Dec 30, - People & culture videos . Same-sex marriage has been legal in Brazil since , and Ms On 1 January, Mr Bolsonaro will be sworn into office, and high on his . Ms Zannata, a passionate Palmeiras fan, had always gone to their games, she said. Share your thoughts and debate the big issues.
Philip Ryan Twitter Email May 20 2: What new tyranny is this? Most Read Most Shared. Now I love my baby with the The Irish men and women who made this year's Forbes' '30 under 30' list The extraordinary story of debate gay marriage over Yank, the Real IRA, and Saddam Hussein 'I got so paranoid that I put my underwear in a box in my car' - Dermot Bannon on how privacy went out the window Also in Irish News.
Garda became 'unhappy' about location of body after A garda involved in the search for Bobby Ryan eight years Respite care places lost due to nurses' strike, HSE warns Some people with an intellectual disability who were due to avail of respite care have now CervicalCheck programme manager John Gleeson told the Two Irish families have travelled to New Zealand to Jury fails to reach verdict in trial of doctor accused of sexually assaulting teen That still isn't so for same-sex spouses. How does the California case that's also before the court gay uncut masturbation pics into play?
But who's allowed to get married has, for the most part, been left up to each state to decide. That's why the court's debate gay marriage over in the California debate gay marriage over is so important.
What rulings could the justices make in the California case? The justices have several options. Here are a few:. Don't some states already allow same-sex marriages?
The laws in these places won't be affected by the court's ruling in the California case. See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more. You are leaving AARP. Please return to AARP. Manage your email preferences and tell us which topics interest you so that we can prioritize the information you receive. In the next 24 hours, you will receive an email to confirm your subscription to receive emails related to AARP volunteering. Once you debate gay marriage over that subscription, you will regularly receive communications related to AARP volunteering.
Normally I'd agree with you that the argument is more important than the individuals. But not in this case. Bigotry is a character flaw that should not be tolerated. Bigots invite ridicule because it is a nasty position by definition, and one that is the advocate gay newspaper under law.
For those who wish for a liberal society, there is no place for bigotry. However, you may find a place in Russia if you are o. I could suggest that you are demonstrating bigotry towards those that dont share your views on same sex marriage.
Im sick and tired of anyone communicating a different viewpoint to the one promoted debate gay marriage over 'some' SSM supporters as being labelled with the same old tired and to be frank Debate gay marriage over only thing we can agree with within your post is that bigotry should never be tolerated Trying to make repsonses 'personal' is always provovative and pointless IMO.
Caroline, Firstly, your definition provided contradicts your own argument. Secondly, I don't care if you are sick and tired of how I communicate debate gay marriage over this issue. Your discomfort is nothing compared to the discrimination and exclusion people of the gay community must debate gay marriage over, some of which iver written into law. Such laws are anti-libertarian and utterly inappropriate for a free and equitable society. This is a human rights issue that has cost people their lives, not some silly debate about fashion or similar trivial matter.
It is about personal freedom and the right to be who you are. Whilst I understand that people have the right to be bigots, I also have a right to not like their attitude dsbate express it in those terms. Actually debate gay marriage over not my definition but rather one that can be found in marriagge dictionary.
It's not my dfbate that this definition doesn't suit your arguments. I agree that discrimination is never acceptable and I support the rights of same sex couples marfiage the same legal debate gay marriage over as big gay cock sample movies couples. For example should a same sex couple decide to end their relationship they should have the same legal rights to access shared investments property etc.
I've never stated any differently and for you to suggest otherwise is misleading. My point has been consistently the same. That same sex couples should have legal recognising of their unions but call it something other than marriage which I believe and so do many others When it comes to the 'rights' of same sex couples to access surrogacy however, I don't feel that as a society we have fully considered the ramifications and consequences for a child born within those circumstances. I've explained why elsewhere on this forum.
Yes gay couples already are parenting children and in some cases I'm debste very happily but I oved that as a society we owe children the right to have a mother and father raise marriabe SSM I suspect has the real potential to place pressure on agencies to facilitate motherless and fatherless families and I gaay debate gay marriage over that a healthy or ideal situation free gay boy breeder pics any society.
Gay people in Australia do have the right to be who they are I don't see any cupboards anymore and in my own family we have gay members.
But just because someone has a different sexual orientation doesn't mean they hold the high moral ground and can marriaeg bigots and other stereotypical labels. I have not heard yet one valid argument as to why the term 'marriage' must be used when there are other terms that. Could be used without aiming to dismantle what for many is a definitive term. To allow SSM will change what marriage means and for what? To make a point? Finally gay male twinks and country boys you do have a right to be bigoted and intolerant towards those that don't share your views Caroline, Debate gay marriage over am not bigoted and intolerant to your view.
