Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Junior]

tech/a, some of those other examples are criminal acts which cause harm to children.

We are talking about two consenting adults expressing their love through a marriage ceremony.

The example you give about child brides is interesting, as it used to be acceptable in many cultures (and still in some) to marry a female as young as 12....this fit in with the accepted definition of marriage. Hence I don't buy the 'traditional definition of marriage' argument - it has changed over time.

It can and will change again.

 

[Value Collector]

The line of respect of peoples rights to do a whole host of things is severely blurred.
.

Not really when you make your judgements based on a rational assessments of the facts, and base your morals on wellbeing of fellow humans rather than dogma.

What's right for a paedophile isn't right for me---should I respect his rights?

Which rights are you talking about?

Does a paedophile have the right to cause harm to a child? No.

Does a paedophile have the right to live peacefully in society provided he/she never acts on his/her urges? yes

Should I respect the rights of a family who kill in the name of family honour.

That would infringe on the rights of others, so they don't actually have the right to perform an honour killing.

Or accept that child brides are ok to many societies.

Again, that infringes on the rights of the child, so they don't have the right to have child brides.

So to is multiple marriages.

provided its a choice between consenting adults, I can't see the harm, so I am fine with it.

The line it seems is drawn but the loudest voices.

No, its a rational decisions based on facts about human wellbeing and harm.

 

[tech/a]

Yet irrational voices allow them----countries that allow it are wrong we and our morals are right according to us

Many countries won't allow same sex marriage -- yet we are right and they wrong

They allow the above child brides and honour killings but they are morally wrong according to us

We of course have the highest moral ground!

 

[grah33]

>>So to is multiple marriages.
provided its a choice between consenting adults, I can't see the harm, so I am fine with it.>>
even if it is a choice, those adults don't have enough sense to make the decision, so it shouldn't be allowed...

 

[Value Collector]

Yet irrational voices allow them----countries that allow it are wrong we and our morals are right according to us

Many countries won't allow same sex marriage -- yet we are right and they wrong

They allow the above child brides and honour killings but they are morally wrong according to us

We of course have the highest moral ground!

Do you think the things you listed above are wrong?

If so, why? how do you make your decisions?

If you make your decisions based on human welfare and harm, then it is based on facts, which can be proven, its not a simple matter of opinion.

Ofcourse each topic will have plenty of debate, but provide you stick to the facts rather than dogma, we should be able to get to the bottom of most things and have better morals than those that simply refer to old books.

 

[Value Collector]

even if it is a choice, those adults don't have enough sense to make the decision, so it shouldn't be allowed...

who are you talking about?
which adults?

 

[grah33]

who are you talking about?
which adults?

maybe i was thinking of some funny women out there who are silly, and maybe rich men too. no one in particular. but i realize now there are other religious groups who for them it's a practical and viable way to do it. IMO, polygamy isn't good though for society, and i think the Australian people have always thoughts so , so they don't allow it.


the other factor is how will this effect society? is it okay if you get "not born gay "kids in playgrounds experimenting with the same sex?

 

[Value Collector]

IMO, polygamy isn't good though for society, and i think the Australian people have always thoughts so , so they don't allow it.

As you stated thats your opinion, but to outlaw something like polygamy I think you need to be able to demonstrate that its is actually harmful to people outside of the relationship before it should be outlawed.

But polygamy would be a topic for another thread.

the other factor is how will this effect society? is it okay if you get "not born gay "kids in playgrounds experimenting with the same sex?

Is children "experimenting in playgrounds" really cause for concern enough to ban marriage between consenting adults?

I mean what are you worried about, that Jimmy will say "Show me yours and I'll show you mine" to Jack instead of Jill???

 

[SirRumpole]

I mean what are you worried about, that Jimmy will say "Show me yours and I'll show you mine" to Jack instead of Jill???

Who knows what children are taught in schools.

If it is taught that homosexuality is "normal" then children may well decide to experiment that way.

Homosexuality is a small minority and always has been. Best not to teach kids anything about sexuality and let them find their own way.

 

[Value Collector]

Who knows what children are taught in schools.

If it is taught that homosexuality is "normal" then children may well decide to experiment that way.

Homosexuality is a small minority and always has been. Best not to teach kids anything about sexuality and let them find their own way.

Again this is a separate topic from gay marriage.

However, I do feel it's worthwhile discussing sexuality with children around the time they will hit puberty, kids are smart, you could easily teach them that most people are going to be attracted to the opposite sex, but some will be attracted to the same sex, and both options are ok, and it's normal for both to exist.

