Gay Marriage

[MrBurns]

I think you are being a bit unfair in that some of the earliest marriages we have records for were actually for same sex people.

It was just hundreds of years of religious persecution and intolerance of homosexuality that has allowed the various major religions to put a false claim on marriage as something they own.

.

Oh bulldust.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, if gays want to get legally connected call it something else.

 

[bellenuit]

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, if gays want to get legally connected call it something else.

"Marriage" is what we chose it to be. In Australia, it is currently a union of a man and a woman. In Ireland and many Scandinavian countries, it is a union of two people, without regards to their sex.

Nothing is set in stone.

 

[sydboy007]

Oh bulldust.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, if gays want to get legally connected call it something else.

Can you clarify what exactly I said was bull dust.

Do you deny that there are recorded marriages from over 1000 years ago? Do you deny it was the Catholic Church that basically set about the persecution of homosexuals and banned gay marriages?

Do you have any examples of how the various countries which have had same sex marriage for 15+ years have in some way been negatively affected?

 

[MrBurns]

Can you clarify what exactly I said was bull dust.

Do you deny that there are recorded marriages from over 1000 years ago? Do you deny it was the Catholic Church that basically set about the persecution of homosexuals and banned gay marriages?

Do you have any examples of how the various countries which have had same sex marriage for 15+ years have in some way been negatively affected?

I think you are being a bit unfair in that some of the earliest marriages we have records for were actually for same sex people.

Bulldust.

The Catholic Church has persecuted everyone from time to time and I couldn't care less about whether gay marriage has negatively effected any particular country.

 

[Duckman#72]

I don't know if its been persecution but thankfully someone is putting pressure on him. Because his own team certainty have given him a free pass to add to the long list of Catholics who shamelessly do not care about their victims.

He is a disgrace.

Yes unfortunately the "accusations" make the headlines, the actual facts not shouted so loudly.

In the latest case, a victim of rape by a local priest said that he directly reported the crime to Pell and he did nothing. He was adamant it was Pell and of the year this occurred - 1969. This was broadcast far and wide.

Unfortunately passport records that prove Pell was not even in Australia during 1969 haven't been broadcast as loudly.

Doesn't matter............it's "the vibe of it" that counts.

Duckman

 

[galumay]

One really easy way to fix the marriage mess is to remove the legal and state concept of marriage from the religious one.

This would be consistent with the separation of powers concept regarding the state and religion.

In countries like Turkey, Japan and France (and maybe many others), marriage is something defined and run by the state, to be officially married it must be done by a state official, usually the mayor or their proxy. The rights and responsobilities as well as the benefits of marriage flow from this civil union.

If people have some particular religious belief then once they are married properly they can go and have whatever form of ceremony they want with their religion.

But being married in the church carries no weight with the state - as it should be. So if you married in the church you would get none of the things that flow from being officially married.

That gets religion's nose out of the whole issue and then the issue of gay marriage is really irrelevant, why on earth would it matter whether you were gay or not?

 

[MrBurns]

Now the USA has done it Tony will have to stand aside and just let it happen, he's just one vote after all.

 

[Trembling Hand]

Yes unfortunately the "accusations" make the headlines, the actual facts not shouted so loudly.

In the latest case, a victim of rape by a local priest said that he directly reported the crime to Pell and he did nothing. He was adamant it was Pell and of the year this occurred - 1969. This was broadcast far and wide.

Unfortunately passport records that prove Pell was not even in Australia during 1969 haven't been broadcast as loudly.

Doesn't matter............it's "the vibe of it" that counts.

Duckman

Cods wollop!!

I was talking about the relentless fight against fair compensation and a fair, caring and just outcome for the victims. He's only care has been the minimisation both financially and the image of the church.

You only have to look at the suicide rate for anyone who had the terrible misfortune of relying on the church to care and protect them as children. To then survive that and run in to this nasty piece of work is indeed a tragic life

A disgrace.

 

[awg]

You only have to look at the suicide rate for anyone who had the terrible misfortune of relying on the church to care and protect them as children. To then survive that and run in to this nasty piece of work is indeed a tragic life
A disgrace.

I made a post years ago about these priests, I have no doubt whatsoever that Pell, a man of great intellect, and power would have known chapter and verse of what occured, only to the extent he would have taken precautions to insulate himself from provably knowing, (just like the mafia does).

In my experience where priests or teachers were interfering with children, this was suspected by various persons, including other adults in authority, but it seemed to me they sometimes turned a blind eye

On gay marriage, I used to be against, but when I had my own children, and asked myself what
I would say if they said they wanted to marry someone, well how could you say no?

Dont think even Abbot can stop it here since it got passed in USA

 

[sydboy007]

Bulldust.