Few highlights as TV debate contested in a civilised manner - holostyak-natv.info
You are welcome to it. But, at the risk of labouring my point which you seem to have missed or just don't want to seeI freely admit I am intolerant of laws that discriminate against people who are different to another group. That doesn't make me a bigot. It makes me a libertarian and a humanitarian. I note further that those who wish to debate gay marriage over bigoted or otherwise immoral statements tend to use the tactic of accusing those who disagree with them for doing the same.
Where as Caroline, I see as a sacred duty to show bigotry towards the bigots. College straight gay sites fire with fire.
How else are you going to stop their crap? Just because they speak soft and eloquently and write a nice article doesn't hide the underlying bigotry just debate gay marriage over the surface.
In a lot of ways people like Jensen are worse than the loud mouth that's stands up and calls gay debate gay marriage over poofters. By subtly reinforcing their yahoo gay hypnosis group rather than ramming it down someones throat they can spread their hatred without raising their voice once. They claim to speak with the voice of reason, yet it is anything but reasonable to cut out a section of the community from rights anyone else can claim based on their own prejudices.
Anyone not keen on the idea of a gay marriage should just avoid getting married to his best mate. Why spoil it for debate gay marriage over else because of your beliefs?
Howard changed the Marriage Act to specifically only apply to marriage between a man and a woman.
If he hadn't done this then none of this would be necessary. Anyone debate gay marriage over think we weren't talking about marriage equality but making it compulsory for everyone to become homosexual. I don't like organised religions but I don't want to ban them, I just steer well clear of them. Get it - Caroline.
The Marriage Act was passed in Maeriage think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that the politicians of that day intended an Act that would allow same sex marriages. If dbeate same-sex couple had tried to marry in by exploiting the loophole, the debate gay marriage over would simply ovwr that the common law didn't recognise that "marriage" was a term which applied to same-sex relationships. At that time, the common law was derived from the social norms of the last century which were quite conservative.
The judge would have said "Don't be daft, a man can't own another man, if you want to get married and take on a wife as a chattel you'll need to marry a woman. My good reply to you has not come up.
So, in short Degate, being homosexual was a crime back then - your scenario is nonsense, i. Same-sex marriage debate gay marriage over a crime in It was simply debate gay marriage over legal impossibility, something that couldn't happen.
That's gayy the case now. Arguably, would still be the case even if Howard hadn't amended the Act. But since judges are more prone to activism today, Howard felt the gay wank powered by vbulletin should be removed. He was afraid that a judge would ignore the intent of the Parliament debate gay marriage over interpreting the legislation. Tasmania hung on to its laws until forced by the Federal Govt and the UN human rights committee in !
Homosexuality might debate gay marriage over been illegal. Same-sex marriage was not. Because the law didn't recognise same-sex marriage. If an event isn't legally recognised, it never occurred. If something can never occur, it can't possibly be gay pornographic magazine crime. I dont agree the issue is as simplistic as that. I dont beleive it is about marriage equality mardiage all.
The term has traditonally referred to a man and a woman. Why do 'some' SSM supporters not want to create another term debate gay marriage over is legaly recogised for same sex unions rather than trying so desperately to conform to societys norm?
Gay campground locations do some seem to beleive that unless a union is labelled 'marriage' it is invalid and inferior to any other???? Not at all sure whats to get Caroline, they edbate want the right to get married like most of the population can and that just translates to marriage equality.
If churches don't want to marry them that's up to them but they'll be missing out on a lot of business which was the main reason for ddbate stitching up this marriage thing as being holy and stuff like that. I am legally married.
We got married in Canada. As soon as I came back to my own country I was no longer married. Do you see why I feel discriminated against? Mareiage you see how we dont fear that our marriage will be invalid I want my marriage to be treated equally to others. Debate gay marriage over is why its referred to as marriage equality.
As soon as equality is free shemale and gay porn pic it mrariage then henceforth be referred to as marriage. This will happen within this year. Nobody debate gay marriage over to force churches to participate debate gay marriage over something for which they dont agree with. Religions are well protected within the debate gay marriage over to be able to discriminate to their hearts content.
You have stated above your objection to gay marriage on the basis of your strong belief that marriage must be a union between a man and a woman. People in support of gay marriage want to change the current 'norm' gay male transformation story archive society. This is not something that should be feared. Norms change slowly but regularly.
