Gay Marriage

[Glen48]

Maybe F&^%Kee and F(&^Kor is a better and legal choice of words..
Cars get married when the marry up the engine to the body not sure about a pink Cadillac.

 

[Calliope]

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.

Tink, the whole concept of "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron It is an indication of the standard of government, that our Federal parliament is debating such ridiculous nonsense, while the world economy could be in free fall. I am an atheist, but consider your views represent the interests of families as opposed to those of the gay lobbyists here, who seek to devalue marriage and families, by degrading the concept.

 

[CanOz]

Interesting debate, err discussion.

I once was having this discussion with a woman from the US and her home state was considering whether or not to allow gay marriage. I think they had actually moved away from their state so they could get married. Anyway, what really struck me is how much she loved her partner, her eyes filled with tears and she said she 'just wanted to marry to the person she loved in her hometown'...it was her dream...and then i realized that of course, they think just like straight couples when it comes to love, with the one major difference being that their partner is the same sex. I was amazed at the emotion...i guess i had some preconceived idea that the way they loved each other was not the same...silly really.

I now believe that you should be able to marry the person you love, no matter what sex they are as that part really doesn't concern me.

CanOz

 

[Calliope]

I was amazed at the emotion...i guess i had some preconceived idea that the way they loved each other was not the same...silly really.

I see, they had the hots for each other and wanted to get married so they could consummate their union by pretending this gave them some status.

No, not silly - ridiculous!

 

[CanOz]

I see, they had the hots for each other and wanted to get married so they could consummate their union by pretending this gave them some status.

No, not silly - ridiculous!

I see

- No you didn't see, you weren't there....so you now base your loose opinion and decide...

they had the hots for each other

and that they want to.....

pretend...

You fail to understand this because you obviously are not gay...

I'm guessing you also fail or have failed to even understand the opposite sex at one time or another...You assume because you feel or think think a certain way, then it should be that way...we all are guilty of this one time or another.

Its one thing to hold an opinion, but its another to actually believe that your opinion is absolute.

This is about your beliefs vs the beliefs of others.

I don't fully understand how its possible for people of the same sex to love each other like husband and wife as i am not gay. I do however accept that they must feel the same as non-gay couples feel about each other, from a personal experience as i stated above and that its their business. In a free country i do believe they have the right to marry.

It took a long time for me to change my beliefs. I think it was more a issue of my maturity, self awareness and emotional intelligence than anything else.

CanOz

 

[McLovin]

I don't fully understand how its possible for people of the same sex to love each other like husband and wife as i am not gay. I do however accept that they must feel the same as non-gay couples feel about each other and that its their business. In a free country i do believe they have the right to marry.

I agree with this...

It took a long time for me to change my beliefs. I think it was more a issue of my maturity, self awareness and emotional intelligence than anything else.

CanOz

And with this...I was exactly the same.

 

[Joules MM1]

I think it was more a issue of ... emotional intelligence than anything else.

ditto for most, i think

top post, Can.

 

[Calliope]

I don't fully understand how its possible for people of the same sex to love each other like husband and wife as i am not gay. I do however accept that they must feel the same as non-gay couples feel about each other, from a personal experience as i stated above and that its their business. In a free country i do believe they have the right to marry.

Since I was married and that was many decades ago, the institution of marriage has been continually degraded by divorce and de facto marriage, until it has become almost meaningless. While your heart goes out to gay lovers, mine goes out to people like Tink who cherish their marriages as a sacrament.

Now gay lobbyists want to further degrade the institution of marriage and turn it into a meaningless joke. My plea to you and Mc Lovin, is to to leave people, who value their state of matrimony, in peace.

Let them devise their own "marriage" instead of coveting what others have.

 

[CanOz]

Since I was married and that was many decades ago, the institution of marriage has been continually degraded by divorce and de facto marriage, until it has become almost meaningless. While your heart goes out to gay lovers, mine goes out to people like Tink who cherish their marriages as a sacrament.

Now gay lobbyists want to further degrade the institution of marriage and turn it into a meaningless joke. My plea to you and Mc Lovin, is to to leave people, who value their state of matrimony, in peace.

Let them devise their own "marriage" instead of coveting what others have.

Actually Calliope, i too cherish my marriage. I made a mistake with my first marriage, but i was faithful and tried my best to honor the vows i took. I just could not love the person for the rest of my life. Possibly due to my lack of maturity at the time. I have since met my true soul-mate.

Wedding vows are sacred to me and i believe there is nothing more worth honoring on this planet than these words, pledged in front of whomever we deem as appropriate.

We share some views, and differ on others.

I may not agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death...for your right to express it.

Cheers,


CanOz

 

[Julia]

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.

There's a lot of truth in that. The Church, however, has provided plenty of reason for such dislike with its repeated covering up of sexual abuse.

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.

That won't be a problem for the fashionistas whose passion is easily adaptable.
They're a bit like the catastrophisers who are happy to latch on to various doom scenarios.

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?

Apparently the word 'marriage' has some magic attached to it. They already have the legal entitlements.

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 share this dislike. "Gay" was a great descriptive word until it was so appropriated. What is the matter with saying homosexual? We talk about heterosexuals, don't we.

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??

No idea. I do find it peculiar hearing a lesbian referring to "my wife" and a homosexual male to his 'husband'.

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?

This is my concern about the whole idea. Surely the next step after achieving 'marriage equality' will be an allegation of at least discrimination if a church refuses to marry them.

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.

Fair enough.

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.

