Love is love

[Risto the Great]

I didn't bring up paedophilia in this context. That is simply another smaller minority that is presently judged unfavourably. I am not sure how long this will last. I note even baboons are afforded legal rights nowadays. The case of the baboon who took a picture of itself and is now entitled to royalties from the picture is confirmation enough. Perhaps the future will see man and animal wed because .... they have rights too!
The future is now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2934586/Man-SEX-dolphin-1970s-claims-new-film-performing-mammal-one-seduced-him.html

Who am I to judge? Right? Love is love!

The defining factor of a marriage seems to have changed now, but it usually historically points to the formal recognition of union between a man and woman. Talking about wealth distribution is collateral in my opinion and not a defining aspect.

Nothing you have said provides even the slightest of information that confirms the more favourable historical eras for homosexuality facilitated an environment for them to marry. It didn't happen ... matriarchal/patriarchal or whatever.

[Starling]

Not really. Plenty of people are fine with same sex relationships these days and pedophilia is generally frowned upon so for all the problems we're still dealing with progress is being made. To generalize the present day society doesn't view same sex relationships favourably would require ignoring the work people have put into ending discrimination on those grounds and the legalization of gay marriage in other countries.

Anyway, I disagree with your notion of why people oppose same sex marriage. It's like trying to justify sexism or racism. You could probably explain the mentality behind why it came to be but that doesn't make it right. The same people who decided that same sex relationships were morally wrong also vilified polygamous relationships or not getting married even if you opted out of relationships altogether. In their minds only a very specific way of life was acceptable and you were damned if you didn't follow it.

The defining factor of marriage is a contract pertaining to wealth distribution of the involved parties and inheritance by their next of kin. It doesn't really matter if the next of kin are biologically related or even raised by the involved parties, but in antiquity biological children were simply less trouble as you wouldn't have to deal with fake heirs or other stuff caused by people trying to steal your stuff form whoever you wanted to give it to. There wasn't anything morally superior about it.

Matriarchal societies were the norm before patriarchal ones became more common. While men in patriarchal societies were usually in charge, women were known to have been leaders and warriors are well. Even then, women were often involved in the administration of the estate, finances, negotiations and took over their spouse's work when they were absent. It's only later that they were treated as little more than housewives and had to fight to be treated as equals. Doesn't help that historical texts from certain periods were heavily skewed against certain groups or written by people with limited perspectives of who they were writing about.

So basically we have precedence for this kind of thing going back and forth over time, especially since cultures with differing perspectives on a number of things could exist simultaneously and arent necessarily direct continuations of each other depending on which ones are being discussed.

[Risto the Great]

Respectufully, I think you're simply putting a case forward to justify homosexuality. In contrast, I am merely stating that the modern world has never put homosexuality in as favourable a light as ancient history may have. And I think they simply understood the futility of it and quite probably accepted that making children was generally a defining factor of marriage.

[Starling]

Honestly, none of the above explains why marriage between homosexuals was not an option even in times when it was considered a normal/acceptable kind of relationship. It simply didn't happen.

Not necessarily. It was less common but the bulk of our information is in relation to nobles and royalty rather than the common people, where additional considerations are necessary to the use of marriage.

So, it is considered less normal now but it appears homosexual marriage is embraced.

Talking about marriages as alliances is not really what I am talking about. Those are in the minority.

The talk about marriage for alliances is mostly in historical context of the original purpose of marriage and why its primary purpose is still a legal one.

But even if that was the case, why didn't 2 kings get it on and take over the world?

Because politics. Secret previously unknown heirs tend to pop up whenever there's a succession crisis.

I believe the Spartans were banging the teen boys as part of their initiation process. I don't recall them continuing with the adults. But wouldn't put it past them. Either way, they weren't marrying each other either.

Pederasty was definitely a thing in Sparta and probably most of the city-states in general, though I don't recall an age being specified regarding the relationships among soldiers. The two aren't mutually exclusive so the presence of one doesn't necessarily mean the absence of the other.

So .... in times when homosexuality was looked at more favourably, they still weren't marrying. Why not? Maybe they knew what a marriage was more than we appear to do now.

The gender roles involved in the alliances and the preference for male leaders would be the main reason same sex marriages were less common even when the relationships were accepted. In a society in which the right to rule is determined by divine lineage and marriage officiated your inheritance, adoption only really happened among family, making addressing the lack of biological children in same sex relationships a potential concern on the political scale. Easier to make your alliance with someone who can give an incontestable heir and have your romantic or sexual relationships without marrying. That way you avoid potential coups or upheaval based on your lack of legitimate heir and people won't just ignore your designated heir because they aren't your direct descendant. Those things don't really matter in present day society so it's a non-issue now. Had ancient societies been less concerned with direct line of descent from the start, we likely would've seen more same sex relationships.