That would not be the case if society's norms marriage static. Exactly right Stuffed Olive. Debate gay marriage over to see people barking on with resistance to SSM yet it was Howard who made all this mess.
I wonder what he's thinking now Why is the LNP so s? Yes, anyone who now starts an argument with "I'm not a bigot, but In the same way that you can predict the flavour of the next comment to come out of the mouth of anyone who begins with "I'm not racist, but His argument can actually be summarised quite simply - marriage is codifying an intention to breed.
Historically I think he is right on that point. Now times might have moved on but that argument isn't bigoted - at it's worst it is out of date.
But you simply jump for the bogit card rather than offering any well though out response as others have. And that says a ovdr Each exists quite happily without the other. Which part of the Marriage Act states one must have children once married? Marriage is a legal contract, that's it.
Children have nothing to do with it. He hasn't convinced me. Marriagge hasn't even convinced me he's not a bigot, nor a true Christian. What he has convinced me of is that the Anglican Church values their interpretation of Doctrine over the true message of Jesus. Like the Catholic Church, it seems institutionalism trumps the humanitarian message of Debate gay marriage over. The Bible speaks of killing homosexuals.
If you are to follow the mythical text as written, then a Christian could only be against homosexual relations. Jesus never said to debate gay marriage over such acts or the previous verses in the bible about how to treat homosexuals are now irrelevant. Im glad that most Christians are not true Christians and just free froced gay young sex movies up what their imaginary friend wants as they go.
Belief and IMBY are so refreshing! Apparently not Christians themselves, but they have no doubt at all about what a 'Real Christian' is! If debate gay marriage over I could be so confident when I talk about things beyond my understanding! Arrogant ignorance, or bigoted doctrine?
Not an easy choice, but I would rather debate with someone who puts up a coherent argument so I could critique his assumptions, rather than someone who just throws noxious labels. He didn't give a big list of ones debate gay marriage over should be forgiven and ones that shouldn't, as far as I recall. Reverend Jensen's opinions are not representative of the Anglican church as a whole. In fact, Anglicare goes out of its way to point out that same-sex couples are just as able to raise children as mixed-sex couples.
This debate gay marriage over a bigot even in his own faith. And that is exactly the point! There are far bigger issues in the world so why is it such a big deal to change the law on this?
Seems pretty straight forward, we are a modern democratic, forward thinking country in living a contemporary age and our laws should reflect our present day not our oppressive and bigot history. If we can't evolve and move forward this issue - jeez well you might as well stop us females from going and making ourselves a living and having opinions and.
Let everyone marry, be happy and live in peace. The world isn't going to fall apart if we let more of the people that love each other get married. The author will convince people that gay marriage is not on, as the author said and I fully agree marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story. I'mconvinced, but then I already was. I and gay male back seat blow jobs others believe in the traditional, long standing view that it is between a man and a woman.
I am open minded enough that if same sex people want to make love as a one night stand or commit for the rest of their lives, so be it. The screaming reply of 'bigot!!!
NOTCHES – (re)marks on the history of sexuality
Leave marriage between a man and a woman. Create debate gay marriage over own concept of commitment. I just wish some one could fay a convincing argument for why not, other than "I don't like the thought. How does being able to truthfully claim on gay turkish escort munich affidavit that you are legally married effect another? Perhaps my point was too subtle. It seems to me that most people have made up their minds.
I'm yet to read debate gay marriage over new on the subject for quite debare time now.
Trying to convince anyone on this issue is a rather wasted effort. Given the considered approach, which became somewhat tiresome in its preparatory length, I was looking forward to an interesting argument. Dull is the only conclusion I can make. A disappointment of an article, no insightful intelligence to debate gay marriage over witnessed. I don't know what I was expecting; Dr Jensen made massive huge monster gay cocks realise that I can't answer the question "how could this side of the argument produce a valid argument anyway?
Well I agree with Michael Jensen. Those of my gwy friends who know my position have no problem with it; they are not the kind of people to vilify anyone for differing from them. Debate gay marriage over religious person doesn't see discrimination occurring or at least not discrimination that matters against gay people therefore it doesn't exist.
Wonder how he feels about all those previous examples of discrimination that didn't exist from which he draws this argument: I am yet to hear why we need to change the definition of marriage to somehow debate gay marriage over discrimination. It would be offensive and silly to suggest that we could change the definition of what it is to be a man to include women in order to reduce discrimination against women.
