Gay Marriage

[basilio]

Quote Originally Posted by Calliope View Post

So why the big uproar about them not getting married. They claim they are being discriminated against. It reminds me of the story of the lesbian who felt discriminated against because she wasn't allowed to be a sperm donor.


That is a very compelling story Calliope.. Lesbian not allowed to be a sperm donor.. Who would have guessed.
Would you like to share the source of that particular gem with us ?

I think I understand you better now calliope. You simply have NFI - and don't have the faintest clue about that situation .

It certainly makes it easier to spout absolute certainty when you don't have to let reality get in the way.

 

[nomore4s]

As Nomore pointed they have the same rights as any other couple.

Except they can't get married if they choose too.

 

[bellenuit]

I have already said what I think in here numerous times
Bellenuit that is so wrong.
Religion hates no one.

Unless you limit the definition of religion to the beliefs of some obscure sect living in the Amazon rain forest, I would not agree that religion hates no one. One has only to look at some of the placards of the religious Right in the US to see otherwise. "Jesus hates gays" signs are not uncommon.

There are numerous examples of hate from the main stream Churches that I could drag up, but they have already been done to death on other threads.

Every child has a right to be with their mother AND father.
That should be what marraige is about.
What we teach our children.

Gay marriage and the right of gays to adopt children are two different matters. Personally, and I have expressed this earlier in this thread, I think gays should be allowed adopt. However, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, preference should be given to a heterosexual couple over a gay couple, for the very reason that I think it is preferable to have both a mother and father than to have just two of the same sex. It could turn out that having mixed sex parents is no better for the child than having same sex parents, but I don't think society has enough data on the latter to make a judgement yet.

 

[Calliope]

It certainly makes it easier to spout absolute certainty when you don't have to let reality get in the way.

Good one bas. Just like you on on the GW thread.

Except they can't get married if they choose too

from Nomore.

Why the hell would they want to get married?

 

[Julia]

Its just the vibe thing in my view Julia,

I have no idea what "the vibe thing" is.

What I don't get is why religion seems to think it has some sort of ownership over marriage. It's not like it didn't exist before Christianity or that it doesn't exist outside of the Abrahamic religions.

True, of course, but isn't marriage for many people tied up with their religious beliefs? Doesn't the Catholic Church still suggest people should not have sex outside of marriage? No artificial contraception?

There's no way I can find religion defensible personally, especially nonsense like the above. But it's an important feature of some people's existence and I don't quite see why their attitudes shouldn't be respected as much as those of homosexual people.

As far as I'm concerned, I could care less what two consenting adults want to do with or to eachother. If no one is getting hurt then its none of my business. If they want to express their commitment to eachother through marriage then I can see no reason why they should be stopped.

Totally reasonable. I don't care either, but don't particularly want to see those to whom religious faith matters getting trampled too much in the process.

I can just envisage the next step being that churches will face allegations of discrimination if they don't agree to marry gay couples.

Then, if people who choose to have multiple partners at the same time decide they also should have the right to marry, are we going to agree with that also? Wouldn't that also be 'marriage equality'?

Ditto incestuous relationships?

The gay community say that because they love each other that should be the only reason necessary for allowing them to get married. So why wouldn't the same criteria apply to multiple partners and incestuous relationships?

Christianity is nothing more then excuse for people to enforce their beliefs on others, again you only have to look through the history of the Church to see to how far the church will take that if given the chance. The church has a strong history of being a corrupt and sometimes vile organisation, and I for one am glad it doesn't wield the power it used to in our society - even if I think it still has too much influence.

I agree entirely. But you're not going to get religious people to accept that. And surely they're as entitled to their beliefs as any of the rest of us?

 

[Gringotts Bank]

There's no way I can find religion defensible personally, especially nonsense like the above. But it's an important feature of some people's existence and I don't quite see why their attitudes shouldn't be respected as much as those of homosexual people.

Exactly. Most people are sheep. Currently, the herd is moving in the direction of "pro homosexuality", so you better make sure you're on the bandwagon, ok? No alternate views allowed.

