Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 324
Like Tree125Likes

Thread: Same Sex Marriage Debate

  1. #201
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    HSC
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    471
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Apples & oranges.
    You understand the reason why the right is not given, is because of what marriage is by definition.
    Those who don't agree with the 'yes' vote, do not buy in the idea that somehow marriage is a right just for two people who love each other, but is instrically tied up with the raising of children.

    for e.g.
    https://www.facebook.com/VoteNoAustr...2321679922044/


    correct, and neither do I think that is a good reason to vote yes/no

    correction, not by convention, by definition.

    The whole reason the state got involved with marriage was its connections with procreation and the responsibility of parents/raising children, it was/has never been about love, and the affirmation of love. Gay couples can have their approval by society and more, in the parades they run, they can be viewed as even superior relationships than the heterosexual relationships.
    But the fact that it is a religious concept means that if the state decides to change its definition, they're imposing on religions and forcing them to change the definition of something which is inherently theirs. No-one can tell me why a civil union isn't enough for homosexuals...

    It all goes back to separation of church and state. If we're going to use it as an argument for voting yes ('because religion isn't an argument') why are we letting the government change the definition of a religious concept.

    Ultimately this shows me that by voting yes, rights to freedom of religion are being violated by having the original definitions from religious traditions reformed.

    This debate shouldn't be about accepting homosexuals, it should be if the religious concept of marriage should be reformed by the government. The fact that homosexuality is legal and there are civil unions available shows that 'acceptance' is not the issue at stake here.

  2. #202
    the head cheese cosmo 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    HSC
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    crossing those hills
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate


  3. #203
    -insert title here- Paradoxica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Outside reality
    Posts
    2,417
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by boredofstudiesuser1 View Post
    But the fact that it is a religious concept means that if the state decides to change its definition, they're imposing on religions and forcing them to change the definition of something which is inherently theirs. No-one can tell me why a civil union isn't enough for homosexuals...

    It all goes back to separation of church and state. If we're going to use it as an argument for voting yes ('because religion isn't an argument') why are we letting the government change the definition of a religious concept.

    Ultimately this shows me that by voting yes, rights to freedom of religion are being violated by having the original definitions from religious traditions reformed.

    This debate shouldn't be about accepting homosexuals, it should be if the religious concept of marriage should be reformed by the government. The fact that homosexuality is legal and there are civil unions available shows that 'acceptance' is not the issue at stake here.
    It is not even close to doing anything with that.

    Homosexual couples do not have the same legal socio-economic protections as straight couples.

    That is the relevant issue at hand here. Not religious customs.

    And if you wish to drag religious customs back into this, I suggest you look into the "biblical" definition of marriage.
    SammyT123 and baktiar77 like this.
    If I am a conic section, then my e = ∞

    Just so we don't have this discussion in the future, my definition of the natural numbers includes 0.

  4. #204
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradoxica View Post
    It is not even close to doing anything with that.

    Homosexual couples do not have the same legal socio-economic protections as straight couples.

    That is the relevant issue at hand here. Not religious customs.

    And if you wish to drag religious customs back into this, I suggest you look into the "biblical" definition of marriage.
    In terms of socio-economic, putting aside the word "marriage" itself, de-facto couples have ALMOST the same rights due to changes enacted in Federal Parliament in 2008, and at least in NSW, from a legal standpoint, these inequities have been addressed. The problem is sometimes, the law is not applied properly/enforced, and so unreasonable discrimination still exists of course.

    The changes/legal rights can be accomplished up to the point of the marriage and even those who would disagree with "marriage equality" still see the merit up to that point.

    Umm, the biblical definition of marriage, is one man and one woman, Jesus clearly affirms this (see Jesus speaking on divorce), the apostles clearly affirm this.
    Most religious beliefs and historically held ideas about marriage, do not dispute the gendered nature of marriage; which is what the SSM debate wishes to change.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  5. #205
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by boredofstudiesuser1 View Post
    But the fact that it is a religious concept means that if the state decides to change its definition, they're imposing on religions and forcing them to change the definition of something which is inherently theirs. No-one can tell me why a civil union isn't enough for homosexuals...

