邻居同人 今日: 0|主题: 1704|排名: 30 

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
近日有报道称，路易-威登设计师马克雅各布和他的男友，巴西广告人Lorenzo Martone，数日内，他们要在马萨诸塞州举办婚礼，Lorenzo将对马克做出誓言。他们选择这个州不仅因为那里允许“非异性婚姻”，而且古香古色的景色也能满足举办经典新英格兰婚礼的需要@同志权威资讯

最后发表： choz
回复内容：

忠少和强少来自福建，相爱两年零三个月。在相关微博的数百条评论中，大多是对两人深深的祝福
微博预告订婚消息引关注
南都记者注意到，最早发出相关微博的，就是事件当事人@纹身痞子O R健身小帅de爱。据了解，这是当事人强少和忠少共同的微博。8月14日，@纹身痞子O R健身小帅d e爱发微博称，去年因为爸爸生病直到去世婚礼取消，今年七夕将和男朋友在东莞一同志酒吧订婚。
此微博发出后，立即引起众多网友围观，该微博转发量也破两百。多数网友表达了祝福。忠少称，东莞一些网友看到微博后，提出帮两人策划订婚礼。决定订婚没多久，当事人就向@东莞韩风尚婚纱摄影发私信，希望对方能够赞助他们拍婚纱照。“私信发过去两天后，就有了回复，对方说愿意赞助我们。”忠少说，8月19日，强少和忠心便到影楼，拍摄了一套婚纱照。
8月19日晚上10点左右，@东莞韩风尚婚纱摄影便在微博中贴出两人的“婚纱照”。婚纱照中没有婚纱，两人都是穿的西装，阳光帅气。在该微博后的百余条评论中，亦是网友的一片祝福之声。@电影人程青松也转发了相关微博，并对两人表示祝福。
“应该给彼此一个名分”
为什么想到要订婚？强少表示，本来去年两人就打算在福建老家摆酒结婚，后来因父亲病重，事情便耽搁下来。“他说为了我，什么都可以牺牲，我听了很感动，觉得应该给彼此一个名分。”忠少说。
据了解，忠少和强少极有可能会是东莞首对公开订婚的同性恋恋人。在介绍两人订婚消息的微博中，其他不少网友也发微博感叹“爱情的伟大”。
8月21日，@纹身痞子O R健身小帅de爱在微博提出，希望有人能够赞助场地。最终，东莞一同志酒吧负责人看到此消息后，表示将无偿赞助。昨晚，忠少和强少已经开始在酒吧布置两人今天的订婚礼。两人表示，因为家人都在外地，到时候会电话汇报两人订婚的消息，订婚现场亦邀请了其他同性恋者的父母见证。

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
综合台湾媒体报道，台湾疾病管制部门副负责人施文仪20日在社交网站上公开表达同性恋结婚应合法，表示从卫生角度，应排除万难来推动。他是台湾当局首位公开支持同性恋婚姻的高层官员。

施文仪每周会在社交网站上放上创作的“每周疫诗”，本周以同性恋结婚议题发表：“人权报告落落长，同志结婚又何妨，推说社会缺共识，虚晃远景太牵强；同性结婚应保障，忠贞伴侣才正常，艾滋性病易控制，社会福气同志畅。”

若从医疗费用支出，
施文仪说，每天新增约2名艾滋病患，若吃药30年每人一生医疗费用就超过1000万元(新台币，下同)，每名确诊的新个案代表当局已经为他们开出一张千万元的未来支票。

他说，同性恋婚姻关系一旦受到法律认可，找到真爱透过婚姻组成家庭，给同性恋一条合法的路，而不是仅以“缺乏社会共识”推托相关议题，让同性恋们被歧视、贴标签、躲在社会角落，参加找伴侣的各种聚会发生危险性行为，染病成为一生的痛，同时也加重当局财政负担。

他说，合法化不只婚姻会受到保护，同时也受到约束，且同性恋可能会比异性恋更珍惜这份得来不易的幸福，疾病也能获得控制，不只是同性恋的福利，更是社会大众的福气。

施文仪说，从卫生的角度来看，高层应做出政策指示，排除万难推动。

台湾阳明大学艾滋病防治中心主任陈宜民表示，从防疫的角度来看，施文仪支持同性恋婚姻是一个很好的尝试。异性恋者用婚姻稳固关系，同性恋者也应该享有同样的立足点。

台卫生主管部门说，这是施文仪个人的意见，不代表“卫生署疾管局”的立场。同性恋婚姻合法化的议题，还要考虑台湾的文化背景、社会接纳度。
来源：中新网

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
我一直发这样的帖子，没人看。
那些吵架的帖子，尽管我都有参与，但是没有一个是我发起的。

