John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
I dont really think that background in terms of ethnicity and religion has to do with determining ones opinion towards gay marriage. The was I see it is that its not like religions and ethnicities have specifically outlined in their teachings that marriage between and man and a man and a woman and a woman is wrong. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong if there is a detailed disapproval against gay marriage in religious scriptures and if I am just purely ignorant to the teachings of some religions, but to my knowledge such teachings only go forth and specify what a marriage is eg. a union between Adam and Eve. But it does not go as far as to prohibiting gay marriage.The Old Testament is definitely very ant-gay (it isn't a matter of interpretation either, it's pretty clear cut): Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." I'm not too sure about the New Testament though.
The point I am trying to make is that in the end it depends on YOUR own understanding and perception of the teachings of your religion that determines your views towards gay marriage, as it does towards any topics of debate. For example, whilst the conditions of a loving union is specified, Jesus also goes to say in The Gospels
A Christian can make whatever decision as to what implication they believe towards the issue of gay marriage as there is not a strict prohibitation against it.
I myself am a Buddhist, and to my knowledge The Buddha did not ever say that he was against Gay Marriage. In terms of sexuality he was against monks having any sexual thoughts and partaking in sexual actions, but for non-clergy the only specification he gave was in the Five Precepts where he advised buddhists not to partake in 'sexual misconduct' but did not go as far as to define what this misconduct is. So it is up to us, as buddhists to come up with our own belief of what such misconduct is.
Just my opinion, because I'm finding it hard to answer the poll because I cant figure out my religion and backgrounds' disposition for gay marriage.
EDIT: I probably shouldnt have gone so far as generalising that its the same for all religions, but in my case, I'm confused.
psyxwar - The old testament is called the old testament because its.... the old way of living. Many christian traditions come from the old testament, but teaching/doctrine is from the New Testament. As ShortBlackChick said, a commandment to love one another obviously means just that - but that loving someone doesn't mean that you support their actions. Christ kept the company of prostitutes and thieves, He loved them, but He didn't support prostitution or theft. In the same way, the Bible teaches to love homosexuals, but that doesn't imply that it supports gay marriage.I thought that Judaism still uses the Old Testament? I'm pretty sure the book of Leviticus is in the Torah anyway.
My personal opinion is that I cannot support gay marriage - but i have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to impose my morals on the rest of society through law. Because of this, I think gay marriage should be legal, but Churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriages (they can if theyre okay with it, but shouldn't have to if they're not).
I dont really think that background in terms of ethnicity and religion has to do with determining ones opinion towards gay marriage.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong if there is a detailed disapproval against gay marriage in religious scriptures and if I am just purely ignorant to the teachings of some religions, but to my knowledge such teachings only go forth and specify what a marriage is eg. a union between Adam and Eve. But it does not go as far as to prohibiting gay marriage.
A Christian can make whatever decision as to what implication they believe towards the issue of gay marriage as there is not a strict prohibitation against it.
My personal opinion is that I cannot support gay marriage - but i have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to impose my morals on the rest of society through law. Because of this, I think gay marriage should be legal, but Churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriages (they can if theyre okay with it, but shouldn't have to if they're not).I respect this a lot, even though I disagree with you.
A part of me tells me it's unnatural - that it doesn't make sense.. It's not the way things are intended to be (whether by nature, or deity). So it's something that I would never do.Well, you can't imagine choosing to be gay, right? But that's from your default of hetero. You never made a conscious decision to be straight, right? I certainly didn't. But would it be fair to say you discovered heterosexuality at the same time you discovered sexuality? It does not make logical sense to me that anyone would ever choose to be gay... I'd taken it as a matter of course that sexuality wasn't a choice (although I suppose you could make a concerted effort to choose, but I'd assume that would be very uncomfortable)
But that doesn't apply to everyone, so YOU should be able to choose whatever YOU want, and as for me, I don't want to be gay, and I don't believe that I could ever 'discover' that I'm gay. I'd have to DECIDE to be gay. But who am I to stop someone else who decides/discovers they're gay (I know some people feel like they did discover their homosexuality, but I can't ever imagine how it could be a natural process. Other animals aren't gay. If any species all turned gay it would die out. That's why I can't agree that it's a discovery - to me, it's a decision)
The Old Testament is definitely very ant-gay (it isn't a matter of interpretation either, it's pretty clear cut): Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." I'm not too sure about the New Testament though.
Some religions have definite, anti-homosexual bits in their texts, but that doesn't necessarily mean all followers adhere to it. The Bible prohibits a lot of things and ultimately it'd be pretty silly to follow everything it says in today's society.
According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 1:4) the death penalty could only be inflicted, after trial, by a Sanhedrin composed of twenty-three judges and there were four types of death penalty (Sanhedrin 7:1): stoning, burning, slaying (by the sword), and strangling. A bare reading of these and the other accounts in the tractate would seem to suggest a vast proliferation of the death penalty. Yet, throughout the Talmudic literature, this whole subject is viewed with unease, so much so that according to the rules stated in that literature the death penalty could hardly ever have been imposed.
For instance, it is ruled that two witnesses are required to testify not only that they witnessed the act for which the criminal has been charged but that they had warned him beforehand that if he carried out the act he would be executed, and he had to accept the warning, stating his willingness to commit the act despite his awareness of its consequences. The criminal's own confession is not accepted as evidence. Moreover, circumstantial evidence is not admitted.
....
That the Mishnaic material is purely on the theoretical level can be seen from the oft-quoted statement (Mishnah Makkot 1:10): "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel."
.....
Once the matter was discussed on a purely theoretical basis the gruesome details could be described in all their starkness while, at the same time, restrictions could be piled on in order to make the death penalty virtually impossible. In practice it became illegal for a Jewish court to impose the death penalty.
....
The remarks of Rabbi Isaac Herzog (1888-1959) in an article on Sanhedrin published in 1932 are worth noting. Herzog begins: "I have often heard it remarked that the restoration of the Jewish State in accordance with Jewish law would isolate the Jewish people from the modern civilized world; for the Hebrew penal code includes the death-penalty for purely religious offences such as the willful desecration of the Sabbath, etc." Herzog, quoting the material mentioned above and other Talmudic sources which make the re-establishment of the Sanhedrin dependent on the rebuilding of the Temple in the Messianic age, demonstrates in his reply that until the advent of the Messiah it is illegal to impose the death penalty for any offence, even for murder. There follows this statement:
"The difficulty in question is therefore a matter which could only arise in the Messianic age and need not enter into any practical calculations affecting the reconstitution of the Jewish State in Palestine. But, of course, in view of the actual position the idea of a Jewish State in Palestine (as distinct from a National Home), quite irrespective of the restoration of the Temple, is, in itself, rather a Messianic hope than a question of practical politics."
Source
I thought that Judaism still uses the Old Testament? I'm pretty sure the book of Leviticus is in the Torah anyway.
One word 7 letters: Freedom
I dont really think that background in terms of ethnicity and religion has to do with determining ones opinion towards gay marriage. The was I see it is that its not like religions and ethnicities have specifically outlined in their teachings that marriage between and man and a man and a woman and a woman is wrong. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong if there is a detailed disapproval against gay marriage in religious scriptures and if I am just purely ignorant to the teachings of some religions, but to my knowledge such teachings only go forth and specify what a marriage is eg. a union between Adam and Eve. But it does not go as far as to prohibiting gay marriage.There are six verses in the Bible which specifically address homosexuality.
EDIT: I probably shouldnt have gone so far as generalising that its the same for all religions, but in my case, I'm confused.
a commandment to love one another obviously means just that - but that loving someone doesn't mean that you support their actions. Christ kept the company of prostitutes and thieves, He loved them, but He didn't support prostitution or theft. In the same way, the Bible teaches to love homosexuals, but that doesn't imply that it supports gay marriage.Basically, this.
9. When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.
10. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you collect the [fallen] individual grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the Lord, your God.
11. You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie, one man to his fellow.
12. You shall not swear falsely by My Name, thereby profaning the Name of your God. I am the Lord.
13. You shall not oppress your fellow. You shall not rob. The hired worker's wage shall not remain with you overnight until morning.
14. You shall not curse a deaf person. You shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord.
15. You shall commit no injustice in judgment; you shall not favor a poor person or respect a great man; you shall judge your fellow with righteousness.
16. You shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people. You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. I am the Lord. :
17. You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account.
18. You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
8. And you shall observe My statutes and fulfill them. I am the Lord, Who sanctifies you.So those are a whole lot of verses dealing with sexual misconduct, with the punishment for (almost) every case being killing the participants. Exile is also an option for some. These include having sex while on your period, adultery, bestiality, many different cases of incest, and two guys going at it.
