I was lissioning to a debate in the federal parliment last night on a bill to amend the comonwealth superanuation scheme to alow the partner of a same sex couple to claim things like death benifits if there partner dies. This bill is a precurser to a much larger piece of legislation which will remove descrimination in nearly 100 pieces of federal law relation to finatial, tax, super, and social security leglislation which directly discriminate against same sex couples 2 things i found most interesting about the debate The first thing is that brendon nelson should really never be alowed to speak in public and if he does chris pine (the member for sturt) should really write his speaches. He made almost as big an ass of himself this time as he did in the apology speach. The second thing was that ever member of parliment i lissioned to started there speach with "discrimination of any form is abhorent in contempary australian sociaty and should be abolished" This is a sentiment i agree with whole heartedly but unfortuantly there was a BUT that came next. The but was that nither side of politics will amend the marrage act to get rid of a glaring piece of discrimination nor will they amend adoption laws so that the legal guardians of a child are the people who raise them no matter what sex they are. In fact this was GLARINGLY ovious when lissioning to a speach by an oposition member who said "we should in no way change the law so that same sex couples have the same statice as a step parent of a child". He went on to imply that the only parents of a child are those who provide the genetic material rather than those who raise the child. I found this highly insulting not just to the gay comunity but to anyone who adopts a child including grandparents who raise there grandchildren because the parents are unfit (something that i have personal experiance with because my cousin is being raised that way because his mother was in a very vilont relationship) I am wondering why no one has ever taken the federal goverment to the antidiscrimination tribunal over this I also found the debate interesting because it was the international convention on the rights of the child which is the reasons they are even having this debate. ie the finantial stress that the couple is being put under compared to what oposite sex couples face is going against the interests of the child and there for the law is in brech of our international obligations under this convention. I was surpised at this because i thought the argument would end up coming from the convention on political and civil rights rather than from the ICORH both of which we are signitries to.
It's tough to discuss the matter from an American perspective of Australia. Although -- I'm under the impression that -- Australia is a bit ahead of the USA on the matters of sexuality/gay/lesbian rights, it isn't by all that much. In the US the matter has been the de facto purview of the state (see: California, Hawaii, Vermont) more so than it has been the Federal Government or the Supreme Court. ~String
i dont even think they should be able to get married, and they sure has hell should not be able to have kids, yes i am bi sexual, i am married, yes i have kids, but it was somthing to came to light after being married, homosexuals. lesbians should not be able to adopt children, it is a slap in the face for people who cannot have children, because the goverment will ahve to leave a certain amount of children just in case a homosexual couple wants to adopt, because eventually they will have to be treated like everyone else!
Uh. You obviously have no clue how adoption works. For starters, in the USA you're on a long assed waiting list, despite the fact that there are millions of kids waiting to be adopted. Second off, there is no "affirmative action" in adoption. The kid goes to the best adjusted families. This is a state-by-state issue, but in states that do allow gay couples to adopt, there is no preference. It's based upon the stability of the couple, their economic state and their individual mental health. Yes! Perish the thought that gay people might be treated like everybody else. Terrible. Just terrible! ~String
let me explain myself more, why should gay's have the same rights has married couples? some gay people just want a child has a fashion statement, or just beacuse they can, why should they be able to get married or have civil ceramonies (sp)? i am in no doubt that some gay men, lesbians love they're partners but getting married shoudlnt be allowed, and having children is against the natural circle of things!
Because the STATE is the one denying them that right. Also, there are some states give them that right both to marry and to adopt to no ill effect on their citizens. Also, because they may have been together for eons without getting their commitment recognized. You do realize, don't you, that non-married STRAIGHT couples can adopt in most US states? Right. Because you've done the studies and have put in all the hours researching this topic to come to that ribald conclusion. You've also, quite conveniently, left out the number of STRAIGHT couples that may adopt for your supposed "fashion statement". Adoption can cost well into the five-figures of dollars. Most gay couples cannot afford that without mortgaging their house. I know a couple in Akron that nearly had to file bankruptcy in order to adopt a girl (of minority descent) who NOBODY wanted to adopt. It took a lawsuit and more than a year to get the girl out of a foster home and into their wonderful suburban home where the two guys adore her. So, sure, fashion statement. Great theory. Two questions to ask: how are you hurt by two people bonding in love and how is society impacted when two people who are in love formalize their union? The only thing that people like you have to fall back on is tradition and religion. Facts rarely factor into prejudice and hatred. So, you live a totally natural life? Nothing AT ALL that's unnatural? Or is this gay thing just too arbitrarily unnatural for you? How convenient that the unnatural things for you are perfectly acceptable whilst the unnatural things that other people do should be prohibited by law. This world would be such a better place if everybody just did and lived the way you do. ~String
why shouldnt they have the same rights? and what percentage of straight people actually plan to have kids?