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
这个我最熟悉了，从小到大，到现在的FreeOZ，Bully我的人总是不断，张三走了换李四，不过我如今却是越来越强大了，小时候需要帮助，没人帮我，长大了，我不再需要任何人的帮助，只有自己才能救自己。

不就是打架么，谁怕谁啊？

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
这个就好像某国共产党说关于民主的辩论是浪费时间。

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
支持！

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
承认同性婚姻只是早晚，澳洲不可能永远停留在中世纪。

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
How can we be challenging homophobia when we’re saying. "You’re equal to me but you’re separate,''

最后发表： choz
回复内容：

回教徒和耶教徒一丘之貉而已，两者在对待同性恋的问题上都是错误的落后的。

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
楼主太敏感太脆弱了！
你是对自己的性向信心不足吗？你真的觉得自己看了王子爱上王子、公主爱上公主的童话就会变成同志吗？那请问同志们从小看了那么多王子和公主的童话为啥还是喜欢同性呢？这不正说明性向是难以改变的吗？

最后发表： choz
回复内容：

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
原文链接
http://www.thepunch.com.au/artic ... eal-dogs-breakfast/

原文很长，简要介绍一下吧，塔斯马尼亚最新通过借腹生子法案，这意味着，任何伴侣不管是同性恋还是异性恋伴侣，都可以通过人工受精的方式，而生育下一代。

举例说明，塔省有一对男同性恋伴侣，想要有一个孩子，通过这个发案以后，他们就可以其中一个人提供精子，然后找一个女人自愿提供卵子，和子宫，采用人工受精的方式生育生产下一代。这样剩下来的下一代的抚养权归两个同性恋爸爸所有。如果是女同性恋就更加方便啦，只要有人捐献精子就可以了，下一代抚养权归两个妈妈所有。

目前澳洲，大部分洲法律都允许同性恋寻找代孕和领养，今后由同性恋伴侣抚养长大的孩子会很常见！

Tasmania’s surrogacy bill is a real dog’s breakfast



A few years ago, my wife suggested that we get a pet dog for the kids. The arguments were assembled: it is good for children to learn how to treat animals properly, it will get them outdoors and off the computer, they will get exercise by taking it around the block etc.

By the time we got the cute little thing air freighted to Sydney from the breeding kennel interstate, we had signed for it three times. Once when placing the order for the dog, once when booking it to be sent to Sydney and one more time when I picked it up at the airport. No signature, no puppy. Not once, but three times.

And the point of this story? Well at the moment the Tasmanian Parliament is debating a bill dealing with surrogacy. The bill in its current form permits two men, two women, a single man and even a heterosexual couple to enter into a surrogacy arrangement with a female person, to be known as the “birth mother”, who will seek to become pregnant and give birth to a child.

Pursuant to the arrangement, the resultant child is to be treated as the child of a person or persons other than the birth mother. The person or persons are to be known as the “intended parent or parents”. Controversial? Well, it depends on your point of view.

Personally, I think there are a number of serious individual and social issues associated with artificial reproductive technology, including surrogacy, that we are only starting to comprehend and understand. It is only now that we are starting to hear from the young adults, born through artificial reproductive technology in the early 1990s, about how they reconcile and understand themselves having a birth parent, genetic parents and social parents.

The sound of the voices is gradually rising as individuals come forward and tell their story. However, what is surprising is that the proposed arrangements in Tasmania may be made orally or in writing.

Now, call me old-fashioned but if I have to sign three times before I get to take the puppy home, you would think that the so-called “relevant parties” to a surrogacy arrangement would be expected to reduce their proposed reproduction plan to writing. Surely nobody believes that the best way for the “relevant parties” let alone the child-to-be, to have any certainty about the future, is to settle the matter on a handshake and a hug!

One great strength of our federation is that when it comes to law making, states and territories can learn from each other. That does not mean that they have to copy exactly what others are doing. Certainly with respect to the states, they are sovereign legislatures and their elected representatives have broad law making powers.

Having said that, it is usual and I would argue good law making practice, to look at what other jurisdictions have done and set out to enhance and improve on what has been enacted elsewhere. Parliaments by doing this are not surrendering any sovereign rights. They are in fact making things better for their citizens by not repeating mistakes or clarifying matters that are doubtful or ambiguous.

For these reasons I find it baffling that the Tasmanian Parliament is pressing ahead with a surrogacy bill that has holes in it so large, that you could drive a fleet of Mack trucks through them. I say this because if you look at the bill in detail and compare it with similar laws passed in other Australian jurisdictions in recent time, it fails to address a number of critically important issues. Furthermore, with respect to what the bill claims to address, there are gaps and deficiencies.

I make these comments, not as some know-it-all legislator from the mainland, that I am not, but as someone who has looked at the Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee on Surrogacy report and other surrogacy acts from around Australia.