9. For any man who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon himself.
10. And a man who commits adultery with [another] man's wife, committing adultery with the wife of his fellow the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11. And a man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.
12. And a man who lies with his daughter in law both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed a depravity; their blood is upon themselves.
13. And a man who lies with a male as one would with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.
14. And a man who takes a woman and her mother it is evil counsel. They shall burn him and them in fire, and there shall be no evil counsel in your midst.
15. And a man who lies with an animal, shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.
16. And a woman who comes close to any animal so that it will mate with her you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.
17. And a man who takes his sister, whether his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and he sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness it is a disgraceful act, and they shall be cut off before the eyes of the members of their people; he uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his sin.
18. And a man who lies with a woman who has a flow, and he uncovers her nakedness he has bared her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from the midst of their people.
19. And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or your father's sister, for he would be baring his close relative; they shall bear their sin.
20. And a man who lies with his aunt he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their transgression; they shall die childless.
21. And a man who takes his brother's wife it is a repulsive act; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
22. And you shall observe all My statutes and all My ordinances, and fulfill them, then the Land, to which I am bringing you to dwell therein, will not vomit you out.
If I were to say that I didn't support gay marriage, I would be labeled a bigot and a zealot. To be honest, though, this is a stereotype perpetuated by the ugly words of certain individuals in the extreme right. Most people don't think like that at all. The Christians I know who reject homosexuality have compassion and respect for gay people. They regard homosexuality as a sin akin to greed, hatred, or lust. These are flaws that every single person possesses and one should not be held above another - nor should any stigma be attached to a homosexual person. That's the line of thought i have heard among my friends, anyway.
Basically, this.
+1
I have no idea where people are getting their info from, saying that the bible is vague on homosexuality. It actually is strongly against it
Just out of interest, can anyone here come up with a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage which is not grounded on religious beliefs?I've heard a few, apparently marriage is traditionally about procreation?
Just out of interest, can anyone here come up with a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage which is not grounded on religious beliefs?If we allow gay marriage, then who knows what will be next, maybe polygamy or even beastiality, which would cause problems..
Just out of interest, can anyone here come up with a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage which is not grounded on religious beliefs?
If we allow gay marriage, then who knows what will be next, maybe polygamy or even beastiality, which would cause problems..
Not saying its my view but I think it's an argument.
I've heard a few, apparently marriage is traditionally about procreation?I would quite literally laugh in the face of anyone that said this to me. (not in your face though).. If we deny gay/les marriage solely based on the lakc of procreating ability then we should also prevent people who are infertile from marrying.
Not my view though.
The old testament is meant for one group of people, the ancient Jews who inhabited Israel. If you have any serious knowledge of biblical scholarship and aren't just cherry picking bad looking lines, i'm sure you'd know this. Many of those punishments, like capital punishment for reasons like this, are suspended in the absence of a proper Jewish religious court (Sanhedrin), even then, the evidence for these things was so strict that it was almost impossible to enforce properly. The old testament as little affect on Christianity in particular because it was replaced by a new covenant with God (the old testament was a covenant between the Jews and God) and most of the old laws were abrogated.I don't claim to have any serious knowledge of biblical scholarship. It's not a matter of cherry-picking bad looking lines; it's the fact that such lines exist in the first place -- why does it matter if it appears once, twice or a thousand times? If it mentions putting homosexuals to death, then that's pretty anti-homosexual is it not?
You can't just cherry pick a single line and pretend to be a historical, juristic and religious expert all of a sudden and know everything from that sole line.
I'd be careful as referring to it as this:Fair enough. I don't have much knowledge of Judaism and I wasn't aware that such terminology could be offensive.
It can be taken as offensive. It adopts the view that the Christian bible with its old and new testaments must be the only right thing and the Jewish scripture is just plain wrong. The old testament is their only testament, it's their only God given holy book. It's not some old, superseded document for Jews, it is the document.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?
MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple -- I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.
(Laughter.)
I think there is a valid argument - Allowing gay marriage can alter the structure of family. Does being raised by two dads or two mums have any bad consequences? I don't know if it does or not, but there's a point there. Should we then not allow gay married couples to have access to things like IVF? Or would it be better to allow only adoptions (2 dads is better than no dads). I haven't given these points enough thought to formulate an opinion, but on the face of it, i think they constitute valid pointsGood, probably the first point meriting detailed attention :)
They do not suffer from mental health problems at an any greater rate, make just as much or even more money than their peers, and are educated to the same degree as well.source?
I think there is a valid argument - Allowing gay marriage can alter the structure of family. Does being raised by two dads or two mums have any bad consequences? I don't know if it does or not, but there's a point there. Should we then not allow gay married couples to have access to things like IVF? Or would it be better to allow only adoptions (2 dads is better than no dads). I haven't given these points enough thought to formulate an opinion, but on the face of it, i think they constitute valid points
^ good points, butsource?American Psychological Association And again, as amicus curiae in the same-sex marriage case
To play devil's advocate: Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage:
1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).
2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.
3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.
5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.
I think there is a valid argument - Allowing gay marriage can alter the structure of family. Does being raised by two dads or two mums have any bad consequences? I don't know if it does or not, but there's a point there. Should we then not allow gay married couples to have access to things like IVF? Or would it be better to allow only adoptions (2 dads is better than no dads). I haven't given these points enough thought to formulate an opinion, but on the face of it, i think they constitute valid points
for the arguement about raising children in gay couples, it has been proven to have a negative effect on children
a quote
There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:
Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense
source you say?
[1] Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
[2] Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
To play devil's advocate: Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage:Just about all of those premises are false. But let's just start with the first one - marriage is not indispensable. From there on, the whole thing falls.
1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).
2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.
3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.
5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.
Just about all of those premises are false. But let's just start with the first one - marriage is not indispensable. From there on, the whole thing falls.When Spiegel refers to "heterosexual union" he is not referring to marriage, rather he's referring to heterosexual relationships. He uses the two terms separately in his argument. Heterosexual unions are arguably indispensable for obvious reasons (procreation).
The argument still falls apart when we take apart it's premises.Why doesn't it? Social value means the value such relationships hold in regards to society right? Without heterosexual unions, there would be no society. The fact that heterosexual unions are necessary for society to exist means that it does have a "special" social value.
"Therefore has special social value" - He'd have to first prove that social values are inherent and objective first. The indispensable nature of hetero relationships don't make it socially special. P1 - No.
->won't bother continuing to premise 2.
Why doesn't it? Social value means the value such relationships hold in regards to society right? Without heterosexual unions, there would be no society. The fact that heterosexual unions are necessary for society to exist means that it does have a "special" social value, at least when compared to homosexual unions.
To play devil's advocate: Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage:
1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).
2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.
3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.
5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
for the arguement about raising children in gay couples, it has been proven to have a negative effect on children
Plus, claiming that reproduction confers special social values is a baseless assertion and I don't even know how he got to that point
Does the bible say I cant marry my car? Because I want to marry my car. He's the bomb.This is why I want upvote buttons in Rants and Debates
Im actually deadly serious. I cant trust people. We fuck up. My car is amaaaaaazing. He does everything I want him to, he loves unconditionally, regardless of how much of a fuckhead I am, he does what I tell him to even if its hard and could hurt him. All I do is abuse him in return.Marriage is by definition mutually consensual (and obviously your amazing car can't consent), though you probably could in some countries. I know guys in Japan have married video game characters.
Honestly, if you like it then why the fuck cant you put a ring on it?
Recognising gay marriage as legitimate does not deny the special social value of heterosexual unions, unless you agree that exclusive marriage rights are the sole and only way we (meaning society) can/should recognise the special value of heterosexual unions.The way things are currently heterosexual marriage is this "special sanction" for straight unions; if we were to elevate gay union to the same level (gay marriage) then the two become equal. Because of the fact that they are not equal (as straight union = procreation, gay union does not), treating them as such undermines this "special sanction" of straight marriage.
The way things are currently heterosexual marriage is this "special sanction" for straight unions; if we were to elevate gay union to the same level (gay marriage) then the two become equal. Because of the fact that they are not equal (as straight union = procreation, gay union does not), treating them as such undermines this "special sanction" of straight marriage.Except that many straight unions have nothing to do with procreation, rather with love. Unless you suppose that two 55 year olds marrying is going to bring about children somehow. That's perfectly legal.
So, using your logic, should we limit marriage to fertile opposite-sex couples?Not at all. That's like saying we should limit human rights to those with two eyes, two arms, two legs etc. Humans are humans, regardless of whether or not they possess all the characteristics a "normal" human does; in the same vein, a straight couple that lacks the ability to procreate, either due to age or some kind of defect is still a straight couple. Heterosexual marriage is the "special sanction" for straight unions and not for procreation -- sure, the ultimate reason why such unions are "special" in the first place is due to the ability to procreate, but that doesn't mean that only those who are able to procreate fall under this "straight union" umbrella.
