Forums

Equality: What does it mean for you?

Page:   1 2 3
 
 

ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005
April 12, 2012, 22:12

Hi Ann Maree

I'm not sure – but this can be why it's not seen as a human rights issue in some countries. For example – If those rights not given in the marriage act but in a Registered union act for example – or given in multiple pieces of legislation – a marriage act AND a defacto act for example – then there is not the same issue that we have here in Aus. Specifics in this case precisely matter.

However the other way to look at this is – if you are a spiritual person and believe in Marriage – and understand that the church used to marry same sex unions and that many churches are willing to do so now (so believe its acceptable and right) – the fact that the state COULD allow you to marry and won't because of SOME churches is not ideal and I would think any believer would want to support those people to resolve this situation – whether they feel that way themselves or not (and this is something Paul talks about in Romans when he talks about the authorities being ordained by God). Do unto others. If the law didn't allow you to do something you felt God wanted you to do – or ordered you to do something that you believed was a SIN – woudn't you want other believers' support in changing that law – esp. if it didn't impact their lives – as this is not going to impact anyone one but the familes of those who could then marry. Whether or not someone wants to marry isn't the question. The question is – whether you would stand before God and say – they believed that they were living in Sin because they couldn't Marry – and I didn't support a change that could have helped them (and stopped them from living in sin (in their belief). I couldn't justify that myself (that's me though and I have an odd way of looking at things) and I wouldn't want to stand before God and try to explain why I didn't help. 'Do unto others' is one of the prime commandments after all and Jesus himself gave us that commandment.

Phill

Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
April 13, 2012, 08:08

Hi Phill

Yes I understand what you mean – different marriage laws might mean that LGBTI citizens of other countries are not disadvantaged as we are by the marriage act in Australia.

I believe in justice for all. So even though I'm not sure how I feel about marriage on a personal level, I feel strongly on behalf of those who want to marry and can't and are being disadvantaged by the current laws in Australia. I would also argue that the current ban to legally recognise same sex marriages DOES affect the rest of society. When one of us hurts, the rest do too. On a practical level when a partner is denied the right to give medical/legal consent for her partner or child, she might then require more time off work, not function as well in other activities, need counselling and other supports. This obviously impacts the significant others and those close to the person but also anyone she comes into contact with.

Blessings,

Ann Maree

Brunski
 
Joined in 2005
April 17, 2012, 22:58

Just a question, those who support gay marriage, would it be acceptable if the Government passed a law which didnt change the marriage act, but offered gay couples the same rights as straight couples under the banner of a civil union & making civil unions legal & recognised in all States and Territories in Australia? Or is it simply that what many are fighting for is a change in the Marriage act as to the definition of marriage?


Perhaps a reason for such reluctance, on the part of the government to change the marriage act and/or make civil unions legal & recognised on a federal level, apart from the uproar this whole issue is causing amongst the mainstream churches especially, the catholic church & the pressure these Churches are putting on the government & politicians own personal views & religious beliefs which either leads them to support or reject the push for change. But perhaps there is a reluctance because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, marriage is between a man and a woman – a heterosexual union founded on procreation and the founding of families (where possible) "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state" and that "Men and woman have the right to marry and found a family" In a long lasting union in which children are nurtured, protected and exposed to the benefits of the unique differences between a father and a mother, providing the "best environment for raising children". Changing the marriage Act and the definition of marriage would require the government to bypass the United Nations Charter & the Human Rights treaty it is a part of. Ironically, the UN charter on Human Rights actually says " The Universal Declaration begins by recognising that ‘the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" It declares that human rights are universal – to be enjoyed by all people, no matter who they are or where they live. The problem is that, for some reason gay marriage is not recognised as a basic, universal human right. Maybe the UN charter on Human Rights needs to change before Australia will take the bold step of legalising same-sex marriage. What to others think?


Anne Maree you said


On a practical level when a partner is denied the right to give medical/legal consent for her partner or child, she might then require more time off work, not function as well in other activities, need counselling and other supports. This obviously impacts the significant others and those close to the person but also anyone she comes into contact with.


Haven't the law's been changed to address that clear discrimination? I don't really know, but it was just something that I was under the impression had changed. Do you or anyone else know if the law has changed in that regard?

ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005
April 17, 2012, 23:53

Mate


I Have answered this question several times – the answer WILL NOT change until the law is change


¨Haven't the law's been changed to address that clear discrimination? I don't really know, but it was just something that I was under the impression had changed. Do you or anyone else know if the law has changed in that regard¨


In terms of Children – NO there is STILL discrimination under the law as the rights for Children of spouses are only given under the marriage act,

So simply put – if I am in a partnership with some who is the parent of a child. And they die (or are ill or overseas) my Parental authority over the child (EVEN IF THE MY PARTNER WANTS ME TO HAVE IT) is not granted as that is given by the marriage act.