On the question of the bill failing to incorporate some key recommendations of the Select Committee, I can make no comment. I presume that the reasons will come out in the parliamentary debates. May I say, and I do so with the greatest of respect to the Honourable Members of the Select Committee who put together the report, it is very brief (just 36 pages excluding the index and appendix) for such a complex issue. Secondly, having only eight recommendations, a number of significant matters are left open or ignored. Why is this so, the report does not say.

In February this year, as part of the public consultation process associated with commenting on the draft surrogacy bill, I raised a number of issues. My letter was sent to The Director, Office of Legislation Development and Review c/o the Department of Justice. My five page letter outlining what I consider 11 significant issues was not even acknowledged. So be it.

However, what is concerning is that the bill, in my view, is fundamentally flawed. So what are some of the issues? I have already mentioned that leaving such a complex and potentially highly emotional arrangement to some oral understanding between the parties is extremely problematic. Leaving such a matter to individual and collective memories seems to be a recipe for disaster.

The bill in its current form prohibits commercial surrogacy arrangements – a position I agree with. However, the bill leaves it wide open for individuals and couples to travel overseas and procure a child via a commercial surrogacy arrangement. The whole integrity of the policy position that rejects the concept of commercial surrogacy is undermined by this key flaw.

The NSW Parliament last year when legislating on surrogacy, incorporated a specific provision that addressed this issue. By specifically doing so, the Parliament fortified the principle of rejecting commercial surrogacy; a principle that underpins the Commonwealth’s Standing Committee of Attorneys-General recommendations, that deal with surrogacy.

Some other Australian jurisdictions provide in their legislation that all prospective surrogate women must have carried at least one previous child to term before being eligible to enter into a pre-conception surrogacy arrangement. Indeed the Select Committee itself made this one of their specific recommendations. The bill is silent on the matter. Why?

The question of the genuine independence of the counselling that the parties will undergo remains unclear. How independent would the counselling be if the counsellor was in some way connected with the practice of the doctor or specialist overseeing the surrogacy procedure? This is obviously a serious matter as the bill places some significance on counselling.

It can be argued that clause 39 of the bill is poorly drafted. The prohibition on advertising is clearly stated in the clause title but, the clause itself does not explicitly deal with the issue. Why would you make such an important piece of legislation for who knows how many children into the future, a lawyers’ picnic.

Given the nature of the matter being considered there is a strong argument that the Supreme Court should be the appropriate court to deal with the making of parentage orders with respect to surrogacy arrangements. The bill provides that the Magistrates Court (Children’s Division) will deal with parentage order applications.

The bill is also deficient in not providing conscientious objection rights to medical, nursing and allied health employees who do not wish to work in the area of surrogacy. Why should individuals who conscientiously object to medical practices like surrogacy be potentially forced to work in such areas? Have we as a society become so intolerant that we are prepared to steam-roll over an individual, notwithstanding their deeply held personal convictions?

I could go on with a number of other matters. They are all there for anybody who wishes to examine the bill. As an outsider looking in, it is a mystery why such an important bill falls so short of the mark. The parliamentary debates will hopefully shed some light on these matters. I also hope, particularly for the future children in Tasmania who are going to be born via surrogacy arrangements, that their dignity and human rights are accorded the respect that they deserve and are not subverted by the claims and wishes of adults.

最后发表： chubbycat
回复内容：
dcxg would need to get it tested

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
视频报道看这里
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012- ... uality-bill/4228550

Tasmania’s premier confident marriage equality bill will pass

Updated Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:28pm AEST

Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings says she hopes Tasmania will lead the nation to end discrimination for gay couples as the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly is set to debate a marriage equality bill on Thursday.

Source: ABC News | Duration: 7min 4sec

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
America’s Vice President Joe Biden has hailed LGBT activists as courageous, saying they have improved life for every citizen of the United States.

美国副总统给予美国LGBT平权活动家们肯定，他说你们改善了每一个美国人的生活。

On a campaign visit to Provincetown, he won loud applause when he told gay equality advocates: “You are freeing the soul of the American people.”
他还说：你们所做的事情正在解放全体美国人的灵魂！

Biden thanked them for advancing not just their own civil rights, but also the “civil rights of every straight American,” reports the Politico diary of the Obama Presidency.

他还感谢说：你们不但致力于你们自身的民权运动，而且你们的民权运动涉及到了每一个美国人。

“If I had to use one adjective to describe this community it’d be courage,” he added. “You have summoned the courage to speak out, to come out. We owe you.”

如果我用一个词来形容你们，我说你们很勇气可嘉，你们敢于站出来挑战不平等，我们欠你们！

President Obama pledged his support for marriage equality back to May, as the battle for same-sex marriage continues in various states around the influential nation.