Doesn't work. We're talking about a significant subset of marriages, not a couple of exceptions. And looking at the original argument, it argues that since procreation is indispensable, then somehow heterosexual unions are - but there is no assured link between the two.It is still very much the minority. How many people do you think actually get married in their 50s, as opposed to being in a marriage in their 50s because they married previously? The subset of humans that lack certain characteristics (like functional limbs for example) is also pretty sizable.
. The vast majority of procreation happens in these unions -- sure, you will have people who have sex and get pregnant outside of marriage, but most people who have their own children do so in a family.
Not really true. I don't know the Australian statistics but in the US 41% of babies are born out of wedlock. In some areas that the rate is well over 50%.That simply means they're not married, not that they're not engaged in a relationship.
People only oppose it because they have their own insecurities being scared of the unknown and change, two people that love each other shouldn't be told their love isn't as important as someone else's just because someone else thinks gay sex is icky or a sin.I agree with you here to some extent, though I wouldn't go as far as to say the only reason people oppose it is due to their own insecurities/ scared of change. I'm fully in support of gay marriage by the way.
It doesn't bother me if gay marriage was legalised. If it was, so be it, I'm not going to go out of my way to amend the law and join protests. I dont go and discriminate against gay people as well. I wouldn't even care if it was legalised.Do you support gay marriage in principle?
Do you support gay marriage in principle?No I don't.
I haven't read all the replies (considering there's about 60!), but to keep the fire burning I'll just add my own little take:
I feel uncomfortable when I see any form of intimacy between gay people (excluding hugging of course. I'm talking about kissing etc..). I guess this is because of the way I was brought up - sex of any form wasn't exactly discussed in the household. It was just one of those taboo and tacit topics which my parents just assumed I knew about. So if sex is not a conversation topic, then homosexuality is definitely out of the question! I guess this parochial mindset or upbringing contributed to the prejudice I have against gay people - I see it as an abnormal relationship that's kind of "icky".
That said, I would never discriminate against them. Let them marry if they want, let them have all the liberty they yearn for and let them parade their marital status. But I'll still be feeling nauseous all the same, when they do their 'up close and personal' public displays of affection.
Anyone else gonna attempt a crack at a non-religious argument against ssm?
Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval
Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded (ugh I need to read less feminist crap)
Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis
Marriage is a social construct that comes with connotations of commitment and legitimacy that should be enjoyed by homosexuals too.
"Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded" - that may or may not happen over time, but in the meantime homosexuals should have the right to enjoy such a union.
Arguments with a religious basis are often based on axiomatic premises, of which many are flawed.
Why? It's a social construct, it's the product of the entire society not of what you think it should be.
That's completely sidestepping what I said.
So we scrap them all from the start?
Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approvalI think this argument is weaker in a Western society with rights based on the individual and the importance assigned to the individual. If we accept there is a greater emphasis on an individual's rights in Western society (I really think you have to), then I'd argue the right to equality (even if that in itself is a social construct) supersedes disapproval from societal facets.
Also what's wrong with arguments with a religious basisWell, many would assign religious principles to non-religious, which is just absurd. Let's inverse this. "As an atheist, I believe praying is absolutely useless and yields no results. Because of this, praying is a waste of time that could be used more productively. Therefore, praying is wrong and people shouldn't pray." -> And then an atheist group tried to enforce this principle on the religious. So; denying x from party G because of principle z should not apply when party G is not subject to principle z.
Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval
Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded (ugh I need to read less feminist crap)
Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis
If that's the case it's not a legitimate social construct and reflects, if your conclusion is correct, society's discrimination on homosexuals.
No it isn't. If you want to get rid of marriage, get rid of it altogether, don't allow it for one group and not another for an unfair reason - that's discrimination.
No, address the points on their merits, but don't take them as gospel simply because they are in a religious text.
I think this argument is weaker in a Western society with rights based on the individual and the importance assigned to the individual. If we accept there is a greater emphasis on an individual's rights in Western society (I really think you have to), then I'd argue the right to equality (even if that in itself is a social construct) supersedes disapproval from societal facets.
I guess the obvious rebuttal to that is "marriage is a religious ceremony" but I don't think you can say that statement with certainty.
What makes marriage a civil/human right? It's something that evolved alongside society and humanity and the only value it has is the value society places on it; how can you, as an individual, decide to redefine it.Sorry, the point of my post was that equality is the right that is being denied and that as a Western society, individual rights supersedes communal views.
Perhaps not with certainty, but it is undeniable that marriage and religion are intrinsically linked in Australian culture. Do religous organisations have to provide same sex marriages, irrespective of whether they are legalized?If I were the lawmaker and wanted to keep things fair, I'd give individual churches (Church of Narre Warren, not Catholic Church) the option to opt out of marrying gay couples.
Perhaps not with certainty, but it is undeniable that marriage and religion are intrinsically linked in Australian culture. Do religous organisations have to provide same sex marriages, irrespective of whether they are legalized?
How on earth is it not a social construct? Because you say so? You're just repeating what you said before. The fact that you say it's not "legitimate" (what?) doesn't mean anything. Discrimination also doesn't mean anything, if you believe that there is a mandate to uphold what the most accepted form of a concept is.
Yes it is. You don't solve a problem by temporarily making it worse in the interest of "fairness". That's not relevant at all to the point, which is that marriage is not desirable. It's a cop-out to say that "we'll solve the problem eventually, but in the mean time lets do something unrelated and worse".
So you agree then, that there can be religious objections, depending on what they are?
(also goes for the other two comments here)
What makes marriage a civil/human right? It's something that evolved alongside society and humanity and the only value it has is the value society places on it; how can you, as an individual, decide to redefine it.
Perhaps not with certainty, but it is undeniable that marriage and religion are intrinsically linked in Australian culture. Do religous organisations have to provide same sex marriages, irrespective of whether they are legalized?
What makes marriage a civil/human right?
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded (ugh I need to read less feminist crap)
Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis
Why? It's a social construct, it's the product of the entire society not of what you think it should be.
QuoteArguments with a religious basis are often based on axiomatic premises, of which many are flawed.
So we scrap them all from the start?
How on earth is it not a social construct? Because you say so? You're just repeating what you said before.
Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval
The fact that you say it's not "legitimate" (what?) doesn't mean anything. Discrimination also doesn't mean anything, if you believe that there is a mandate to uphold what the most accepted form of a concept is.
Yes it is. You don't solve a problem by temporarily making it worse in the interest of "fairness". That's not relevant at all to the point, which is that marriage is not desirable. It's a cop-out to say that "we'll solve the problem eventually, but in the mean time lets do something unrelated and worse".
So you agree then, that there can be religious objections, depending on what they are?
What makes marriage a civil/human right? It's something that evolved alongside society and humanity and the only value it has is the value society places on it; how can you, as an individual, decide to redefine it.
Perhaps not with certainty, but it is undeniable that marriage and religion are intrinsically linked in Australian culture.
The religious connotations contradict the motive for gay marriage to an extent, since I would imagine anyone (or at least a majority of people) who would enter into a gay marriage would not be religious, and would therefore have no interest in religious ceremonies.
Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approvalI completely agree with your first point, actually. There is absolutely no civil right for marriage in Australia (nor in any other country as far as I'm aware). We are talking here about whether same-sex marriage should be legalised, not whether it has to be legalised.
Marriage as an institution is not a desirable entity and something that should be reduced rather than expanded (ugh I need to read less feminist crap)
Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis
Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval
Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis
gay couples should be allowed civil union, and they would considered just as married as a straight couple who also had a non-religious marriage.
Okay...I guess I'm just stupid :/ I'll leave this conversation.
Not desirable according to who? And why does this mysterious person(s) who does not desire marriage have the right to be the ultimate arbiter of who gets to access this "undesirable entity"?
I completely agree with your first point, actually. There is absolutely no civil right for marriage in Australia (nor in any other country as far as I'm aware). We are talking here about whether same-sex marriage should be legalised, not whether it has to be legalised.
Personally, I just think that when socially approved social constructs marginalise people, there should be a sound and consistent justification and rationalisation. E.g. demonstrable harm. Particularly if it is defended by law.
Yeah, I think this is the thing the LGBT community doesn't like though, because it is really just "got ours, screw you". Allowing a renamed form of marriage to be extended isn't what they're after.
The confrontational point is apt, a lot of people are opposed to change for the sake of it, although I'm not sure it's necessarily because of a latent distaste for homosexuals as opposed to more rigid adherence to "tradition".
So basically what you're saying, is "let's rename civil marriage to civil unions, and leave marriage to religions." Which is fine, but why? I can't think of any state interest to do so.