[Risto the Great]

Honestly, none of the above explains why marriage between homosexuals was not an option even in times when it was considered a normal/acceptable kind of relationship. It simply didn't happen.

So, it is considered less normal now but it appears homosexual marriage is embraced.

Talking about marriages as alliances is not really what I am talking about. Those are in the minority. But even if that was the case, why didn't 2 kings get it on and take over the world?

I believe the Spartans were banging the teen boys as part of their initiation process. I don't recall them continuing with the adults. But wouldn't put it past them. Either way, they weren't marrying each other either.

So .... in times when homosexuality was looked at more favourably, they still weren't marrying. Why not? Maybe they knew what a marriage was more than we appear to do now.

[Starling]

Starling, clearly homosexuality was prevalent in Hellenic times. It was considered quite normal to have a homosexual lover. So why wasn't marriage between them normal? Did they understand marriage differently to this modern society? I think so.

I've made it quite clear that there's been a shift in the use of marriage throughout the years and how it's been regarded in different cultures. I've also made it clear that marriage is still fundamentally a contract, despite the acceptance of officiating relationships out of love rather than for other reasons such as alliances. The fact of the matter is that in present day society, there are legal repercussions to your marital status people have the right to choose. The basic purpose of marriage hasn't actually changed as much as people think. It's more that we've changed the context in which it's used, going from alliances to love.

In Rome they only accepted pederasty (pedophilia) as they believed male sexual relations with another male was only acceptable if they were your social inferior or on the bottom. Still homophobic but in a different way than in present times.

In Iran beauty standards were such that it could be incredibly difficult to tell men and women apart beyond certain clothing differences. They didn't see much point differentiating men and women until western beauty standards enforced western notions on the matter.

There's a tomb in Egypt where two men were found with a mural depicting them in the same manner as any other couple, indicating that they accepted such relationships.

Sparta encouraged sexual relations among its soldiers to build strong bonds and soldiers are usually adults so they seem to have been fine with same sex relationships in certain contexts.

In most European cultures, marriages served to form alliances and for negotiations. That's why the marriages were arranged. A good way to avoid inheritance disputes was to marry off extra children or send them off to learn a position other than what the main heir was being groomed for. In a lot of later monarchies, you had one royal consort whose children would be recognized as royalty and then concubines, whose children, being born outside of marriage, had no claim to such inheritance barring political maneuvering during a succession crisis. That way the line of succession prioritized legitimate heirs from the politically arranged marriage rather than children resulting from sexually pleasuring himself with others. The political nature of marriages can also be seen in the convention that the name of the higher ranked partner would be passed on and that the spouse would have a title one rank lower than the other.

In Macedonia, multiple marriages were allowed for political reasons, though the latest one was presumably the one prioritized in the line of succession. The idea was that the marriage consolidated their interests and that the son in law would be in charge of military matters if relevant. Given the political purpose of marriage, you couldn't just marry whoever you liked, as evidenced with the fallout from Philip's final marriage, allegedly made out of love. Basically relationships outside of marriage at the time would be for non political reasons, making them more telling of the individual's sexual or romantic interests than who they actually married.

Incidentally some of the well known marriage traditions date back to the latter years of arranged marriages. The bridesmaids were to serve as doubles for the bride, all wearing veils to hide their faces until the actual ceremony. The best man was the person you chose to duel in your place should someone challenge the marriage and attempt to run off with the bride.

[Risto the Great]

Starling, clearly homosexuality was prevalent in Hellenic times. It was considered quite normal to have a homosexual lover. So why wasn't marriage between them normal? Did they understand marriage differently to this modern society? I think so.

[Starling]

Yes so has marriage, for centuries they have remained separate for millennia until recently. People had homosexual relationships and affairs but I’m not aware of anyone identifying themselves as a homosexual. People use to participate in orgies, pagan rituals and sexual practices within cults homosexuality has been around for a very long time. What you perceive as a homosexual is a superficial modern view, because people have been engaging in homosexual activities long before the Christian concept of marriage which you oppose and would like to attack. The modern homosexual (what you consider gay) only has sex with people of their own gender, there has been no one that I am aware of ever that has declared or announced their desire to have sex with only the same gender centuries ago - a devout practitioner of “consensual” same sex.

