EPTOn October 21 2011 11:19 Drizzt3 wrote:
Do you guys vote on the legality of straight marriage too?
Do you guys vote on the legality of straight marriage too?
yeah its in the constitution
Australia to vote on Gay marrige - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
cristo1122
Australia505 Posts
yeah its in the constitution | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality. I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it. | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
edit: Is it polygamy? I'm personally not against it if everyone is consensual. However, this issue is not the same as gay marriage. The legal implications of polygamy are far more complex and require a large restructuring of our current system. For instance, custody is a complex issue with 2 people and even more so with 3. If we were to consider full legal rights for polygamy, then there needs to be a serious look at the system. It's not the same at all to the issue of legal rights for gay couples, which require no change to the system. | ||
|
LashLash
Australia28 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:56 Mohdoo wrote: Is Australia very religious? The reason the USA has such a hard time with gay marriage is the fact that religious people tend to be opposed. I never knew of Australia as a very religious country... The demographics of irreligion has been shifting in Australia, and I would consider it much less religious than the US. We had an atheist Deputy Prime Minister as far back as 1930 and an atheist Prime Minister in the late 1960s. But the majority of people are Christian, and thus a strong political influence. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Australia : "In a 2008 global Gallup poll, nearly 70% of Australians stated religion as having no importance, much higher than their American counterparts, and on par with similarly secular countries such as Japan, the Netherlands, Finland, and France. Only a few Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) and post-Soviet states (Estonia) are markedly less religious." And in case people haven't read already, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia : "In July 2011 a survey of 543 people conducted by Roy Morgan measured the support for a number of positions on marriage. * 68% of Australians support same-sex marriage * 78% classify marriage as a ‘necessary’ institution, with only 22% opposing" | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote: Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action. The part about grants to aboriginals is not related to whether or not gay marriage should be allowed. It's a different question. What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father. Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your speculations? Without evidence, people who value evidence will discard everything you're saying (as your claim is a bare assertion fallacy when you don't adduce some evidence). | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: What I've learned from this thread: Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality. I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it. This is the type of opinion that is formed by looking at the masses when it comes to any topic. The reality is that most people dont really HAVE an informed opinion, they are just going with the flow of what makes their loved ones happy. That said, this post is completely useless since it doesnt address any issues, just the people supporting the issues which are irrelevant. When it comes down to it, there is no objective non-religious reason to not allow gay marriage in a free society, or at least I have not heard one. If somebody can tell me what requirement straight couples are required to meet in order to get married other than being opposite sexes that a gay couple cant meet then id love to hear it. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6232 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:58 ShatterStorm wrote: Very good point here. If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship. Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble" After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition. This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage. It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals. A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:25 mrafaeldie12 wrote: I think gay marriage should be legal in the entire universe. People that say it isnt natural clearly need to do better research because its fairly common amidst the animalia reign. The evidence that homosexuality is biological notwithstanding, the argument that X is not morally right because X is unnatural is a logical fallacy. | ||
|
sealpuncher
United States130 Posts
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion? | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:40 sevencck wrote: No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other I think this is a sensible null hypothesis until evidence/reason is provided by homosexual marriage antagonists that gives us reason to believe that it's flawed. | ||
|
Mcrat
Australia30 Posts
If the government changes the definition of marriage to include same sex couples then this has absolutely no impact on the church. All it means is the overarching definition of what is acceptable as marriage by the government has changed (for example I imagine you can't marry a dead person, so until they make legislation saying it's allowed, no one can do it). The government then allows churches to perform marriages as long as they tick the right boxes within the governments definition. So if church x refuses to marry two men - that's fine, because the law doesn't saw you have to marry them. If you won't do it they are free to find someone who will. If church y refuses to marry a women and man because both are not from the same religious background, that is fine as well. The church is allowed to have their own internal rules as long as they are compatible with the governments (eg polygamy is illegal under government law which supersedes church rules) If the government passed legislation today that allowed homosexual couples to marry do you know what would change in the churches - not a whole lot. They simply wouldn't do it (and are well within their rights to not to). Why they have any say in this, or why it hasn't already been signed is beyond me. | ||
|
GettinMyFill