Well, there are emerging homosexual movements in several religions, including Judaism. Check out the film 'Trembling Before God' - it documents the plight of a group of gay Orthodox Jews struggling to find acceptance in their respective communities, and the ways in which they attempt to retain their religious connection in light of this. As stated previously, homosexuality is involuntary. So, those who enter same-sex relationships and seek SSM marriage aren't necessarily irreligious; in recent years, the Reform movement has offered a safehaven for gay couples who would otherwise be forced to repress their sexuality, remain celibate (thereby contradicting the fundamental tenet of Genesis 2:6), or abandon the religion entirely, condoning SSM but allowing individual synagogues to formulate their own policies on this. Unfortunately though, those brought up in staunch Orthodox communities often find themselves unable to embrace the Reform movement as equally legitimate to Orthodoxy, and as a consequence, many end up removing themselves from their religion altogether, "to salvage a sense of dignity and to build a life" - as noted by Rabbi Steve Greenberg, the first openly gay Orthodox (and disputedly so) rabbi.I'm aware that it's involuntary, but marriage certainly isn't. I just wonder why anyone would want it so badly when it's clearly going to be more trouble than it's worth. Interesting point nonetheless.
Just out of interest, can anyone here come up with a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage which is not grounded on religious beliefs?
Everyone is also conservative (not in the sense of abbott or whatever) to a degree, they want to conserve and keep somethings as are.Actually, I'm a lot more conservative on social issues than economic ones. I believe that progressive social change should be implemented, but sometimes it should only happen incrementally in order to allow society to adjust.
what the majority of individuals believe shouldn't be labelled as bigots or homophobes because in reality an opinion is an opinion and you can't change thatDat Holocaust. Don't be labellin', peeps.
Look at Netherlands only 12% of same sex married couples actually bothered to marry..
what the majority of individuals believe shouldn't be labelled as bigots or homophobes because in reality an opinion is an opinion and you can't change thatOpinions change all the time.
what the majority of individuals believe shouldn't be labelled as bigots or homophobes because in reality an opinion is an opinion and you can't change that
Look at Netherlands only 12% of same sex married couples actually bothered to marry.. Tradition is tradition people should understand that choice sometimes comes at a price and what the majority of individuals believe shouldn't be labelled as bigots or homophobes because in reality an opinion is an opinion and you can't change thatMajority? You should really get that checked
only 12% of same sex married couples actually bothered to marrylol
Why would anyone NEED to get married?
And yeah, that's fine, you can adhere to an objective system of morality without trying to persuade other people of its correctness. You're in the minority, though, and you're losing for a reason - because you are objectively wrong. You're just too stupid to recognise it.
Huh, my post got deletedRestored it, looks like it got removed accidentally in the clean up.
Love how everyone on fb is turining their dps into rainbows, can't recall this happening when Ireland approved it in a referendum...This really annoys me as well. Where was everyone when this occurred?
Love how everyone on fb is turining their dps into rainbows, can't recall this happening when Ireland approved it in a referendum...
Anyway, good move, old Tony's gonna get dumped if he doesn't follow suit.
OK, I'm going to make the hardest post I've ever made, by going against the flow of this thread. Let me firstly say that to come out as a 'homophobe' is actually extremely difficult; I'm not being a hater, just trying to deal with my honest opinion (I have severe internal conflict over this issue). Please... don't jump to conclusions or judge me too harshly.
As a Christian, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong. For someone like me who absolutely hates 'judging' anyone or saying anyone else is wrong, this is an extremely hard thing to believe. It's a real struggle, but when I read the Bible, I can't help but believe that God made male and female, with two totally different complementary roles which also have symbolic meaning. And that God thinks that homosexuality is evil. (Yes, I did a huge project on this in school, where I thoroughly examined the opposite interpretations of Bible verses, I haven't randomly jumped to this conclusion). Which I find very difficult to come to terms with, given that my society believes totally the opposite. But since I believe that the Bible is true, I also believe this - again, not mindlessly, it is a struggle.
I didn't say this to try to prove my beliefs. Just wanna show that those 'judgmental religious haters' don't ENJOY judging others, aren't all aged 50+, don't jump to conclusions without a real struggle, and do care about others.
I suppose I believe that humans are like sheep - like pi, I think that dp thing is totally superficial, because people will always follow the 'done thing', the trend, no matter what. I 300% agree with his post.
In everything, it's not the people that tag on to trends that I respect, but those with the guts to go against the flow (not out of stubborn, closed-mindedness though). When society used to stigmatise gays, almost everyone did so; now society stigmatises those who don't support gay marriage, almost everyone will do so. I'm really struggling to stick to my opinion no matter what everyone else thinks.
</rant> (far longer than intended), and I'm prepared to cop the flack. :-[
OK, I'm going to make the hardest post I've ever made, by going against the flow of this thread. Let me firstly say that to come out as a 'homophobe' is actually extremely difficult; I'm not being a hater, just trying to deal with my honest opinion (I have severe internal conflict over this issue). Please... don't jump to conclusions or judge me too harshly.Well, I'll first say that I truly respect the bravery and honesty that comes behind making this post (despite quite comprehensively disagreeing with the content).
As a Christian, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong. For someone like me who absolutely hates 'judging' anyone or saying anyone else is wrong, this is an extremely hard thing to believe. It's a real struggle, but when I read the Bible, I can't help but believe that God made male and female, with two totally different complementary roles which also have symbolic meaning. And that God thinks that homosexuality is evil. (Yes, I did a huge project on this in school, where I thoroughly examined the opposite interpretations of Bible verses, I haven't randomly jumped to this conclusion). Which I find very difficult to come to terms with, given that my society believes totally the opposite. But since I believe that the Bible is true, I also believe this - again, not mindlessly, it is a struggle.
I didn't say this to try to prove my beliefs. Just wanna show that those 'judgmental religious haters' don't ENJOY judging others, aren't all aged 50+, don't jump to conclusions without a real struggle, and do care about others.
I suppose I believe that humans are like sheep - like pi, I think that dp thing is totally superficial, because people will always follow the 'done thing', the trend, no matter what. I 300% agree with his post.
In everything, it's not the people that tag on to trends that I respect, but those with the guts to go against the flow (not out of stubborn, closed-mindedness though). When society used to stigmatise gays, almost everyone did so; now society stigmatises those who don't support gay marriage, almost everyone will do so. I'm really struggling to stick to my opinion no matter what everyone else thinks.
</rant> (far longer than intended), and I'm prepared to cop the flack. :-[
Put simply, I find it more likely that an omnibenevolent God would tolerate homosexuality (which he obviously created, as there are homosexual traits in species other than humans that don't have free will)Example?
It's my belief that the Christian God, or at least how "he" (or she) is presented is omnibenevolent. Put simply, I find it more likely that an omnibenevolent God would tolerate homosexuality (which he obviously created, as there are homosexual traits in species other than humans that don't have free will) and whoever transcribed the Bible did so incorrectly, that the alternative case, which would be an omnibenevolent God that doesn't tolerate the homosexuality that he created who was accurately transcribed.
Essentially, your position relies upon the idea that whatever is said about God in the Bible must be true if the Bible is true, which I think is incorrect.
*Christians who actually follow the word of Christ, as opposed to the compassionless racists and people who hate the homeless.
Example?I had dolphins in mind upon writing the post, but a further Google search offered quite a lot more.
But why would your beliefs be more authoritative than what all Christians believe to be the word of God?I spoke in the first person to ensure passivity and am choosing to [respectfully] ignore this question, because I don't think the ensuing stream of discussion will be productive or relevant :)
Let me firstly say that to come out as a 'homophobe' is actually extremely difficultNo it's not. You're not oppressed and you're not discriminated against for being homophobic.
For someone like me who absolutely hates 'judging' anyone or saying anyone else is wrong, this is an extremely hard thing to believeThen don't believe it. Think for yourself. I'm assuming you've been conditioned to believe this due to a religious upbringing? Well challenge it. Don't take things for granted. The bible is not inherently correct; there's a lot of contradictory things in there and a lot of things that are considered sins we do today and no one questions it.
I can't help but believe that God made male and female, with two totally different complementary roles which also have symbolic meaning.What about intersex? It's not so black and white.
But since I believe that the Bible is trueDo you believe it's wrong to have sex with a woman who is menstruating? What about eating something mixed with meat and diary? Or eating pork? Dressing across gender lines or wearing more than one kind of cloth?*
No it's not. You're not oppressed and you're not discriminated against for being homophobic.
Then don't believe it. Think for yourself. I'm assuming you've been conditioned to believe this due to a religious upbringing? Well challenge it. Don't take things for granted. The bible is not inherently correct; there's a lot of contradictory things in there and a lot of things that are considered sins we do today and no one questions it.