Only now we hear of people that will only have sex with their own gender. That is what a gay person does.

Uncivilised unhygienic cavemen that participated in pagan rituals, orgies and cult sex were more open minded then these modern people like to make themselves out to be. They didn’t confine themselves to the belief that they should only have sex with their own gender.

Just because the present day term wasn't around yet doesn't mean that there wasn't a word for it or that other sexualities didn't exist until people could put it into words. Homosexuality is found among other species, who don't express themselves in words. Homosexuality didn't just pop into existence this century just because everyone else is becoming more aware of it and people have better means to put their sexuality and gender into words.

Your views on marriage are outdated. Religion didn't invent marriage. At its core it's always been a form of alliance or partnership between individuals. Sometimes alliances between more than 2 people were permitted, sometimes they were not. Sometimes the married individuals had a say, sometimes the marriage was arranged between their parents. Sexual relationships existed outside of marriage because marriage was a legal contract and often treated as separate from matters of love until younger generations rebelled against older generations to be able to choose their spouses, marrying out of love.

Given that people can marry regardless of religion or lack thereof, that marital status has a major legal impact on how you and your partner are treated in various matters and that the modern conception of marriage is to do it out of love, it simply isn't justifiable to deny that to same sex couples, especially based on a conception of marriage dating from but one of many time periods and cultures.

The notion of civility is relative and cavemen likely had better bathing habits than later civilizations in certain periods. Soap and toothbrushes have been around for quite a while and people could do a decent job cleaning themselves in lakes before that. We also have plenty of evidence that astronomy dates very far back. Despite technological progression and cultural differences, certain aspects of society haven't changed as much as people seem to think.

This is like the assumption people have that Alexander the Great was Bi-sexual because of his relationship with Hephaestion. How does having a sexual relationship with one man qualify one as bi sexual? What record is there that explains his sexual preference, that he had engaged in homosexual acts with anyone other than Hephaestion?

A Bi-sexual will have sex with both genders. If Alexander was open to having sex with both genders and SS relationships there would have been records of it. He didn’t have any other SS relationship besides the one with Hephaestion and no record that I’m aware of that he had engaged in any form of homosexual behaviour. In order to be gay you must have a desire to only have sex with the same gender so I can only guess that would mean in order to be a bi sexual one must have the desire to have sex with both genders, but I do not realize this desire with Alexander. Can anyone else?

Not necessarily. We have no records of the location of an ancient kingdom Egypt had good relations with, simply because it was it was taken for granted everyone already knew. Likewise an old Roman concrete recipe didn't specify the water had to be salt water so it took a while for people to get it right. You also have misunderstandings due to antiquated phrasing such not understanding that feet was a euphemism for genitals and people simply having better things to do than to go on about the sex life of people or such accounts being removed from historical discussion due to homophobic people. Not a lot of people know that Lincoln and king James had male lovers, for example.

In any case what we do have is that Alexander and Hephaestion were described as two men of one soul, compared to a pair widely considered to be romantically involved and a euphemistic reference to them likely having sex. Given the above, in terms of ancient history that's basically a neon sign spelling out that they had a same sex relationship.

Also to clarify the definition of bisexuality, it's sexual attraction to two genders, which when accounting for non-binary gender identities can be applied beyond simply male and female. While some cultures did distinguish more than two genders, such distinctions are unlikely to be present in surviving historical records and don't mean much in terms of Alexander and Hephaestion, who were both male. Also sexual attraction and romantic attraction, while often overlapping, aren't the same thing so you can have desire to have a romantic relationship without the sexual attraction and vice-versa.

If you’re going to keep giving homophobic discrimination examples, thinking they support your agenda that’s fine. I thought this was a conversation about marriage equality. No one cares what colour you or I paint our houses. Marriage has been around a lot longer than your house. Marriage is as old, if not older than the pyramids.

Here is a better example…

They are going to paint the great pyramid of Giza. How do you feel upon hearing this news?

I could repeat everything you had said back to you in regards to this example, its miles away, it will not threaten your way of life, what does that pyramid have to do with you (nothing)? You’re not a citizen of Egypt.

What if there was a vote to paint it, would you vote yes or no, why not?
What about a historical building in Canada, there is a compulsory vote to paint it. Do you vote yes or no? Why not?

I guess you haven’t been married just like many of the people that voted yes were young people that had not yet been married and had no concept, understanding or experience. People that had never been in a marriage shouldn’t have been permitted to vote, the vote should of never happened. The government should of have accepted SSM, instead they allowed people with no idea to vote it out.