    It all goes back to separation of church and state. If we're going to use it as an argument for voting yes ('because religion isn't an argument') why are we letting the government change the definition of a religious concept.

    Ultimately this shows me that by voting yes, rights to freedom of religion are being violated by having the original definitions from religious traditions reformed.

    This debate shouldn't be about accepting homosexuals, it should be if the religious concept of marriage should be reformed by the government. The fact that homosexuality is legal and there are civil unions available shows that 'acceptance' is not the issue at stake here.
    If it is a exclusively religious concept, (which it isn't), then what right does the government have to legislate marriage in the first place, whatever definition one subscribes to?

    "Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion."

    The constitution makes it clear, that laws based on religion (e.g. sharia) are not permitted to be made in this case, this implies that marriage should not be legislated.


    But the constitution also gives the right for the government to make laws concerning marriage. This undermines Australia's legal system, and presents a problem for religious freedom for the non-religious.

    2 things to be noted:
    1. Yes people who think pushing for a 'no' vote, is a violation of church/state separation (which only is enshrined in section 116, paraphrased earlier), make the same fundamental assumption you do, but also argue that marriage can also be a concept borrowed from religion for their ends.

    2. You will find that even if the law passes, "Christian marriage" and the religious concept of marriage as viewed by Jesus & his earliest followers, won't be changed/viewed any differently (except by maybe the most liberal of people).

    I agree there are issues with the "yes" camp before/after legalisation pushing their views on religious individuals and sometimes, religious organisations especially religious schools, however within Christianity itself, we will still view marriage in the same way that Jesus did.
    Last edited by dan964; 10 Oct 2017 at 11:11 PM.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  6. #206
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    344
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Apples & oranges.
    You understand the reason why the right is not given, is because of what marriage is by definition.
    Those who don't agree with the 'yes' vote, do not buy in the idea that somehow marriage is a right just for two people who love each other, but is instrically tied up with the raising of children.

    for e.g.
    https://www.facebook.com/VoteNoAustr...2321679922044/


    correct, and neither do I think that is a good reason to vote yes/no

    correction, not by convention, by definition.

    The whole reason the state got involved with marriage was its connections with procreation and the responsibility of parents/raising children, it was/has never been about love, and the affirmation of love. Gay couples can have their approval by society and more, in the parades they run, they can be viewed as even superior relationships than the heterosexual relationships.
    "vote no because marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Gotta keep in line with them archaic definitions!!"

    Honestly , times change. I couldn't care less if we had to redefine the word marriage itself .

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

  7. #207
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    "vote no because marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Gotta keep in line with them archaic definitions!!"

    Honestly , times change. I couldn't care less if we had to redefine the word marriage itself .

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
    and that is your opinion, and yes you are allowed to have it, and people, like myself will respectfully disagree.

    lmho, some people do care about the definition, and generally they are mostly voting no.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  8. #208
    Executive Member iBibah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    HSC
    2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,380
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by enoilgam View Post
    Well, it cant because the 70 year old's rights would infringe upon and unduly burden those of the 5 year old. Regardless, I would argue that with the appropriate protections, the right of LGBT people to marry wouldnt infringe upon the right to religious freedom. If the law covers churches from performing marriages and a conscience clause for business, I dont see the issue.
    I'm a bit late but just my 2c when discussing human rights.
    Firstly, the government recognises marriage - it doesn't create it.

    Assuming marriage is whatever one wants it to be, a persons right to enter into a marriage does not mean another person (or the state) must recognise it. Everyone has the right to pursue what they feel is a marriage, if someone stops them then that is infringing on their rights. However changing the law is fighting for recognition, which can infringe on anothers individual liberty if they are forced to recognise it.
    SammyT123 likes this.

