Are the recent gay reforms enough?
May 9th 2008 03:07
Recently, the government has granted gay couples many about 100 new 'rights', such as being able to see your dying partner, getting your dead partner's superannuation fund or pension, or simply being recoginsed as a ligitmate de-facto couple in our so called forward society.
However, despite the federal government's 'open mindness' to finally acknowledge homosexuals as actual loving people, who simply wish to be accepted into society and not discriminated against on the bases of their sexuality, I find it interesting that marriage, even civil, still remains out of the question.
It has been Australian Capital Territory Government's aim for some time now to ensure that gay unions become a reality. This Australian state government is the first in the nation to recognise that gay people also have the wish to be a part of a committed, nationally recognised relationship, and actively do something about it. However, despite the recent change of government, it appears that on a federal level, Australia is still reluctant to give every single one of its citizens a 'fair go'.
Honestly, what is so WRONG about a gay couple entering into a legal, civil union? This should not be a matter of law, but a matter of personal choice and perference.
The strongest argument against gay unions is that they will dirty the sanctity of marriage, and pervert the high status of 'the family'. To me, that's not really reason enough to have the government ban two people who love each other as much as any straight couple from marriage.
Regarding religon, I believe that it is each religion's right to refuse to marry any individual in society. Marriage in a church, under Christan/Catholic or any other traditonal religion is the perogative of the church and should not be interfered with by the law. However, this concept can also be applied to the opposite: marriage in the eyes of the law, removed from any religious influence and ceremony, should not be discriminated against on the basis of so-called 'morality' and emotion. Christian beliefs ishould not influence legislation: after all, we can's exactly call ourselves a secular state when gay marriage is outlawed for no other reason than 'perverting the traditional concept of marriage', can we?
I also don't understand how gay marriages will negatively influence society. First of all, the fact that it is assumed that it will have a 'negative' influence is problematic in itself, as it implies that homosexuality is a social disease we must avoid and prevent at all costs. This concept of 'infecting' the straight people is ludicrus, as any intelligent individual knows that you cannot simply 'turn' gay just by knowing someone else who is gay.
If gay marriage is legalised, it will not mean that a union between two heterosexual people will mean anything less: it'll still remain that same kind of ceremony which celebrates two people's love and commitment to each other.
However, despite the federal government's 'open mindness' to finally acknowledge homosexuals as actual loving people, who simply wish to be accepted into society and not discriminated against on the bases of their sexuality, I find it interesting that marriage, even civil, still remains out of the question.
It has been Australian Capital Territory Government's aim for some time now to ensure that gay unions become a reality. This Australian state government is the first in the nation to recognise that gay people also have the wish to be a part of a committed, nationally recognised relationship, and actively do something about it. However, despite the recent change of government, it appears that on a federal level, Australia is still reluctant to give every single one of its citizens a 'fair go'.
Honestly, what is so WRONG about a gay couple entering into a legal, civil union? This should not be a matter of law, but a matter of personal choice and perference.
The strongest argument against gay unions is that they will dirty the sanctity of marriage, and pervert the high status of 'the family'. To me, that's not really reason enough to have the government ban two people who love each other as much as any straight couple from marriage.
Regarding religon, I believe that it is each religion's right to refuse to marry any individual in society. Marriage in a church, under Christan/Catholic or any other traditonal religion is the perogative of the church and should not be interfered with by the law. However, this concept can also be applied to the opposite: marriage in the eyes of the law, removed from any religious influence and ceremony, should not be discriminated against on the basis of so-called 'morality' and emotion. Christian beliefs ishould not influence legislation: after all, we can's exactly call ourselves a secular state when gay marriage is outlawed for no other reason than 'perverting the traditional concept of marriage', can we?
I also don't understand how gay marriages will negatively influence society. First of all, the fact that it is assumed that it will have a 'negative' influence is problematic in itself, as it implies that homosexuality is a social disease we must avoid and prevent at all costs. This concept of 'infecting' the straight people is ludicrus, as any intelligent individual knows that you cannot simply 'turn' gay just by knowing someone else who is gay.
If gay marriage is legalised, it will not mean that a union between two heterosexual people will mean anything less: it'll still remain that same kind of ceremony which celebrates two people's love and commitment to each other.
| 121 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Journeywoman
Great Hair Style Tips
I Dream of Hollywood
Australian Chick
Gonzo
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
cant say anymore because it makes my blood boil and ill be here all day.
Comment by The wonderful Peter Yang
The wonderful Peter Yang's No.1 blog
We should start looking at it from a civil right point of view.
And keep th bible out of the discussion, religion is what we use to regulate our self, not to create laws.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Again, I think you should take more care with your titles... this one confused me. At first I thought your post might be about a skepticism in regards to how gay rights in general are of service to all human beings, with my alternative being that it would be a discussion of whether existing freedoms will change the behaviour of gay people. Perhaps you could have tried 'Are recent gay rights reforms enough?' Also, the use of capital letters annoys me. I hesitated to come over due to those factors.
I think it is unhealthy for everyone to grow up in a society which only allows heterosexual marriage. When I was growing up I viewed these sanctified relationships as somehow 'normal' and didn't consider homosexual relationship with nearly the same amount of respect. It disadvantages heterosexuals as much as homosexuals, because it gives them no reason not to think that their forms of relationships are somehow more legitimate, normal and savoury.
I believe I will see gay marriage become a reality in Australia within my lifetime, and I'm looking forward to it.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
1. ban hetero marriage
2. legalise gay marriage
like we would say to a little kid if youre not going to play fairly then youre not going to play at all
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
MTDVD
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Marriage has different meanings in different religions.
Comment by Caroline Zielinski
Pop Culturer
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Hey, it attracted attention, didn't it? Now you just have to attract the right kind of attention... I'm sure you'll get the hang of it... I find that, unless I have a specific title to begin with, it's best to leave the task of creating one until I've finished writing my post... that way you will have organised your ideas sufficiently to be able to market them effectively. Good luck!