美国总统奥巴马今年5月份宣布他支持同性婚姻，目前美国全国各地的同性婚姻运动正在激烈的进行中。

The new ‘Young Americans’ section of Barack Obama’s website has ‘LGBT’ as one of its topics. The President is quoted: “The work that we’ve done with respect to the LGBT community I think is just profoundly American and is are the heart of who we are.” See it here.


我们为了推进同性恋平权所进行的努力对美国有着深刻的影响，这样做也是基于每一个美国人意愿的。

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
http://www.australianmarriageequ ... lity-bill-welcomed/

Australia’s marriage equality advocates have welcomed the tabling of a Tasmanian Marriage Equality Bill, set to be debated in the State’s Lower House this week.

塔斯马尼亚下议院收到了关于同性婚姻立法的提案，并且于本周进行辩论。

Australian Marriage Equality National Convener Alex Greenwich:

“This is a high quality and comprehensive bill that is drafted to withstand any High Court challenge”.

“The Tasmanian Bill is the the most detailed bill for a state marriage scheme that we have seen, and we hope it will also be used by the other states considering this vital reform”.

Mr Greenwich said the creation of a new opt-in register for celebrants means ministers of religion will continue to be free to refuse to marry same-sex couples.

“The Bill places no obligation whatsoever on ministers of religion who do not wish to marry same-sex couples, but should clergy wish to marry same-sex couples they are free to apply to be celebrants.”

Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesperson, Rodney Croome, said he is proud Tasmania is leading the way on marriage equality.

“This reform will help build stronger relationships and families in Tasmania, as well as increase pressure on the the other states and the federal government to follow.”

“The way that Labor and the Greens have worked together to develop robust legislation and implement a reform the majority of Tasmanians want sends a strong message to our federal parliament to do the same.”

Mr Croome said he was hopeful the bill would pass the State’s lower house, but is still encouraging all Tasmanians to take action.

“In the 48 hours until this bill is debated I urge all Tasmanians who support equality to contact their local MP and encourage them to vote for a reform that will do our state proud.”

Australian Marriage Equality and the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group have initiated an online campaign to empower supporters to contact all members of parliament that can be found here: www.tasunited.org

For more information contact Alex Greenwich on 0421 316 335 or Rodney Croome on 0409 010 668.

Share
Tags:

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
澳洲来的中国同志一般也很悲观，悲观是长期生活压抑养成的，一时片刻不好摆脱掉。在平权这一问题上，我一直是比较乐观和激进的，和国内同志那种自顾自的小快乐思想很不合拍。我也看不惯他们的这些做人做事风格。这也是我保持联系的国内来的同志朋友极少的原因。

来了澳洲，就不用仅仅限于国内来的同志了，这里可以接触到来自世界各地的同志，心境和眼界都大开。我倒是极少关心国内和国内的同志了。

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
Stop using jesus as an excuse for being a narrow minded bigoted arsehole.

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
&width=620&height=&signature=32c7bdde75b7c5aa9f2cbb8569bfc124

Sorry you think it's intolerant of me to not tolerate your intolerance.

最后发表： xkqf1156
回复内容：
太好了，正准备申请过去。希望未来更美好

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
Same-sex marriage bill to be introduced in France this October

by Joseph McCormick
26 August 2012, 5:47pm



French Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said the bill will be introduced in October (Credit: Jean-Marc Ayrault)
New legislation which will be introduced into the French Parliament as early as October will allow gay couples to marry.

Fulfilling a campaign pledge by French President, Francois Hollande, the bill will allow the marriage of gay couples as well as the option to adopt.

Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, had previously announced in parliament that gay couples would be permitted to marry and adopt children in 2013. He addressed members of the Socialist Party on Saturday:

“In October, we will send a bill to the National Assembly and the Senate to allow same-sex couples to marry. It would also allow them to form families and adopt children.”

The bill will be introduced to both houses of Parliament in October, both of which will have to approve the bill, after debate.

If approved, France will join several other countries in the EU which recognise and allow same-sex marriages. Some experts have speculated on the reception of the bill in Parliament, and whether it will be well received.

The Catholic Bishops Conference in France, in opposition to gay adoption, recently released the text of a prayer it recommended churches use, including a line which entreated children to: “fully benefit from the love of a father and a mother”.

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
Marriage Equality By Christmas?
By Alex Greenwich



Tags: same-sex marriage gay marriage alex greenwich
It's clear that marriage equality will be a key issue at the next federal election - yet only state governments are taking it seriously. Alex Greenwich on why our federal pollies need to get with the program

With debate now beginning on marriage equality in the Senate, an on-going debate in the House of Reps, and legislation now hitting state parliaments across Australia, many supporters of marriage equality are asking the questions, "When, where and how?"

