|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - couples
Programs developed to help families experiencing domestic violence (dv) should be suported. Such programs are based on couples who want to stay together. Couples who have done there time in jail to be told they cannot be with re-united to there children wife or gf. When both parents want there family together.
To less the risk of suicide to give a voice to the family befor they are judged ript apart & destroyed. For the couples who really wana keep there family loved, safe & together.
Even though marriage rates in the United States are declining, unmarried couples in the United States are not offered the same rights as those who are married.
Whether they choose not to marry, or simply are not allowed to by law, they are considered unequal to married couples.
Relate North Kent provide relationship counselling for the residents of the Bexley, Dartford, Gravesend, Medway and Swale Council areas. As part of the redevelopment of Medway, the Charity has been asked to vacate the premises kindly provided by the local authority for a number of years.
The Medway Centre is the administrative base for the Charity and each year appointments are arranged for many hundreds of people seeking help and support through difficult times in their relationships. In addition we provide counselling and support to children and young people that may be profoundly affected by the breakdown in adult relationships in the home.
At a time when there is greater stress on couples and the family with anxiety over the prevailing economic climate, fear of redundancy, negative equity concerns etc. now might be the wrong time to disrupt the delivery of a support service that exists to help address those concerns.
This petition aims to secure support from those within Medway and the surrounding areas in encouraging Medway Council to see the benefit to the community of sustaining the support to the Charity. In addition, to secure a building to allow the continued and uninterupted delivery of the services across North Kent.
Okay! So you know how there are 2 bakugan battle brawler seasons, right? The first is when the bakugan were sent to the human world and the bakugan battle brawlers battle other bakugan to save Vestroia from Naga's clutches! The second is a newly released season. The brawlers are back! Except that the female characters: Runo, Alice, and Julie, are barely shown in there! Now... You know in Season 1, the pairing Dan and Runo, Julie and Billy are in the end of the season, right? How about some other pairings?
All we know is that Season 2 won't have much pairings, obviously! Maybe the creator should try putting SOME pairings in there! [This is an example of the couples that I LOVE: ShunxAlice! <3] A-anyways, the creator should at least put more couples in Bakugan! Or at least make a Season 3 with more pairings!
Note: If you think that this is a bad petition, I'm sorry, but I'm such a fan of Bakugan Battle Brawlers! Anyways, sign your name and also, if you want to, put the pairing that you want in the season or so!
Should same-sex marriage be legalised in Australia?
One of the government’s roles is to ensure that all Australian citizens have access to fairness, justice and equality. The government is reinforcing prejudice by not allowing equality and the same rights to all citizens. Discrimination comes in many forms and singling out people because of their sexual orientation, and prohibiting them from being legally joined in marriage is just another type.
At the start of 2006, a week before Mardi Gras, Treasurer Peter Costello told the Sydney Institute gathering that marriage rightly applied only to man and woman.
He pointed to changes in 2004 to the Marriage Act allowing homosexuals access to their partner’s superannuation as an example of how the government had recognised gay rights.
However it was a comment about how the government does not outlaw gay sex that angered Ms Stricker and Professor Phelps, a former president of the Australian Medical Association, working GP and a media commentator.
Mr. Costello said: “I think we do recognise the rights of gay and lesbian people in Australia. We do not criminalise conduct or behaviour.”
Professor Phelps, offended by the comment, said it would be like saying to Mr. Costello at the Mardi Gras: “You are really lucky that we don’t lock you up because you are heterosexual.”
Sydney has one of the highest gay, lesbian and bisexual populations in the world, all of whom should have the same rights as the rest of society. Same-sex marriage will provide access to social benefits—from inheritance, to pensions, to longer hospital visitation rights. Why are Australians saying that it’s alright to be homosexual, promoting clubs and bars and even celebrating a mass parade (Mardi Gras) every year, however drawing a line at same-sex marriages?
Some people believe that same-sex marriage will be a threat to the institution of marriage. Homosexuality is recognised in our society and broadly accepted. It is nothing new, so why would allowing same-sex marriages affect Australian society and life?
Marriage simply allows people to be legally bonded in a social and economic contract.
Marriage is not solely about procreation. If that were the case, people who were unable to have children would be refused marriage licenses, as would the couples solely focused on a working life. People marry for many other reasons such as love, companionship and commitment. Legislating for gay marriage merely recognises the status quo. There are already a lot of same-sex couples in Australia involved in a committed relationship, and positively contributing to Australian society.
Those who argue against same-sex marriage and for marriage inequality are denying children the legal protection and economic safety that comes from marriage. All children should be able to enjoy the tangible and intangible benefits that marriage - hetero or homosexual - can bring. A lot of same-sex parents want what heterosexual parents want—the freedom to marry, so as to provide a stable and committed environment for themselves and their family.