You completely missed the point of that example. You're no more affected by a neighbour's marriage if it's with a man or a woman. The big issue is while a heterosexual person can marry their partner and gain legal benefits, same sex couples can't and have no access to those legal benefits, despite marital status having a major impact on your life. You can literally be barred from arranging your partner's funeral should they die before you and not be married and same sex couples in countries that don't allow them to marry have no choice in living that risk, while heterosexual couples have a choice in the matter.

That pyramid example is false equivalence. The pyramids are a public monument rather than the personal property of a specific person/family. Do you have the right to decide what colour someone else paints the house they own?

By that logic all heterosexual citizens should've been excluded from the vote due to it only affecting whether or not same sex couples had the same marital rights everyone else already has. Given how democracies work, excluding part of the population that's eligible to vote from voting on something is anti-democratic no matter how little certain demographics are affected. Had they not deliberately changed the law's phrasing to explicitly exclude same sex couples they could've done it through a court ruling to allow a same sex couple to marry as I recall it happening in the US.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Where did you read this stuff, so what if Phillip had a sexual relationship that doesn’t make him gay or bi sexual either. If there were homosexual acts between Philip and Pausanias, were does it mentioned that they were even consensual, perhaps it was a form of punishment or debt repayment?

Does it really matter? Is it necessary to read that much into the sexuality of Ancient Macedonian kings? I did state that the assassination out of jealousy was only one of the many theories as to why Pausanias killed Filip.

[Redsun]

You do know that gay people have existed for centuries right? It's not just some "trend" that suddenly became popular. You just didn't hear about them as much because those who were known for their sexuality were marginalized, often murdered and their existence was actively suppressed and erased. Even now some celebrities who publicly disclosed their sexuality have had it ignored to the point of people calling their same sex partners just friends despite being corrected. It's people who were already there and discriminated against who are asserting their right to exist.

The marriage laws in Australia only excluded same sex relationships form the definition in 2004. In a sense people denied them the right to marry without any legal justification and then changed the law so enforce it. Opposition isn't always protests or public outcry but also obstructing legal infrastructure against discrimination, enforcing discrimination with new laws or alterations to existing ones. Lack of interest in giving those rights is also a form of opposition, if a more passive one than what usually comes to mind. Seeing no problem with such things and by your own admission refusal to take the matter seriously is answer enough that people were fine with denying those rights to same sex relationship to a noticeable extent.

In any case this was about people having opinions before that point rather than whether they were vocal about it.

When it comes to effectively giving the same legal marital rights you have to other people then yeah, it kinda is. Literally the only difference is that the gender of the people getting married no longer matters. I've already explained why the ability to legally marry matter a lot in society and exactly what kind of things same sex couples are denied when unable to marry.

Yes so has marriage, for centuries they have remained separate for millennia until recently. People had homosexual relationships and affairs but I’m not aware of anyone identifying themselves as a homosexual. People use to participate in orgies, pagan rituals and sexual practices within cults homosexuality has been around for a very long time. What you perceive as a homosexual is a superficial modern view, because people have been engaging in homosexual activities long before the Christian concept of marriage which you oppose and would like to attack. The modern homosexual (what you consider gay) only has sex with people of their own gender, there has been no one that I am aware of ever that has declared or announced their desire to have sex with only the same gender centuries ago - a devout practitioner of “consensual” same sex.

Only now we hear of people that will only have sex with their own gender. That is what a gay person does.

Uncivilised unhygienic cavemen that participated in pagan rituals, orgies and cult sex were more open minded then these modern people like to make themselves out to be. They didn’t confine themselves to the belief that they should only have sex with their own gender.

This is like the assumption people have that Alexander the Great was Bi-sexual because of his relationship with Hephaestion. How does having a sexual relationship with one man qualify one as bi sexual? What record is there that explains his sexual preference, that he had engaged in homosexual acts with anyone other than Hephaestion?

A Bi-sexual will have sex with both genders. If Alexander was open to having sex with both genders and SS relationships there would have been records of it. He didn’t have any other SS relationship besides the one with Hephaestion and no record that I’m aware of that he had engaged in any form of homosexual behaviour. In order to be gay you must have a desire to only have sex with the same gender so I can only guess that would mean in order to be a bi sexual one must have the desire to have sex with both genders, but I do not realize this desire with Alexander. Can anyone else?

Bisexuality was common in pre-Christian Europe, the Ancient Macedonians were no exception to this and there have been rumors Aleksander was a homosexual. It is more likely he was bixsexual yes, as was Filip. One of the theories for Filip's assassination was that his assassin was a jealous lover.

