for gays only many is a definitive term. To zre SSM will change what marriage means and for what? To make a point? Gay black naked boys and men yes you do have a right to be bigoted and intolerant towards those that don't share your views Caroline, I am not bigoted and are civil unions for gays only to your view.
You are welcome to it. But, at the risk of labouring my point which you seem to have missed or just don't want to seeI freely admit I am intolerant of laws that discriminate against people who are different to older gay men issues coming out group. That doesn't make me a bigot. It makes me a libertarian and a humanitarian. I note further that those who wish to make bigoted or otherwise immoral statements tend to use the tactic of accusing those who disagree with them for doing the same.
Where as Caroline, I see as ade sacred duty to show bigotry towards the bigots. Fight fire with fire. Are civil unions for gays only onlg are you going to stop their crap? Just because they speak soft and eloquently and write a nice article doesn't hide the underlying bigotry just below the surface.
Romania mulls legalising same-sex civil unions after referendum fail
In a lot of ways people fotos gay desnudos gratis Jensen are worse than the loud mouth that's stands up and calls gay people poofters. By subtly reinforcing their message rather than ramming it down someones throat they can spread their hatred without raising their voice once. They claim gzys speak with the voice of reason, yet it is anything but reasonable to cut out a section of the community from rights anyone else can claim based on their unipns prejudices.
Anyone not keen are civil unions for gays only the idea of a gay marriage should just avoid getting married to his best mate.
Why spoil it for anyone else because of your beliefs? Howard changed the Marriage Ofr to specifically only apply to marriage between a man and a woman. If he hadn't done this then none of this would be necessary. Anyone would think we weren't talking about marriage equality but making it compulsory for everyone to become homosexual. I don't like organised religions but I don't want to ban them, I just steer well clear of them. Get it - Caroline. The Marriage Act was passed ffor I think you'd be very hard cviil to argue that the politicians of that are civil unions for gays only intended an Act that would allow same sex marriages.
If a same-sex couple had tried to marry in by exploiting the loophole, the doggy style sex videos gay would simply remark that the common law didn't recognise that "marriage" was a term which applied to same-sex relationships. At that time, the unikns law was derived from the social norms of the last century which were quite conservative. The judge would have said "Don't be daft, a man can't own another man, if you want to get married are civil unions for gays only take on a wife as a chattel you'll need to marry a woman.
My good reply to you has not come up. So, in short Zing, being homosexual was a crime back then - your scenario is nonsense, i. Same-sex marriage civvil a crime in It was simply a legal impossibility, something that couldn't happen.
Unins still the case now. Arguably, would still be the case even if Howard hadn't amended the Act. But since judges are more prone to activism today, Howard felt the loophole should be removed. He was afraid that a judge would ignore the intent of the Parliament when interpreting the legislation. Tasmania civll on to its laws until forced by the Federal Govt and the UN human rights committee in ! Homosexuality might have been seattle gay and lesbian film festival. Same-sex marriage was bathroom gay man photo shitting. Because the law didn't recognise same-sex marriage.
If an event isn't legally recognised, it never occurred. If something can never occur, it can't possibly be a crime. I dont agree the issue is as simplistic as that. I are civil unions for gays only beleive it is about marriage equality at all. The term has traditonally referred to a man and a woman. Why do 'some' SSM supporters not want to create another term that is legaly recogised for are civil unions for gays only sex unions rather than trying so desperately are civil unions for gays only conform to societys norm?
Why do some seem to beleive that unless a union is labelled 'marriage' it is invalid and inferior to any are civil unions for gays only Not at all sure whats to get Caroline, they just want the right to get married like most of the population can and that just translates to marriage equality.
If churches don't want to marry them that's up to them but they'll be missing out on a lot of business which was the main reason for them stitching up this marriage cvil as being holy and stuff like that. I am legally married. We got married in Canada. As soon as I came back to my own country I was no longer married. Do you see why I feel discriminated against? Do you see how we dont fear that our uniobs will be invalid Are civil unions for gays only want my marriage to be treated equally to others.
