Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

Thread: Gay Marriage

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,493

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    To me it's pretty simple, gay people have the rights to plan their financial destinies and decide who gets their property when they die. If they want serious relationships and the commitment that go with marriage how can anyone deny them that right?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,418

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    If anyone is willing to shoulder the ponderous responsibility of Marriage, there is no reason to deny them, as long as both are Humans, and not too closely related, there should be no objection.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,352

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    What's been overlooked is that there wasn't any constitutional provision dealing with the children of homosexual couples.

    Heterosexual couples usually generate their own children.

    Homosexual couples can't.

    It adds a new dimension to the already bitter custody battles fought by heterosexual couples. For example: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si.../2002/193.html

    The postscript, fortunately rare and extreme, to the linked case is that one of the mothers frustrated the biological father's court awarded access to his child by killing the child, and herself.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,928

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    "PARENTING – whether the father is a ‘parent’ under the Family Law Act and Child Support (Assessment) Act – meaning of ‘family’ – nature of parenting – gay and lesbian families – Family Law Act sections 60B, 60H"

    Didn't read through links to the Family Law Act and Family Support due to lack of time and legal experience.

    If a sperm donor is recognised as being the 'father', then would that apply to a rapist?

    "1. In deciding an issue such as this, section 65E of the Act requires the Court to regard the best interests of Patrick as the paramount consideration. It is a consideration of those best interests which forms the cornerstone of the judgment and remains its final determinant."

    This appears to be the common sense approach, but I'm sure that arguments can and do arise as to what is in the child's best interests.

    I'm curious to see what will happen if and when a gay couple apply to be married by the RC church.


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia-Melbourne
    Posts
    624

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Homosexuals want the life of heterosexuals...But should they? There is a reason why god created man and woman.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,928

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    Homosexuals want the life of heterosexuals...But should they? There is a reason why god created man and woman.
    Is your question, and statement, based on fact or opinion?

    I would argue that if homosexuals wanted the life of heterosexuals, they would be heterosexual.

    Did 'God' create man and woman or was it a matter of a long process of alteration of life through time - evolution?

    If your answer is 'God', then try to find an example of life with 'irreducible complexity', I'd love to hear about it.


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,352

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    If a sperm donor is recognised as being the 'father', then would that apply to a rapist?
    In jurisdictions which don't explicity prevent it, yes.

    There have been cases in the US where rapists have sought access to the child conceived by their rape of the mother. http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf Possibly here, but a quick bit of research didn't find any, although I have a vague recollection that the issue came before one of our courts.

    In Australia, I would expect that the dominant principle of the welfare of the child would militate against access being granted in most, but not necessarily all, cases.

    For an example of a case where access might be possible, rape in my state is defined to include digital penetration of the vagina. A child could be conceived by consensual sexual intercourse between the parents but the father could be guilty of digital rape on another, or even the same, occasion as conception and therefore be guilty of raping the mother. Add in youth, drugs, rehabilitation and various other factors and the father might later be a candidate for access.

    Among the many problems in this area is the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, with respective standards of proof of "on the balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not)" and the much higher criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". In custody and access proceedings, which are civil, it is possible for a court to find on the balance of probabilities that the father raped the mother without any criminal proceedings having been launched against the father, and on evidence which would not meet the criminal standard for a conviction.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,928

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    In jurisdictions which don't explicity prevent it, yes.

    There have been cases in the US where rapists have sought access to the child conceived by their rape of the mother. http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf Possibly here, but a quick bit of research didn't find any, although I have a vague recollection that the issue came before one of our courts.

    In Australia, I would expect that the dominant principle of the welfare of the child would militate against access being granted in most, but not necessarily all, cases.

    For an example of a case where access might be possible, rape in my state is defined to include digital penetration of the vagina. A child could be conceived by consensual sexual intercourse between the parents but the father could be guilty of digital rape on another, or even the same, occasion as conception and therefore be guilty of raping the mother. Add in youth, drugs, rehabilitation and various other factors and the father might later be a candidate for access.

    Among the many problems in this area is the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, with respective standards of proof of "on the balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not)" and the much higher criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". In custody and access proceedings, which are civil, it is possible for a court to find on the balance of probabilities that the father raped the mother without any criminal proceedings having been launched against the father, and on evidence which would not meet the criminal standard for a conviction.
    As a layperson I think I understand most of that. I find the definition of rape quite interesting. Presumably, male-rape isn't considered rape as bottoms are clearly not vaginas? Although when under the influence, the distinction might become somewhat blurred to some.


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    What's been overlooked is that there wasn't any constitutional provision dealing with the children of homosexual couples.

    Heterosexual couples usually generate their own children.