It's interesting to me that you're struggling with your beliefs (or at least, seem somewhat upset by them)... It seems like you feel as if it's quite a clear truth that homosexuality is wrong because you believe the Bible expresses that and, if the Bible expresses that, then it is a clear truth. However, I think it's quite reasonable for a Christian to deny that this is the case - indeed, I think it's more reasonable for a Christian to deny this is the case. For, you can quite simply accept the Bible as an expression of historical or religious truth without believing that the Bible is comprehensively accurate. That is, the Bible is the "word of God", but who transcribed it? When we look at the translation of Kafka's Metamorphosis, we don't assume that the English version gives us the truth. Now, I'm sure you don't believe that God wrote the Bible in whatever realm he belongs in and then transferred it to Earth. Evidently, under the Christian perspective, it was written by men (or women) who were transcribing the word of God. Now, if this were the case, why wouldn't the Bible be subject to sociocultural trends the same as a Facebook display picture?Simply can't address this now thoroughly, got essays to mark :( I'll simply say, that of course I've thoroughly considered all that. Being a Christian isn't just a matter of upbringing, conditioning, blind acceptance. But anyway, I'll say that I do believe that the Bible was 'inspired' - written by humans while God directly influences their mind; naturally influenced by them, but ultimately controlled by God.
Essentially, your position relies upon the idea that whatever is said about God in the Bible must be true if the Bible is true, which I think is incorrect. I feel as if it's a tragedy that proper Christians* like yourself feel compelled towards one particular view of morality that could quite easily have been skewed by propagandists (it's pretty well established that religion has been utilised by the unsavoury as a method of social control).
It's my belief that the Christian God, or at least how "he" (or she) is presented is omnibenevolent. Put simply, I find it more likely that an omnibenevolent God would tolerate homosexuality (which he obviously created, as there are homosexual traits in species other than humans that don't have free will) and whoever transcribed the Bible did so incorrectly, that the alternative case, which would be an omnibenevolent God that doesn't tolerate the homosexuality that he created who was accurately transcribed.
Wouldn't Christ advocate lack of judgment and holistic acceptance and compassion?I believe - no.
No it's not. You're not oppressed and you're not discriminated against for being homophobic.If I had simply said, "I think homosexuality is evil', I WOULD be oppressed.
Then don't believe it. Think for yourself. I'm assuming you've been conditioned to believe this due to a religious upbringing? Well challenge it. Don't take things for granted. The bible is not inherently correct; there's a lot of contradictory things in there and a lot of things that are considered sins we do today and no one questions it.--> I have thought for myself
What about intersex? It's not so black and white.No, but in the Bible it's the only option; in the Bible, it is black and white. (Note, I take this much further; you probably don't know anyone so anti-feminism as I am, like my choice not to go to uni this year was directly influenced by my view of gender roles. I think gender roles and marriage in the Bible are so symbolic, God set up marriage as an entire-life commitment between one man and one woman, to represent the relationship between him and us). There are some difficult exceptions to deal with, true.
Just because men and women have different complementary roles or rather 'fit' together doesn't mean it's the only option.
Do you believe it's wrong to have sex with a woman who is menstruating? What about eating something mixed with meat and diary? Or eating pork? Dressing across gender lines or wearing more than one kind of cloth?*As always: old law vs. new law. God instituted those for the nation Israel, to maintain their separateness and holiness and point forwards. The Bible clearly shows that that has been superseded by new, different rules.
it is harder to be homophobic than it is accepting.Truer than you can ever believe. It HURTS.
As a Christian, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong.I'm only quoting this part, because only quoting this will be entirely sufficient for my purposes.
Thank you for showing us why it *is* actually difficult. I'm not going to say that it is easy to live life if you identify as non-het cis, but a lot of people our age (i.e, our peers) try to be as supportive as possible for those who aren't, it's the older generations that make this more difficult. As such, amoungst our peers, it is harder to be homophobic than it is accepting.
I see you haven't been to many youth groups, eh? Stuff like this *does* get questioned by people our age - daily, in fact. It is always being challenged - and just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Based on what was said, I honestly think that bangali is one of those people who has questioned it - and this is the conclusion she is currently at.
My own personal opinion on the matter is that whilst this is a step forward, it's also very sudden. It'll be interesting to see how the individual states respond to such a sudden loss in power. As for if this was the right decision or not? Equality in general is something I want to see, so let's hope this doesn't lead to another divide.
I do think we shouldn't be so outrightly spoken to those with different opinions to us, though - that really never solves anything. A healthy debate is one thing, a personal attack is another.
In everything, it's not the people that tag on to trends that I respect, but those with the guts to go against the flow (not out of stubborn, closed-mindedness though).This 9001%. While I'm the total opposite of religious and a 'homophobe' (It's kind of silly we even use this word for it - unless you're genuinely scared of me? ::) ), I totally respect you for this. Obviously I'm not against LBGTQIA+ rights or anything, since that'd be a little counter-intuitive, but I wouldn't call myself a supporter.
I'd come out to Hitler before I told people I was homophobic*. Oppression is defined as 'prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority' so I'd pretty comfortably say that right now being against homosexuality won't get you oppressed, but it will in the future (you know, since oppression is long term). People are certainly discriminated** against because of it.Let me firstly say that to come out as a 'homophobe' is actually extremely difficultNo it's not. You're not oppressed and you're not discriminated against for being homophobic.
I completely respect your right to genuinely- and deeply-held religious beliefs that hold that homosexuality is wrong. I happen to know a whole lot about (what you call) the OT, and I'm willing to engage in that debate. But for me, it's entirely beside the point. It's your belief, and you're entitled to it.Yep, I realised afterwards that I'd forgotten to deal with whether I think gay marriage should be legalised: if we had a gay marriage referendum, I wouldn't vote. Church vs. state, if the nation wants gay marriage, that's up to them, though it'll make it even harder for me.
The issue is when you force those beliefs on other people. As a society, we have limited treating people adversely to when actual, direct harm is occasioned on other people through their conduct. I'm not going to go ad infinitum through examples to prove this point, because I think it's fairly self-evident.
Let me give you an example of what our current society hasn't outlawed, though. My religion holds that there are certain duties on all people, whether they are part of my religion or not. I would never seek to impose them on others through the law.
The bottom line is that whatever your belief on homosexuality is, one of the principles that our society holds is that we don't use the law to detract from someone's legal rights, or impose legal burdens on them, unless direct harm would otherwise be caused to other people. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that harm is occasioned to others through gay marriages.
If you do not accept this principle, then it may come to that the majority, one day, may decide that people like you (as in, whichever one of the many groups that you can be characterised as part of) shouldn't be tolerated. Perhaps there will be laws restricting your rights to marry, to. Perhaps your land will be confiscated.I'm aware; that's what happened to Christians, originally, and to the Reformers and Bible translators; that's what happens to anyone who holds a viewpoint totally opposite to society. I'm expecting growing opposition to Christians.
Are there people genuinely saying that it is harder to be homophobic than not as if that should somehow engender sympathy.Not trying to get sympathy; just stating it's a fact that going against the flow is difficult. What do I have to gain out of being homophobic? Nothing; I don't feel more self-righteous from it; it's not fun or easy.
Yep, I realised afterwards that I'd forgotten to deal with whether I think gay marriage should be legalised: if we had a gay marriage referendum, I wouldn't vote. Church vs. state, if the nation wants gay marriage, that's up to them, though it'll make it even harder for me.So there's no issue. You have genuinely held religious beliefs, but you recognise that you can't impose them on others. Anything beyond that is utterly irrelevant for me.
I'm aware; that's what happened to Christians, originally, and to the Reformers and Bible translators; that's what happens to anyone who holds a viewpoint totally opposite to society. I'm expecting growing opposition to Christians.That's fair enough, but of course you have to recognise that it has been Christians who have been doing most of the oppressing for the past millennia. And on top of that, that being reduced from 'predominant religious status' to 'just another minority belief that people treat with contempt' doesn't really qualify for my sympathies. Especially when it has been Christians behind most of the racism towards other religions, not irreligious people.
it has been Christians who have been doing most of the oppressing for the past millenniaIndeed, and that's what I meant by the Bible translators/reformers being oppressed - it was the Christians who did that. How 'Christians' have behaved (I sometimes struggle to call myself a Christian with that history) is utterly horrible and unacceptable. (Interestingly, the Bible teaches that being oppressed is a GOOD thing for Christians).
Not trying to get sympathy; just stating it's a fact that going against the flow is difficult. What do I have to gain out of being homophobic? Nothing; I don't feel more self-righteous from it; it's not fun or easy.
As much as I'd be in support of a change, I don't have a strong feeling that the current government will be following suit at the moment. After the next federal election, however, I could envisage such a change happening. In my opinion, it's simply a matter of time at this point.