  9. #209
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    344
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    and that is your opinion, and yes you are allowed to have it, and people, like myself will respectfully disagree.

    lmho, some people do care about the definition, and generally they are mostly voting no.
    Its terrible that people value archaic definitions over legal recognition of some very basic legal rights

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
    baktiar77 likes this.

  10. #210
    Cadet
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    89
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Anyone who votes no is a dumb cunt!

    A shitload of the 'no' campaigners arguments are based on bullshit like transgenderism and boys wearing dresses.... Like what the fuck, nice of them to completely change the topic and not only invoke homophobia but also transphobia. Oh and the stats they keep rehashing from some absurd Canadian report, not only exaggerated but heavily edited to fit their narrow point of view.

    Also, anyone who argues for it on religious grounds shouldn't be throwing stones at glass houses. Sure, the Bible/quran/torah etc. are all strict on marriage being between man and woman, but they also have very strict laws on no sex before marriage, dietary requirements, and a bunch of other rulings which many hypocrites go around saying are "outdated" or whatnot. So what stops the definition of marriage from being outdated? Or do you only pick and choose parts of your religious book to fit your agenda when you see fit.
    P.S. Wasn't the Anglican Church created by an English King to change the definition of marriage/divorce? Ironic.

    Oh and can't forget about the crowd that votes 'NO' because they're anti-SJW/PC. That takes the cake for utter stupidity they showcase. The same crowd (mostly men) who complain about men being discriminated and victimised against and degrade women as thots and whatnot, are against the fellow "Brodies" marrying the superior gender and avoiding "thots".

    Anyway, this is all coming from a straight, conservative guy with no gay mates who doesn't give 2 fucks about the $122 MILLION OPINION POLL. Just get equal rights over and done with in 30secs, and focus on real issues like housing prices, the energy market fuckers and telling China to fuck off bullying others countries in the South China Sea and supporting North Korea.
    Last edited by baktiar77; 12 Oct 2017 at 8:27 PM.

  11. #211
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    Its terrible that people value archaic definitions over legal recognition of some very basic legal rights

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
    archaic, that is in an opinion. up until 10-15 years ago, there would no contest really on what marriage was in Australian society.

    'basic legal rights' - again an opinion, very charged I must admit.
    Nothing in UN declaration of human rights, mandates recognition of same sex couples as marriage.
    In fact the 1984 sex discrimination act which is based on all the UN charters, specifies mentions, nothing in the Marriage Act 1961, can be considered discriminatory.

    why do you think marriage was introduced into our laws? to affirm love? of course not.
    It was an institution that is linked with family, and the responsibilities of raising children.

    It has never been the government's business nor interest to judge or act as arbritrate on the quality of those relationships, nor on the private sex life of the public members (within reason). Our society seems to affirm them (same-sex relationships) anyways, and laws seek to address the inequities.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  12. #212
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    344
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    archaic, that is in an opinion. up until 10-15 years ago, there would no contest really on what marriage was in Australian society.

    'basic legal rights' - again an opinion, very charged I must admit.
    Nothing in UN declaration of human rights, mandates recognition of same sex couples as marriage.
    In fact the 1984 sex discrimination act which is based on all the UN charters, specifies mentions, nothing in the Marriage Act 1961, can be considered discriminatory.

    why do you think marriage was introduced into our laws? to affirm love? of course not.
    It was an institution that is linked with family, and the responsibilities of raising children.

    It has never been the government's business nor interest to judge or act as arbritrate on the quality of those relationships, nor on the private sex life of the public members (within reason). Our society seems to affirm them (same-sex relationships) anyways, and laws seek to address the inequities.
    Let's perform the objective test to determine if a double standard exists, since anything which is remotely subjective (such as the word archaic) seems to be automatically rejected by you

    Name a difference between same sex couples and gay couples that justifies different legal treatment .

    If you cannot, it is a double standard

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

  13. #213
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by baktiar77 View Post
    Anyone who votes no is a dumb cunt!