    Homosexual couples can't.
    I think the gays bigger percentage can't fit to bring up a child, usually they have other outlook on life
    "The consciousness that I am alive, makes me wild dreams every day"
    (Helmut Wolff lieutenant colonel, one who survived the breakout of Budapest)

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,352

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    As a layperson I think I understand most of that. I find the definition of rape quite interesting. Presumably, male-rape isn't considered rape...
    Male-male rape is covered by the definition of sexual penetration in Section 35 of our Crimes Act, as rape is sexual penetration without consent.

    sexual penetration means—
    (a) the introduction (to any extent) by a person of his penis into the vagina, anus or mouth of another person, whether or not there is emission of semen; or
    (b) the introduction (to any extent) by a person of an object or a part of his or her body (other than the penis) into the vagina or anus of another person, other than in the course of a procedure carried out in good faith for medical or hygienic purposes;
    http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/ltobjst9.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/CA8FD480447A9990CA257E49001AEBD4/$FILE/58-6231aa249B%20authorised.pdf

    Notwithstanding the recent victory for tolerance in Ireland, and the abolition here several decades age of homosexual offences between consenting adults, it is still possible to be prosecuted in my state for the abominable crime of buggery. It routinely happens in cases which pre-date the abolition of those offences as they are prosecuted under the law which was in force at the time of the offence. It is a standard charge in prosecutions brought against offenders in ancient child sexual abuse cases, notably but by no means exclusively involving Catholic priests and brothers. Strictly, there seems to be no reason in law why the same charges couldn't be brought against consenting adults who engaged in homosexual acts while the law was in force, although prosecution policy would undoubtedly be against such charges. Still, there is a degree of double standards in using the old offence selectively, if admirably, to catch ancient child sex offenders.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia-Melbourne
    Posts
    624

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    In the past,With gays on the side line -the outer, it kept the gays in check. I never believed in murdering people because of their sexuality like the nazis had done, but prior to Hitler, my beliefs gays should be treated as such like how they were back then (not including nazi treatment of gays)

    Both islam and Africa has banned homosexuality for good reasons. In the past , The gays had it great in the west ( apart from the nazi era) so why pushing for marriage when marriage represents man and woman and their offspring to bond all of them in one family unit. Homosexuals can never be biological parents, so why the push for marriage? Homosexuals want to take over heterosexuals lives , have same rules as us , be like us, act like mother nature intended homosexuality as normal. :/

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,352

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    I never believed in murdering people because of their sexuality like the nazis had done
    You mean like Ernst Roehm and his band of rampantly gay Nazis?

    If Hitler hadn't had Roehm murdered as a potential challenger to Hitler, the Nazis could have been run by gays. Well, at least more gays than actually ran the Nazis after Roehm was dispatched, not to mention that sexually dysfunctional piece of pathology known as Hitler.

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    Both islam and Africa has banned homosexuality
    Then that will undoubtedly stop homosexuality in such cultures.

    This would require, among other things, the long established Afghan custom of men f***ing boys up the arse to be abandoned.

    Old Pashtun lament:

    There is a boy across the river
    With a bottom like a peach.
    Alas, I cannot swim

    See also, for example, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-2...hildren/338920

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    In the past , The gays had it great in the west ( apart from the nazi era)
    Really?

    You think it was great to be imprisoned for having sex with someone you love?

    And then get raped repeatedly by the sex starved and supposedly heterosexual other male prisoners, because you're a poofter?

    Or get bashed in the street just for being what you were born to be?

    If it's so much better now than when it was great in the past, why do homosexual teenagers have a much higher rate of suicide than heterosexual teenagers?


    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    Homosexuals want to ... be like us
    Exactly.

    They want the same rights the rest of us have.

    If they want to get married and have their union cemented by the state, then I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't.

    I can think of a lot more reasons why some heterosexuals shouldn't get married and why even more heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to breed. That very large heterosexual crew does a lot more damage to society than homosexuals could ever do.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,352

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    ... islam ... has banned homosexuality for good reasons.
    Would this be the same sort of good reasons which allowed ISIS to promulgate this sort of disgusting Islamic ruling on dealing with female captives?

    "Question 4: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive?
    "It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said: '[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame [Koran 23:5-6]'..."

    "Question 5: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive immediately after taking possession [of her]?
    "If she is a virgin, he [her master] can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her. However, is she isn't, her uterus must be purified [first]…"

    "Question 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?
    "It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn't reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse."
    There's more repulsive religious idiocy from this pamphlet at http://www.memrijttm.org/islamic-sta...le-slaves.html

    And then there's this http://aina.org/news/20140905031714.htm bit of alleged (the source has its own reasons for putting out propaganda) homosexual rape by the heroes at ISIS (the first two letters of which stand for Islamic State, being according to it the modern flowering of a pure Islamic state / caliphate) which tends to undermine your assertion that Islam has banned homosexuality. Well, strictly, it doesn't undermine your assertion. It just shows that ISIL is as hypocritical as the Nazis and many others, notably various Christian churches, in opposing homosexuality when it doesn't practice what it preaches.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,928

