yay America did something good

[fady_22]

You are right, Cthulhu, that the religious have higher divorce rates, but only marginally. Which only goes to show that marriage means nothing.
My opinion only arises from my own personal experience; I am Iraqi, and for my community, if a couple was to live together, and have sexual relations without going to church and declaring their "commitment" for each other, they would be ostracised. That is why I don't see the need for the non-religious to get married.

Could you imagine the outrage of civil unions and de facto relationships had the same legal rights as married couples? The religious fundies that hate everyone would go nuts.

You contradict yourself here; you are for gay marriage but not for giving them the rights of marriage (without legally being married). I think that giving them these rights, but not the opportunity to get married is a good idea because it would not cause the outrage that the legalisation of gay marriage has and will in the future. Legal rights mean nothing to those fundamentalists, but it is the idea that two people of the same sex getting married is what makes them go crazy.

And lynt.br, call me cynical, but I don't think that a love strong enough to withstand any circumstance really exists anymore. Everyone is so selfish these days, which, again, is evidenced by divorce rates. It's quite sad, really.

[Cthulhu]

Well I didn't mean don't give them the rights I'd be more than happy for them to have their rights to be equal and what not. I didn't mean for it to seem like I am against it. I was merely imagining what the reaction would be from some of the religious nuts out there
I imagine it would be:
"DUUUUUUUUUUUUR THEY CANT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS US MARRIED FOLK THEY'RE NOT MARRIED AND THEY'RE A SIN DUUUUUUUUR"

I'm assuming you're muslim, fady. I'm wondering what the Quran says about homosexuality?

[fady_22]

Well I didn't mean don't give them the rights I'd be more than happy for them to have their rights to be equal and what not. I didn't mean for it to seem like I am against it. I was merely imagining what the reaction would be from some of the religious nuts out there
I imagine it would be:
"DUUUUUUUUUUUUR THEY CANT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS US MARRIED FOLK THEY'RE NOT MARRIED AND THEY'RE A SIN DUUUUUUUUR"

I'm assuming you're muslim, fady. I'm wondering what the Quran says about homosexuality?

I'm actually a practicing Catholic.
But as an Iraqi, I know a little more about Islam than the average person. It is actually illegal in Saudi Arabia, as well as other Arab countries, to be homosexual (wow that sounds so stupid), and actually punishable by death, in accordance to Sharia Law (which is derived from the Quaran, I believe). It is treated as a highly immoral sin.

[schmalex]

since most homosexuals are non-religious (due to most religions being intolerant of homosexuality),

That's a pretty large generalisation to make. Just because they don't attend church doesn't mean a majority of homosexuals are non-religious.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? At the moment all they've got is a civil union/domestic partnership which does not grant them the same rights as a marriage licence does.

see http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm for a comparison of the two.

You see marriage as a religious rite does this mean that you think atheists don't have the need to get married?

And I agree that that was a wrong generalisation to make. What I meant was, homosexuals would not get married because their religion frowns upon a sexual relationship before marriage. The fact that they are homosexuals would probably precede that.

Why not grant those rights (which I don't see are significant) to all couples, both de facto and married? It would be better than changing an age old tradition. For centuries, a marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why change that now? And if it is changed, what else will change along with it? Where is the line drawn?

And besides, it's not as if marriage means anything anymore. With the amount of divorces nowadays, I don't see how marriage can be seen as an act of committing oneself to a relationship.

I don't see that atheists have as much of a need as the religious in regards to marriage. Can you enlighten me as to the reasons why an atheist like yourself would want to get married?

NOT ALL CHURCHES FROWN ON HOMOSEXUALITY. The Uniting Church allows homosexuals to be ministers, and I know homosexuals who regularly attend church. So that screws up  that argument pretty badly actually. Also, if atheists are allowed to get married, then why shouldn't homosexuals. It's not up to you to judge WHY the want to get married.

[fady_22]

Most churches frown upon homosexual actions (and not homosexuals per say) because the ultimate aim of marriage in a religious sense is to allow someone to have sex in order to procreate. As homosexuals cannot do this, they cannot get married. I don't think homosexuals are eager to give up their so called "rights" as sexual beings in order to be practicing religious people.

I think that the Uniting Church shares this opinion (as does Catholicism). Although there are some churches that do not, they are of the minority.

There has to be a compelling argument for gay marriage in order to change a tradition that is centuries old.

Also, many atheists are heterosexual, so you cannot compare marriage between atheists and homosexuals.

[schmalex]

I don't see why you're assuming that homosexuals are any less religious than other people. Also, I very much doubt that evey religious person who gets married hasn't had sex before. Most religious people I know who regularly attend church are having pre-marital sex. It's not up to parliament to judge people for having pre-marital sex, it's up to them to give everyone the same rights and let THEM decide whether they want to have sex or not and get married or not.