Where did you read this stuff, so what if Phillip had a sexual relationship that doesn’t make him gay or bi sexual either. If there were homosexual acts between Philip and Pausanias, were does it mentioned that they were even consensual, perhaps it was a form of punishment or debt repayment?

Saying no is literally denying people rights everyone else has. It's like if people said women shouldn't have the right to vote or saying black people should be treated like human beings. It's utterly absurd that pointing this stuff out is called scare tactics or that people getting upset that you don't think they should be treated as equals as fellow citizens who simply want to marry their partners is called an attack on someone. From what I seen that no ad was a typical example of scare tactics against gay marriage so that's utter hypocrisy.

Yes the scare tactic used by the “No” campaigners was created to procure people to vote “NO”.

People have claimed their way of life was being attacked while literally calling for the deaths of marginalized groups. That's not a valid argument for discrimination no matter what form it takes. Also in what way is someone's way of life threatened by other people being able to marry? That's like refusing to let your neighbour paint their house because it threatens your way of life. You don't live in that house, how does letting people do something everyone else already does affect your way of life? That makes absolutely no logical sense.

If you’re going to keep giving homophobic discrimination examples, thinking they support your agenda that’s fine. I thought this was a conversation about marriage equality. No one cares what colour you or I paint our houses. Marriage has been around a lot longer than your house. Marriage is as old, if not older than the pyramids.

Here is a better example…

They are going to paint the great pyramid of Giza. How do you feel upon hearing this news?

I could repeat everything you had said back to you in regards to this example, its miles away, it will not threaten your way of life, what does that pyramid have to do with you (nothing)? You’re not a citizen of Egypt.

What if there was a vote to paint it, would you vote yes or no, why not?
What about a historical building in Canada, there is a compulsory vote to paint it. Do you vote yes or no? Why not?

I guess you haven’t been married just like many of the people that voted yes were young people that had not yet been married and had no concept, understanding or experience. People that had never been in a marriage shouldn’t have been permitted to vote, the vote should of never happened. The government should of have accepted SSM, instead they allowed people with no idea to vote it out.

[Risto the Great]

I will assume everyone wanted this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-18/brandis-may-incorporate-human-rights-treaty-to-ssm-bill/9164770

George Brandis may incorporate human rights treaty into SSM bill to satisfy conservatives

An international human rights treaty may be incorporated into a bill to legalise same-sex marriage, in an attempt to pacify conservative members of the Government.

That clause provides a range of protections for civil and political rights and states "everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion".

The move could help placate conservatives who have been demanding same-sex marriage legislation include protections of religion and parental rights.

Lessons learnt from SSM survey


I wondered if anyone else was feeling like me — not quite sure how to encapsulate the impact of same-sex marriage, writes Heather Faulkner.
Cabinet minister Matt Canavan had previously flagged the idea of incorporating the covenant into the Smith bill during debate in the Senate on Thursday.

Today he told the Australian Christian Lobby's national conference in Sydney he was fighting to ensure those who do not support a change in the definition of marriage do not become "a persecuted minority".

"What I want to see and what many of my colleagues want to see enshrined in the change to the Marriage Act is simply a reflection of the international human rights obligations we have already signed up to as a country and that indeed have been the basis of Australia and many other Western countries for centuries," Senator Canavan said.

"They were enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but they weren't something new or controversial at the time, they were simply a reflection of what we already all believed.

"I will be moving amendments to the Smith bill to enshrine those protections and to ensure that every Australian has the right to a free expression of their religious views, and the right to educate their children in the moral and religious viewpoints that they see as correct."
Earlier this month, the UN Human Rights Council raised concerns about Australia's "lack of direct protection against discrimination on the basis of religion at the federal level".

But there is a push within the Parliament to address religious protections separately, not in the marriage bill.

Senior conservative Peter Dutton this week added his support to that idea, indicating religious freedoms could be dealt with next year.

Labor frontbencher Penny Wong said the Parliament should "not be diverted" by MPs who oppose same-sex marriage.

"Labor has a history of supporting measures to more strongly incorporate into Australian law international human rights standards to which Australia has signed up, including those enshrined in the ICCPR," Senator Wong said.

"Legislating for marriage equality is an important step forward in doing just that.

"However, opening a new debate on the incorporation of other important human rights principles, such as freedom of religion, must not be used to confuse, and delay the passage of legislation to secure marriage equality."

Another postal vote anyone?

