EPTOn October 22 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote:
I'm against it, because they are not respecting the church's right to tradition,
I'm against it, because they are not respecting the church's right to tradition,
Fallacy.
Australia to vote on Gay marrige - Page 29
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
Fallacy. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 22 2011 08:58 vetinari wrote: What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too). I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor. Technically I wasn't talking to you, but that's okay. I only bring that up because I think it would be very difficult to change that person's mind, but I have no idea what your opinion actually is. That evidence blatantly falls under "evidence that is impossible to attain." We simply don't have enough same-sex families currently. I don't understand fertility rate. What are you talking about? They're either adopting or some artificial stuff. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:16 DoubleReed wrote: Technically I wasn't talking to you, but that's okay. I only bring that up because I think it would be very difficult to change that person's mind, but I have no idea what your opinion actually is. That evidence blatantly falls under "evidence that is impossible to attain." We simply don't have enough same-sex families currently. I don't understand fertility rate. What are you talking about? They're either adopting or some artificial stuff. Fertility rate of the children, not the homosexual parents. | ||
|
PrideNeverDie
United States319 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:03 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote: This is the Australian Gay Marriage thread and you bring in a US defintion? ~_~ Hope it goes through, I live in the US but I think that gay marriage should be a given everywhere Australian legal definition of marriage is even more strict than the US one: The effect of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) and section 109 of the Constitution is that the Commonwealth has exclusive jurisdiction over the formation of marriages in Australia (i.e. there is no room for States to legislate). The descriptions of the term 'marriage' used in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) (s. 43(a)) and the Marriage Act 1961 (ss. 46(1) and 69(2)) are based on the definition in the 19th century English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee,(2) namely, a formal, monogamous and heterosexual union for life. no open marriages or marriages between a homosexual and a lesbian please give your rationale on why gay marriage should be a given everywhere. | ||
|
Disquiet
Australia628 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:13 greatZERG wrote: Marriage is a civil institution it has nothing to do with the church. The church merely refuses to do christian marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and pressures the government to continue denying them the civil institution of marriage. The church's right to traditions based on their beliefs? Does this mean the government should allow the church to hold slaves, stone people to death for eating the wrong things etc? Or are some traditions more important than others? Please don't use the slippery slope argument, as its ridiculous, I might as-well use it in the opposite way and say after they allow they marriage of gays soon they'll be marrying man to goats! It makes just as much sense as what you're implying. Aside from that I don't really care enough about this to have an argument about how much religion should have to do with marriage. I shouldn't have posted here, let the gays marry, whatever, lets get it over with we have more important things to be concerned about. | ||
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:31 Disquiet wrote: Please don't use the slippery slope argument, as its ridiculous, I might as-well use it in the opposite way and say after they allow they marriage of gays soon they'll be marrying man to goats! It makes just as much sense as what you're implying. Aside from that I don't really care enough about this to have an argument about how much religion should have to do with marriage. I shouldn't have posted here, let the gays marry, whatever, lets get it over with we have more important things to be concerned about. Is it though? Seems to me that society has been forced to fight against "the churches" ideas of what is right and moral and its "traditions" for centuries now and "the church" drops/changes its stances based on common consensus. Point being that if "the church" (or religion?) had it's way we would still have many things that are immoral (slavery?, bans on interracial marriages, etc.) and the further back in time you go with any of the main monotheism's, the more brutal and immoral its followers behaved. Edit: I don't really want to derail the thread into some religion debate, but it is hard to talk about homosexual marriage and not bring up the role that religion has on shaping peoples views on the topic. | ||
|
Def Leppard
9 Posts
| ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:22 vetinari wrote: Fertility rate of the children, not the homosexual parents. are you meaning amount of children who, coming out of same-sex families, are gay? or are you indicating somehow this could make them unable to reproduce? o_O | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:22 vetinari wrote: Fertility rate of the children, not the homosexual parents. What??? You mean the children of homosexual parents would choose not to have as many kids? How are those two things related? Or they would somehow be physically deficient? What? This argument seems entirely random. Please clarify. Is it though? Seems to me that society has been forced to fight against "the churches" ideas of what is right and moral and its "traditions" for centuries now and "the church" drops/changes its stances based on common consensus. Point being that if "the church" (or religion?) had it's way we would still have many things that are immoral (slavery?, bans on interracial marriages, etc.) and the further back in time you go with any of the main monotheism's, the more brutal and immoral its followers behaved. You're arguing the wrong direction. There are churches who think gay marriage is ok. Ban on gay marriage infringes on those church's religious beliefs. If churches don't want to marry gays they don't have to. That is completely up to them. Slippery slope doesn't really make sense. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:42 meatbox wrote: If homosexual couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples, do not call it marriage, that is my advice, only then would Australia pass such a vote, IMO. The problem is that if the state wants to recognize "marriage" then to not recognize it in the case of homosexuals is the state treating them separate but equal. The easiest thing would be for the state to just recognize civil unions and not give the term "marriage" to anyone, but that won't happen. The governments objective should be to treat everyone fairly and equally, not to pander to a portion of its population that wants to infringe on the rights of others or treat others as second-class citizens (no matter how large this portion of the population may be). And yes, not allowing homosexual couples to use the term marriage is treating them as second class, it is saying : you can have something similar/equivalent to what we have, but you cant have the same thing we have. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:50 DoubleReed wrote: What??? You mean the children of homosexual parents would choose not to have as many kids? How are those two things related? Or they would somehow be physically deficient? What? This argument seems entirely random. Please clarify. You're arguing the wrong direction. There are churches who think gay marriage is ok. Ban on gay marriage infringes on those church's religious beliefs. If churches don't want to marry gays they don't have to. That is completely up to them. Slippery slope doesn't really make sense. Liberal sects aren't as common or influential as you seem to think. Would I rather someone be Unitarian rather than an Orthodox Roman Catholic? Probably. But the later has always had, and still has more power and influence than the former. I think arguing religion in this way is silly though as individual people interpret scripture differently. The real point though is that the scriptural justification for all sorts of immoral beliefs are there, so the slippery slope is how lenient society as a whole is on allowing people to hold/ act/ influence policy based on these immoral things that can be justified with scripture. And my argument is that over time, especially in recent history, societies have constantly been forced to battle the religious on social issues, and society makes more progress when they stop allowing policy to be made based on religious texts. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:50 DoubleReed wrote: What??? You mean the children of homosexual parents would choose not to have as many kids? How are those two things related? Or they would somehow be physically deficient? What? This argument seems entirely random. Please clarify. They may choose not to have as many kids. Their upbringing may not equip them to be spouses and parents in heterosexual unions, since part of the role of parents is to teach their children about interpersonal relationships. I don't know, and that is why I want to find out before the floodgates are opened. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been) 1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state. 2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only) Solves both problems - the religious and legal. Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him. This is kind of my view. where i'm not against it per-se but i just don't understand why its such a big deal, why would someone want to marry the way that has a lot against them? Also legal marriage doesn't help with much other than make it very difficult during a divorce and help if you get kids which, right now and probably for a long time will not occur with gay marriage. Personally i'm not against seperating gays but at the same time i don't see why the same thing should apply to people that don't need all the services a legal marriage provides but still want a signed document that these two love each other. I get that love should triumph over red-tape, but whats the point in having the same word attributed to different legal areas with different possible mechanisms and procedures. | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On October 22 2011 12:13 vetinari wrote: They may choose not to have as many kids. Their upbringing may not equip them to be spouses and parents in heterosexual unions, since part of the role of parents is to teach their children about interpersonal relationships. I don't know, and that is why I want to find out before the floodgates are opened. Even if that WERE the case (psychology theory and current evidence is contrary) what would you lose on this? Same sex couple cannot get their own children. The only children they would have are a) orphans or b) artificial with donor help. In a) the statistics faaaar favor having loving parents than none at all. In b), well you woulnd't have those kids anyway! Seems like a pretty arbitrary sticking point. | ||
|
Kojak21
Canada1104 Posts
| ||
|
Def Leppard
9 Posts
| ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:56 Kickstart wrote: The problem is that if the state wants to recognize "marriage" then to not recognize it in the case of homosexuals is the state treating them separate but equal. The easiest thing would be for the state to just recognize civil unions and not give the term "marriage" to anyone, but that won't happen. The governments objective should be to treat everyone fairly and equally, not to pander to a portion of its population that wants to infringe on the rights of others or treat others as second-class citizens (no matter how large this portion of the population may be). And yes, not allowing homosexual couples to use the term marriage is treating them as second class, it is saying : you can have something similar/equivalent to what we have, but you cant have the same thing we have. The same thing, but the difference is the type of 'marriage,' heterosexual or homosexual, some lesbians look like men, some gay men look like women. (lol) | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural. If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural? | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
On October 22 2011 12:32 Def Leppard wrote: If masturbating is natural, then how come we can't create babies by masturbating? LOL, what a ridiculous rebuttal. User was warned for this post | ||
| ||
