Forums

Equality: What does it mean for you?

Page:   1 2 3
 
 

iplantolive
 
Joined in 2008
May 24, 2010, 21:49

<h3><em>"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"</em></h3>


Many of us would be familiar with this phrase from George Orwell's book and film <em>Animal Farm</em>.


For me, Equality is having the same opportunity as anyone else to achieve my personal goals.


What does Equality mean for you as a LGBT person? If you were Prime Minister, would you legalise gay marriage? Why or Why Not?



holywoman
 
Joined in 2010
May 25, 2010, 23:18

I think Orwell was a brilliant writer, but not a good humanist! Although one cannot deny societies structure and how it’s designed to favour certain people, we as a church are not society.


We are called to be in the world not of it.


Yet as a church we get too hung up on the world, to the exclusion of God Children if they don’t fit the church ideal of a ‘good Christian’.


As a Christian for me marriage is about a commitment to God. Simple. If you are willing to make that commitment in the eyes of God good for you, no one should stand between you and God. In


Equality to for me means not having to worry about being discriminated against for ANY reason.


AS for if i were PM I would legalise gay marriage because if our government is secular, which theoretically they are, then they have absolutely no reason to deny gays the same right as everyone else. Sadly it’s not that simple.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
May 26, 2010, 11:58

Hi holywoman


Welcome to the site! It’s good to have you with us and it would be lovely if you are able to share something of your ‘story’ in the ‘Teling our stories’ section.


In answer to your comments, I think the ideal church is meant to be different to society but in reality is often like a microcosm of the greater society surrounding it. Looking at 1st century church history illustrates that. Historians and scholars believe that in Jesus’ time, there were many christianities and diversity as there is today with different churches and versions of the faith. It has been said that ‘Peter’s people’, later gathering the support of the roman government, simply had more political clout, a dominant voice and a more organised campaign than other groups, resulting in the shaping of The Christianity that we’ve been taught existed in earliest times. So the politics of this world had it’s part to play in creating the church (as we interpret it) and subsequently during many times in history.


Now in answer to Pierre’s questions: I think equality is about being treated with respect and dignity, and generally being able to access the same supports that others can. With equality, there would be no such thing as discrimination which stops someone from having their basic human rights met.


The PM should definitely support gay marriage because denying it is an abuse of human rights. It doesn’t matter what his own personal beliefs are on this (and he’s entitled to those). The greater issue is about human rights and being merciful to the LGBT community who are discriminated against in this area and others. We need to be able to express our love and commitment with partners as our hetero counterparts can and be protected when spouses are ill/die, able to make decisions as next of kin because we are recognised as such.


Blessings,


Ann Maree



iplantolive
 
Joined in 2008
May 26, 2010, 22:02

As a Christian for me marriage is about a commitment to God. Simple. If you are willing to make that commitment in the eyes of God good for you, no one should stand between you and God.


AS for if i were PM I would legalise gay marriage because if our government is secular, which theoretically they are, then they have absolutely no reason to deny gays the same right as everyone else. Sadly it’s not that simple.


Hi holywoman,


Welcome to freedom2b[e]. Yep, it shouldn’t matter if you’re part of a gay couple. If you both want to get married then that should be available. Simple. Unfortunately as you say, politics is not that simple. Too many lobby groups and religious institutions against the idea. On a purely human rights ground, they haven’t a leg to stand on. But we can do our bit to eliminate the barriers of ignorance and fear that prevent gay marriage from becoming a reality.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
May 27, 2010, 00:48

Hi again holywoman


I like your comments, including about the government being secular in theory and therefore able to support gay marriage. Good point. It would be great if church and state were completely separate but they are perhaps closer than many realise, which complicates things.


From my point of view as a non politician, it’s quite simple. Human rights are being breached and actions need to be taken to correct this. Somehow I think politicians need more than altruism to motivate them however. They need to know that major votes and seats will be lost if they fail to act.


I also agree that marriage is a commitment. For me it would be made to my partner as a declaration before God and my partner. And for others I know, who are non christian, it’s about the commitment to each other, involving the 2 people in the relationship. So why should this concern anyone else, and why should sexuality matter?


Thanks for your support anyway, holywoman. 🙂


Blessings,


Ann Maree



ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005
April 3, 2012, 09:13

Actually – Im probably a little out there on this issue….


BUT on this issue I would separate church and state…

I dont think the Church should have ANY say on who has legal recognition for their partnerships. By the same token. I dont think the State should say that the Church MUST marry this person or that person…


So – I would say – that a church wedding has NO legal recognition at all. (Rather like in Germany).

If you want Legal Recognition – YOU must go to the registry and sign ….

If you want Gods Blessing – then you can go to a church. neither have anything to do with each other… and in fact – If ONE minister wants to give you his blessing – it doesnt affect the fact that Jenson or Pell doesnt = because you are legally registered at the registry.