Not trying to get sympathy; just stating it's a fact that going against the flow is difficult. What do I have to gain out of being homophobic? Nothing; I don't feel more self-righteous from it; it's not fun or easy.
I've warned you again and again, but I'm not going to stop you. It's your choice. But he also basically says, in the end you'll cop it. So, I can't do the whole 'it's right for you' thing. You're entitled to believe what you want to believe, but I believe that you are wrong and you will eventually 'cop it', to put it very harshly.
This does, however, mean that I'm unable to support the pro-gay movement, and to be honest I am pretty sick of seeing all these rainbows on my Facebook timeline (it's getting a tad repetitive now...)
Also, recently I thought of a similar issue. If homosexuality is fine, I'm interested to see how people view the taboo of incest now. I mean, I've always felt the problem was due to genetics and potentially deformities in the offspring. However, given that homosexuals would adopt children, if an incest couple didn't have any kids naturally, I don't see what the issue would be, and by the argument used for homosexuals, incest couples should also be permitted. Just the results of a little bit of mental wandering.
Thoughts guys on any of the above?
Religion needs to be taken out of this. Those who are against gay marriage are basically pushing their beliefs on other people. Marriage has nothing to do with religion anymore. I don't care whether you like it or not but the fact is, gay people are here. Denying anyone basic rights isn't going to prevent that and it's just going to cause harm.
Also, recently I thought of a similar issue. If homosexuality is fine, I'm interested to see how people view the taboo of incest now. I mean, I've always felt the problem was due to genetics and potentially deformities in the offspring. However, given that homosexuals would adopt children, if an incest couple didn't have any kids naturally, I don't see what the issue would be, and by the argument used for homosexuals, incest couples should also be permitted. Just the results of a little bit of mental wandering.
Thoughts guys on any of the above?
I'm all for gay marriage, but I think that people need to think about the consequences of changing the base that marriage has traditionally rested upon. Would you be against allowing a brother and sister couple to marry?
I feel that pretty much every religious text was wriiten to satisfy the needs of the society at THAT time. If, any religious book was written again in 2015, it would be totally different
And the reason that there are things like pride parades and even the whole rainbow profile pictures on facebook at the moment, is to let people know that they are supported.
I feel that if anything at all is to happen (e.g., constitutional amendment), a vote needs to be held. Just as it is mandatory in elections, everyone should be obligated to vote - that way, we can have a thorough and accurate representation of where the population stands on the issue. Everyone would be entitled to their own opinions, everyone would have an equal voice, and no politician could politicise the issue, which is simply morally and ethically egregious. We are a democracy after all.
My feeling is that if a change was to be made to the constitution to enable same sex couples to wed, then a very strict wording must be employed so as to prevent exploitation of the novel amendment. People will pursue any means to gain an advantage in this life, and if a legal document permits such behaviour, we would have people entering into all sorts of marriage arrangements for tax avoidance purposes, welfare, etc. Hence, whatever change is to be made must be considered with great thought. No changing of Facebook pictures will ever amount to anything significant in the way of change that betters society.
Peace.
P.S. I normally do not weigh in on these things, which is why I presented no view of my own on the matter.
Yes. Incest is completely different to gay marriage. I think my opinion would change if it were perhaps second cousins or maybe cousins but brother and sister? That's wrong. And you'd have to work our where the lines are between abuse/emotional abuse and two people who love each other and want to marry. Because say one sibling was taken advantage of when they were younger or 'groomed' by an older sibling- that would be wrong. If two people wanted to get married and then found out they were siblings? That's different.
These things shouldn't even be compared.
Parliament is clearly given the power to legislate over matters relating to marriage in the Constitution (Section 51). This is why the ACT's same sex marriage law was overturned last year - it conflicted with federal legislation (Marriage Act.)1 If Parliament wants to legislate SSM into law, all it takes is passing some legislation, as with anything else. It doesn't require a constitutional change. Although the pro-same sex marriage side would likely win (65-70% of Australians support same sex marriage) it the campaign would throw up some pretty disgusting bigotry - as what happened in Ireland, California. Calling for a plebiscite (or worse, a constitutional amendment) is just a politician's ploy to dodge confronting the issue. This issue is inherently political.
Nobody thinks that by changing their Facebook picture they'll radically transform society - but it's a harmless way of expressing solidarity with LGBTIQ+ individuals that they know. Tony Abbott won't change his opinion on SSM as a result of this, but plenty of younger LGBITQ+ individuals - particularly those still in the closet feel socially isolated, confused and alone. Seeing your Facebook newsfeed become a rainbow tells them that no, you're not alone, and yes, society does support you.
If someone thinks it's disgusting and putrid, someone who is passionate can't slam them and say it's fine and not disgusting. The notion of freedom is COMPLETELY compromised when someone says "I don't want gay marriage", and everyone jumps on the attack. That means that people are either for gay marriage or bigots, homophobic, religious fanatics.... that's not on, seriously!
There was once a time not too long ago when if someone said "I want gay marriage", everyone would jump on the attack. Similarly for the rights of Aboriginals, or to stop slavery, or in support for interracial marriage, etc. etc.
Society eventually moves towards what is right for these social issues, it's a shame that some people can't accept that by being stuck in their archaic views of how everyone should be.
I don't appreciate when people immediately say people who are against the legislation of same-sex marriage are homophobic. That is one stupid assumption & honestly I find that offensive. There needs to be a point where people are actually saying things and acknowledging that everyone has an opinion ~ that is for people who are both FOR and AGAINST same sex marriage.
I don't care if you find that offensive. I find it offensive that you don't think I deserve the right to marry.
And that's what I mean -everyone immediately thinks that being anti-same sex marriage has to do with archaic views. My views are somewhat based on what my faith teaches, but more so because of my own reasons and beliefs that don't revolve only on what my faith tells.
I'd argue that religion is archaic :P But I guess that's a debate for another day.
I'd argue that religion is archaic :P But I guess that's a debate for another day.
;D
I don't understand how it affects anyones lives except gay people if they can get married....
How does it affect any of you PERSONALLY?
There was once a time not too long ago when if someone said "I want gay marriage", everyone would jump on the attack. Similarly for the rights of Aboriginals, or to stop slavery, or in support for interracial marriage, etc. etc.
Society eventually moves towards what is right for these social issues, it's a shame that some people can't accept that by being stuck in their archaic views of how everyone should be.
While I respect what you say and the grounds you present in support of what you have said, I doubt that an MP can accurately represent his or her electorate with a single vote (not in/in favour), hence my suggestion of a general vote. Fair point about the constitution v. legislation though.
Edit: what I should have said was that when you last voted for your local member,nonetoo few of the candidates expressed their views on same sex marriage at the time of voting (from what I recall, this was the case in my electorate at least), so how could they possibly make a decision with everyone in mind? Not possible. I say this because what we are discussing is an important and charged societal issue, which needs to be resolved as best as possible. I don't want to be hearing the same discussion in 5 years' time because we didn't get it right the first time.
Again, I largely agree with what you are saying, especially the bolded part. I'm just not a convert, especially after the commercialisation of the "je suis Charlie" thing. Plus never underestimate the naďveté of some people out there (you never know who's changing their profile picture thinking that it'll actually do something substantial)!
Same sex marriage is legal in the US and terrorist attacks happen in France and Tunisia. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.
While it may (or may not) be archaic, the practise of religion as an individual may very well have its merits. But those merits end when a life becomes blindly dictated by a piece of text, be it religious or irreligious for that matter.
You quoted me!!! My life feels complete now ;D ;D
- "I cannot do that because of my religion" ✓
- "You cannot do that because of my religion" ×
The individual voting for a representative in a representative democracy is inherently making a compromise. Few people will vote purely based on a single issue - it'll be weighing up several issues and then choosing a candidate (or, much of the time, a party) that they agree with the most. It's the job of the politicians to act on behalf of their constituents, although they can never represent all of them. Sometimes - you need to make an unpopular decision (although supporting SSM is hardly unpopular).
- "I cannot do that because of my religion" ✓
- "You cannot do that because of my religion" ×
- "I cannot do that because of my religion" ✓
- "You cannot do that because of my religion" ×
On point! But what I worry about is that this is an issue that gives me the impression that it will continue to resurface and cloud political debate for years to come (so long as it remains in the state in which we currently find it). A simple yes/no vote should resolve it for a few generations at least. Sure this is not exactly in keeping with democracy, although shouldn't it make everybody a little happier/less disputatious?!
- "I cannot do that because of my religion" ✓
- "You cannot do that because of my religion" ×
While I think this has good meaning, I'd like to mention that sexuality isn't a choice and that this should be more like:You cannot be a Christian and be gay. The bible clearly condemns homosexuality you cant simply pick and choose what suits you from your religion its either you take it as a whole or you dont at all.
