Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

This is all crazy xhit and this thread probably pulls together the range of issues surrounding the conversation.

The No camp seems to have taken the view that marriage for gays is effectively the end of civilizatiuon as we know it. We will see our religious rights lost, our Freedom of Speech challenged, our children indoctrinated by Marxist, separatist, feminist, nazi lesbians and a new world of gender fluid aimless pleasure seekers.

The Yes camp has watched the advance of civil society over 40 years that has recognised gay people as just another form of normal as distinct from being perverts, sickos, mentally diseased or simply unfortunate. In my view society has tried to "normalise" (accept perhaps?) many previously suspect groups. Think non whites, disabled, autistic,( women ?) gender uncertain ? slaves (that was a long time ago - but not really folks)

The Church was the bastion of sexual normality for a long, long time. If one took Christian sexual teachings literally people only ever had sex with one person, of the opposite sex, when they were duly married and chiefly to have a child. This epitime of sexual "normality" somehow didn't fit the reality of peoples desires. But never mind - from The Churchs perspective they were doing Gods Work and that is a noble fight to evangilise the world for God and Truth and keeping Heretics, Witches, Perverts at bay with whatever tools are deemed necessary.

In 2017 the influence of the traditional Christian Churches has fallen to all time lows. The disconnect between zealous religious teachings and a pluralistic world has become a chasm. The realisation that almost all religious groups have widely abused their power by allowing sexual exploitation against children and the weak has resulted in a catastophic loss of moral authority. ( The Church does shine when it teaches a Gospel of Love, acceptance, social justice, practical support for the poor and disadvantaged. Much like Jesus Christ actually preached. Unfortunately religious leaders with such teachings are viewed as Marxists and Revolutionaries. )

So in the real world we watch as gay friends, their partners, our children, our politicans, our workmates live lives just like us. Same problems, same joys, same triumphs. They just happen to live with people of the same sex. And the world hasn't ended. It many ways it seems happier and healthier and more accepting.

I suggest that is why the vote for Marriage Equality on this thread runs 2 to 1 in favour. In the real world many people, Conservative and Liberal alike, are seeing that homosexuality is not a deviance or a curse that needs to be feared or crushed in the name of normality. In that context allowing gay relationships the recognition of marriage simply seems fair and just.

So endeth the first lesson.

SirRumpole said:

So endeth the first lesson.

Click to expand...

WTF ?? Is that as dismissive as it sounds Rumpy ? Should I have used less words and being a bit simpler ? Perhaps Gays Great - Straights Awful ? God is Dead ? Burn the Witches and Heretics ? Cardinal Pell for Pope ?

basilio said:

WTF ?? Is that as dismissive as it sounds Rumpy ? Should I have used less words and being a bit simpler ? Perhaps Gays Great - Straights Awful ? God is Dead ? Burn the Witches and Heretics ? Cardinal Pell for Pope ?

Click to expand...

Probably a bit too flippant, sorry.

Look I agree than in 99% of things gays are no different to anyone else.

In one way that affects relationships they are vastly different in the way they choose their partners.

The distinction should be made. I've argued that they should be able to marry under a different legislation while leaving traditional marriage alone..

So I will be voting no untill the option of alternative legislation is available.

<<The No camp seems to have taken the view that marriage for gays is effectively the end of <<civilization as we know it.
perhaps because gays were around, very common place 2000 years ago. and society back then was dysfunctional, even dumbed down. the "end of civilization " viewpoint is that if you don't value and practice 'purity' (ie sexual restraint, one of several classic western values), society starts to go 'wild'. Gay marriage will help destroy the notion of what true marriage is, and encourage behavior that leads to instability in society. hence the "end of civilization", or regressing to the way of life 2000+ years ago. and if that happens, there will definitely be less money flows for us to get into. dysfunctional societies will struggle to work 9-5 every day.

SirRumpole said:

Probably a bit too flippant, sorry.

Look I agree than in 99% of things gays are no different to anyone else.

In one way that affects relationships they are vastly different in the way they choose their partners.
.

Click to expand...

That seems puzzling. "They are vastly different in the way they choose their partners" From my experience, limited as it is, gay people people choose a relationship partner from the same broad pallete as straight people. For example how hot are they ? Do they like me ? Are they fun ? interesting, share similar interests? Perhaps they are challenging ? I struggle to see how they are "vastly different " and I'm wondering how this affects the issue of them choosing to make a public marriage committment.

basilio said:

That seems puzzling. "They are vastly different in the way they choose their partners" From my experience, limited as it is, gay people people choose a relationship partner from the same broad pallete as straight people. For example how hot are they ? Do they like me ? Are they fun ? interesting, share similar interests? Perhaps they are challenging ? I struggle to see how they are "vastly different " and I'm wondering how this affects the issue of them choosing to make a public marriage committment.

Click to expand...

So you see nothing different whatever in choosing a partner of the same sex as themselves in contrast to 95%+ of the population ?

So I am starting to think natural attraction, male / female, is actually a learned human function. Learned firstly from our one to one mother and father relationship then the circle of influence as our sensory input is broadened. My heteronormativity is waivering. Maybe I am gay, maybe I am a female trapped in a male's body, maybe I am both male and female at once.
Will a boy new to the world be confused by the (possibly) new sexual normality or will they understand that world population needs to be controlled and same sex relationships contribute to the greater cause for humankind.

Wysiwyg said:

So I am starting to think natural attraction, male / female, is actually a learned human function.

Click to expand...

According to the anti gay crowd it is, they are the ones that try to say "Being gay is a choice".

Value Collector said:

According to the anti gay crowd it is, they are the ones that try to say "Being gay is a choice".