[fady_22]

Many religions view homosexual actions as a sin, just like heterosexual sex for reasons other than procreation. I am sure that many religious people are having pre-marital sex, but it is recognised as a sin nonetheless.
Allowing gay marriage makes no sense with these beliefs, as I doubt that married gay couples would refrain from having sex.

I'm sorry but your argument makes little sense. I never stated that "parliament should judge people for having pre-marital sex". They can have as much sex as they want, I really couldn't care less, but when they want to change something that I have explained has remained unchanged for centuries, and for reasons that are not really clear to me, I object. Especially when it is in the state that it is at the moment.

[schmalex]

Not all churches frown on homosexuality or pre-marital sex. Why should the government frame laws with only one part of the church in mind? Surely it is for individuals to decide on their own beliefs, and if homosexuals want to get married, I don't see why anyone else should deny them that right. It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.

People who have sex before marriage are allowed to get married....prostitutes are allowed to get married. So why not faithful, religious homosexuals?

[m@tty]

It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.

So. Out with all laws? Allow each of us to decide for ourselves what we will do based on our own conscience(or lack thereof).

[fady_22]

Not all churches frown on homosexuality or pre-marital sex. Why should the government frame laws with only one part of the church in mind? Surely it is for individuals to decide on their own beliefs, and if homosexuals want to get married, I don't see why anyone else should deny them that right. It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.

People who have sex before marriage are allowed to get married....prostitutes are allowed to get married. So why not faithful, religious homosexuals?

Because they have the potential to have children, and to bring them up in a "normal" family. Homosexuals cannot.

You have not given any arguments as to why homosexuals should be able to get married, just saying that they should. Please elaborate.

[/0]

Hold on, does the church own marriage?

Why is this a religious issue in the first place?

[fady_22]

I was just wondering why homosexuals would want to be married, as I believe that it is mostly for religious reasons that people get married-- as homosexual actions are frowned upon by many religions, many homosexuals are effectively non-religious.

Maybe you could answer my question? Why would homosexuals want to get married?

[starbuckscoffee]

I've skimmed through this thread so forgive me if this is out of context.

To fady_22

How does the "potential to have children" (which homosexual couples can do through other means) give u more right to marriage. Also, 'different' doesn't equate to bad. On the contrary, I remember reading an article proposing children raised by homosexual couples to be more well adjusted and disciplined compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

I can't really think of anyone i know who has gotten married for religious reasons too be honest. Of the people i know it was more for social reasons. The recognition of their partner as official.  

[minilunchbox]

Not all churches frown on homosexuality or pre-marital sex. Why should the government frame laws with only one part of the church in mind? Surely it is for individuals to decide on their own beliefs, and if homosexuals want to get married, I don't see why anyone else should deny them that right. It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.

People who have sex before marriage are allowed to get married....prostitutes are allowed to get married. So why not faithful, religious homosexuals?

Because they have the potential to have children, and to bring them up in a "normal" family. Homosexuals cannot.

You have not given any arguments as to why homosexuals should be able to get married, just saying that they should. Please elaborate.

Old people shouldn't marry then. Neither should people who are sterile.

[fady_22]

Starbuckscoffee, I meant that in a religious sense, that is what marriage is ultimately for.
But we are not animals, and that is not all that marriage is about. I can understand wanting to make their relationships "official", but is it necessary to change something that hasn't changed in thousands of years for a small minority of the population? It has the possibility of undermining the institution of marriage, which is in such a fragile state at the moment.

I guess that was a bad choice of words-- marriage is a social and religious expectation that those who want to start a family. We have not progressed to the state that marriage has become completely obsolete as there is still a social stigma surrounding unmarried couples having children. Homosexuals do not need marriage in my eyes, then, as they do not need to surpass this barrier in order to start a family.
Ultimately, I am saying that you cannot grant marriage for love only. It is a legal binding contract, and needs much more than just "love".

I still don't really see the reason for homosexuals to want or deserve to get legally married. At least not any reasons that can outweigh the negatives.

I did a quick google search and found this: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf
It explains how children of gay parents are bullied about the sexual orientation of their parents. Don't you think that a child needs both a father and mother figure for healthy development?

Also have a read of this: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
I think it sums up my beliefs quite nicely. (I'm sorry, it's Friday and my arguments have been incoherent and clunky)

And now I return to one of my first arguments. Where is the line drawn? If gay marriage is legalised, then what is stopping polygamy, marriage between humans and animals etc.? Surely there is love in these relationships as well, as well as the yearning to be recognised as legal partners?