Same-sex marriage is very likely to hit Australian soil by Christmas. Tasmania and South Australia are the obvious starting places, both have legislation drafted and support from their respective premiers. But where does that leave those of us in other states?

In NSW the Upper House passed a motion from the Greens’ Cate Faehrmann in support of marriage equality with Coalition support, and in the Lower House independent Clover Moore continues to pressure the premier and state attorney-general on potential marriage equality legislation for the state with the most same-sex couples

In Victoria, the state Labor leader has declared strong support for reform, there is support from Liberals such as Clem Newton-Brown, and legislation pending from the Greens.

Clearly, the ACT has been a trailblazer in the recognition of same-sex relationships and is now also moving towards marriage equality. Deputy Chief Minister Andrew Barr is one of the nation’s most effective marriage equality champions.

In the NT, Chief Minister Paul Henderson has committed the ALP to a conscience vote on territory marriage equality laws.

Support continues to grow in WA, and in Queensland the removal of rights from gays and lesbians has sparked a co-ordinated campaign to challenge the Premier, who actually supports marriage equality, to treat all Queenslanders equally and fairly.

But a federal vote will be tough, although there are positive signs. The numbers are better in the Senate than the House of Reps, and in both houses those declaring "yes" continue to grow.

If Federal Parliament fails us we know this will only galvanise supporters ahead of the next vote. Polling proves enthusiasm for reform is growing despite resistance from some quarters. In each successive national poll more people shift from "support" to "strongly support".

This is because Australians increasingly understand this reform is about strengthening families, and providing loving and committed couples with security, protection, and recognition.

Australians understand the benefits of marriage, and that is why 61 per cent of married heterosexuals support a reform that will strengthen the relationships of their gay and lesbian friends, and ensure the institution of married is defined by love and commitment, and not excluding gay and lesbian Australians.

Jim Wallace and the Australian Christian Lobby this week displayed their ignorance on how important this issue is to Australians when they issued a statement calling on the federal government to "stare down the issue" and get it out of the way.

This completely ignores that fact that more Australians have engaged in parliamentary process to show support for marriage equality than on any other issue, ever.

177,000 Australians supported reform through the Lower House inquiry, and 44,000 Australians made submissions to the Senate Inquiry on marriage equality.

What Wallace and his friends Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard fail to realise is that many Australians are now emotionally invested in what they believe is a key aspiration for our nation.

While the states legislate for the reform one by one, the federal campaign will only continue to build steam towards the next election. This process started at the last election when this reform found its place on the mainstream political landscape.

Marriage Equality helped Adam Bandt win Melbourne, and contributed to big swings against prominent Labor figures Tanya Plibersek and Anthony Albanese, who hadn’t then declared support for reform.

We will now see the same thing happen to their Liberal Party colleagues, including Josh Frydenberg, Kelly O’Dwyer and Theresa Gambaro, all of whom know from their own polling that marriage equality enjoys widespread support in their electorates.

Just as Australian Marriage Equality led a targeted electoral campaign in the seats of Melbourne, Sydney, and Grayndler at the 2010 election, we will do the same in the seats of Brisbane, Kooyong, Higgins and others.

At the same time, we are seeing an internal push in the Coalition towards supporting reform, one that is reminiscent of the campaign that began in Labor after the last election.

Growing dissatisfaction with Tony Abbott breaking a Coalition tradition and denying a conscience vote has been voiced by Malcolm Turnbull, and by senators Simon Birmingham and Sue Boyce in their report to the senate inquiry. A number of Liberal and National Party branches have also begun passing motions calling for a free vote on the reform.

If the Greens retain the balance of power after the next election, and Labor shows more courage in opposition than in government, then the likely numbers will be even stronger.

We saw the same thing happen in Tasmania with the decriminalisation of homosexuality, which occurred under a socially conservative Liberal Government, a Labor opposition that was true to their core values, and a gutsy Greens’ leader named Christine Milne holding the balance of power.

Add to the mix that New Zealand is set to win the marriage equality Bledisloe Cup against Australia under a conservative government — no wonder many aspirational voters are becoming impatient.

Should the Feds squib, it is inevitable that many Australians will use the next federal election to vent their frustration, to the benefit of those candidates who stand up for the values of fairness and equality.

最后发表： black_zerg
回复内容：
柴玲不行， 就是个投机的

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
  谁帮忙翻译一下啊

最后发表： griffith
回复内容：
我只喜欢麦当劳

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
ACT's civil ceremonies get green light
Updated 2 hours 16 minutes ago

PHOTO: The laws will allow legally binding ceremonies for same-sex couples. (Reuters Andrew Burton, file photo) RELATED STORY: ACT to reinstate civil union ceremoniesRELATED STORY: ACT to debate civil ceremonies

MAP: ACT

The ACT Legislative Assembly has passed a bill to strengthen civil union laws, during a marathon sitting that continued until early this morning.