The Catholic Church has persecuted everyone from time to time and I couldn't care less about whether gay marriage has negatively effected any particular country.

Then why should I care that some people don't want to progress past the 1950s.

Other countries have allowed same sex marriage and moved on. If there'd been any negative impacts I'm sure the Christian right of the USA would have funded some documentaries on it.

 

[sydboy007]

One really easy way to fix the marriage mess is to remove the legal and state concept of marriage from the religious one.

This would be consistent with the separation of powers concept regarding the state and religion.

In countries like Turkey, Japan and France (and maybe many others), marriage is something defined and run by the state, to be officially married it must be done by a state official, usually the mayor or their proxy. The rights and responsobilities as well as the benefits of marriage flow from this civil union.

If people have some particular religious belief then once they are married properly they can go and have whatever form of ceremony they want with their religion.

But being married in the church carries no weight with the state - as it should be. So if you married in the church you would get none of the things that flow from being officially married.

That gets religion's nose out of the whole issue and then the issue of gay marriage is really irrelevant, why on earth would it matter whether you were gay or not?

It's the same in Australia. The wedding ceremony is inconsequential as far as the state is concerned.

The religious and conservatives like to pretend that churches have a monopoly on marriage. It's not the case. The paperwork filed with the Govt is what counts for legal recognition of a marriage.

https://www.ag.gov.au/familiesandmarriage/marriage/pages/gettingmarriedinaustralia.aspx

To be legally married in Australia, a man and woman must:

• not be married to someone else
• not be marrying a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother or sister
• be at least eighteen years old, unless a court has approved a marriage where one party is aged between sixteen and eighteen years old
• understand what marriage means and freely consent to becoming husband and wife
• use specific words during the ceremony
• give written notice of their intention to marry to their authorised celebrant.

After you are married

On the day of your wedding, you will sign three marriage certificates. Each certificate should be signed by you, your celebrant and two witnesses. Your celebrant will give you one of the certificates as a record of your marriage.

Your celebrant must register your marriage with the registry of births, deaths and marriages in the state or territory it took place within fourteen days.

The certificate issued by the registry of births, deaths and marriages is required for many official purposes. You should apply for a copy of this certificate from the registry after your wedding.

 

[Tink]

It wasn't just homosexuality, Syd.
Polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest, were all not allowed.
As I said, it was for society and keeping families together.
Responsibility and accountability.

We were brought up to respect everyone, we are all God's children, so no, I don't agree with violence or harm.
That still doesnt change my mind to do with Marriage.
As I said, there is a reason that Marriage is the way it is.

Each parent plays a specific role and I believe a child needs both.
I don't believe a father is not needed.
I don't believe a mother is not needed.
They are both important in a child's life.

As I have said before, children should not be medical or social experiments.

We have children bought and sold, through surrogacy, being taken away from their siblings -- and parents, for money.
We have adults buying these children, then decide that they don't want twins, or they don't want a son or daughter.
We have people picking and choosing the gender of the child, and discarding the ones they don't want, to being stateless, or even worse.
As I said, this is becoming like a puppy farm.

The connection between parents and their children is above all.
That is God's Laws.
That bond is unbreakable, and it shows by the extents people go to find each other.

I don't agree with gender neutral, social constructs etc which will be pushed on the children, if Marriage is redefined.
This is wrong and confusing for them.

As for love, there is different measures of love, be it a couple that marry, male and female, and have their children, the love of a mother/father and their child, the love of your pets, the love of your friends.

Love your neighbour, does not mean take it to the next level, it means caring for them.
Discipline and Boundaries.

A tyranny of judges forces same-sex marriage on US voters
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...judges_forces_same_sex_marriage_on_us_voters/

At present, no one””including social scientists, philosophers, and historians””can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment. The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials.”

The rise and fall of Western Civilization.

 

[MrBurns]

Each parent plays a specific role and I believe a child needs both.
I don't believe a father is not needed.
I don't believe a mother is not needed.
They are both important in a child's life.

As I have said before, children should not be medical or social experiments.

.

Well said Tink, I too am concerned about kids forced to be parented by same sex couples, it is NOT the way it was meant to be but it's already happening, too late now to stop it, the law is on their side.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well said Tink, I too am concerned about kids forced to be parented by same sex couples, it is NOT the way it was meant to be but it's already happening, too late now to stop it, the law is on their side.

+1 re concern, but it's not too late. Ban surrogacy, gay adoption and IVF.

 

[MrBurns]

+1 re concern, but it's not too late. Ban surrogacy, gay adoption and IVF.

Gay adoption is legal in a few states already - I think it's a tragic mistake.