Australia37 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION? I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion? Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse. Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION? I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion? Yes, because we are talking about a law about whether or not other people can get gay married. Which means you are imposing your beliefs on others. If their religion says gay marriage is okay, then why do you get to say otherwise? Many Christians believe that gay marriage is okay. Why do you get to say that they're wrong? | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:29 Mcrat wrote: Why they have any say in this, or why it hasn't already been signed is beyond me. They have a say because we live in a secular democracy. I don't like the dogmatist's influence either. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6232 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:29 GettinMyFill wrote: Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse. Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do. Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post... On October 21 2011 12:29 Mcrat wrote: Religious denominations should have no say in this matter. If the government changes the definition of marriage to include same sex couples then this has absolutely no impact on the church. All it means is the overarching definition of what is acceptable as marriage by the government has changed (for example I imagine you can't marry a dead person, so until they make legislation saying it's allowed, no one can do it). The government then allows churches to perform marriages as long as they tick the right boxes within the governments definition. So if church x refuses to marry two men - that's fine, because the law doesn't saw you have to marry them. If you won't do it they are free to find someone who will. If church y refuses to marry a women and man because both are not from the same religious background, that is fine as well. The church is allowed to have their own internal rules as long as they are compatible with the governments (eg polygamy is illegal under government law which supersedes church rules) If the government passed legislation today that allowed homosexual couples to marry do you know what would change in the churches - not a whole lot. They simply wouldn't do it (and are well within their rights to not to). Why they have any say in this, or why it hasn't already been signed is beyond me. This is a fair enough point. I'd argue that marriage hasn't been completely separated from the church yet, though. The overwhelming majority of people are still married in churches by ministers, often ministers who have never even met the couple before. I don't think it's actually correct to say that churches would be totally unaffected; if 90% of the ministers in the country started to refuse to marry people who did not follow the Christian ideology, there would be an uproar and they would be hit hard for discrimination. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: What I've learned from this thread: Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality. I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it. What I've learned from reading your posts is that you don't know how to read what others write properly. Maybe you should take a step back and actually think before you run your mouth. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION? I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion? You have the right to hold an opinion, you do not have the right to spout your opinion and not be told what others think of it. I respect that you have an opinion and that you are entitled to hold an opinion. That does not, however, mean that I have to respect the opinion that you hold. If it's a stupid opinion, I'll call it stupid. Having the right to hold an opinion is not the same as having the right to not be ridiculed for having a dumb opinion. If you have a good reason and share that reason with others and can adequately and logically (as well as rationally) explain why you hold that opinion, then that's one thing. If your reasoning is religious, that's something else entirely, and I have to tell you that your religious reasons are worth nothing to those who do not share your religion (and on this topic, not worth much to many who do share your religion). | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION? I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion? People are pationate about this issue because it is about identity and freedom. So no you should not be bashed for having an identity and expressing your freedom of having an opinion. What people will do is try and understand why you have that opinion. Most non-religious people believe that if you can't logically explain something, you are being unreasonable (it is actually the definition but never the less). To a person with faith, the argument makes no sense because logic doesn't enter into the matter. In short people shouldn't bash you but if they do it is because they do not understand you. There is also a responsibility on you to understand others. The main point being that by your choice of religion you are denying strangers the right to marry. | ||
|
GettinMyFill
Australia37 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:34 Belisarius wrote: Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post... If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right? Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me. | ||
|
sealpuncher
United States130 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:31 DoubleReed wrote: Yes, because we are talking about a law about whether or not other people can get gay married. Which means you are imposing your beliefs on others. If their religion says gay marriage is okay, then why do you get to say otherwise? Many Christians believe that gay marriage is okay. Why do you get to say that they're wrong? I get to say they're wrong because it's my opinion. I never said I disagree with implementing gay marriage did I? I think gay couples SHOULD have the same government defined opportunities as heterosexual couples because the government has no right to give unequal advantages to one group of people over another. There are lots of things that are completely permissible for the public but are considered wrong in the church. I don't understand why this isn't one of these things to be honest. I guess I should have clarified my actual opinion on implementing a gay marriage law. On October 21 2011 12:38 Probulous wrote: People are pationate about this issue because it is about identity and freedom. So no you should not be bashed for having an identity and expressing your freedom of having an opinion. What people will do is try and understand why you have that opinion. Most non-religious people believe that if you can't logically explain something, you are being unreasonable (it is actually the definition but never the less). To a person with faith, the argument makes no sense because logic doesn't enter into the matter. In short people shouldn't bash you but if they do it is because they do not understand you. There is also a responsibility on you to understand others. The main point being that by your choice of religion you are denying strangers the right to marry. I think I responded to your points above as well. I understand that the logic isn't there because determining what's right and wrong for a Christian is a matter of faith and not something that can be determined by society. I completely understand that it would be wrong for me to impose my beliefs on gay couples who want to have the same rights as straight couples. As long as this in no way becomes a matter of discrimination towards the church. | ||
| ||