This is why its referred to as marriage equality. As soon as equality is achieved it will then henceforth be referred to as marriage. This will happen within this year. Nobody intends to force churches to participate in something for which they dont agree with.
Religions are well protected within the law to be able to discriminate to their hearts content. You have stated above your objection to gay marriage on the basis of your strong belief that marriage must be a union between a man and a woman. People in support of gay marriage want to change the current 'norm' of society. This is not something that should be feared.
Norms change slowly but regularly. That would not be the are civil unions for gays only if society's norms remained static. Exactly right Stuffed Olive. Funny to see people barking on cor resistance to Are civil unions for gays only yet it was Victor noriega gay tvnotas who made all this mess.
I wonder what he's thinking now Why is the LNP so s? Yes, anyone who now starts an argument with "I'm not a bigot, but In the same way that you can predict the flavour of the next comment to come out of the mouth of anyone who begins with "I'm not racist, but His argument can actually be summarised quite simply - marriage is codifying an intention to breed.
Historically I think he is right on that point. Now times might have moved on uhions that argument isn't bigoted - at it's worst it is out of date. But you simply jump for the bogit card rather than offering any well though out response as others have. And that says a lot Each exists quite happily without the other.
Which part of the Marriage Act states one must have children once married? Marriage is a legal contract, that's it. Children have nothing to do with it.
He hasn't convinced me.
He hasn't even convinced me he's civill a bigot, nor a true Christian. What he has convinced me of is that the Anglican Church values their interpretation of Doctrine over the true message of Jesus.
Like the Catholic Church, it seems institutionalism trumps the humanitarian message of Christianity. The Bible speaks are civil unions for gays only killing homosexuals.
If you are to divil the mythical text as written, then a Christian could only be sarib middle eastern gay porn homosexual relations.
Jesus never said to forgive such acts or the previous verses in the bible about how to treat homosexuals are now irrelevant. Im glad that most Christians are not true Christians and just make up what their imaginary friend wants as they go. Belief and IMBY are so refreshing! Apparently not Christians themselves, but they have no doubt at all about what a 'Real Christian' is!
If only I could be so confident when I talk about things beyond my understanding!
Arrogant ignorance, or bigoted doctrine? Not an easy choice, but I would rather debate with someone who puts up a coherent argument so I could critique his assumptions, rather than someone who just throws noxious are civil unions for gays only.
He didn't give a big list of ones that should be forgiven and ones that shouldn't, as far as I recall. Reverend Jensen's opinions are not representative of the Anglican church as a whole. In fact, Anglicare goes out of its way to point los morancos pluma gay lyrics that same-sex couples are just as able to raise children as mixed-sex couples.
This guy's a bigot even in his own faith. And that is exactly the point! There are far bigger issues in the world so why is it such a big deal to change the law on this? Seems pretty straight forward, we are a modern democratic, forward thinking country in living a contemporary age and our laws should reflect our present day not are civil unions for gays only oppressive and bigot history.
If we can't evolve and move forward this issue - jeez well you might are civil unions for gays only well stop us females from going and making ourselves a living and having opinions and. Let everyone marry, be happy and live in peace. The world isn't going to fall apart if we let more of the people that love each other get married. The author will convince people that gay marriage is not on, as the author said and I fully agree marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story.
I'mconvinced, but then I already was. I and many others believe in the traditional, long standing view that it is between a man and a woman. I am open minded enough that if same sex people want to make love as a one night stand or commit for the rest of their lives, so be it.
The screaming reply of 'bigot!!! Leave marriage between a man and a woman. Create your own concept of are civil unions for gays only. I just wish some one could give a convincing argument for why not, other than "I don't like the thought. How does being able to truthfully civll on an affidavit that you are legally married effect another? Perhaps my point was too subtle. It seems to me that most people have made up their minds.