Same sex couple adoptions[edit]

Main article: LGBT rights in Australia § Adoption and laws relating to having children

Adoption for same-sex couples is currently available in Australian Capital Territory (since 2004), New South Wales (since 2010),[7] Western Australia (since 2002),[8] and to a limited extent in Tasmania (since 2013).[9] In Queensland, Northern Territory, Victoria and South Australia, same-sex couples cannot adopt a child,[10] but can become foster carers.[11] South Australia is reviewing the legislation[12] and Victoria is also reviewing the legislation.[13] Both the Queensland and Northern Territory governments have no plans to review or change the law, to allow same sex couples to adopt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_Australia#Same_sex_couple_adoptions

 

[sydboy007]

It wasn't just homosexuality, Syd.
Polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest, were all not allowed.
As I said, it was for society and keeping families together.
Responsibility and accountability.

I don't see anyone arguing that we want polygamy or incest in this country. You really need to take a deep breath and remember that Jesus would have embraced the homosexuals and transvestites, and polygamy was pretty much an institution of marriage of his times.

We were brought up to respect everyone, we are all God's children, so no, I don't agree with violence or harm.
That still doesnt change my mind to do with Marriage.
As I said, there is a reason that Marriage is the way it is.

What version of marriage? It has changed so many times over the last couple of millennia. Women have gone from breeding stock to chattels to being independent in their own right over the course of history. Should marriage still be the same as it was in biblical times? Why did we need to change it?

The connection between parents and their children is above all.
That is God's Laws.
That bond is unbreakable, and it shows by the extents people go to find each other.

Then explain to me how it was acceptable for God to request Abraham to sacrifice his own son?

We also have these wonderful instructions in the bible on how to raise children:

• He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
• He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17
• The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. -- Exodus 12:29-30
• And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. -- 2 Kings 2:23-24

God supports cannibalism, and maybe infanticide??

• And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29
• And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53

Then we have this gem. I mean seriously, how could you write something so twisted, yet it's just accepted as the infallible word of God.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9

As for love, there is different measures of love, be it a couple that marry, male and female, and have their children, the love of a mother/father and their child, the love of your pets, the love of your friends.

Love your neighbour, does not mean take it to the next level, it means caring for them.
Discipline and Boundaries.

I see the love of a same sex couple doesn't even make it onto your measurement of love scale.

At present, no one””including social scientists, philosophers, and historians””can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment. The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials.”

The rise and fall of Western Civilization.

If it was going to lead to a fall of a civilisation then why are we not seeing the seeds of that destruction in the countries that have had same sex marriages for 15+ years. How long is this destruction going to take? If we don't know what will happen from the change, then how can you say with such certainty it will be a negative?

 

[MrBurns]

I don't see anyone arguing that we want polygamy or incest in this country. You really need to take a deep breath and remember that Jesus would have embraced the homosexuals and transvestites, and polygamy was pretty much an institution of marriage of his times.

What version of marriage? It has changed so many times over the last couple of millennia. Women have gone from breeding stock to chattels to being independent in their own right over the course of history. Should marriage still be the same as it was in biblical times? Why did we need to change it?

Then explain to me how it was acceptable for God to request Abraham to sacrifice his own son?

We also have these wonderful instructions in the bible on how to raise children:

• He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
• He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17
• The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. -- Exodus 12:29-30
• And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. -- 2 Kings 2:23-24

God supports cannibalism, and maybe infanticide??
And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53

Then we have this gem. I mean seriously, how could you write something so twisted, yet it's just accepted as the infallible word of God.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9

I see the love of a same sex couple doesn't even make it onto your measurement of love scale.

If it was going to lead to a fall of a civilisation then why are we not seeing the seeds of that destruction in the countries that have had same sex marriages for 15+ years. How long is this destruction going to take? If we don't know what will happen from the change, then how can you say with such certainty it will be a negative?

Your tactic of boring everyone into submission will not work Syd, support Gays by all means but not their supposed right to enslave children to satisfy their need to feel like a normal family.

 

[sydboy007]

Your tactic of boring everyone into submission will not work Syd, support Gays by all means but not their supposed right to enslave children to satisfy their need to feel like a normal family.

Tink's the one who brings God into the equation.

Most of your arguments against gay marriage just really boil down to "I want marriage to stay the same as I believe it has been all of my life"

You are fine with discriminating against a minority group for no good reason. You support Government sticking it's nose into the private affairs of people and stopping them from doing something that harms no one. Interesting that Liberal supporters are so illiberal on this issue.

Decades of research has shown children raised by same sex couples are not impacted in any negative ways.

You have admitted you have no interest in how these changes have affected society in other countries with decades of experience, yet you are willing to make grandiose statements on the decline of civilisation should gay marriage occur. The same base arguments were made about most changes in society, from outlawing slavery, to allowing women to vote, to revoking racial segregation. The children of gen y and the millenials will shake their heads and wonder why it was made such a contentious issue.