Marriage is a legal, economic, social and family contract that has evolved over time. It has an ever-changing face. It can adapt. There is nothing in the ‘contract’ that prohibits same-sex couples from enjoying the same benefits. These were just prejudices in the past. Let’s evolve with the times.
I believe it is completely fair for people of the same sex to marry. You can call it what you like but gay couples should get the same rights that straight couples get in marriage.
This petition is now closed. Thanks to all who signed.
May 27, 2004
This petition is to urge the Opposition Leader of Australia, Hon. Mark Latham, to reconsider his party's stance in supporting the Prime Minister, John Howard's, amendments to the Marriage Act that will re-inforce the legal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and for the Government's decision to discriminate against same-sex couples from adopting children from overseas.......
UPDATE....THIS PETITION HAS BEEN SENT TO MARK LATHAM ON THE MORNING OF TUESDAY 1 JUNE, HOWEVER DUE TO THE DEMAND FOR FURTHER ACTION THIS PETITION WILL REMAIN, TO CONTINUE GATHERING SIGNATURES. A FEW ALTERATIONS WILL BE MADE AS LABOR HAS ALREADY REACHED A DECISION, HOWEVER, THE INTENTION OR THE DIRECT MEANING OF THE PETITION WILL NOT BE COMPROMISED. KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE SITE, AND KEEP YOUR VOICES HEARD.- Geraldine Donoghue.
This petition is meant to support the proposal for a constitutional amendment making marage legal only if it is betweeen one man, and one woman.
The 1996 (DOMA) Defense of Marriage Act was enacted into law. This law clearly states that the definition of marriage is a bond between one woman and one man. This clearly states that same sex relations are not considered to be married legaly.
Taken from a letter from Patty Murray, she states "The Constitution leaves marriage to be regulated by the states rather than the federal government."
Another letter from Adam Smith on the Gay Marriage Bill states, "The amendment in question would prohibit states from allowing gay marriage... After evaluating the issue carefully, I have serious concerns with theis amendment and will oppose it. . . I do not see gay marriage as a threat that would chang the rights or obligations of heterosexual marriage. The real threat to marriage is abuse, neglect or outright lack of commitment to the contract people have voluntarily entered into when taking marriage vows. I believe our society is made stronger buy more committed and stable relationships, and we should encourage that."
Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott | posted 02/19/2004 has this to say, " We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
I strive daily to uphold the laws of the land but what is going on in the Nation about Marriage, I must speak up. I am a Christian and the higer voice we should seek and listen to is that of the Bible. Let me quote the breath of God in this matter, "For this reason, a man (male) will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (woman), and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
There was a problem with this same thing in the Bible, what does it say about Gays and Lesbians? "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22
" Are you still so dull ? Jesus asked them Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart and these make the man unclean. For out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murder, adultry, sexual immorality, theft, false testamony, slander. These are what makes a man unclean." Matthew 15:16-20
WE find in many other New Testament books of warnings of immoral relations, we must listen to them.
In response to the religious right's continued effort to prevent American's from accepting, respecting, and embracing all sexual identities.
We are a group of American Citizens who believe that people of all sexual orientations deserve the same rights, respect, and acceptance that straight citizens recieve from society. We are NOT a group of people pushing a 'gay agenda' but simply a mixture of straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people, who have spiritual beliefs, and a belief that all of us are equal. We are attempting to inform others that homosexual people are not pedophiles, sex addicts, and predators. We know and support same sex couples who are in healthy commited relationships. Lastly, we believe that a person's sexual orientation in no way influences his or her ability to be a parent or leader to children.
The rulings of three provincial courts have effectively legalized same-sex marriage by declaring the erstwhile ban discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although Prime Minister Jean Chretien has drafted a bill in support of gay marriage, many backbenchers are working hard to undermine this effort in order to reserve the right of marriage strictly for heterosexuals. Gays cannot marry, according to Canada's Solicitor-General Wayne Easter, because of the difference between gays and straights: "when [straight people] get married, it's procreation." In other words, when a couple gets married for any other reason besides breeding, it ruins the whole idea of marriage for all of us.
It's clear, then, that banning homos from marriage simply does not go far enough. There are many straight people out there abusing the sanctity of the matrimonial tradition by marrying for such silly reasons as love or a desire to celebrate lifetime commitments, rather than solely to pop out babies. These people must be stopped.
We, the undersigned, demand that action be taken to preserve the dignity and tradition of marriage as an institution of procreation. Legislation must be enacted forbidding women over the childbearing age from tying the knot. Mandatory testing must be carried out to identify sterile men and barren women, ensuring that these people remain single forever. Elderly couples without offspring must have their marriages forcibly annulled.
We who are married for procreation must defend our noble institution against the pernicious threat posed by homosexuals and other non-breeders. Allowing them to marry will affect our own marriages somehow.