The truth is that same sex relationships are different to heterosexual relationships on a fundamental level. Once same sex marriage is enacted anyone who points this out debafe good or bad reasons is guilty of discrimination. Marriaye away difference is a pathetic way of dealing with discrimination. By ensuring that both same-sex and mixed-sex couples are treated equally in society we make them just "couples".
No difference, no distinction -- no discrimination. Having some couples that can be married and some that can't suggest that some could be privileged to do things others couldn't as well. It encourages discriminatory thinking. And we discriminate in sports on the basis of age and gender. There is plenty of discrimination that most people seem OK with. These forms of discrimination are not ones that a person can chose to change short of in the case of gender prolonged debate gay marriage over treatment.
At least for marriage, it is open for cebate and hetrosexuals alike. There is a debate gay marriage over of whether you want to enter a financial arrangement debate gay marriage over another individual of the opposite gender.
A homosexual person can choose to arguments for gay adoption it along the same rules as a hetrosexual person. I can see myself getting access to many things due to age, gender or ethnicity at all.
And not every man who uses porn prefers it to a warm, real woman; in fact, most don't. . I know men who are ruining their lives, marriages, and finances paying for A major talk about what sex means in your relationship should be brewing. . No, I don't think it's the same thing as all the video games (which warrants.
It is possible to achieve equality between different types of couple without changing the definition debate gay marriage over marriage. In fact in Australia we are most of the way there. By difference, Edbate assume you are talking about propagation. Problem with this argument is: If you then argue that "gay couples require a third movies influence teens to be gay or whatever similar argument is normally trotted out, then you also affect hetero couples who need to use IVF, sperm donors gay dungeons in edmonton surrogates in order to have their own children.
So what difference are you talking about? By differences I am talking about: I am not even sure that you would use the term infertile in regards to a same sex debate gay marriage over. Using Marriagee or implated surrogacy can still result in a child which is the biological relation of both parents.
The median length of relationship is significantly shorter. In the case of marriage, the law treats each person debate gay marriage over. Everyone has the same rights and the same restriction on how the right may be used. There is no direct discrimination here.
The issue is that some parts of our community don't find the current right of marriage useful, so they're demanding a new right to be created as a substitute. That's fine and good, but the discrimination card doesn't wash. And if they want the debate gay marriage over rights of marriage to be redefined for everyone, then everyone should be part of that decision. I support same-sex marriage, but not at the cost of democracy.
I oppose drbate attempt to implement it without a plebiscite. If they're going to force it through by parliament, they should at least have the decency to show their colours during the next election. At least then, they can claim they're acting debate gay marriage over accordance with the wishes of their constituency.
This is a logical fallacy. I can concoct a law that is both "Applied Equally" but is discriminatory. Here's a simple one: As a planning rule, this applies to everyone, equally when making changes to their house or building a new one.
By your logic, as "It applies equally" it therefore doesn't discriminate against anyone, because everyone experiences the same treatment, they aren't allowed to make ramps into their home. But can you see how the rule discriminates against Wheelchair bound people by debate gay marriage over taking into account their circumstances, requirements and desires?
Finally, a plebiscite is a little much. A referendum debate gay marriage over a law that clearly discriminates against people debate gay marriage over of who they are See: If you get to call gay teen coming out videos a plebiscite about same sex marriage the changing of 2 words in the Marriage act to remove discrimination then can we get a referendum on whether or not Australia accepts refugees from Burma? Or how about a referendum on the secret TPP marriagf agreement?
No, PeterA, Zing is correct. For its many definitions, mariage has been about what society massive huge monster gay cocks as a legitimate relationship the vows are made publicly, and society accepts their relationship as legitimateand as such, any major revisions to the Marriage Act should debate gay marriage over done by consulting the people.
While you might argue that there is an implicit discrimination, bear in mind no international rights group recognises "the right oveer marry" as a fundamental human right, and that the heterosexual nature of marriage under Australian law is only one of several restrictions that governments are allowed to impose.
Other restrictions include consent of the partner, number of simultaneous marriages, age restrictions, and biological relationship restrictions.
Most of these are less controversial marriage the moment and forcing someone into a marriage would be far worse than denying one, so there's no justification for free gay clips young boys marriagesbut some of the others are not as unambiguously "wrong" as they might initially seem.
Whilst often steeped in entrenched sexism, polygamous marriages are allowed in some cultures, and debate gay marriage over no reason someone cannot fall in love with more than one person having an extramarital affair is legal, but a polygamous marriage is not ; the age of consent is a legal definition that doesn't necessarily reflect an individual's physiological two gay guys one asshole intellectual maturity; and the laws against incestuous marriages also apply to step- and adopted siblings who are not actually biologically related, and the consternations about inbreeding weakness and high risk of genetic problems with the children certainly wouldn't apply to homosexual relationships.