GET REASON MAGAZINE
I'm yet to read anything new on the subject for quite some erotic gay massage london now. Trying to convince anyone on this issue is a rather wasted effort. Given the considered approach, which became somewhat tiresome in its preparatory length, I was looking forward to an interesting argument.
Dull is wre only conclusion I 3d computer graphics gay make. A disappointment of an article, no insightful intelligence to be witnessed. I are civil unions for gays only know what I was expecting; Dr Jensen made me realise that I can't answer the question "how could this side of the argument produce a valid argument anyway?
Well I agree with Michael Jensen. Those of my gay friends who know my position have no problem with it; they are not the kind of people to vilify anyone for differing from them.
So religious person doesn't see discrimination occurring or at least not discrimination that matters against gay people therefore it doesn't exist. Wonder how he feels about all those previous examples of discrimination that didn't exist from which he draws this argument: I am yet to hear why we need to change the definition of marriage to somehow solve discrimination. It would be offensive and silly to suggest that we could change the definition of what it is to be a man to include women in order to reduce discrimination against women.
The truth is that same sex relationships are different to heterosexual relationships on a fundamental level. Once same sex marriage is are civil unions for gays only anyone who points this out for good or bad reasons is guilty of discrimination. Defining away difference is a pathetic way of dealing with discrimination. By are civil unions for gays only onyl both same-sex and mixed-sex couples are treated equally in society we make them just "couples".
No difference, no distinction -- no are civil unions for gays only. Having some couples that can be married and some that can't suggest that some could be privileged to do things others couldn't as well. It encourages discriminatory thinking. And we discriminate in sports on the basis of age and gender. There is plenty of gay male porn star gallery that most people seem OK with. These forms of discrimination are not ones that a person can chose to change short of knions the case of gender prolonged medical treatment.
At least for marriage, it is open for homo and hetrosexuals alike. There is a choice of whether you want to enter a financial arrangement with another individual of the opposite gender. A homosexual person can choose to enter it along the same rules nuions a hetrosexual person.
I can see myself getting access to many things due to age, gender or ethnicity at all. It is possible to achieve equality between different types of couple without changing the definition of marriage. In fact in Australia we are most of the way there. By difference, I ggays you are talking about propagation. Problem with this argument is: If you then argue that california gay community couples require a third party" or whatever similar argument is normally trotted out, then you also affect are civil unions for gays only couples who need to use IVF, sperm donors or surrogates in order to have their own children.
So what difference are you talking about?
Romania mulls legalising same-sex civil unions after referendum fail
are civil unions for gays only By differences I am talking about: I am not even sure that you would use the term infertile in regards to a same sex couple. Using IVF or implated surrogacy can still arf in a child which is the biological relation of both parents. The median length of relationship is significantly shorter. Cjvil the young twinks gay free video of marriage, the law treats statistics gay lesbian relationships person equally.
Everyone has the same rights and the same restriction on how the right may be used. There is no direct discrimination here. The issue is that some parts of our community uunions find the current right of marriage useful, so they're are civil unions for gays only a new right to be created as a substitute. That's fine and good, but the discrimination card doesn't wash. And if they want the legal rights of marriage to be redefined for everyone, then everyone should be part of that decision.
I support same-sex marriage, but not at the cost of democracy. I oppose any arr are civil unions for gays only implement it without a plebiscite. If they're going to force it through by parliament, they should at least have the decency to show unoins colours during the next election. At least then, they can claim they're acting in accordance with the wishes interracial gay butt fucking their constituency.
This is a logical fallacy. I can concoct a law that is both "Applied Equally" but is discriminatory. Here's a simple one: As a planning rule, this applies to everyone, equally when making changes to their house or building a new one.
By your logic, as "It applies equally" it therefore doesn't discriminate against anyone, because everyone experiences ror same treatment, they aren't allowed to make ramps into their home.
But can you see how the rule discriminates against Wheelchair bound people by not taking into account their circumstances, requirements and desires?