In addition its a very large act and there could well be other rights and differences not in the act but that at least is one I know Parents with Children ARE concerned about as it is not granted by any other law.


Our marriage laws have NOTHING to do with the UNITED Nations and in fact as an ex UN employee – My same sex partner is considered my SPOUSE under UN regulations. The UN actually accepts I am married to my same sex partner (oddly enough – THEY insisted on it – not me)

In addition a number of UN member countries allow Same sex marriage including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Granting it has no implications for the UN (Just as when we gave the Vote to women or stopped the death penalty)


Now in fact – Freedom of religion IS considered a Human right – and if I consider it's a religious right to be married (NOT GAY MARRIAGE – just marriage ) – AND MANY CHURCHES think that Same sex marriage is OK – then by stopping me – the government is in fact not allowing me to live according to my religious principles. AND in fact – it's not like I want to sacrifice anyone or alter anyone else's worship. ALL I want is the right for churches that want to marry me – to be allowed to marry me. I'm not asking for them to be FORCED to marry me. Just the right to do it. In other words….. those whose religion says no – at the moment their religion takes precedence over mine. Should those whose religion says you must worship on Saturday – be allowed to legislate their opinion also? What about those who say TV is a sin? OR Electricity? That's not freedom of religion! So why on this one matter do we prevent freedom of religion. I'm not stopping others from marrying. I'm not forcing my beliefs on others. I just want the right to practise my religion AS I CHOOSE. THAT IS A HUMAN RIGHT under the UN Charter.


As for the reluctance – I believe it's nothing more than the Church´s traditional resistance to change – which is why it resisted the notion the earth was round, that slavery was wrong, that women should vote and so on (That electricity was a tool of satan and so on) . The Church has always resisted change.


Now if they changed the law – say they duplicated the marriage act – and called it civil unions but it had all the same rights.

Then Legally – there would be no discrimination. BUT there would still be religious discrimination. Those who believed GOD wanted them to marry couldn't…. It would still be the case of some people forcing their interpretation of religion on others. So we have a moral and ethical requirement to help those people out because ONE DAY – it may be one of your religious freedoms that are being challenged and you are asking people to protect your beliefs.

(The old truism – I dont agree with what you are saying but I'll fight to the death for your freedom to say it – applies here – any person of religious belief should be standing up for religious freedom here – because one day one of their freedoms could be legislated against… and just because they are getting what they want now is a really bad reason to close your eyes to the principle of freedom)

As for the founding the family and raising children – I asked you before – and you didnt answer – so I'll ask you again – do you think that people who dont have sex are married or not ? What if they are heterosexual but not able to have sex? (Interestingly many more countries allow marriage in the case of a sex change than same sex marriage – what are your thoughts on that ?? IS that OK – thats legal – yet in at least some of those cases children won't be possible) Do you think that if they dont have children – they arent married ??? There are societies where these were requirements but not in Australia now (or for a very very long time) …… and are you seriously advocating bringing back these kind of middle ages laws? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THESE SITUATIONS ? Marriage ISN'T about children and hasn't been for a long time. Many couples don't have kids. That doesn't make them not married. I know quite a number of Gay Couples WITH kids. If it REALLY was about the kids – then it would be a no brainer – to allow them to marry.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
April 18, 2012, 07:27

Hi Shadow Boxer

Well put again!

Brunski, do take note of what Shadow Boxer has repeatedly posted, especially as he has worked for the UN and knows what he's talking about.

You said:


the UN charter on Human Rights actually says " The Universal Declaration begins by recognising that ‘the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" It declares that human rights are universal – to be enjoyed by all people, no matter who they are or where they live.


But as we know the "inherent dignity of all" is not recognised in many situations. Victims of sexual abuse are often made to feel like the wrong doers in a court of law or by churches who hide their crimes.. So a UN declaration doesn't magically make things right in the world. And obtaining legal recognition is one thing but this doesn't address moral, spiritual and human aspects, as Shadow Boxer has pointed out.

Blessings,

Ann Maree

Brunski
 
Joined in 2005
May 11, 2012, 11:19

Hi guys,


I just watched this youtube video after seeing it being discussed on Channel 7's Sunrise and Morning show this morning, for those of you who have not seen it, its a powerful and moving video about the tragedy of inequality & prejudice. http://youtu.be/pR9gyloyOjM


Having viewed it, I have to say it has given me much food for thought & just like Obama, I believe that I am "evolving" in my own views on same-sex marriage. Hopefully, one day soon, I will have "evolved" like Obama.