[Starling]

You do know that gay people have existed for centuries right? It's not just some "trend" that suddenly became popular. You just didn't hear about them as much because those who were known for their sexuality were marginalized, often murdered and their existence was actively suppressed and erased. Even now some celebrities who publicly disclosed their sexuality have had it ignored to the point of people calling their same sex partners just friends despite being corrected. It's people who were already there and discriminated against who are asserting their right to exist.

The marriage laws in Australia only excluded same sex relationships form the definition in 2004. In a sense people denied them the right to marry without any legal justification and then changed the law so enforce it. Opposition isn't always protests or public outcry but also obstructing legal infrastructure against discrimination, enforcing discrimination with new laws or alterations to existing ones. Lack of interest in giving those rights is also a form of opposition, if a more passive one than what usually comes to mind. Seeing no problem with such things and by your own admission refusal to take the matter seriously is answer enough that people were fine with denying those rights to same sex relationship to a noticeable extent.

In any case this was about people having opinions before that point rather than whether they were vocal about it.

When it comes to effectively giving the same legal marital rights you have to other people then yeah, it kinda is. Literally the only difference is that the gender of the people getting married no longer matters. I've already explained why the ability to legally marry matter a lot in society and exactly what kind of things same sex couples are denied when unable to marry.

Saying no is literally denying people rights everyone else has. It's like if people said women shouldn't have the right to vote or saying black people should be treated like human beings. It's utterly absurd that pointing this stuff out is called scare tactics or that people getting upset that you don't think they should be treated as equals as fellow citizens who simply want to marry their partners is called an attack on someone. From what I seen that no ad was a typical example of scare tactics against gay marriage so that's utter hypocrisy.

People have claimed their way of life was being attacked while literally calling for the deaths of marginalized groups. That's not a valid argument for discrimination no matter what form it takes. Also in what way is someone's way of life threatened by other people being able to marry? That's like refusing to let your neighbour paint their house because it threatens your way of life. You don't live in that house, how does letting people do something everyone else already does affect your way of life? That makes absolutely no logical sense.

[Redsun]

People had plenty of time to deny same sex couples the ability to officiate their relationships in the same legal standing as their own. Just because there's not much reason to shout to the world for the status quo until it's challenged doesn't mean none of them formed an opinion beforehand. People opposing gay marriage is precisely why it took so long to organize a vote about it.

"Do unto others as you would like to have done to yourself". Asking couples how they'd feel about being treated the way same sex couples are being treated is entirely relevant here. Relating our experiences to another's is how we learn to understand others despite differences in our experiences. There's nothing dishonest about that. Votes like this generally don't wait for everyone to have encyclopedic knowledge of the matter. Simply agreeing that same sex couples deserve to be able to marry and understanding that marriage rights only concern the people getting married is plenty enough understanding to make an educated vote in this instance.

The laws already exist, but currently exclude same sex couples. All you need to do is look at how married couples are treated in legal matters and then apply it to same sex couples. The only thing that changes is that same sex couples can now access the legal benefits of marriage should they choose to marry, just like how churches to different religions exist for those who choose to attend them. Just like you aren't forced to attend a church or follow any religion you don't want to, you aren't forced to get married to anyone you don't want to either.

Right now because same sex couples can't marry, they have no way to avoid the possibility of being denied the right to visit their partner at the hospital or take part in funerary arrangements should anything happen to them. Inability to marry can also create a number of financial complications that can have a huge impact on their lives. As I showed in an earlier link, they did actually provide information about the legal impact of the vote. Given that the government provides easily accessible information about laws that affect its citizens, you also have the means to look up marriage laws where you live to understand what marriage actually does in the legal sense. I've looked up some laws in Canada and there was even a detailed history of the relevant laws over the years and important court cases about it. All you need to do if pull up your government website and search for relevant laws. That's what those sites exist for.

I tried searching the internet to find some information regarding the build-up before the vote and why it had even come to this. It was a fruitless search, I cannot determine whether the Australian government did not accept the declaration of human rights in its entirety or didn’t understand Article 16.

What “people” opposed gay marriage when the Marriage Act was passed? That would mean they “opposed” people who “supported” it who were these people. I can’t seem to find any opposition or support during that time, how could the politicians consider something that had not yet been realised at the time(no need to mention homosexual acts in a reply as they were aware homosexuals existed, but the thought of them marrying unimaginable, inconsiderable, impossible, why would they consider something unthinkable at the very time)? It wasn’t a substantial factor within society at the time. Did people really oppose SSM back then or was it purely within political circles (yes homophobes existed, and homosexuals were discriminated, but marriage no, it was unheard of)? Now it is a reality but back then no one would have taken this debate seriously. Homosexuality has only become popular recently through media, people are conformist what they see is what they do.