It's ok to hate, so long as the hate is directed at religious people! : A gay person who hates religious people would be ok in the current herd movement. lol.

This may change however. If the herd moves to a pro-religious stance in 50 years time, just make sure you are "on board" that band wagon too.

The whole thing is insane. Being human is insane!

No independent thought, please.

 

[Calliope]

I have no agenda on this issue and I couldn't care about the outcome of the Bill. I am just playing devil's advocate. But I have this nagging feeling that when Sarah Hanson-Young is so vocally in favour of it, then it can't be good.

 

[McLovin]

True, of course, but isn't marriage for many people tied up with their religious beliefs? Doesn't the Catholic Church still suggest people should not have sex outside of marriage? No artificial contraception?

How someone interprets what marriage should be is not for me to judge. The issue is when a group decides that they own marriage and should be able to dictate who can and can't get married.

After everything we know about the RCC and the systemic abuse of children, which it at best turned a blind eye to and at worse condoned, it's amazing that it is paid any attention whatsoever. Their pre-Cupernican views on contraception have done a wonderful job at spreading HIV through Africa.

There's no way I can find religion defensible personally, especially nonsense like the above. But it's an important feature of some people's existence and I don't quite see why their attitudes shouldn't be respected as much as those of homosexual people.

I think the key difference is people are born gay, whereas people chose religion.

I can just envisage the next step being that churches will face allegations of discrimination if they don't agree to marry gay couples.

Then, if people who choose to have multiple partners at the same time decide they also should have the right to marry, are we going to agree with that also? Wouldn't that also be 'marriage equality'?

Ditto incestuous relationships?

The gay community say that because they love each other that should be the only reason necessary for allowing them to get married. So why wouldn't the same criteria apply to multiple partners and incestuous relationships?

At various times, Christianity has accepted polygamy. Some cultures still do, notably the Mormons.

Incest is a different kettle of fish, IMO and I don't believe it belongs in the same boat as gay marriage or even polygamy.

Although, the Bible is pretty open minded about it. If Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman and they had multiple sons and daughters who all got married...Who exactly were they marrying if not their brother or sister?

FWIW, I don't believe churches should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.

 

[drsmith]

Rubbish, care to elaborate on that?

No. It's quiet straight forward really.

Marriage is just a word and means a union.

And anyway, who cares. I am heterosexual and could not care less.

You do care, otherwise you wouldn't have responded.

 

[MrBurns]

I think I see the difference between my view and others now, I don't see marriage as a religious act, I see it as a personal commitment and legal act.
Therefore I don't really have an objection.

 

[Glen48]

Only concern I have is gay couples in particular men raising kids more concerned the abuse the kids will get at school etc but the kids most likely will come from a better home than 90% of straight couples.
As long as it is not compulsory to be gay they can do what they like.

 

[MrBurns]

Only concern I have is gay couples in particular men raising kids more concerned the abuse the kids will get at school etc but the kids most likely will come from a better home than 90% of straight couples.
As long as it is not compulsory to be gay they can do what they like.

I also don't thnk gays should have the "right" to bring up kids , the gays can do what they like but they shouldn't have the right to subject kids to a homosexual homelife.

 

[Eager]

No. It's quiet straight forward really.

Quite, even.

 

[Sean K]

As long as it is not compulsory to be gay they can do what they like.

This discussion has reached new heights.

 

[Julia]

How someone interprets what marriage should be is not for me to judge. The issue is when a group decides that they own marriage and should be able to dictate who can and can't get married.

Isn't this what the gay community is attempting to do?

After everything we know about the RCC and the systemic abuse of children, which it at best turned a blind eye to and at worse condoned, it's amazing that it is paid any attention whatsoever. Their pre-Cupernican views on contraception have done a wonderful job at spreading HIV through Africa.

100% agree.

I think the key difference is people are born gay, whereas people chose religion.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Many people are so indoctrinated with religion that it isn't really a conscious choice.
Where do you place bisexual people? Are they 'born bisexual' or are they just people who like to experiment with sex?