i dont know i dont have any figures for you, but what percentage of gay people want children? do they want children beacsue they can't have them? do they want them has a fashion statement, becasue they can? or do they want them to love and mould into adults? what percentage of gay people who do adopt have homosexual children when they're older?
becasue the sate is denying them the right?? see....you want it because you can't, and it doesnt matter how much homsexuals stomp they're feet shout out loud, you'll get what you want because we are living in a PC gone mad world.
ahahahahahahaha.literally pissing myself laughing... id say a fairly smal percentage want children which is actually my point.they cant have them accidentally like straight people can,which means that they would be more likely to be good parents because they have to really want a kid to go through the whole process.
i found this and its how i feal: We were created male and female not by some cosmic accident but by the design of God. That being the case, and considering the accompanying biology, it is reasonable to suppose that the normal family unit is comprised of parents and children. Homosexuals cannot be parents and are therefore not a natural family unit. If you do not regard these facts as being relevant to the issue then you must have be wearing blinkers. An unnatural "family" is by implication problematic because it denies nature. Even if you are an atheist and believe in evolution you would have to agree that, considering that the species would die out if homosexuality was widespread, it is an abberation. For a child to be a part of such an unnatural union cannot be healthy because it will be denied the building blocks of a life during which it will have to relate to normal people. ------------------
i was laughing because you used the worst cop out in history. ok.. so if only a small percentage of gay people want children is that good/bad in your opinion. if a high percentage of gay people want children is that good/bad in your opinion.
gay people should not be allowed to adopt children that is what i think, and eventually they will be abel to, because they will shout, scream, stomp they feet like spoilt little children to get they're own way, what happens when they want to stomp and scream they're way into getting the age of concent lowered?? will that be ok??
and we're back to the question i orignally asked....why shouldnt they have the same rights? the part in red was too stupid to answer
so, do you think they should have the age of concent lowered? becasue they want it? i take it you do becasue you avoided the question
WOW, this thread got long fast. String i compleatly understand your inability to comment on australian politics except in a general sencePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hell most australians couldnt tell you the implications of various tax acts (including myself) because they are just to complicatedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LA if i miss a couple of your points i apologise Firstly your comments on adoption As i said the speach itself (rather than the legislation, as the paticular bill has nothing to do with adoption) was an insult to anyone who has adopted a child because the member said (very specifically) that the only PARENTS a child has is those who provide the genetic material rather than those who love and care for the child. This is WRONG, some drop dead "parent" who dumps their child at birth is no parent. The people left to care for the child are its parents. Secondly there is a HUGE difference between stranger (for the lack of a better term) adoption and adoption by a step parent. If your husband ran off and left you and your children and your new partner (guy OR girl) cared for, loved, looked after the kids both of you would be the parents NOT the person who slept with you with the child being the result. Whats so abohorant with the idea that 2 women or 2 men would raise a child because they love and care for eachother and the child? Next marrage. How exactly would 2 married women or 2 married men effect you at all? Am i disadvantaged by the fact that YOU can vote like i can? Alowing same sex couples to marry is no different from removing the "special" rights that men used to have (pre 60's i think) to vote or hold public office. Actually its LESS than that because in the case of women holding office you and i could go for the same job and i could miss out because you also aplied. Yet your marrage and anyone elses means NOTHING when and if i ever get married. Now stranger adoption, as string (i belive) said children should go to the best avialble parents no matter WHO they are or what gender they are. Its the care and suport that is important, not wether you fuck a guy or a girl. Anyway some rights which are going to be fixed by this bill or the super bill: The right to death benifits for the partners of service men and women (at the moment i belive they cant even recive there partners medels) The right to claim a dead partners supper The right to claim the BODY of a dead partner from the morgue The right to act as next of kin for a dead partner (in the case of funeral arangements ect) The right to be treated as a couple for the purposes of centerlink (this one will actually COST gays money out of interest, 2 single pentions or unemployment benifits are higher than the couples rate) The right to have a joint medicare safty net The right to be placed in a joint room in a nursing home automatically The right to act exercise a partners medical wishes The right to inherit from a partner (rather than having it go to a former spouse or parent) The right to claim a dependent spouse for tax purposes the right to joint ownership of property The right to sue for the death of a partner due to negligence ect and otherwise act as guardian for there partner The right to use the family court to divide property (rather than having to use the surpreem courts) Im not sure if the last one is actually covered under this legslation or not and there are ALOT more because as i said this bill covers almost 100 different pieces of legislation where there is discrimination and this bill ONLY covers those in FEDERAL law. Not those in the various state laws
You have GOT to be kidding LA, lower the age of concent? So all people atracted to the same sex are pediophiles? You really are a bigot arnt you