I can't be anything other than the sexuality I identify as.
Because some Christians are gay.
In most other countries/US states the issue seems to disappear pretty promptly. Just as you'll catch few people arguing against no-fault divorce or interracial marriage here today, once the issue is settled, it seems to go away (although, of course, Australia is not the Netherlands, or even the US). Even now, the language among those opposed to SSM in Australia has started to shift from 'it'll happen over my dead body' to tact acceptance. Compare Tony Abbott - 'who cares' to 'I'm the only person in my family who still supports the traditional definition of marriage' in a few years.
You cannot be a Christian and be gay. The bible clearly condemns homosexuality you cant simply pick and choose what suits you from your religion its either you take it as a whole or you dont at all.Actually, one's faith is their own choice.
That's an interesting and highly relevant parallel you draw. Let's hope you're right!
Actually, one's faith is their own choice.Actually, by definition a Christian is someone who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You cannot be a Christian and be gay. The bible clearly condemns homosexuality you cant simply pick and choose what suits you from your religion its either you take it as a whole or you dont at all.Hahahaha its cute you think they don't pick and choose.
You cannot be a Christian and be gay. The bible clearly condemns homosexuality you cant simply pick and choose what suits you from your religion its either you take it as a whole or you dont at all.
Well... the bible condemns many other things but you don't see all Christians abiding by them.Committing a sin and believing something isnt a sin are two different things.
A list:
Eating a cheeseburger or anything that mixes meat and dairy (Exodus 23:19)
Eating fat (Leviticus 3:17)
Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7-8)
Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices (Leviticus 19:5-8)
Eating aquatic creatures lacking fins or scales (Deuteronomy 14:9-10)
The forth one is extremely applicable.
Committing a sin and believing something isnt a sin are two different things.
My religion does not allow me to certain things. Although i do i know its wrong and can be forgiven as god is the most merciful. However, saying something isnt a sin when it is thats when you are in deep shit.
Sure, yeah - it's all well and good that everyone should be happy. But why are they so excited about marriage being extended to the general populace in the US when people are being murdered, raped and tortured everyday? It represents the awkward and knobbly system we as a global society have with dealing with things. "Hey, some guy got beheaded by ISIS" should not reasonably be less important than "yeah I can wear this ring now", but guess which one people are talking about. Yes it's cool that another ~1 in 10 people in the US are maybe a bit happier now, but the whole 'loving union' thing is kind of defeated if being legally married is a selling point in the first place.
So, while this is unbelievably hard to say, I've got to say that if I end up totally believing that homosexuality is wrong (a point I'm struggling with), then I'll have to believe it's wrong - for everyone. But again, it's your choice what you do, I'll never try and change that. But basically I'm saying that, yes, because I believe in an 'intolerant' God, I also have to be 'intolerant'. (Don't take that the wrong way).
You cannot be a Christian and be gay. The bible clearly condemns homosexuality you cant simply pick and choose what suits you from your religion its either you take it as a whole or you dont at all.
Committing a sin and believing something isnt a sin are two different things.
My religion does not allow me to certain things. Although i do them i know its wrong and can be forgiven as god is the most merciful. However, saying something isnt a sin when it is thats when you are in deep shit.
Committing a sin and believing something isnt a sin are two different things.The whole point of having a faith is that it's yours - it's not about picking and choosing, it's about believing something and following through. Nowadays, most Christians have their own faith - that doesn't make them "wrong", or even not Christians. It just means they have a belief that they follow that is different to the traditional.
My religion does not allow me to certain things. Although i do them i know its wrong and can be forgiven as god is the most merciful. However, saying something isnt a sin when it is thats when you are in deep shit.
I feel that pretty much every religious text was wriiten to satisfy the needs of the society at THAT time. If, any religious book was written again in 2015, it would be totally different
Sex outside of marriage is forbidden, and any sex within marriage should be for the sole purpose of procreation, according to the Bible.
Incest couples (with the likelihood of deformed offspring) don't really fit the traditional view of marriage as a way to encourage procreation. However, with the changing of the concept of marriage to only focus on the love between two people, an incestuous couple could legitimately claim to be allowed to get married. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this within the next decade, at most.
(Apologises for side tracking the current discussion)
There's already been some states and counties not wanting to follow through with the SCOTUS' (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling. Louisiana has for example, claimed they will not issue any marriage licenses to same-sex couples for 25 days (25 days is the amount of time the losing side can ask the SCOTUS to reconsider their ruling).
There are also some places not issuing marriage licenses to anyone (straight or gay). This will interesting as the SCOTUS ruling stated that marriage is a constitutional right under the equal protection clause and due process clause.
For those interested in reading the SCOTUS' ruling, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf which also contains the dissents. I found Justice Scalia's dissent the most interesting to read in how it was written and the reasoning behind his vote.
Well... the bible condemns many other things but you don't see all Christians abiding by them.
A list:
Eating a cheeseburger or anything that mixes meat and dairy (Exodus 23:19)
Eating fat (Leviticus 3:17)
Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7-8)
Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices (Leviticus 19:5-8)
Eating aquatic creatures lacking fins or scales (Deuteronomy 14:9-10)
The forth one is extremely applicable.
I will now proceed to ask all christian if they have consumed any cheeseburgers lately.
This is your opinion but it's totally irrelevant to the debate. You may think that as a (non-religious?) person but so what? The vast majority of religious people believe their text to one degree of intensity or another is to satisfy the eternal needs of humanity. If it's created by God and God is perfect, surely so is the book.
This is typical of why these debates go nowhere. Non-religious people (who often know very little about religion) telling religious people how they ought to view their very own deeply held beliefs.
Well I'm just gonna say this outright, but this while discussion has made me not want to use this site anymore. ???
Why? :/
Well I'm just gonna say this outright, but this whole discussion has made me not want to use this site anymore. ???
I wholeheartedly agree. Whilst religion may have it's merits (bringing people together for a common "good", etc etc.), it needs to adapt, or the interpretation of its texts and teachings needs to adapt and modernise. It's simply nonsensical to me for someone living in the modern day to follow teachings/writings from hundreds of years ago. You wouldn't use everything (or most things) from a medical textbook from the 1800s to learn how to treat people, why would you use everything (or most things) from a book written hundreds of years ago to learn how to live?Although i hate to digress :P (sorry if i'm interrupting!), you bring up an interesting point. But it seems as though your view is based on the premise that religion and the concept of 'God' was developed by mankind which would of course deem religion archaic if that was the case. Let's look at the religion of Islam for example. Muslims believe that religion was sent by God in order to be adopted as a way of life by mankind in the form of a book (The Quran) believed to be the unaltered word of God. How can they prove that the Quran is in fact the word of God? Well, muslims point to the fact that it contains verses alluding to modern scientific phenomena (the water cycle and embryology are examples off the top of my head). And in the year 500 or thereabouts, such things were virtually unheard of. So it is inconceivable really that somebody actually knew of these things that long ago when modern science has just recently begun discovering these things. Some sort of divine presence is the only explanation really. Anyway, this is quite a broad topic (and this is not a thread about religion). Check this out it's pretty interesting http://www.whyislam.org/submission/the-holy-quran/the-quran-and-modern-science-3/
It's my understanding somewhat rudimentary understanding that God was created as a concept (and I'm talking way before Jesus and his homies) to explain the unknown. What is known and what is unknown is constantly changing, as we continually know more and create questions that we don't know the answers too. Hence, God as a concept should be continually changing. Hence, interpretations of God's teachings from long ago should too.
I have no idea how to relate this back to gay marriage, so I won't even try, but just my view on whatever I just gave my view on.
Ok, so what if I am a gay Christian. I know I am sining however I recognize that if I do not recognize that I am gay I will live the rest of my life unhappy and depressed. So I then remember that because god is so loving he will want me to live a happy life and I know that since he is most merciful I can be forgiven. Can I then be a gay Christian?Most merciful that does not mean he forgives every sin. If you are a Christian and believe you are gay your struggles to fight your homosexual desires will not go un rewarded and maybe a test of faith. To end this you cannot be gay and Christian ITS IMPOSSIBLE.
It does raise an interesting point about the Supreme Court's power - they don't have an army, and they can't enforce their decisions. Indeed, there's actually been a few times in history when the executive branch (President) outright disobeyed a Supreme Court decision (generally in wartime). Likewise, more conservative states will try and throw up barriers to same sex marriage (similar to how they throw up barriers to abortion, despite Roe v. Wade.) There are already a few 'religious freedom' laws in the works allowing civil employees (county clarks and the like) to refuse to marry same sex couples.
Most merciful that does not mean he forgives every sin. If you are a Christian and believe you are gay your struggles to fight your homosexual desires will not go un rewarded and maybe a test of faith. To end this you cannot be gay and Christian ITS IMPOSSIBLE.