 

[Sean K]

I'm a natural homophobic, because of my parents and sociatal upbringing. But, I have grown up, and I am more educated than I was 30 years ago.

The institution of marriage has served it's historical purpose in Australia. It has been a bedrock of our society and thus, we have an almost innate, inbred, genetic predisposition to keep the status quo that has created the society we have. We are one of the most incredibly successful cultures of the 21st century. So, why change? Change is hard when life is so great.

But, we know without question that sexual attraction and love is fluid.

Anyone who watches Games of Thrones knows this.

So, we are all on a spectrum, and always have been.

Go where your heart and happiness desires!!

 

[eNyce]

Contrary to popular belief, there's valid arguments for and against gay marriage. I think Ben Shapiro's view is that most valid and agree that the government shouldn't even be involved.

I would like to see it legalized and then forgotten so we can focus on more pressing topics.

 

[grah33]

another thing not discussed much is religious freedom. you can't expect a religious person to marry them if they don't want to. or a wedding cake baker (see US news) to bake cakes if to him it's "unclean" (conscience problem). nor could you force a jew (or muslim) to do something "unclean" to them based on their beliefs, such as eating pork at e.g work (or marrying 2 men). from memory one of the amendments (key democracy principle) is you can't have laws that meddle with the mind of a religious person. otherwise it's not democracy but something else. Why? because you're gonna get something like this happening:
" we need a wedding cake" (gay person)
"ahh... sorry can't do that . it's against my religion.."
"but you have to , the law requires it "
"but i've got to follow God's law. man's law is flawed. and my god will punish me.it's easier to go prison then to go hell"
it's a bit crude my example, but you get the point. so the religious guy is sent to prison or fined 100K. not a pretty world to live in... that's why i think the parliament isn't doing it's job properly by wanting to force gay marriage on religious entities/individuals. they know what democracy is about, or are supposed to, and that includes religious freedom.anyways, my 2 cents...but i wouldn't be surprised if (like in the US) christian orphanages shut down /other charities also close down. overseas they are already compelling religious entities to marry men.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Marriage is dead. Hijacked by another minority group seeking self satisfaction and recognition.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

It's still unknown whether homosexuality is a healthy human variation or a learned, coping mechanism.

It's certainly possible that a lack of bonding between the child and the same sex parent is the cause of homosexuality. Since childhood bonding is a very powerful dynamic in the child's life, a lot of the information around this topic will remain locked away in the unconscious, therefore hard/impossible to access.

A child deprived of basic safety needs will tend to become hypervigilant. In the same way, a child deprived of same sex bonding in the early years will have a tendency to seek intimate relationships with adults of the same sex, in order to attempt to fill that very important need. Because the drive is unconscious, it's correct to say it's not a conscious choice. But that doesn't mean it's genetic.

All I know from a small sample size of gays I have met is that most of them had poor, distant or absent relationships with the same sex parent. That doesn't constitute evidence, obviously, but it's worth considering. If that's a causative factor, then treatment might actually be appropriate. Some have attempted to do this, but they have usually had religious reasons. Obviously, this sort of approach is going to be harmful.

I certainly won't be voting 'no' because that could be very psychologically damaging if it happened on a big scale. I'll either vote 'yes' or not at all.

 

[SirRumpole]

However, I do feel it's worthwhile discussing sexuality with children around the time they will hit puberty, kids are smart, you could easily teach them that most people are going to be attracted to the opposite sex, but some will be attracted to the same sex, and both options are ok, and it's normal for both to exist.

Fair enough, but some Lefty Loonies want it bought in in primary school. Far too early.

 

[Dazzy33]

Nope I don't support.

 

[Value Collector]

Fair enough, but some Lefty Loonies want it bought in in primary school. Far too early.

Children start hitting puberty at 9, and often there sexuality is already developing by then.

 

[Tink]

VC, so you would give your children to the state to be raised?

You don't think children should be raised by their parents?

How much is the taxpayer paying for these peoples lifestyles?

Too many rights and not enough responsibilities.

 

[overhang]

VC, so you would give your children to the state to be raised?

You don't think children should be raised by their parents?

How much is the taxpayer paying for these peoples lifestyles?

Too many rights and not enough responsibilities.

I certainly wouldn't give them to the Catholic church to raise.
But lets not forget that this debate is not about children as much as the anti-SSM crowd would love to make it about children.