The laws passed with support of the Greens and will allow legally binding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Attorney-General Simon Corbell says the laws restore legislation overturned by the former Howard government.

He says it is a milestone, ending discrimination against gay couples.

"There will no longer be a paper-based scheme, there will no longer be some somewhat embarrassing administrative formality that has to be completed," he said.

"It will be a meaningful, legally binding ceremony."

Same-sex couples in the ACT have been able to register their civil partnership since 2008.

The new bill will replace the Civil Partnerships Act 2008 and fully restore the role of ceremonies and celebrants in civil unions.

Mr Corbell says it is an important step towards marriage equality.

Last month, the Greens' support was not certain, with the party raising concerns civil unions could distract from the national debate on gay marriage.

The Liberals maintained their staunch opposition to the bill.

Ivette Gonzales from Equal Love Canberra has welcomed the changes, but says it falls well short of marriage equality.

"Having something is better than having nothing at all, to legally recognise their union. To have a ceremony with friends is so important to many," she said.

"But it's not equality. It's not the same thing that is given to their brothers, the parents, the sisters. They are still discriminated."

'Biological truth'
Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby says same-sex marriage is not a human right.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not a matter of discrimination it's a matter of biology," he said.

Mr Wallace fears marriage celebrants and photographers who refuse to perform at civil unions will be ostracised.

He says people who have refused to officiate or work at same-sex ceremonies in other parts of the world have been persecuted.

"There have been marriage photographers in New Mexico hauled before the court and fined, marriage celebrants in the UK lose their job, in Denmark a law now changed saying churches must give blessing to same-sex unions," he said.

"This is the problem for the church because freedom of religion and freedom of conscious are important and should not be invaded by unreasonable gay activism."

最后发表： chubbycat
回复内容：
dcxg agreed!

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
原文，和下面的讨论都很有意思，太长了，不翻译了。
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4204460.html?WT.svl=theDrum

Licence to kill? Time to abolish the 'gay panic' defence

It is hard to believe the 'gay panic' defence can still mitigate murder to manslaughter in instances of unwanted 'homosexual advance', writes Robert Simms.

最后发表： 蓝山夜妖
回复内容：
我原来对天主教也不反感，自从看了鹰版关于三大宗教的扫盲贴后，非常反感天主教，黑暗面太多，相比之下，新教进步多了。

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
同志们必须自己勇敢的站出来直面惨淡的人生！

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
  他男朋友挺帅的。

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
整个一个孤儿院阿，收养那么多！

最后发表： xblues
回复内容：
The real threat to marriage
同性婚姻真的会威胁婚姻么？什么才是真的威胁婚姻的因素？

原文出处
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/new ... objectid=10826476##



By Tapu Misa

5:30 AM Monday Aug 13, 2012  

Tapu Misa believes that same-sex unions are not the issue - the problems are more about economics and love.
Tapu Misa 相信威胁婚姻的因素不是同性婚姻，而是经济形势和爱情。

I hate to break it to Conservative Party leader Colin Craig, but the biggest threat to so-called traditional marriage isn't gay marriage. It's love, actually. And economics.
我不得不说威胁婚姻基石的不是同性婚姻，所谓的【传统婚姻】的目前所面临的真正威胁，其实是爱情，现实一点其实是经济情况。

As someone who's been married to the same person for nearly 30 years (sometimes through gritted teeth), I'm obviously on the side of marriage.
我自己的婚姻以持续了30多年，我相信婚姻。

I'm also Pacific Island-born and partial to the Bible, which some say should pit me against the evils of same-sex marriage. Except it doesn't. I have one thing in common with Mangere MP Sua William Sio, though. I'd rather be talking about economic justice.
我有土著血统，

I've no doubt the disquiet Sua's heard among his conservative churchgoing Pacific constituents is real enough, even though a 2011 Research New Zealand poll found Maori and Pacific people were actually more in favour of same-sex marriage than Pakeha.

But I wish Sua had thought to point out that Pacific people should be the last to deny another minority group a human right.

According to Colin Craig, marriage isn't really a right, gay marriage threatens "traditional" marriage, and Governments shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage because marriage pre-dates government.

Actually, Governments have been doing precisely that for hundreds of years.

As for "traditional" marriage, what exactly does that look like? Is it polygyny (where a man can have multiple wives), the marriage form found in more places and at more times than any other, and which was acceptable in biblical times?

Does it include the beating of wives, once lawful in "traditional" marriages? Or the prohibition against mixed-race marriages, which not so long ago in many parts of the US made it illegal for whites to marry blacks (as well as a bunch of alien "others")?