Thats the way I would set it up if I was PM



Brunski
 
Joined in 2005
April 7, 2012, 00:12

Hi guys, welcome holywoman & hi Pierre, I notice you have been around since 2008 & yet, I don't think I have "met you" until now lol

thanks for posting, I was actually wanting to start a new discussion re: same-sex-marriage, wanting to get peoples opinions on the whole thing & low and behold there is already a discussion that kind of deals with this whole issue 🙂


I was having a conversation only recently with some Christian friends of mine who don't support same-sex marriage & they asked me what my opinion was, whether I support same-sex marriage or not? well I'm kind of on the fence with this one. I find it hard to go beyond the traditional view that marriage is union between a man and a woman. But I also believe that GLBT people should have the right to live as couples and be recognised as such by law & receive the same rights that Heterosexual people do. So I would support Civil Unions, which I think is the way this country should go. But my good friend raised some interesting points, which kind of got me scratching my head.

Is the whole same-sex marriage thing really about equality? Is it about rights? or is it just a "select minority group" as he put it, that wants to change the law, dictate how people should act in a civilised world (his words) & seek to pressure those in power to serve their own agenda? He pointed quite mischievously may I add that, "Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either, so GLBT people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people". That kind of threw me a little & I wasn't sure how to respond. He went about a host of other things that I may go into at a later stage, as its getting way past my bed time.

But the one statement that really threw me was that same-sex marriage is not a human right because it doesn't exist in common law, then of course he started going about all this legal stuff that went way over my head … anyway, the common law comment is way to complicated to get into, but just wondering what people think about the fact that "Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either, so GLBT people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people" ?


As for the PM supporting gay marriage, that is not going to happen (at least I very much doubt it) & if my bets are correct, we are looking at a coalition government next term (cant see our beloved female PM getting re-elected) so we will have Attack Dog Abbott at the control wheel and you can kiss any hope of getting any kind of same-sex marriage law past & made into law with the tiniest possibility if the Government is pressured enough, is legislation paving the way for legally recognised civil unions. NZ has gone down that path, so should Australia, that way the "gay advocates" lol are happy & the tradition definition of marriage remains and the marriage act is not changed, keeping the Churches happy 🙂

Gosh, it way past my bed time ….



ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005
April 7, 2012, 07:55

I cant speak the bit for common law – but I would point out – separating the religious issues and the legal issues on the matter resolves many of the problems (and this – as I said above – has been done in countries such as Germany that REQUIRE a separation of church and state)


I would note that there are legal rights given in the marriage act that are given no where else – so we are NOT equal in the law until we can marry. My understanding ( and IANAL – I am not a lawyer) is that these are mostly related to children so they dont relate to me personally BUT they do relate to many of my friends who either were married and had children heterosexually and are now in a lesbian or gay relationship OR who have children IN a gay relationship. THOSE children are denied legal rights that the children of MARRIED couples get.

So there is a definite discrimination there against a growing number of our community and I would say ¨think of the children¨. If the biological parent dies the children are in a legal limbo worse than I would be as an adopted kid even though I had no Biological ties to either parent – because they were married. That could be extremely distressing for the children (and the remaining partner).


In addition "Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either, so GLBT people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people" ? IS a bit of a straw man. Hetero sexual people DONT WANT TO MARRY people of the same sex so its an irrelevant argument.

Logic is a powerful tool but it allows you to posit impossible or incorrect statements without warning you (the classic one is the paradox – what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable force – – grammatical correct – but it cant exist)

The correct argument would be Hetero sexual people can marry the Consenting adult they want to – and so we should be able to.


As for sitting on the Fence – is that because it doesnt impact you ? what is the moral point here ? I have no great desire to get married. My partnership is legally recognised by the Aussie government and actually on record at the United nations (as I worked there for a little while)

however this is a MORAL question. others believe they need to be married to be equal. Others need to be married to protect their children and others need to be married because of their faith. Do you think they are wrong to believe that ? Many people Sacrificed a lot to win our legal freedoms and I think we should support others to complete the Job – if we think what they want is Ethical and moral even if it doesnt impact us personally.

We are family after all !



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
April 7, 2012, 08:12

Hi Brunski

You said:


Is the whole same-sex marriage thing really about equality? Is it about rights? or is it just a "select minority group" as he put it, that wants to change the law, dictate how people should act in a civilised world (his words) & seek to pressure those in power to serve their own agenda? He pointed quite mischievously may I add that, "Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either, so GLBT people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people".


This issue is very much about human rights and equality. I'm not particularly interested in marriage as such and I know plenty of LGBTI people who have no desire to be married, just as many heterosexual people are not into marriage. The issue here is that heterosexual people can CHOOSE if they want to marry or not. They also receive the legal benefits that come with marriage. Civil union rights are NOT the same.