At the time SSM wasn’t seen as fundamental, saying that “people” opposing gay marriage is why it took so long doesn’t explain why the Australian government didn’t make it a fundamental part of the Marriage Act back in 1961 as it is an inalienable right. I don’t understand why it had to come to a survey either, doesn’t the very decision to put this through a vote by the government show that they don’t understand that human rights are inalienable. The average person doesn’t know their own rights, even after the survey is complete I am certain there are still many people that are unaware of Article 16, a great portion of the people viewed the survey as a question of morality.
I don’t know, I feel like the survey undermined human rights because it made a right that should be universally accepted and inalienable, questionable when they could of just accepted it.

It’s not as easy as “simply agreeing”

Surely you are aware of the scare tactics used, many of the “No” voters didn’t even consider whether or not SSC should have a right to marry they were afraid of unforeseen repercussions that may happen. It’s unfair how the “yes” voters have attacked the average joe over their decision, are they really opposing gay marriage or are they opposing what they consider an attack on their way of life. Why wouldn’t they get defensive?

By that logic black people shouldn't have bothered attending integrated schools when segregation was ending, black people should only be allowed to adopt black kids and women shouldn't bother with fields where they'll be treated as less for being women.

Discrimination is a learned behaviour. Sometimes kids discriminate against each other for asinine reasons, sometimes they band together against a teacher doing the discrimination. Given the existence of other outcomes, it's hasty to assume that the adopted child of a same sex couple will be discriminated against by their peers or the majority of the school. What the parents think has little relevance in whether or not the kids will ignore it and play with the kid anyway. Also statistically even the most marginalized students tend to find a friend or two among their peers even if the rest don't much care for them. Fair weather friends don't really do anyone any good.

Additionally the thing about discrimination is that if someone wants to mistreat you they'll just keep finding an excuse no matter what you do to avoid it. You can't guarantee such a child would face any less discrimination if their parents were a man and woman, nor would such discrimination be the fault of anyone other than the people doing the discriminating. It simply isn't a valid argument against letting same sex couples adopt a child.

Do you grab your spouse's ass in front of your kids or leave sex toys around the house? Because most people don't and to assume same sex couples are any different is a misconception born of homophobic stereotypes. Sexuality isn't a choice and it's not a disease. Kids won't 'turn gay' because they saw two guys holding hands and staring lovingly at eachother or some shirt about being gay lying around. A lot of the stuff you mentioned is entirely capable of being done platonically. It's OK for guys to hug eachother as friends. They won't be any less manly for acknowledging that they have human emotions and enjoy physical contact with another human being. Even introverts need some amount of human contact from time to time. Those fears are unfounded and they'll simply have to learn that.

I agree with everything you said except for the last sentence. I must say, I have no interests in further discussing matters not concerning Macedonia yet will continue this if you wish. I feel that anything not relating to Macedonia is of no benefit to either of us or anyone else reading this. I posted because of the relevant subjects related; the declaration of human rights, discrimination and the way in which the government had conducted the survey.

[Vangelovski]

The nut busted ages ago. LoL

That's what happens when you get married

[Starling]

I'm only interested in the voting process.

Does anyone else think it was conducted on unfair grounds?

I think a portion of the "yes" voters didn't actually make a decision, so forget morality values and religion. How many young men had been manipulated into voting "yes" regardless of how they felt, a form of emotional trickery was used to manipulate the voters. "Yes" advocates engaged conversation with straight couples, friends and family instead of talking about "marriage" and "rights" they questioned the love between existing couples. How inconsiderate and rude to question a couples love or to even try to compare it with another or theirs, what a disgusting tactic.

This seems to be a common form of the question: "Two people that love each other should have the right to get married, don't you think?" How many young men had to agree because they were with their partners at the time this question was sprung on them, many young men don't know how to say otherwise because they didn't even consider or think of the word "right" they heard the word "love" and are more concerned of the repercussions that may happen when their love is brought into question.

The "yes" voters have a had years and years of preparation and practice pushing their agenda. When did the "no" voters become aware that they were "no" voters. People that have voted "no" have never campaigned or fought like the opposition had. I don't think its fair to question the "no" campaigners statements, most of them are frightened parents and are laughed at as unprogressive. They have been victimized as people that oppose human rights when it was the law this whole time that had prevented gay marriage.