    A shitload of the 'no' campaigners arguments are based on bullshit like transgenderism and boys wearing dresses.... Like what the fuck, nice of them to completely change the topic and not only invoke homophobia but also transphobia. Oh and the stats they keep rehashing from some absurd Canadian report, not only exaggerated but heavily edited to fit their narrow point of view.
    Yeah except for the fact, that logically for the push/advance of LGBTIQ "rights", which for them* (some not nec. all) this is what is all about, transgenderism and the removal of gender distinction is the next battle to be won. You could accuse it of a slippery slope of course, except that is exactly how the campaign has headed in the UK and in other countries that have adopted ssm as their marriage policy/definition.

    Also, anyone who argues for it on religious grounds shouldn't be throwing stones at glass houses. Sure, the Bible/quran/torah etc. are all strict on marriage being between man and woman, but they also have very strict laws on no sex before marriage, dietary requirements, and a bunch of other rulings which many hypocrites go around saying are "outdated" or whatnot.
    Kind of a theological sidetrack to explain:

    Jesus clearly declares all food clean in the New Testament, so that one is clear. Besides in the same section, he slams the religious elite for holding to their own traditions, and nullifying God's word. What makes a person unclean is what comes out of their heart, this is why certain things are emphasised by the Jesus/apostles in the New Testament, such as sexual immorality and all that, and things like food laws, laws of wearing clothing are not.

    The primary purpose of those strict laws most of which are in the Old Testament, was to set Israel apart from other nations, including the food laws. Ultimately Jesus says he is the fulfillment of the law in Matthew 5 for instance, but then proceeds to teach to his disciples, about how following him would impact the way they live. What sets Christians apart, is no longer their adherance to the law of Moses or even the 10 Commandments, but rather as people depending on Jesus alone for salvation rather than their own obedience or good works. (that said the latter leads to a changed life)

    With respect to the debate on marriage, Jesus in speaking on divorce, clearly affirms an understanding of marriage as one man and one woman. Paul in the same section when describing homosexual acts as sin, also comments that it is not the place of Christians to judge those outside the church and also comments "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.", that because Christians are bought/redeemed back by Jesus death.

    So what stops the definition of marriage from being outdated? Or do you only pick and choose parts of your religious book to fit your agenda when you see fit.
    Some do pick/choose, whether it be religious or not. Ironically it is sometimes those who want to affirm same-sex marriage and all that.

    Marriage isn't simply a religious concept anyways, as many have said. You can put forward a case to say that marriage as a secular institution is outdated in terms of its definitions, but the real question, is can you do that, without removing the whole reason marriage was put into statute law in the first place...

    As for Christian teaching on marriage, is firmly rooted in how Christians believe God purposed the world to be; and God's purposes behind it. That does inform Christian people when they speak of their views on the subject, so I myself cannot claim, not to be as biased as the most avid gay-rights supporter either.

    P.S. Wasn't the Anglican Church created by an English King to change the definition of marriage/divorce? Ironic.
    There is some truth in that but it is also slightly misleading to a degree.

    The Anglican church (or church of England) existed well (it was established in 587BC) before Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wives. But it depends on which view you take.

    With regards to the particular time you have in mind, the wider religious context was the Reformation which was said to begun 500 years (to date 31/10/17) with Martin Luther nailing his 95 thesis on a church door in Wittemburg. this is also in a time where religion and politics often affecting each other more closely.

    Many government used the opportunity of religious split that the Reformation & Luther in general had from Roman Catholic dogma (and also the catholic Counter-Reformation), for their political ends, often pushed ironically by religious extremists and zealots (who even in Luther's day such figures existed and were opposed by Luther and other key figures in the Reformation).

    One notable example is that of Henry VIII, in his own interests, mainly political sought to severe his ties with the political powers of Rome (in the papacy), so that yes he could divorce his wife; and so rejecting both the poltical (and consequently the spiritual) authority of the Pope/papacy in 1534; thus distinguishing the Church of England as being separate/a schism occured.