The Netherlands in April became the first country in the world to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in a civil ceremony. Twelve European countries followed: Estonia became in October the first former Soviet republic to authorise this kind of civil union.
cviil Slovenians in December voted in a referendum against efforts by their national parliament to legalise gay marriage. Some 15 western European countries allow same-sex couples to adopt children, whether within marriage or civil partnership. Others like Finland, Germany and Slovenia allow gay people to adopt the child of their partner.
onlh After Supreme Court in India decriminalised gay sex ars Thursday, here is civip broad overview of the situation around the world: Around 30 African countries ban homosexuality, with Mauritania, Somalia and Sudan having the death penalty for same-sex relations. Gay sex is decriminalised in only a handful of countries: South Africa is an exception, being the sole nation on the continent to allow gay marriage, which it legalised in Several countries in the conservative region still provide for the death penalty for homosexuality, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Israel leads the way in terms of gay rights, recognising same-sex marriages that are performed elsewhere although not allowing such unions in the country itself. Gay unioons can dog boy woofie gay woofy michigan children.
Gay speed dating new york city Are civil unions for gays only Court ruled that states cannot ban same-sex inions, handing gay rights advocates their biggest victory yet. See photos from states that approved same-sex marriage before the nationwide ruling: Shante Wolfe, left, and Tori Sisson become the first same-sex couple to file their marriage license in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 9, However, seven months after the U.
Supreme Court ruling legalizing such nuptials nationwide, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore are civil unions for gays only probate judges in his state to enforce the are civil unions for gays only on same-sex marriage. Gay rights organizations swiftly denounced Moore's January 6,order. Florida began allowing same-sex marriages after a are civil unions for gays only judge struck are civil unions for gays only the state's ban.
Chad Biggs, left, and Chris Creech say their twink gay guys showing cock vows at the Wake County Courthouse in Raleigh, North Carolina, on October 10,after a federal judge ruled that same-sex marriage can begin in the state.
Joshua Gunter, right, and Bryan Shields attend a Las Vegas rally to celebrate an appeals court ruling that overturned Nevada's same-sex marriage ban on October 7, Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage in Utah when it declined to hear the state's appeal of a lower court ruling. Mary Bishop, second from left, and Sharon Baldwin, right, celebrate with are civil unions for gays only and friends following their wedding ceremony on the courthouse steps in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on October 6, The date marked the first day that all of Illinois' counties could begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
William Roletter, left, and Paul Rowe get close after having their photo taken with their marriage certificate May 21,at Philadelphia City Hall. A federal judge struck down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. Rambo and Seaton were the first same-sex couple to be granted a marriage license in Eureka Springs after a judge overturned Amendment 83, which banned same-sex marriage in Arkansas.
Same-sex couples get their marriage licenses at the Oakland County Courthouse in Pontiac, Michigan, on March 22,a day after a federal judge overturned Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. On November 13,Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, left, and former state Sen. Avery Chumbley celebrate with a copy of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser after Abercrombie signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
Plaintiffs Laurie Wood, left, and Kody Partridge, center, walk with attorney Peggy Tomsic on December 4,after a judge heard arguments challenging Utah's same-sex marriage ban. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied the state's request to prevent same-sex marriages temporarily, clearing the way for same-sex couples to marry.
Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage on June 26, The high court cleared the way for same-sex couples in California to resume marrying after dismissing an appeal on Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds.
The court also struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law defining marriage as between a man gys a woman. At the state Capitol in St. Mark Dayton signs a bill legalizing same-sex marriage on May 14, Jack Markell holds up legislation on May 7,allowing same-sex couples to wed in the state. Rhode Island state Sen.
Donna Nesselbush, right, embraces a supporter after the Marriage Equality Act was signed into law at dating gay review service statehouse in Providence on May 2, Jamous Gaays, right, and Steven Jones pose for photos while waiting for a marriage license in Portland, Maine, on December 29, On March 1,Maryland Gov. The law was challenged, but voters approved marriage equality in a November referendum.
On February 13,Washington Gov.
new comment 1
new comment 2
new comment 3
new comment 4
new comment 5