Your friend seems to be making light of a very painful issue for many. I know of a lesbian couple who had a daughter together. The biological mother and daughter were in an accident and critically ill. The daughter had to have emergency surgery and the other mother was not permitted to sign the consent form for her. It was life and death and fortunately the biological mother woke up and signed the form and they survived. Can you imagine the helplessness of the other partner though? And sadly this is not an isolated case. There are countless others who have been denied recognition as Next of Kin and if the family of origin are homophobic or don't like the partner, their wishes can override that of the partner's. This is an absolute travesty and can you imagine the stress and grief that places on the gay person/s involved, especially in an already stressful medical situation? Similarly when a partner dies, a civil union may not be recognised like a marriage and the surviving partner may find that the will can be contested more easily than if they were legally married. Your friend's comment that LGBTI people have the same rights as heterosexuals misses the point because straight people would have no desire to marry someone of the same sex. It's about being able to love someone of your choosing and to have the same rights around that and not be disadvantaged. How would your friend feel if he was denied the right to be with the one he loves?

I don't believe that advocating for equality is the same as power-seeking. The request for fairness and equal rights does not mean the LGBTI community will take over the world and corrupt so-called "civilised" society. In fact I think our society remains in the dark ages as long as it excludes LGBTI people from marriage. It doesn't bother me if others disagree with me. And it's no problem for me if certain priests or others don't want to perform same sex marriages – that's up to them. Everyone has the right to their beliefs and to act accordingly. But this issue is much bigger than beliefs or law. It's a human rights issue that needs to be rectified.

Blessings,

Ann Maree



Brunski
 
Joined in 2005
April 7, 2012, 11:41

Thanks guys,

I think I will cut and paste & print your responses shadowboxer & ann-maree, just so I can show my friend, as you can imagine he has some strong views on this & of late he has been challenging especially, since I kind of "came out" to a few more people including him whilst arguing about homosexual rights & he was not impressed. But at least he is decent enough to remain friends even though he disagree with my "lifestyle" and my "immorality and sin" anyway ..


shadowboxer you said


I would note that there are legal rights given in the marriage act that are given no where else – so we are NOT equal in the law until we can marry


I'm not familiar with a lot of this, I was under the impression that civil rights gave GLBT people the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, is that right? anyone know? If so, would anyone object if States and Territories in Australia adopted civil unions allowing GLBT people from marrying? If laws were changed so civil unions have the same rights as heterosexual marriage would that be okay for those GLBT people who want to get married?


As for sitting on the Fence – is that because it doesnt impact you ? what is the moral point here ? I have no great desire to get married. My partnership is legally recognised by the Aussie government and actually on record at the United nations (as I worked there for a little while)


Sitting on the fence is because part of me still has the mindset & belief that marriage is between a man & a woman & I fin bit hard to get past that.


Ann Maree you said


The issue here is that heterosexual people can CHOOSE if they want to marry or not. They also receive the legal benefits that come with marriage. Civil union rights are NOT the same.


again, I just assumed without doing any research that civil unions gave GLBT people the exact same rights with the exception of being defined as married, if that makes sense. Just like de-facto relationships. Then again, I dont know much about de-facto relationships either, so I should just be quiet 😛


You also said


Your friend seems to be making light of a very painful issue for many. I know of a lesbian couple who had a daughter together. The biological mother and daughter were in an accident and critically ill. The daughter had to have emergency surgery and the other mother was not permitted to sign the consent form for her. It was life and death and fortunately the biological mother woke up and signed the form and they survived. Can you imagine the helplessness of the other partner though? And sadly this is not an isolated case. There are countless others who have been denied recognition as Next of Kin and if the family of origin are homophobic or don't like the partner, their wishes can override that of the partner's. This is an absolute travesty and can you imagine the stress and grief that places on the gay person/s involved, especially in an already stressful medical situation? Similarly when a partner dies, a civil union may not be recognised like a marriage and the surviving partner may find that the will can be contested more easily than if they were legally married. Your friend's comment that LGBTI people have the same rights as heterosexuals misses the point because straight people would have no desire to marry someone of the same sex. It's about being able to love someone of your choosing and to have the same rights around that and not be disadvantaged. How would your friend feel if he was denied the right to be with the one he loves?


Again, excuse my ignorance, but I thought the law was changed a few years ago or something changing that the whole not being able to sign consent form or having same rights as heterosexual partners when someone is ill, even if they are not in a civil union situation, but perhaps I am wrong again lol


It's a human rights issue that needs to be rectified.


Some disagree saying this has nothing to do with human rights, I think that in France the highest court there said that it was not a "universal human right" I'm not sure what they said it was, but then again, you can't trust the French. 😉


One thing is certain, it is a complicated issue that stirs up great emotion and mixed opinions. And (I think I said this before) I think GLBT will have to wait a little longer to get their call for justice because the Gillard government wont allow for a conscious vote I think and Julia Gillard has already gone of record saying that she opposes same-sex marriage & of course, when Abbott gets into power which is likely to be whenever the next election is held because I can't see Gillard getting another term in office. So there is hope in hell for an Abbott led government to ever pass any laws to allow for same-sex marriage or to change the marriage act 🙁


Page:   1 2 3
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.063 seconds.