    As a result of this political climate, the religious reforms and the character and teachings of the church, as being reformed; came not at the hand of Henry VIII, but people like Thomas Cramner. Cranmer was an influential person, who held to the teaching of the Reformation, that salvation was by grace alone, through faith alone and in Christ alone; and it is him, and others like him, that had the influence in shaping the church's understanding not just on salvation but also marriage itself; rather than Henry VIII. Even though the church was separated itself from Rome, major religious reforms away from Catholic teaching did not happen during Henry VIII's rule (since Henry himself indeed had spoken out against Lutheranism in 1521, and remaining "essentially Catholic" to some degree)

    Religious reform and political reform continued progress. It was in the reign of Henry VIII's son, Edward VII, that the teachings (of Anglicanism of the variant you have in Sydney) took shape, adopting the teaching of the Reformation, reflecting in the production of the Prayer Book in both 1549, 1552.

    These reforms were reversed in 1553, under Queen Mary I, to a more catholic position (which resulting in Cranmer and Latimer being burnt at the stake for refusing to renounce Protestant/Reformed teaching).

    It returned to a more reformed position with Queen Elizabeth I in 1558/1559; with a settlement between the Catholic and Protestant groups within the church occuring during her reign. Although in 1570, she was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church

    An interesting history of religion and politics

    Oh and can't forget about the crowd that votes 'NO' because they're anti-SJW/PC. That takes the cake for utter stupidity they showcase. The same crowd (mostly men) who complain about men being discriminated and victimised against and degrade women as thots and whatnot, are against the fellow "Brodies" marrying the superior gender and avoiding "thots".
    The far right is far from right, may I say.

    Although their position does reveal one thing: is should we neglect the situations when men are victims of abuse or inequalities in legal proceedings such as divorce cases?; it is a much tricky issue than it would appear on the surface.

    Anyway, this is all coming from a straight, conservative guy with no gay mates who doesn't give 2 fucks about the $122 MILLION OPINION POLL. Just get equal rights over and done with in 30secs, and focus on real issues like housing prices, the energy market fuckers and telling China to fuck off bullying others countries in the South China Sea and supporting North Korea.
    fair enough
    Last edited by dan964; 16 Oct 2017 at 2:39 PM.
    baktiar77 likes this.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  14. #214
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    344
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    archaic, that is in an opinion. up until 10-15 years ago, there would no contest really on what marriage was in Australian society.

    'basic legal rights' - again an opinion, very charged I must admit.
    Nothing in UN declaration of human rights, mandates recognition of same sex couples as marriage.
    In fact the 1984 sex discrimination act which is based on all the UN charters, specifies mentions, nothing in the Marriage Act 1961, can be considered discriminatory.

    why do you think marriage was introduced into our laws? to affirm love? of course not.
    It was an institution that is linked with family, and the responsibilities of raising children.

    It has never been the government's business nor interest to judge or act as arbritrate on the quality of those relationships, nor on the private sex life of the public members (within reason). Our society seems to affirm them (same-sex relationships) anyways, and laws seek to address the inequities.
    What is the primary concern you have with legal recognition of marriage rights for SSC?

  15. #215
    New Member hardkorsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    HSC
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    My concern would be that marriage is fundamentally biological.

    We should keep religion out of this, but:

    We should keep the law out of this too!

    Definitions may vary, but I think marriage represents "the family" (hard to disagree).
    And "the family" is a biological term as much as a legal one. SSC cannot make kids and cannot raise kids "properly", hence should not marry.

    As a child you go skiing, fishing, Bathurst with your dad. You are kissed and comforted by tender motherly love that no amount of friends or lovers can replace.

    If you have 2 mums or 2 dads, your development is missing out. In a traumatically big way!

    Not to mention SSCs cannot have kids. You can't be born from 2 penises - they don't fit into each other for a very valid biological reason.

    Love is love - SURE!
    But marriage is marriage.

  16. #216
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    Let's perform the objective test to determine if a double standard exists, since anything which is remotely subjective (such as the word archaic) seems to be automatically rejected by you

    Name a difference between same sex couples and gay couples that justifies different legal treatment .

    If you cannot, it is a double standard

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
    1. same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate; in principle.
    2. men and women are biologically/genetically and psychologically difference so these 3 are different:
    - men & women sexual union
    - men & men sexual union
    - women & women sexual union.

    i think those two reasons, are enough for a government to be permitted to make a distinction.
    Last edited by dan964; 16 Oct 2017 at 2:14 PM. Reason: spelling typo
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  17. #217
    Supreme Member seanieg89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    HSC
    2007
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,680
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    1. same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate; in principle.
    2. men and women are biologically/genetically and psychologically difference so these 3 are different:
    - men & women sexual union
    - men & men sexual union
    - women & women sexual union.

    i think those two reasons, are enough for a government to be permitted to make a distinction.
    People of different race have difference in their genetic makeup too. Does this justify giving different legal rights to couples of differing race, or interracial couples?

  18. #218
    Supreme Member seanieg89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    HSC
    2007
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,680
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by hardkorsun View Post

    If you have 2 mums or 2 dads, your development is missing out. In a traumatically big way!

    Not to mention SSCs cannot have kids. You can't be born from 2 penises - they don't fit into each other for a very valid biological reason.
    What is this claim based on? And ANY heterosexual couples have the legal right to a marriage, and the benefits that come with. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that are in high likelihood going to be awful parents to any children they raise or do not want to have children at all, yet a homosexual couple is not granted the same right on no other grounds than their sexual preference, despite their love for each other and their desire (or lack thereof) to raise a family together.


    On your second point, do you also feel that sterile heterosexual adults should not be allowed to marry? I don't see how biological ability to have children together should affect this legal right. (And it is a legal right that is being debated here, whether or not you thing marriage should be a legal matter in a perfect world.)

  19. #219
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by seanieg89 View Post
    People of different race have difference in their genetic makeup too. Does this justify giving different legal rights to couples of differing race, or interracial couples?
    sure if race was explicit in the definition of marriage, which it isn't for good reasons.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  20. #220
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by seanieg89 View Post
    On your second point, do you also feel that sterile heterosexual adults should not be allowed to marry? I don't see how biological ability to have children together should affect this legal right. (And it is a legal right that is being debated here, whether or not you thing marriage should be a legal matter in a perfect world.)
    The video posted earlier in the thread presents why this objection is tenuous; marriage in principle, is linked with the raising of children and the obligations of
    that:
    https://www.facebook.com/VoteNoAustr...2321679922044/

    https://www.unicef.org.au/Upload/UNI...riendlycrc.pdf

    (9) "Children should not be separated from their parents unless it is for their own good. For example, if a parent is mistreating or neglecting a child.
    Children whose parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might harm the child. "


    Article 16 of the UN charter of human rights:
    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State

    and so on. while there is no prescription nor requirement to allow/deny same-sex marriage, we do have to ask questions about what purpose marriage actually serves as opposed to a recognised union of the state.
    Last edited by dan964; 16 Oct 2017 at 4:35 PM.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  21. #221
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    344
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    1. same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate; in principle.
    2. men and women are biologically/genetically and psychologically difference so these 3 are different:
    - men & women sexual union
    - men & men sexual union
    - women & women sexual union.

    i think those two reasons, are enough for a government to be permitted to make a distinction.
    This is about legal recognition of marriage not sex?
    Read the title of the thread lol

    Btw, if being 'biologically different' to you means we should prevent them from marriage, do you also think that infertile men/women should also be stripped of marriage rights?

    And the 'explicit' definition of marriage you state doesn't include sex anywhere

    the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

    Do you think all historical definitions should be kept? Why not?

    I can give you some very very troublesome historical representations of words if you like , let's see if you accept them today
    Last edited by SammyT123; 17 Oct 2017 at 12:33 AM.

  22. #222
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    This is about legal recognition of marriage not sex?
    Read the title of the thread lol

    Btw, if being 'biologically different' to you means we should prevent them from marriage, do you also think that infertile men/women should also be stripped of marriage rights?

    And the 'explicit' definition of marriage you state doesn't include sex anywhere

    the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

    Do you think all historical definitions should be kept? Why not?

    I can give you some very very troublesome historical representations of words if you like , let's see if you accept them today
    if it is as you say an arbitrary legal definition, then why is it so important to emphasise the fact that it discriminates supposedly on sexual preference, if it is not about sex?

    Marriage has always be linked with sex and procreation, it is one of the reasons the institution exists.

    Historical definitions have be changed, for instance the definition of humanity. However, changing a definition isn't necessary in the best interests especially when the concept then becomes devoid of meaning.

    You are committing a fallacy of some kind, you think that you can throw as many ridiculous historical definitions that would violate even the UN charter of rights to somehow argue that marriage needs to be redefined.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  23. #223
    -insert title here- Paradoxica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Outside reality
    Posts
    2,417
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    if it is as you say an arbitrary legal definition, then why is it so important to emphasise the fact that it discriminates supposedly on sexual preference, if it is not about sex?

    Marriage has always be linked with sex and procreation, it is one of the reasons the institution exists.

    Historical definitions have be changed, for instance the definition of humanity. However, changing a definition isn't necessary in the best interests especially when the concept then becomes devoid of meaning.

    You are committing a fallacy of some kind, you think that you can throw as many ridiculous historical definitions that would violate even the UN charter of rights to somehow argue that marriage needs to be redefined.
    Ok firstly, scientists have figured out how to create opposite gendered zygotes for both sexes so that argument is no longer valid.
    SammyT123 likes this.
    If I am a conic section, then my e = ∞

    Just so we don't have this discussion in the future, my definition of the natural numbers includes 0.

  24. #224
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradoxica View Post
    Ok firstly, scientists have figured out how to create opposite gendered zygotes for both sexes so that argument is no longer valid.
    firstly, this is purely research and not pragmatic/practice yet, and for good reason, there are massive ethical questions about allowing that, even just the stem cell research

    which the question is why historically speaking, the focus has primarily been on male-female relations for procreation?
    you can argue exemptions as say:
    - what about infertile couples
    - what about older people

    There is a reason why procreation is principle is restricted to male-female, because that is the regular pattern we find in nature, for reproduction.

    Some quotes on the subject:
    Suter flags up that while IVG may be “preferable” to other fertility treatments in some circumstances, in others it could be “substantially more problematic”.

    For instance, in the case of “solo IVG” all of the baby’s genetic material would come from one person’s DNA, which could lead to greater “safety challenges”.

    Other fertility experts have echoed concerns about IVG.
    It would completely challenge our notion of parenthood with very complex legal implications. That’s where it gets very scary
    Yeah I don't think that rabbit hole is a good idea to go down.

  25. #225
    -insert title here- Paradoxica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Outside reality
    Posts
    2,417
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    firstly, this is purely research and not pragmatic/practice yet, and for good reason, there are massive ethical questions about allowing that, even just the stem cell research

    which the question is why historically speaking, the focus has primarily been on male-female relations for procreation?
    you can argue exemptions as say:
    - what about infertile couples
    - what about older people

    There is a reason why procreation is principle is restricted to male-female, because that is the regular pattern we find in nature, for reproduction.

    Some quotes on the subject:




    Yeah I don't think that rabbit hole is a good idea to go down.
    "it's challenging and scary and complicated, therefore we shouldn't do it"

    hm, wonder where I've heard THAT before.
    SammyT123 likes this.
    If I am a conic section, then my e = ∞

    Just so we don't have this discussion in the future, my definition of the natural numbers includes 0.

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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