OK, accepted. But what we do not know is whether e.g. people in incestuous relationships may equally have no capacity to choose how they feel. I know the question of whether they should also be allowed to marry seems bizarre, but so would homosexuals marrying a couple of generations ago, or even less than that.

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

I'm not sure that's really a valid analogy, McLovin. I take your point, though.
I'm thinking about perfectly genuine people like Tink on this forum whose religion obviously means a lot to her, and I just have some concerns about ignoring and dismissing views of such people as unimportant and irrelevant.
Such people have a strong sense of what constitutes a family and are genuinely disturbed at the idea that the sacrament of marriage (which it is to them) would be violated by homosexual marriage.

No one has yet been able to explain to me just what difference having a marriage ceremony would make.
If it were necessary to confer equal legal rights, then I'd totally get it. But that's not an issue.

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.

Thanks, McLovin. Your thoughtful approach is appreciated.

 

[bellenuit]

I share this dislike. "Gay" was a great descriptive word until it was so appropriated. What is the matter with saying homosexual? We talk about heterosexuals, don't we.

I too disliked the hijacking of the word "gay". However, my attitude has changed on that point. There is nothing the matter with saying "homosexual" or "hetrosexual", just as there is nothing the matter with saying "sexual intercourse". The problem is is that these words tend to be used only in a formal context and are rarely used in colloquial speech or street talk. The words used to describe homosexuals in colloquial speech were invariable offensive or used in an offensive manner - dyke, poofter, queer etc. Even apparently inoffensive expressions like "batting for the other side" suggested that they were somehow different to other people and that it is impolite to refer to their sexual orientation directly as if it were some unmentionable disease.

I don't know why they adopted the word "gay" and perhaps there were a lot of other words that they could have used instead, but it certainly allows one, whether one be gay or straight, to openly describe a homosexual's sexual orientation in circumstances where such a topic is relevant, without being offensive or having to resort to formal speech.

 

[bellenuit]

Surely the next step after achieving 'marriage equality' will be an allegation of at least discrimination if a church refuses to marry them.

I agree that some will raise that as an issue, but I think the vast majority will be happy to have the right to marry in a civil union.

However, although churches have the right to set their own policies, it doesn't mean that the policies aren't discriminatory. The RC church and several other christian denominations discriminate against women by prohibiting them being ordained as priests.

I don't think homosexuals, or women for that matter, should be able to use civil law to overturn such discriminatory practices. These are issues peculiar to that particular church and need to be changed from within the church. It is only when one's civil rights are being infringed that civil action should be an option. These are church rights, not civil rights.

 

[Julia]

I agree that some will raise that as an issue, but I think the vast majority will be happy to have the right to marry in a civil union.

Perhaps. Alternatively, I think there will be that same cohort who just has to push boundaries who will want to push churches into holding marriage ceremonies for them.

I don't think homosexuals, or women for that matter, should be able to use civil law to overturn such discriminatory practices.

I'm a bit confused by the above. Are you suggesting the word 'homosexual' only refers to males?
What do you mean by "or women for that matter"?

 

[Miss Hale]

I am thinking bellenuit meant the discriminatory practices that exist in some churches that prevent women becoming priests.

 

[sptrawler]

I am thinking bellenuit meant the discriminatory practices that exist in some churches that prevent women becoming priests.

I think we spend way too much time on this thread.

 

[bellenuit]

I'm a bit confused by the above. Are you suggesting the word 'homosexual' only refers to males?
What do you mean by "or women for that matter"?

Sorry if it was a bit ambiguous. I meant in relation to the two discriminatory issues I mentioned. Homosexuals shouldn't be able to use civil law to force the churches to allow them to marry in church endorsed marriages and women for that matter should not be able to use civil law to force churches to allow women priests.

 

[Tink]

Great post Calliope, agree, and thanks Julia, appreciate your thoughful posts in this debate.

CanOz, agree with your quote.

 

[Julia]

Sorry if it was a bit ambiguous. I meant in relation to the two discriminatory issues I mentioned. Homosexuals shouldn't be able to use civil law to force the churches to allow them to marry in church endorsed marriages and women for that matter should not be able to use civil law to force churches to allow women priests.

OK, thanks for explaining. Agree.

 

[Glen48]

So the church's think women are inferior and therefore can't do the job of a Male priest guess the little boys would like to see Women priests.

 

[McLovin]

I'm not sure that's really a valid analogy, McLovin. I take your point, though.
I'm thinking about perfectly genuine people like Tink on this forum whose religion obviously means a lot to her, and I just have some concerns about ignoring and dismissing views of such people as unimportant and irrelevant.
Such people have a strong sense of what constitutes a family and are genuinely disturbed at the idea that the sacrament of marriage (which it is to them) would be violated by homosexual marriage.

I don't consider their views any less important or relevant than any other Australian's. Where I draw the line is when someone feels that their own view usurps everyone elses and should be enforced through legislation. There are plenty of Muslims who would like to see the dress code for women in this country changed, I'm sure they're genuinely disturbed when they walk on a beach and see women half naked in front of strange men. Would you treat their views as important and relevant? My grandmother used to believe (and probably still does) that inter-racial relationships are wrong because God wouldn't have created seperate races if he had intended them to mix. Same question again, should her view be considered relevant and important.

No one has yet been able to explain to me just what difference having a marriage ceremony would make.
If it were necessary to confer equal legal rights, then I'd totally get it. But that's not an issue.

From reading your posts, I understand you were once married. How would you have reacted if at the time of you getting married you were told you could have all the same legal rights but you could not be married or have a ceremony? I'd personally feel pretty disenfranchised.

Thanks, McLovin. Your thoughtful approach is appreciated.

I'm still working on this...