Those of you who still have or simply have "an issue" with same-sex marriage (although, I suspect that I am the only one who does here on F2B) I hope this video has the same impact on you, that it has on me.


God bless,

Brunski

forestgrey
Chapter Leader
Joined in 2008
May 11, 2012, 15:35

Good post, Brunski. Obama is showing some statesman-like qualities. Keeps his mind open, listens to alternate views, is big enough and secure enough within himself to admit that he continues to learn and adapt (evolve) his views / convictions.


Unlike certain other politicians and church 'heavies' – both here and in USA – with hard and closed minds. Who refuse to even consider the possibility that their views may be wrong, that the biblical interpretations they have had handed down may be incorrect. Small minds; not big enough to 'swallow their pride' and acknowledge even the possibility that there just might be alternate interpretations possible.

ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005
June 1, 2012, 15:12

Heres another way to look at it….

There are still a few people who maintain the earth is flat because the bible talks about the four corners of the earth.


These are people for whom facts do not matter – dogma does

and the established powerstructure of the church – which has a vested interest in keeping things the same – has always resisted change – although often other sections of the church have been responsible for other great social revolutions


The protestant reformation itself was a major one

Votes for women

abolition of slavery

Universal education

a non heliocentric universe


These were all biblical absolutes at the time and now the church accepts the opposite as being true even though at the time – it was held that they all absolutely contradicted scripture and if they were true the church would fall.


there are over 31, 000 verses in the bible.

when you think about all the fuss about Gay marriage and yet its less than 0.0004% of the bible (thats ignoring the controversy over translation) – where as the subject of telling lies makes up about 0.01% Thats TWO ORDERS OF MAGNATUDE more. Thats a huge difference and I think its shows just how important God thinks the subject is. One is hardly mentioned (Homosexuality) – one is not only mentioned – but is mentioned time and time again (Jesus, sin of sodom, 10 commandments etc)

So why not focus on what the BIBLE focus's on ? isn't that what God would find important. The bible says telling lies is the worst of sins – BUT does the church focus on politicians that tell lies. Does it put the effort into opposing lies that it does into opposing gays – no – if focusses on something thats barely mentioned in the bible.


My point is – why worry about Gay marriage. Its not what God spent his time in the bible. Focus what he DID spend his time on. Can you imagine on judgement day – trying to explain to god – OH – I ignored the hundreds and hundreds of verses in the bible on the sins of telling lies (or not giving to the poor or not being merciful ets) and instead of focussing on the things you gave us hundreds of versus on – including the 10 commandments and SPECIFIC commandments by Jesus – I put all this effort into something the bible BARELY mentioned ( and which in the old testament was mentioned alongside other sins like wearing cotton polyester blends, eating prawns and stoning people to death for working on the sabbath ALL of which I ignored and in the new testament was a translation of words which – elsewhere in those times was explicitly used to talk about men and their wives BUT which against all evidence I Istill decided meant homosexuality) I think thats going to be a very hard case to make myself…. I wouldnt want to make it.

And we KNOW good intentions is no defence……

I would say – let God decide what is important – not man.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
June 2, 2012, 15:02

Hi Brunski

Shadow Boxer makes an excellent point here.


…why not focus on what the BIBLE focuses on? Isn't that what God would find important? The bible says telling lies is the worst of sins – BUT does the church focus on politicians that tell lies? Does it put the effort into opposing lies that it does into opposing gays? – no – if focuses on something that's barely mentioned in the bible.

My point is – why worry about Gay marriage. It's not what God spent his time on in the bible. Focus on what he DID spend his time on. Can you imagine on judgement day – trying to explain to god – OH – I ignored the hundreds and hundreds of verses in the bible on the sins of telling lies (or not giving to the poor or not being merciful etc) and instead of focusing on the things you gave us hundreds of versus on – including the 10 commandments and SPECIFIC commandments by Jesus – I put all this effort into something the bible BARELY mentioned ( and which in the old testament was mentioned alongside other sins like wearing cotton polyester blends, eating prawns and stoning people to death for working on the sabbath ALL of which I ignored and in the new testament was a translation of words which – elsewhere in those times was explicitly used to talk about men and their wives BUT which against all evidence I still decided meant homosexuality) I think that's going to be a very hard case to make myself…. I wouldn't want to make it.

And we KNOW that having good intentions is no defence……

I would say – let God decide what is important – not man.


Blessings,

Ann Maree
Page:   1 2 3
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.078 seconds.