As the American historian Stephanie Coontz argues in her fascinating 2005 book Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, what we think of as traditional are actually relatively recent innovations.

For example, the "tradition" that marriage has to be licensed by the state or sanctioned by the church.

"In Ancient Rome the difference between cohabitation and legal marriage depended solely upon the partners' intent. Even the Catholic Church long held that if a man and woman said they had privately agreed to marry ... they were in fact married. For more than 1000 years the church just took their word for it."

In most parts of the globe, the real traditional marriage was about economic and political gain. The love-based marriage (and the 1950s male breadwinner ideal) is a relatively new thing.

"Certainly, people fell in love during those thousands of years, sometimes even with their own spouses. But marriage was not fundamentally about love. It was too vital an economic and political institution to be entered into solely on the basis of something as irrational as love. For thousands of years the theme song for most weddings could have been What's Love Got to Do with It?

It wasn't until the eighteenth century that " ... people began to adopt the radical new idea that love should be the most fundamental reason for marriage and that young people should be free to choose their marriage partners on the basis of love".

But romantic as the love-match was, it was also a more unstable model than its pragmatic forerunners. If love and self-fulfillment were the foundations of marriage, then people were entitled not to marry, or to leave a marriage, if it didn't meet their needs.

"No sooner had the ideal of the love match and lifelong intimacy taken hold than people began to demand the right to divorce. No sooner did people agree that families should serve children's needs than they began to find the legal penalties for illegitimacy inhumane. Some people demanded equal rights for women so they could survive economically without having to enter loveless marriages."

As well as changing attitudes and expectations, marriage was transformed by a "perfect storm" of legal, political and economic forces in the 80s and 90s.

"[Women] had access to legal rights, education, birth control, and decent jobs. Suddenly, divorce was easy to get. At the same time, traditional family arrangements became more difficult to sustain in the new economy.

"And the new sexual mores, growing tolerance for out-of-wedlock births, and rising aspirations for self-fulfillment changed the cultural milieu in which people made decisions about their personal relationships."

The demand for same-sex marriage was "an inevitable result of the previous revolution in heterosexual marriage". But it isn't the threat its opponents claim it to be.

Divorce, single parenthood, and cohabitation among heterosexuals, among other things, had "already reshaped the role of marriage in society and its meaning in people's lives".

Marriage isn't doomed, writes Coontz. It remains "the highest expression of commitment in our culture, and comes packaged with exacting expectations and responsibility, fidelity, and intimacy".

And while marriage has become "more joyful, more loving, and more satisfying for many couples than ever before in history", it has also become "more optional and more brittle. These two strands cannot be disentangled."

最后发表： choz
回复内容：

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
　　出柜艺人时时有，今年特别多。人见人爱车见车载的英国男歌手Mika，多年来一直回避私生活问题，但如今他终于公开讨论其性向，承认自己是同性恋。
　　今年28岁的Mika在《Instinct》杂志9月刊采访中说：“如果你问我是不是同性恋？我回答――是；如果你问我之前写的所有歌，是不是描述我跟某个男人的关系，我回答―是。只有在音乐里，我才找到力量在歌词之外勇敢面对自己的真实性向。这就是我的真实人生。”
　　2007年Mika凭借专辑《Life in Cartoon Motion》及《Grace Kelly》等单曲成功走红，在同人圈内大受追捧，其私生活更成为媒体热议话题。2009年，Mika曾向荷兰杂志《Gay &Night》表示自己是双性恋者：“我从来没给自己任何标签，但话说回来，我也从来不给自己生活太多条条框框，不限定与何人同眠……随便你怎么称呼我，硬要给个名字的话，说我是双性恋也成。” 　　Mika新专辑《The Origin of Love》计划今年9月16日发行，其中包括与Pharrell Williams和William Orbit等人合作。

最后发表： choz
回复内容：

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
【环球网报道  记者 朱海淼】美国国防部7月19日曾宣布了一道指令，允许士兵着军装参加21日在加利福尼亚州圣迭戈市举行的“同性恋骄傲”游行活动。此令一出，立即引起了各方关注。而在21日参加游行活动的士兵中，有一半的人身着军装出席。
据《今日美国》22日报道，有超过350名士兵参加了当天的活动。海军二级军士长德维恩•毕比穿着他的白色海军制服站在游行的队伍中，他和“男友”从福罗里达州驱车30个小时到达圣迭戈市。谈起感受，毕比说，“这真的太奇妙了！这是历史性的记录。”
社会活动家肖恩•萨拉之前曾在海军服役，他说，今年是首次允许士兵穿军装参加这类活动，这是一个具有划时代意义的时刻。
报道称，虽然活动中也有一些反对的声音，但是大部分围观的人还是支持国防部这一决定。
美国虽然早就废除了此前执行多年的同性恋“不问不说“原则，但是一些同性恋士兵对于公开身份还是持谨慎态度。 此外，目前还不确定国防部是否也会允许同性恋士兵着军装参加其他类似活动。