At various times, Christianity has accepted polygamy. Some cultures still do, notably the Mormons.

That's quite wrong. Polygamy is only practised in very isolated small groups of Mormons and is entirely discredited by the Mormon Church as part of their doctrine.

Incest is a different kettle of fish, IMO and I don't believe it belongs in the same boat as gay marriage or even polygamy.

Why not? The participants avow their love for each other. According to the gay lobby, this is the only reason they are seeking what they term 'marriage equality'.

Although, the Bible is pretty open minded about it. If Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman and they had multiple sons and daughters who all got married...Who exactly were they marrying if not their brother or sister?

Please don't let's indulge in rubbishing religion on the one hand and then quoting that book of silly fairy tales.

 

[Uncle Festivus]

I've never actually worked out if it's just the word 'marriage' that they want to use or the legal entitlements that come with it?

If it's just the word, then why can't they just appropriate another perfectly good word, like the way they 'disinfected' the word 'homosexual' with 'gay', and use it for the legal union between 2 homosexuals or lesbians?

I think the word 'marriage' should be reserved for heterosexuals. If homosexuals & lesbians want a civil union the by all means go for it - just don't use the word 'marriage'.

What annoys me is the hi jacking of the discussion by the bobble heads on TV, usually the 'not wanting to offend the gay movement in case we are seen to be un-cool' mob of inner city socialites and 'social commentators' they drag out for the panel discussions on morning TV etc.

And why is there always an effeminate partner and a butch partner - doesn't that defeat the purpose of being homosexual or lesbian ie acting like hetero's??

 

[moXJO]

I've never actually worked out if it's just the word 'marriage' that they want to use or the legal entitlements that come with it?

If it's just the word, then why can't they just appropriate another perfectly good word, like the way they 'disinfected' the word 'homosexual' with 'gay', and use it for the legal union between 2 homosexuals or lesbians?

Howard brought in the 'civil union' under which they had the above. But they are pushing for marriage, which is fine as far as I am concerned as I don't have much of an opinion either way.
I'm not up to speed on the whole issue, but will the churches be forced to marry homosexuals or be charged with hate crimes if they don't?

 

[Calliope]

but will the churches be forced to marry homosexuals or be charged with hate crimes if they don't?

The marriage ceremony will be revised so that the last line is;

"I now declare you :dunno: and :dunno:

 

[McLovin]

Isn't this what the gay community is attempting to do?

I don't see them telling anyone else whether they can or cannot get married, they just want to be able to. Religion on the other hand seems to take the view that it should be allowed to decide who can and can't marry. While they are entitled to voice their opinion, we live in a secular society and the opinion of any religion is just that.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Many people are so indoctrinated with religion that it isn't really a conscious choice.
Where do you place bisexual people? Are they 'born bisexual' or are they just people who like to experiment with sex?

From what I've read true bisexualism is actually very rare. It is true that society takes a very different view of female bisexuality than it does of male (there's a whole industry built on female bisexualism). The point I'm making though is that someone can still make the conscious decision to not be religious, but someone who is gay will always be gay whether they are in the closet or not.

Question: If someone was convinced that the Sun went round the Earth, would you be as accomodating of their views?

That's quite wrong. Polygamy is only practised in very isolated small groups of Mormons and is entirely discredited by the Mormon Church as part of their doctrine.

My apologies, you are entirely correct.

Why not? The participants avow their love for each other. According to the gay lobby, this is the only reason they are seeking what they term 'marriage equality'.

That's a fair question. One I don't have the answer to although I don't think the two are comparable. Let me think about it and get back to you.

Please don't let's indulge in rubbishing religion on the one hand and then quoting that book of silly fairy tales.

I guess it was more trying to highlight how if you parse the Bible enough you can pretty much get whatever answer you want.

 

[Tink]

Marraige and having children go hand in hand in the religious sense.
Pro life.

Thats the reason alot of churches are against marrying gays - I dont care what others say the reason is.
It has always been about families.
Whether you choose to have children or not is your choice.

I still think they should pick another word.