I've edited your post to what I think it ought to look like.

Main thing to remember is that when you start with a [ quote ] you need to end with a [ /quote ] (note the slash denoting the end of the quoted text)

Heya

Now when you say

"I was under the impression that civil rights gave GLBT people the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, is that right? anyone know?"

Civil rights is a meaningless term in the context of this debate. What matters are the specific rights under specific legislation.

And as I said we dont have the same rights because there are specific rights in the marriage act – especially to do with children – which do NOT exist in any other legislation.

The example that Ann Maree gave is a prime example of such a right we dont have that married couples do have.

Now you ARE correct that a little while back there was a big push to fix discrimination in legislation. They went through and identified legislation and fixed them so now for example – de facto relationships are now gender non specific. and superannuation legislation was changed so I can leave my benefit to my partner – rather than having to leave it to my estate and then from my estate to my partner.

However – they DIDNT fix one piece of legislation – the marriage act of 1961 …. so all the rights given by marriage – we dont and cant have.

Now as for marraige being between a man and a woman I would challenge that in a number of ways

Firstly – people generally invoke that for historical reasons but historically – marriage was both polygamous (which the church is now dead set against but God doesnt seem to have a problem with as there is a LOT of it in the bible), and with cousins and brothers widows etc – quite a number of practises we frown upon now. So in fact we are continually redefining Marriage ( and often for good reasons such as in breeding)

Secondly – the church has historically married same sex partners and its a more recent thing for them to NOT marry same sex partners (thanks to english politics I have read although Im sure its complicated) .

Here is a post that discusses this VERY issue

http://www.freedom2b.org/forums/the-history-of-gay-marriage-t1852/

So in fact its the ban on Gay marriage that is modern and a change from accepted practise

Finally – there are in fact more Genders than Male and Female. The case of intersexed people

We have long known about about hermaphrodites – people who had male and female genitals. This is now called Intersex. There are a number of ways to be Intersex and many of them are not visible to the Naked eye and require a lab test (extra chromosomes for example)

Now these people are Intersexed – Not male nor female (or both or in fact an alternative) and yet many of these HAVE been married by the church and the state happily IN Ignorance in the past – and this shows what a sham the whole male and female thing is. For example. One study in the USA found a number of people with Male Genitals and Female Brains. What Gender are they ? These are complex questions and I dont know the answer and in fact I dont think anyone does. There is a great documentary about this the ABC had on

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc1/201201/programs/DO0904Q001D2012-01-29T220319.htm

Phoebe had undescended testes so they were removed (as they can become cancerous) and she became a woman.

She has a Husband – is he Gay or straight ? Its a question he has asked himself – and then hs said – he loves phoebe and thats all that matters. However my point is = it shows that the line can be blurred – and we dont know how often it is. How many people who are happily married would not pass rigorous tests ???

Where should the line be drawn ? The more we learn – the more we know that we know we are wrong to assume that you can judge by peoples Genitals.

Now Most people tend to talk about marriage equality being a human rights issue – but Ill leave that for others to discuss those (or Google it – theres heaps on that on the web).

oops, sorry shadowboxer, typo error you quoted me as saying

"I was under the impression that civil rights gave GLBT people the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, is that right? anyone know?"

what I meant to say was that, I was under the impression that civil UNIONS gave GLBT the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, NOT civil rights LOL Is that the case?

I came across a survey conducted by sexton marketing back in February 2011, which revealed that only one in seven Australian's are strongly in favour of changing the Marriage Act & although 58% believed that "same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples to get married" only 49% supported changing the Marriage Act,

I think a majority of people on a sentimental level don't oppose same-sex marriage on the basis, that they think there is discrimination involved & they don't want to be associated with discrimination or risk being labelled homophobic. I was speaking to some of my gay friends & they were raving on about equality which is certainly worth fighting for, but I wonder if there can ever really be equality in the case of marriage. Homosexual couples are not "equal" to heterosexual couples, any more than a female footballer is "equal" to a male footballer.

Is it really a rights issue or a legal issue because a same-sex union or marriage is not recognised under Australian law. So isn't it more of a legal issue or perhaps a combination of the two.

Certainly the European Court of Human Rights doesn't seem to agree that same-sex marriage is a universal human right, in its March 18, 2012 ruling, the court stated that same-sex marriages are not a human right, following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French Courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

An article appeared in the Catholic Weekly not long ago, my neighbour still had a copy & was going about how homosexual marriage will lead to destruction … anyway, the article used the findings of a study that showed 76% of Americans could not see any reason not to legalise Polygamy if same-sex marriage was legalised. I guess what they were saying was that, if we grant gay couples the right to marry on a human rights level, then why stop at gay marriage. Going by that same logic, what right do we or the government have to deny those same rights to a man who wishes to have more then one wife or a woman wishing more than one husband? It opens a whole can of worms doesn't it? I know that the argument from a lot of Churches especially, the Catholic Church is that legalising same-sex marriage "will lead to Polygamy" I'm not sure I would go that far, but I can see their argument to some degree. What right would we have to deny someone who wishes to marry more than one partner? Or as farfetched & clearly wrong this is, what right would the government have from denying someone the "right" to have a "loving relationship" with his or her dog or as NSW Christian Democratic Party candidate Peter Madden said, "why stop at same-sex marriage, why not allow adults to marry children?" what right would anyone have to deny a person's "right" to marry a child purely on the basis that people should be allowed the right to a "loving and committed relationship" regardless of their sexuality (race, culture, religion, gender …) can we say same-sex marriage is a right & Polygamy is not a right or bestiality is not a right, if someone seeks to go down that path, regardless of how wrong and perverted it is. Who are we to say it is not their right to do so?

Thanks forestgrey. Very well put.

As well as that, opponents of gay marriage are quick to forget that polygamy was quite an acceptable practice in biblical cultures and exists in a harmonious way in other cultures today. And as for gay marriage opening the door to child abuse or beastiality, well that's just silly.

Blessings,

Ann Maree

Hi Shadow Boxer

Thanks for your very thought provoking post. It's true marriage can be defined and experienced in many different ways and this plays a bearing on how it impacts certain people in our society. And you're right – people don't look deeply enough into that. As you say, the main issue is when same sex couples are banned from legally recognised marriage as they are in Australia and other places. It becomes a human rights issue for them and their children because they are disadvantaged, mostly in regards to care of their children as we've both pointed out previously.

Blessings,

Ann Maree