最后发表： choz
回复内容：
可以预见，同性恋婚姻的辩论，今后将不会局限在美国国内 　　准备在今年底争取连任的美国总统奥巴马，日前通过电视专访，表达了赞成同性恋婚姻的立场，成为美国历史上第一个公开支持同性恋婚姻的现任总统。专访引发了美国社会两极化的反应，自由派士气大振，代表保守势力的共和党则群起攻之，共和党总统参选人罗姆尼即刻公开表示反对；宗教团体也深表忧虑。同性恋婚姻合法化，顿时取代其他课题，变成分化美国公共舆论最强烈的争辩。
　　美国社会关于同性恋婚姻的争议已经持续多年，推动同性恋婚姻合法化的社会运动早在1970年代发轫。虽然联邦政府至今并不承认同性恋婚姻，一些州属却相继立法让其合法化，风气较为开放的马萨诸塞州在2004年首先立法承认同性恋婚姻，康涅狄格州、爱荷华州、新罕布什尔州、纽约州、佛蒙特州等相继跟进。这与美国民众近年的观念改变息息相关。根据皮尤民调最新的调查，在30岁以下的美国人当中，高达65%支持同性恋婚姻合法化，反对的只有30%。
　　奥巴马挑起同性恋婚姻课题，无疑带有浓厚的政治算计。经济向来是美国总统选举的重点，遭遇2008年华尔街金融风暴的严重打击，美国的失业率问题虽然近期开始出现趋缓迹象，但前景依然存在许多不确定因素。财政赤字及国债上升的压力，因为两党的政治斗争而迟迟无法获得解决问题的共识。奥巴马挑起敏感的同性恋婚姻，不免有围魏救赵之嫌。共和党已经表明，将继续以检讨奥巴马的经济政策作为选战策略。
　　从选举需要而言，奥巴马显然下对了棋。就在他明确表达立场后，美国影星乔治·克鲁尼即刻在豪宅举办了支持奥巴马连任的筹款派对，来宾包括了娱乐圈、法律及医疗等行业的高管，一晚就筹集了1500万美元。共和党内部也从选举考量出现不同的声音，民调专家警告，由于美国社会（包括共和党选民）认同同性恋婚姻的大势越来越迅猛，共和党必须认真思考在这个议题上所持的僵化立场。
　　同性恋婚姻在美国社会得到越来越大的同情，逻辑上似乎有其必然性。美国以人权立国，宪法原文中虽然没有关于人权的条款，《独立宣言》里却已经提出了“生命权、自由权和追求幸福之权”的价值观。宪法颁布后陆续政订的10条修正案，总称为《权利法案》，其中第九条规定：未被列入修正案的其他权利同样可以受到保护。对人权的绝对尊重，加上公民权利平等的价值，形成了美国“民权运动”意识形态的主要基础。
　　从解放黑奴，开放妇女投票与参政，女性平权运动，黑人民权运动，美国建国以来的国内政治发展，几乎就是一部弱势或非社会主流群体（女性、少数族群、残疾者）获得法律保护的历史。同性恋作为一个少数边缘群体，自然也同样能争取平权。美国自由派在论述上采用的“权利”、“平等”的概念，因而有极大的意识形态正当性，反对者鲜能撄其锋。罗姆尼被爆在学生时代欺负凌辱同性恋同学后，赶紧公开道歉，就反映了主流民意所在。
　　虽然基督教信仰仍然是美国社会主流，统计却显示，过去30年来增幅最大的“宗教团体”竟是无神论者，人数增加了一倍，达到人口的12%，而且以年轻人为主。配合宪法的世俗主义以及“权利”、“平等”的普世价值观，保守派完全无法在避免“歧视弱势”的指控下来反对同性恋婚姻。奥巴马在宣布赞同同性恋婚姻时，还技巧地引用基督教金科玉律（theGoldenRule）“你要他人怎么待你，就要同样对待他人”作为论据，更让保守派及宗教界不易招架。
　　同性恋婚姻合法化虽然是美国内部的政治博弈，却可能有全球性的后果，因为其无远弗届的软实力霸权——流行文化——具备了左右全世界青少年价值观的巨大力量。首先透露奥巴马立场的副总统拜登，在表明接受同性恋婚姻时暗示，自己受到了以男同性恋为主角的美国电视剧《威尔与格蕾丝》的影响。可以预见，同性恋婚姻的辩论，今后将不会局限在美国国内。