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Male-male rape is covered by the definition of sexual penetration in Section 35 of our Crimes Act, as rape is sexual penetration without consent.

    http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/ltobjst9.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/CA8FD480447A9990CA257E49001AEBD4/$FILE/58-6231aa249B%20authorised.pdf

    Notwithstanding the recent victory for tolerance in Ireland, and the abolition here several decades age of homosexual offences between consenting adults, it is still possible to be prosecuted in my state for the abominable crime of buggery. It routinely happens in cases which pre-date the abolition of those offences as they are prosecuted under the law which was in force at the time of the offence. It is a standard charge in prosecutions brought against offenders in ancient child sexual abuse cases, notably but by no means exclusively involving Catholic priests and brothers. Strictly, there seems to be no reason in law why the same charges couldn't be brought against consenting adults who engaged in homosexual acts while the law was in force, although prosecution policy would undoubtedly be against such charges. Still, there is a degree of double standards in using the old offence selectively, if admirably, to catch ancient child sex offenders.
    Do you know of any cases where consenting heterosexuals have been charged with beggery?


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    783

    Default Re: Gay Marriage

    Consenting heterosexuals ? Nothing occurs at this time. However, in considering how this offence worked, it is worth considering a case rather close to home in terms of this Forum. The late Alan Turing, wartime super-boffin and major contributor to the breaking of the German Enigma code and a father of modern electronic computing was, through a series of mischances, prosecuted for "gross indecency" under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 (now repealed) which governed this offence at the time (1952). Victorian legislation, it will be noted, declined to define the act by name, a fact often put down to Victorian prudery. There was no problem, however, with allowing the judges to "fill out" this omission in common law. Earlier British legal references to the act stress its character as an "abomination" and suchlike. The flavor of such comments suggests a tendency to regard it as something close to an offence of strict liability; if the act could be proved to have taken place, mental considerations of intent and culpability do not seem to have received their usual weight in deciding such cases. Also, consent was not a defence to a charge of "gross indecency". Two males - or indeed a male and a female - could be prosecuted, even if the act was consensual.

    One might ask - were Victorian policemen in the habit of breaking into a ... well, bugger's bedroom with a cry of "Gotcha !" ? Well, not generally. However, circumstances could arise in which a case could come to their attention, and these (presumably at the discretion of the Officer in Charge and/or the Attorney General) could be prosecuted. In poor Turing's case, he had formed a sexual relationship - purely consensual - with a young man, who informed him that a burglary at his house was down to an acquaintance of the young man. Turing reported the crime to the Coppers who, in the course of their enquiries, uncovered the relationship, leading to both Turing and the young man being charged under section 11. Both Turing and the youth eventually pleaded guilty to the charge, presumably seeing little chance of successfully defending the charge.

    An example of a more obvious way in which such a charge could come to court is that of persons involved with male prostitutes. The most spectacular example I can think of is that of Oscar Wilde. Oscar was a pretty obviously bisexual in late Victorian society, and his proclivities were probably pretty well-known in aristocratic and artistic circles. However, it is unlikely that this would ever have led to a charge, had it not been for the disastrous sequence of events initiated by the Marquis of Queensberry, father of his (consensual) lover, Lord Alfred Douglas, when he left a card at Oscar's club suggesting that he was a "somdomite" (sic). This prompted Wilde to launch a prosecution for criminal libel against Queensberry - "the Tower has been assailed by the Vile Thing". This proved very ill-advised. Queensberry, a very wealthy man, engaged a top-class legal team, headed by Edward Carson, QC. Carson concentrated his withering defence on the standard defamation defence of "justification" - meaning that Queensberry's assertion was true. The hard core of this defence rested on the discovery by Carson's investigators of liaisons between Wilde and male prostitutes. Following the collapse of the case of Wilde v. Queensberry, the authorities felt they had little alternative but to prosecute Wilde for gross indecency - Regina v. Wilde. They were clearly unenthusiastic about the prosecution, but the notoriety of the preceding criminal libel case left them, politically, little choice. Oscar did not help himself by his rather inept defence, which tended to confirm rather than disprove the fact that he had engaged in (consensual) sex acts with males. Oscar went to prison. Much more mundane cases, involving public toilets and so on, would also have been prosecuted. In this connection, it is worth noting that "gross indecency" was defined (insofar as it was defined) effectively to include any sex acts between males.

    This does not completely answer your question, 32Bravo - I do not know of any case of a "gross indecency" case brought in relation to the activities of consenting heterosexuals. It should be clear, however, that it was indeed possible in view of the scope of the offence, the degree of disapprobation attaching to it, and the manner in which such cases were tried in male-on-male, consensual cases. Best regards, JR.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •