Same-Sex Marriage (2 Viewers)

[Loz#1]

Can we get back on topic here please?

 

[Iunny]

Originally posted by glycerine
Some general thoughts for Iunny (and others)

If marriage is for coming together and making babies, what about infertile couples, or, more specifically, people who make a conscious decision not to have children? I would think that they're consciously defying "God's natural order".

But if we want to have babies, today societies' values would require that couple to marry. So on the natural side of things, I'm just saying marriage should be reserved for man-woman unions because they can naturally make babies thus not defying the natural order of things.

People who conciously made a decision to not have children, still retains the ability to have children.

If they are infertile? Hmm.. in a Christian pt of view, they are still legitimate to marry. Actually, only homosexuals in the Christian point of view should not marry because it is not how God wants it and by being a homosexual and still wanting to marry, people are abusing God's will. But I understand what you are saying and this only arised because of what I said lol.

Originally posted by glycerine
You cannot, from your position, give reliable statistics on homosexuality. If a religion is consciously against something, all evidence they come up with, is going to be extremely biased.[/B]

That is true, so I acknowledge that, but you cannot deny the existence of such statistics even though they tend to be biased, you will just have to judge them for yourself and plus, statistics cannot be biased, they can only be interpreted in a biased/prejudiced point of view. Just because the existence of these statistics defys what you believe, that doesn't make them any less wrong than any other statistics. If however, the people who wrote the book made it up, then we can just forget about it.

Also: try living in the real world, where not everyone is dominated by Christian values. Do you honestly think there are not other cultures and religions where people have gotten married, or something similar? [/B]

of course there are other cultures, but we are arguing on the Christianity point of view so I'm just giving my own Christianity point of view.

 

[Iunny]

By the way, I'm not trying to sound like I hate you all, I'm just arguing from my religion ok? So I do not mean any personal offence to anyone. If anyone is offended, i'm sorry

 

[felix_js]

well religion has no place in USA government nor here, so its wrong for their government to ban it

 

[Iunny]

^^thats not true, the legislation the basis for the laws actually came from the Bible

 

[felix_js]

well they shouldnt make a decision based on religion because it has no place in governments NOW

 

[glycerine]

Originally posted by Iunny
But if we want to have babies, today societies' values would require that couple to marry. So on the natural side of things, I'm just saying marriage should be reserved for man-woman unions because they can naturally make babies thus not defying the natural order of things.

People who conciously made a decision to not have children, still retains the ability to have children.

If they are infertile? Hmm.. in a Christian pt of view, they are still legitimate to marry. Actually, only homosexuals in the Christian point of view should not marry because it is not how God wants it and by being a homosexual and still wanting to marry, people are abusing God's will. But I understand what you are saying and this only arised because of what I said lol.

But the thing is, illegitmaticy is a lot less of a social no-no than it used to be. I was technically born illegitmate, as my parents were not married until abt 2 years after I was born, I know many couples with children who still aren't married. I'm not saying that because *I* know one or two people that the whole social bias has gone, but you cannot realistically say that illegimate children experience any kind of discrimination compared to what they would have 50 years ago. Marriage is no longer the binding sexual/social institution it once was, and therefore you can't really say that marriage is a pre-requisite of giving birth.

I still don't understand why you believe that people who cannot biologically ever have children, or consciously choose not to (and, in some cases, take medical steps to ensure that they never do), have more right to marry than homosexual couples, especially considering you said this:

I'm saying, marriage signifies the union of a man and woman where they come together as one, have sex and have babies.

If you are only having sex for pleasure, don't marry.

I mean, I understand that your religion dictates that homosexuality is an abomination. I really do. I don't think gay couples should necessarily approach, say, the catholic church to marry them, knowing that it is against their doctrine, just as I would not personally attend a Muslim sermon wearing a midriff top and hotpants.

Ultimately, you're only looking at marriage as a Christian institution, which it really isn't anymore. More than anything, it has become a legal institution (hence the need for pre-nups, etc). Like I said, I can really understand you disagreeing with homosexuals marrying *through* the church. I think it's a stupid attitude, but I understand where you're coming from. In terms of the law, however, if we are to create a secular society (which I believe, as a multicultural nation, we ultimately need), we cannot find our legal codes strictly in terms of one particular doctrine. You can be indoctrinated with whatever moral beliefs you want, and that is entirely your business, but when those moral beliefs stem entirely from a religious source, it is not your business to use that moral code to govern what the rest of a society does, especially one as diverse in religion spirituality etc as Australia.

I think that got really wordy, but I guess the point got through.

 

[Iunny]

And you did

yes i agree with you, I agree how everyone should be treated equally especially when homosexuality is not really a crime and affects other people's lives

But in my Christianity point of view, homosexuality is a no no

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by cro_angel
if they did allow gay/lesbian marriages.. the next thing will be more rights for them having children (access to adoption etc) but i think kids need a male and female influence in their lives (especially with the lack of male primary teachers) and like 2 mothers or 2 fathers would be.. weird?

And having 1 mother or 1 father is any better? Or being left as a ward of the state with no one to really care for you?

Originally posted by Asquithian
i mean will people eventually be able to marry the animals?...

If an animal is capable of intelligent thought and a loving relationship then why not? If we ever met further intelligent life should we not be allowed to marry them?

Originally posted by Iunny
and he specifically said that he gave birth to the woman so that the man would have a companion.

So not only are you refreeing to your lord as a he and giving them a gender, but you are saying that women are only here for men to have a companion so they should be thanking men for their existance and aim to please them in every way possible even if it means a lowering of their morals?

 

[bluesky100]

OK... I'll bite.

Gays should be afforded the same rights, priveleges, liberties, and persuit of happiness as any others.

My story and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[Toodulu]

yeh i agree with what glycerine is saying. iunny, i respect your beliefs to the extent that, obviously it doesn't sound like you'll be sexing any chicks anytime soon. and that's okay! but why should anyone be allowed to impose their beliefs on other people? what gives anyone the right to decide that "marriage is reserved only for blah blah and blah"? and that is precisely why i find what george bush is doing silly because.. okay. so your god doesn't like it. why should you impose that on all the people who do not follow the christian faith?
and also, maybe before people go around supporting george junior, we should question why he's bringing this up now.

Originally posted by Iunny
Ok... you got me there, so I must admit i'm not too familiar with the old testament. But many laws within the old testament are added by the "teachers of the law" and these laws are already righted by Jesus. And if they are true, that means we are all sinners, which is true according to Christianity.

and on Leviticus, many, including me and you, are punishable by death, not just homosexuals. And God dislikes many of our actions, not just homosexuality

ok. so i'm just going to make the assumption that you don't think we should punish people who work on the sabbath. why should you follow one part of the bible that says a man should not lie with another man, and then not follow other bits of the bible? or maybe you should just highlight the bits of the bible you want to follow?

Originally posted by Iunny
You do realise that religion is the constitute on how society works, and our society is based on the Bible. And frankly, as a female, I'm sure i love this society's laws over other ones

ahah. that's the thing. if your religion tells you things like homosexuality is a sinful choice. the earth is flat. that marriage is just so a man and woman can breed, then it certainly doesn't constitute the society that i'm living in. and to assume our diverse, multicultural society is based on the christian bible is so ignorant and presumptuous of you.

 

[Generator]

Originally posted by Iunny
But if we want to have babies, today societies' values would require that couple to marry.

Hahaha! glycerine has already made a comment on that point, but I still had to laugh...

The laws of the western world may be based on what was placed in the bible by who knows who who was smoking whatever, yet our society also functions on the idea that the church and the state are separate entities.

On the topic of marriage and children...
Anyone should be able to marry/form a legal union (if marriage is a religious affair, then why are civil celebrants able to perform the ceremony?) and have children through any legal process that is available to that person and their partner. The sexuality of a union has no bearing on how a child will be loved by its parents and how he or she will develop as a person (they may not grow with Howard's preferred values, but that's no big loss).


Note: Reading about the Marriage Act, 1961 has been more interesting than I thought it would be. It has next to no bearing on the topic, but eh. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/

 

[George W. Bush]

Bush sticks his nose everywhere, despite whether it's wanted or not.

and also, maybe before people go around supporting george junior, we should question why he's bringing this up now.

These quotes demonstrate the level of understanding of anything going on in mainland America. (i.e. the states called, they want their recognition).


melbournian: The argument for gay marriage is one of equality (actually, there is equality at the moment, gays want extra rights to be introduced to benefit them but anyway). It's a double standard if you say "well, we're going to allow gays to marry because otherwise it would be unfair, but we're not going to allow a man to have two wives."

@"marriage is already fucked" - many marriages today are unreligous, but that's not a reason to FURTHUR cheapen the idea of marriage (from a religious sense). That's like saying it doesn't matter if you commit armed robbery if you've already chalked up rape, murder and fraud. (and no, i'm not implying a link between homosexuality and violent crime, it's just an analogy)

@anti-Christianity - name one religion which encourages homosexuality.

@anti-religion in government - so, we should just allow murder, the Bible saying it's wrong shouldn't have ever lead us to making it a crime. Utopia

@ alleged homophobia - A phobia is a pesistant abnormal and irrational fear. Thinking gay men and women should not be able to get married is not a phobia, it's an opinion.


What is the only argument in favour of gay marriage? That gays should have the right to marry their significant others like heteros can. However, like I said before, why can't gays just accept the idea of a civil union which is functionally IDENTICAL to marriage, except that a civil union does not have religious roots. Is the acceptance of their relationship by the church that important?

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by melbournian
Those advocating the push to allow same-sex marriages do not want more rights than straight people. That is en par with Pauline Hanson's logic, that aboriginies have more rights than the rest of us. Equality is not achieved. I am not entirely sure about all the little details over there (ie. super, transfer of assetts etc)., but it is rife, just like it is here (ie. the case where a gay mans partner died, and could not transfer the car registration to his name for free as per straight couples due to VicRoads discriminatory policy.

This was a technicality. Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else in the country - the right to marry whoever they want, as long as they are of a different sex.

As I said before in ancient greece homosexuality was accepted, and encouraged.

You've already responded to this one for me:

No, laws should reflect societies values, and should protect society. They should not reflect the words on some fairy tale book from the dark ages.

(Oh and, are you saying, if a majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage, these values should be reflected in the laws?)

The fact that your arguement defies all common sense, means it is irrational. Clearly a phobia.

Even if we assume that my argument defies all common sense, that doesn't signify a phobia. That's like saying checking your house door is locked twice signifies an irrational fear of robbery.

Frankly I don't think most homosexuals could give two shits whether the church accepts the marriage, but whether the state accepts it.

So why can't you accept a civil union?

 

[hipsta_jess]

Originally posted by Iunny
But if we want to have babies, today societies' values would require that couple to marry.

i beg to differ, i dont know the exact figures, but a HUGE number of babies of today are born out of wedlock
infact, i have 4 neices n nephews, only 2 of which were born in wedlock (brother and sister) and yet they have ALL been christened/baptised...why would the churches allow this if it was deemed immoral or whatever....and this is just within my immediate family, look out there into wider society and you will find thousands of similar stories

 

[glycerine]

okay, the thing is, if gays are not allowed to gain the same benefits from committing to their chosen partner, as straight people are, it's not equal. they do *technically* have the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. however, that's along the lines of arranged marriage, something most people would say that our society as a whole has moved on from, no? marriage is seen as institutionalised love... emphasis on the word LOVE, so why should homosexuals have to marry someone that they don't love in order to get the same financial benefits, as someone who does have the opportunity to marry for love?

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by glycerine
okay, the thing is, if gays are not allowed to gain the same benefits from committing to their chosen partner, as straight people are, it's not equal. they do *technically* have the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. however, that's along the lines of arranged marriage, something most people would say that our society as a whole has moved on from, no? marriage is seen as institutionalised love... emphasis on the word LOVE, so why should homosexuals have to marry someone that they don't love in order to get the same financial benefits, as someone who does have the opportunity to marry for love?

in before glycerine realises what a civil union is, yo.

 

[Snapwizard]

Why is Religion the main issue here, lets try to only speak for those who done blieve in or have any spirtual connection to any religion, people should be able to do what they want, From where I see it, if it dosnt directly effect me then why stop it.

 

[hipsta_jess]

Originally posted by Snapwizard
Why is Religion the main issue here, lets try to only speak for those who done blieve in or have any spirtual connection to any religion, people should be able to do what they want, From where I see it, if it dosnt directly effect me then why stop it.

...coz iunny decided to start preaching the laws of god...

 

[Toodulu]

religion is a main issue here because bush is appealing to the conservative vote. go through his speeches and count how many times the name of The Almighty TM is mentioned and you'll see the sad truth