This vote has divided the people, there have always been homophobes and yes some people didn't like the thought of gay marriage. But there was no opposition because no one thought about gay marriage or even considered gay marriage to be serious or to even actually come to vote.


I believe homosexual and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, yet I voted "no".

This was forced upon me, I don't have a full understanding on adoption laws. I could not make an educated decision at the time.

People had plenty of time to deny same sex couples the ability to officiate their relationships in the same legal standing as their own. Just because there's not much reason to shout to the world for the status quo until it's challenged doesn't mean none of them formed an opinion beforehand. People opposing gay marriage is precisely why it took so long to organize a vote about it.

"Do unto others as you would like to have done to yourself". Asking couples how they'd feel about being treated the way same sex couples are being treated is entirely relevant here. Relating our experiences to another's is how we learn to understand others despite differences in our experiences. There's nothing dishonest about that. Votes like this generally don't wait for everyone to have encyclopedic knowledge of the matter. Simply agreeing that same sex couples deserve to be able to marry and understanding that marriage rights only concern the people getting married is plenty enough understanding to make an educated vote in this instance.

The laws already exist, but currently exclude same sex couples. All you need to do is look at how married couples are treated in legal matters and then apply it to same sex couples. The only thing that changes is that same sex couples can now access the legal benefits of marriage should they choose to marry, just like how churches to different religions exist for those who choose to attend them. Just like you aren't forced to attend a church or follow any religion you don't want to, you aren't forced to get married to anyone you don't want to either.

Right now because same sex couples can't marry, they have no way to avoid the possibility of being denied the right to visit their partner at the hospital or take part in funerary arrangements should anything happen to them. Inability to marry can also create a number of financial complications that can have a huge impact on their lives. As I showed in an earlier link, they did actually provide information about the legal impact of the vote. Given that the government provides easily accessible information about laws that affect its citizens, you also have the means to look up marriage laws where you live to understand what marriage actually does in the legal sense. I've looked up some laws in Canada and there was even a detailed history of the relevant laws over the years and important court cases about it. All you need to do if pull up your government website and search for relevant laws. That's what those sites exist for.

I do not oppose or support gays and lesbians adopting. The discrimination will not stop and I think this may have a different outcome then what they had hoped for, they cannot produce children so they must adopt and if they brought children from their previous relationship they will face the same discrimination.

They had experienced being discriminated when perhaps at time of high school. But there children will receive some form of it before they have even reached high school.

How many parents will allow their children to visit the child's friends place that has two gay fathers. Regardless if they are homosexuals, they are parents so you expect them to be responsible and keep homosexual paraphernalia away out of eyesight, and they will yet that wont stop you fearing over the thought of their behavior towards one another cuddling, contact, affectious giggles, ass grabbing and other subtleties. The fear that that child after seeing his parents kissing many times, may kiss your child. Birthday parties and after school the kids social circle at school would be something. There are people that would warn their children not to associate with "that boy".

The poor child will feel the discrimination without being gay, and the gay parents will relive it through them.

By that logic black people shouldn't have bothered attending integrated schools when segregation was ending, black people should only be allowed to adopt black kids and women shouldn't bother with fields where they'll be treated as less for being women.

Discrimination is a learned behaviour. Sometimes kids discriminate against each other for asinine reasons, sometimes they band together against a teacher doing the discrimination. Given the existence of other outcomes, it's hasty to assume that the adopted child of a same sex couple will be discriminated against by their peers or the majority of the school. What the parents think has little relevance in whether or not the kids will ignore it and play with the kid anyway. Also statistically even the most marginalized students tend to find a friend or two among their peers even if the rest don't much care for them. Fair weather friends don't really do anyone any good.

Additionally the thing about discrimination is that if someone wants to mistreat you they'll just keep finding an excuse no matter what you do to avoid it. You can't guarantee such a child would face any less discrimination if their parents were a man and woman, nor would such discrimination be the fault of anyone other than the people doing the discriminating. It simply isn't a valid argument against letting same sex couples adopt a child.

Do you grab your spouse's ass in front of your kids or leave sex toys around the house? Because most people don't and to assume same sex couples are any different is a misconception born of homophobic stereotypes. Sexuality isn't a choice and it's not a disease. Kids won't 'turn gay' because they saw two guys holding hands and staring lovingly at eachother or some shirt about being gay lying around. A lot of the stuff you mentioned is entirely capable of being done platonically. It's OK for guys to hug eachother as friends. They won't be any less manly for acknowledging that they have human emotions and enjoy physical contact with another human being. Even introverts need some amount of human contact from time to time. Those fears are unfounded and they'll simply have to learn that.