For eulerfan
If they have there own faith they're not Christians genius call them whatever you want if you don't follow christs teachings your note a Christian lol. CHristian derives from Jesus last name if you haven't noticed.
For Mahler
No you can't you are still committing a sin and are responsible for it. It's just accepting it as a sin rather than denying it is a sin are two different stories.
I really just struggle to see the parts where it outlines the sins that god can be lenient on. Like where does god rule the line on sins he can be iffy on? I legitimately thought all sins were equal as they were all prohibited.They're are major sins and minor sins. Adultery is a major sin, swearing is a minor sin. Not all sins are to the same degree. This is the same for Jews and for muslims.
I don't think any of you realise how upsetting these comments actually are to hear.
People say that they have nothing wrong with the LGBTQIA+ (whatever the acronym is now) but then try and justify how they don't support gay marriage and compare homosexuality to incest? Seriously? All of our life we are asked if we have a boyfriend or girlfriend yet. We see heterosexual relationships portrayed in movies, on tv and in books. You walk down the street and see straight couples kissing and holding hands. Imagine for a second how that would feel when you know you would never be happy in a relationship like that. You want to but you can't and everyone around you is telling you that you should be.
And the reason that there are things like pride parades and even the whole rainbow profile pictures on facebook at the moment, is to let people know that they are supported. Because it's difficult. Honestly, I can tell you that it's like getting a hug from all of my facebook friends and them saying that they don't think there is anything wrong with me. Because there isn't.
Religion needs to be taken out of this. Those who are against gay marriage are basically pushing their beliefs on other people. Marriage has nothing to do with religion anymore. I don't care whether you like it or not but the fact is, gay people are here. Denying anyone basic rights isn't going to prevent that and it's just going to cause harm.
Okay, I do not understand how a person can relate homosexuality to incest, I just cant and I personally find it very offensive. However on your ground of an incest couple not having any kids (which is very unlikely and prevents many of the problems relating to incest and why it is illegal in the first place) I will give you a reason just to ponder.
With incest you can opt to find someone who is not related to you to have sex/and or a relationship with (it is a choice). When you are gay, you are attracted to your own gender and you cannot just opt out of having sex/and or a relationship with a member of the same sex and start having one with a member of the opposite sex, that would be asking you to be something that you are not. Therefor you are relating an orientation to a choice and that is not valid.
Also I would just like to remind you that without arguing all of the negative factors that incest imposes and just picking and choosing the ones that best suits you, you are not putting up a valid argument for relating incest to homosexuality. You have to consider all aspects of the issue.
Yes. Incest is completely different to gay marriage. I think my opinion would change if it were perhaps second cousins or maybe cousins but brother and sister? That's wrong. And you'd have to work our where the lines are between abuse/emotional abuse and two people who love each other and want to marry. Because say one sibling was taken advantage of when they were younger or 'groomed' by an older sibling- that would be wrong. If two people wanted to get married and then found out they were siblings? That's different.
These things shouldn't even be compared.
Well, over the past years this forum has been my inspiration, I've looked up to a lot of people on here and I still do. However this thread has made me feel really uncomfortable and I can only imagine what any gay young teen on this site would feel like reading it. Nobody seems to really be open to anyone else's opinion and it's just unhelpful.
They're are major sins and minor sins. Adultery is a major sin, swearing is a minor sin. Not all sins are to the same degree. This is the same for Jews and for muslims.
Most merciful that does not mean he forgives every sin. If you are a Christian and believe you are gay your struggles to fight your homosexual desires will not go un rewarded and maybe a test of faith. To end this you cannot be gay and Christian ITS IMPOSSIBLE.
For eulerfan
If they have there own faith they're not Christians genius call them whatever you want if you don't follow christs teachings your note a Christian lol. CHristian derives from Jesus last name if you haven't noticed.
For Mahler
No you can't you are still committing a sin and are responsible for it. It's just accepting it as a sin rather than denying it is a sin are two different stories.
No thank you answering your questions strengthens my faith!
Cool, I did not know that! Ok so I have another question, sorry I am full of them tonight. If it is seemingly so easy or not much of a big deal to break a minor sin, why do they even exist?
Let's do the world a favour and drop "incest" from this debate. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, incest is not. Apples and oranges, Batman and Shrek, happiness and VCE physics. Not comparable.
happiness and VCE physics.
It's blatantly obvious you're not going to even consider what I'm saying, so there's not much point in continuing this discussion. I will say this, though: there are lots of denominations of Christianity, there is certainly more than one way to be Christian. Also, I have never heard of this major/minor sin stuff - since you very clearly see that the Bible is the be all and end all, surely you can point me to the passage that mentions them?Severity of ins are described by the severity of the consequence iI'm not 100 percent sure if there's a passage saying difference between major or minor sins but there is. I could ask my Christian friend cause I'm no t a Christian i just like to study different holy scriptures.
What if two brothers are gay and love each other?Lol
What if two brothers are gay and love each other?Two gay brothers, omg, this is like youtubers Aaron Rhodes and Austin Rhodes.
I am only wishing to encourage more intelligent debate ... After all, do you not want to make your opinions about homosexuality heard in the hope of reducing misunderstandings and bigotry?
No thank you answering your questions strengthens my faith!
Small sins are not a small deal but they just aren't as big as a big sin if that makes sense .
There's no point. You're not going to listen.Lol you need to put your feelings aside then maybe you can get your point across
I'm glad that your faith is strengthened because mine just isn't. To me I view religion as something that you cannot pick and choose, either you are in or out. It annoys me when religious people can chose to ignore a sin that benefits them but can hold another sin in such high moral value that effects others. The way I view it? Yours and many others opinions are hurting others and that is what makes them DIFFERENT to mine and others that support gay marriage. The fact that two loving people would be denied marriage just because someone thinks that homosexuality is a "big" sin is just wrong. In fact is still have never been given a reason to why a person against gay marriage would consider it to effect them personally. Being gay is not a choice, no one would chose to have this level of hate aimed at them but yet some people cannot except it for the fact it is NOT A CHOICE. In closing you have your opinion and I have mine but it is when an opinion starts to discriminate or hurt others that is crosses the line.I agree that you cannot pick and choose. It infuriates me actually.
Rant over. Good night people :)
Lol you need to put your feelings aside then maybe you can get your point across
I agree that you cannot pick and choose. It infuriates me actually.
And I never once said anything about my views lol. I never said I'm against gay marriage(not saying that I am or i I am not). Lol my point was you can't be gay and Christian having said that I really couldn't give f*** what gay people do as long as they don't interfere with my beliefs. But if i was to vote if vote against gay marriage.
Lol you need to put your feelings aside then maybe you can get your point acrossI agree that you cannot pick and choose. It infuriates me actually.
And I never once said anything about my views lol. I never said I'm against gay marriage(not saying that I am or i I am not). Lol my point was you can't be gay and Christian having said that I really couldn't give f*** what gay people do as long as they don't interfere with my beliefs. But if i was to vote if vote against gay marriage.
Yeah lol sorry wasn't aiming it at you originally, just anyone that try's to impose their harmful views on others. However now you have said you'd vote against gay marriage my previous statement now applies to you. I would also like to address that when I was revering to "picking and choosing" I was referring to choosing which sins you disobey.See above
Good question.i once saw two guys hooking up at Melbourne Central by far the most disturbing things I've ever seen in my whole life I immediately went back down the elevator. Legalising gay marriage would make that seem more normal and that would occur more often. I'd vote against solely because of that reason. They should leave that shit in the bedroom.
And he says he's not homophobic
It really depends on the structure the vote takes. Will it be a conscience vote or a matter of party policy?Before I get to the philosophical/legal, we need to iron out the political.
Under a conscience vote, each member can vote according to his own personal beliefs. Under party policy (this is how most politics is done) every member in the party must vote a certain way.
I believe a conscience vote is vastly inferior, it must be a matter of party policy. So far, The Greens are the only major party to do this.
Under a conscience vote, you don't know who you're going to get. You could vote for Labor (or Liberals) because you think they're pro marriage equality but your local MP could be the biggest, anti-gay biggot out there. They are represented to display the will of their electorate and voters. Under a conscience vote, they only represent themselves as a single person.
Marriage is or ought to be a civil right. Like all civil rights, it should not be up to conscience or whim. There was a time where black and white people couldn't marry in many places, imagine if this was voted along the bigoted consciences of the time. Many of these things were only solved with court action or binding votes.
Right now, the only party with a binding policy of this nature is the Greens. Vote Greens and you can be sure each member will vote for marriage equality. The ALP (Labor Party) national conference is coming up. It will be decided whether to make it a matter of conscience or a binding party vote, so, watch this space.
?? Please tell me you're trolling ??