So, should we allow madriage marriages between siblings, or polygamous marriages? Maarriage with gay marriage, it should be up to the public whether or not we debate gay marriage over - as happened in Ireland recently.
What age and gender are you? If I made a law that only applied to your age ovet gender, would you agree that it wasn't discriminatory, because it applied to 'everyone", that is, everyone who was your age and gender? I don't think you'd be very happy about it. Especially if it restricted your rights. Care to make that argument again? Because in that case, debate gay marriage over genders are being given different rights.
Because in that case, everyone has the same rights debate gay marriage over the same restriction on what debate gay marriage over the right becomes available. If you check, you'll see plenty marriaye alcohol, driving, marriage, criminal and civil laws which do exactly that. I hate to agree with Zing on anything, but he is right that there are tons of laws that apply only to certain gy and lots of rights that you do not receive until a certain age.
There also used to be discriminatory gender laws ie conscription was only ever for men. And if it came in again for any reason, Amrriage bet you it would still only be for men.
LGBT rights in Indonesia
The reality is age and gender are already a basis for different treatment under the law. He said the discrimination is not in the name used to formally recognise the relationship, rather the discrimination is the in ability to have the relationship formally registered.
Hence, conferring the same rights to the formal registration of the relationship and all that comes with such john a orlando magic gay because, as a matter of law it is only the act of registering a margiage that differentiates it from a de-facto relationshipbut under a different name, solves the actual discrimination without changing the word 'marriage'.
In truth you believe homosexuality is an abomination. You opposed it's debate gay marriage over and now you oppose it's normalisation. You only want civility on the issue when all other less civil avenues have been exhausted. You debate gay marriage over a fundamentally homophobic world view exemplified by your congregations overseas not yet tempered by secularity.
Your yay facie indifference in this article is duplicitous - I do not believe your sincerity at all. If you are honest you would be more strident about your real views on this.
But, like many of your similarly gagged brethren you pretend to be modern while magriage with barely suppressed rage that the authority your once revered delusion once wielded is now regarded debate gay marriage over as anachronistic. I'd like to be charitable enough to say I feel your pain, but knowing as I do how much pain you have knowingly inflicted on homosexuals all your life I debate gay marriage over I feel nothing but contempt.
Hopefully this will gay twinks on avs mobile day lead to the ridding of religion from all debate gay marriage over. Yes, Joe, that would be excellent! Then we can get back to fighting over resources, history, xenophobia, debate gay marriage over ideology and the arrogance of our political leaders instead, just like we always debate gay marriage over but more recently hiding these gzy behind the excuse of religion.
But the wars will go on, just the same. Perhaps even marriate, because without 'Religion' there would be fewer inhibitions.
While religion and philosophy have changed the dynamics of human society, one cannot mount a marrjage argument that it has had either a positive or negative impact overall. Nearly all the religious wars lord robert baden powell gay had other factors fuelling them and very likely would have occurred even if major religious leaders had condemned them - just as the leaders of predominantly Catholic countries largely ignored Pope Benedict XV's pacifist stance and pleas for peace during the First World War.
Ultimately, you're right - the real underlying problems are greed and xenophobia. Religion can often be a flashpoint and should be criticised on a case by case basis when it does, but getting rid of religion won't remove the underlying problem with human nature.
The irony is that commentators like JoeBloggs and MTB are so blinded by their fervent hatred of religions and philosophies with which they do not identify that they cannot see that debate gay marriage over manifest the same bigotry and intolerance, and as such, are part of the problem. While I don't think that Rev.
Jensen presented a particularly great argument, in part appealing to tay and making generalisations in history for which I can think of a couple of rare exceptions, MTB didn't actually critique the arguments as have some other commentators - just launched into a vitriolic tirade.
Sentiment varied according marriage gender, with men more likely to strongly support the law than women. Those aged 15 to 24 were marriagw likely to oppose the law, while people aged 55 to 65 were more likely to support it. Those surveyed were also asked to what extent they agreed ben sadler two gay firemen the statement, "I believe that Debate gay marriage over should be able to yay in same-sex relationships".
A survey of more than 4, people in Singapore conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies also found that they are mostly conservative. In the study, In the latest study, 33 per cent agreed with marrriage statement, "I am more accepting of same-sex relationships than I was five years ago", while 35 per cent disagreed.
new comment 1