Click to expand...

yes and no. it's true that some young people start realizing that they have some different tendencies within themselves, deep seated sexual attractions for the same sex, and they don't like it one bit (it makes them feel depressed). i won't deny that. that's very true. all anti gay marriage people should be able to recognize this, or they're really not getting it. even the catholic church understands that. And, as i said before, there are also many adults who are strongly attracted to children, though they would never harm them. both are abnormal conditions imo. but so what ?? it doesn't have to be the end of the world. they just need support and understanding. on the other hand though, it's also a choice if one chooses to live out the gay lifestyle. it's also a choice for a married person, whether he wants to pursue an affair or not.

also, what about all the other people out there who can't have a partner because they're sick or disabled or whatever, or nobody just wants them. it's hard for them too. i think all these groups just need more support and understanding. but bringing in same sex marriage will revolutionize society for the worse.

grah33 said:

but bringing in same sex marriage will revolutionize society for the worse.

Click to expand...

WTF, really.

Society will be worse if people don't have four basic things; air, water, food, shelter. \

Please provide an example of how society will be worse if gay marriage is allowed?

Gay married is a long way down the list for destroying society.

What does it matter to you who want to f--k who or in this case who want to marry who.

Tired of society being tied to the religious right, they don't own society nor do they own marriage.

If the debate was, should a gay couple be allowed to be married in a church, we that is up to the church, but that is not the debate.

Should they be recognized under the current law of the land as legally married, YES.

In 100 years time, this debate will look farcical, there will be no two camps, gay or straight, there will only be shades of grey from straight - bisexual - gay.

It is only religion that has told us we need to be straight, what a joke.

As for you need a man and a woman to procreate to create life, not even true today and in the future you will not even need full able males and females, just parts of, but we have enough bacteria destroying the planet, homo sapiens.

grah33 said:

also, what about all the other people out there who can't have a partner because they're sick or disabled or whatever, or nobody just wants them. it's hard for them too. i think all these groups just need more support and understanding. but bringing in same sex marriage will revolutionize society for the worse.

Click to expand...

Highlighted part to me is the wrong direction society is going. I don't want to support and understand everyone in the world with mental or physical issues. The government imposes laws and taxes on the majority of society to support everyone and everything with mental or physical issues. At an extreme, the government could strip its paid working people of all income and free will in order to maintain a society where everyone is regarded "equal". At present it nibbles the fringes and occasionally goes for a bigger bite.

Political Correctness is its own religion.

Legislation went through in 2008, where same sex and hetero have the same rights.

Marriage is one man and one woman.
A father and a mother.
It is about the children,
Parents taking responsibility and raising their children.

Article 16.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

mother and father
husband and wife
ladies and gentlemen

They are a part of our culture, our language, our foundations.

---------------------------------
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/

satan:
on this forum i don't think anyone will be able to give any solid proof to you about anything. here it's about what we think and feel.

basilio said:

..homosexuality is not a deviance or a curse that needs to be feared or crushed in the name of normality

Click to expand...

Bas, apologies for the cherry-picking, but who ever said it was? SSM lobby - just allow the community time to catch up. Australians don't like being told what to do.

And by the way, an iron-clad guarantee of immunity from prosecution for Christian and Muslim clerics wouldn't hurt. That's a deal breaker. And for the bakers too.

Tink said:

mother and father
husband and wife
ladies and gentlemen

They are a part of our culture, our language, our foundations.

Click to expand...

you're treading on thin ice here, Tink.
In "our language", you also find word origins like "woe-man", which is a poor (woeful) copy of a man. Or more recently, when your allegedly "best civilisation ever" brought their culture to the nobodies (the "nulls" in "Terra Nullius"), note the distinction between Oak and She-Oak. The former remained reserved for the proud and strong British tree, while the latter was coined for the Casuarina, an Australian timber that has a similar pretty grain, but which splits very easily and was therefore considered inferior - hence the prefix "she-".

If you want to maintain origins of language as part of our culture, thus banning society to move towards a more humane and updated society, by all means say so. But don't pick and choose.

Tink said:

mother and father
husband and wife
ladies and gentlemen

They are a part of our culture, our language, our foundations.

Click to expand...

Defining in so many ways beyond sexual preference. I am with you Tink, say no to redefining what marriage is.

Wysiwyg said:

Defining in so many ways beyond sexual preference. I am with you Tink, say no to redefining what marriage is.

Click to expand...

I have appreciated your contribution for many years, Wysiwg, but given someone has a moniker, of "Everyone wants money", you lack of understanding and acceptance is I cannot accept, I little bit disappointed, I thought you were of greater understanding that you showed

In years gone by, despite my cultural upbringing, I had considerable sympathy for the homosexual community, largely on account of the needless verbal and physical abuse to which I know that many had been subjected. Our society has become noticably more supportive of the needs of that community and it seems that roles have reversed with the once persecuted now transmuting themselves into persecutors.

Recent developments have alerted me to the tendency, of some members of that community, to overlook the fact that society doesn't only exist to accomodate the needs of homosexuals - heterosexuals of all ages and backgrounds also have needs!

If this issue is truly about remedying a perceived inequality, then I fear that society may be making the error of pandering to the whims of "career victims" whilst neglecting to notice the various ways in which those "career victims" have now licensed themselves to persecute others.

This assault, on a long established institution, looks suspiciously like it may be merely one symptom of a much deeper problem.

Until there is more transparency about the true motivation/s underlying this issue, and the likely ramifications, I consider it unwise to entertain any proposed amendments to the marriage act.

Logique said:

Sis tells it like it is.

Click to expand...

That is the flimsiest comment I have read on this thread.

Boo hoo, Sis is going to vote NO because everyone else is voting YES, Sis is expected to vote YES, but Sis does not have a brain of her own which if she did she could make up her own mind.

To make a protest vote of NO, without any substance what so ever, because YES is probably going to win is utter nonsence.