Homosexuality is no longer a crime (it should never have been), is not a sexual deviancy or mental illness, cannot be transmitted to someone. A same sex couple is not going to try and make a child into something they are not. Sexuality is more genetic than nurture, though I can see children from same sex couples being in an environment where they don't have to be 1 or 0, but can accept they are somewhere along the sexuality gradient and be happy with themselves for it.

Possibly you and Tink will agree with Justice Thomas from his dissenting view on marriage equality in the USA

“human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity … because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity…”

Would be interesting to have words with some Vietnam and WWII vets who survived interment camps on their views regarding their dignity. Maybe some of the child slave labor making our cheap clothes in the third world may have some views on the issue too.

I'd argue that Govt has no right to interfere with self-regarding acts ie those that only affect the individual - except in circumstances of suicide not due to terminal illness. The Govt has a right to makes laws around other-regarding acts that do affect others. IF what you do is not harming others, then as a liberal democracy why should the Govt be able to stick it's nose into your personal affairs? IF they do, have far do they encroach? Migrating from the bedroom to the living room, then onto the kitchen perhaps?

Gay marriage does no harm to those that don't want or have such a marriage. The same reasons why biracial marriages are OK support allowing gay marriage.

Getting down to it, interfering in other people's personal lives for no valid reason, it's just bigotry ie you know better than the individual. Religious disapproval, or as George Takei says "The ICK factor", doesn't give you or anyone else the right to say how a person can live their lives if they are not doing anything that would impinge on you living your life as you so wish.

 

[MrBurns]

Tink's the one who brings God into the equation.

Most of your arguments against gay marriage just really boil down to "I want marriage to stay the same as I believe it has been all of my life"

You are fine with discriminating against a minority group for no good reason. You support Government sticking it's nose into the private affairs of people and stopping them from doing something that harms no one. Interesting that Liberal supporters are so illiberal on this issue.

Decades of research has shown children raised by same sex couples are not impacted in any negative ways.

You have admitted you have no interest in how these changes have affected society in other countries with decades of experience, yet you are willing to make grandiose statements on the decline of civilisation should gay marriage occur. The same base arguments were made about most changes in society, from outlawing slavery, to allowing women to vote, to revoking racial segregation. The children of gen y and the millenials will shake their heads and wonder why it was made such a contentious issue.

Homosexuality is no longer a crime (it should never have been), is not a sexual deviancy or mental illness, cannot be transmitted to someone. A same sex couple is not going to try and make a child into something they are not. Sexuality is more genetic than nurture, though I can see children from same sex couples being in an environment where they don't have to be 1 or 0, but can accept they are somewhere along the sexuality gradient and be happy with themselves for it.

Possibly you and Tink will agree with Justice Thomas from his dissenting view on marriage equality in the USA

“human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity … because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity…”

Would be interesting to have words with some Vietnam and WWII vets who survived interment camps on their views regarding their dignity. Maybe some of the child slave labor making our cheap clothes in the third world may have some views on the issue too.

I'd argue that Govt has no right to interfere with self-regarding acts ie those that only affect the individual - except in circumstances of suicide not due to terminal illness. The Govt has a right to makes laws around other-regarding acts that do affect others. IF what you do is not harming others, then as a liberal democracy why should the Govt be able to stick it's nose into your personal affairs? IF they do, have far do they encroach? Migrating from the bedroom to the living room, then onto the kitchen perhaps?

Gay marriage does no harm to those that don't want or have such a marriage. The same reasons why biracial marriages are OK support allowing gay marriage.

Getting down to it, interfering in other people's personal lives for no valid reason, it's just bigotry ie you know better than the individual. Religious disapproval, or as George Takei says "The ICK factor", doesn't give you or anyone else the right to say how a person can live their lives if they are not doing anything that would impinge on you living your life as you so wish.

That's right stop interfering in the lives of people who value the meaning of marriage.
As for your decades of study, I call b******* rigged by interest groups.

Anyway no point arguing, we each have our own opinions.

 

[Value Collector]

Well said Tink, I too am concerned about kids forced to be parented by same sex couples, it is NOT the way it was meant to be but it's already happening, too late now to stop it, the law is on their side.

Your tactic of boring everyone into submission will not work Syd, support Gays by all means but not their supposed right to enslave children to satisfy their need to feel like a normal family

Gay Marriage has nothing to do with children.

Gays are already allowed to have children.

No one here in all the weeks I have been reading this thread has come up with a valid reason to ban gay marriage, It's all just either homophobic hysteria or some slippery slope argument about children.