Controversial Issue: Gay Marriage

[Camo]

But that's what might be good, because marriage has such historical and religious connotations, why don't we just have "Civil Unions" as the accepted legal union for all, rather than marriage

Quotes stupid people. But, but, but I want a marriage not a civil union!

Really, its just stupid.

Everybody has the right to marriage in a perfect society, just some people don't believe these people should have rights. And doesn't everybody have the right to rights, amirite?

[CaiTheHuman]

Human rights is a contentious issue as well in term of marriage rights. Look we all want to see more equality and a more peaceful society. But there are so many divisions in Australian Society. What was suppose to be a secular government is now a government influenced by religion. This is annoying as noone gets anywhere with religion in the way.

However everyone is free to their opinion. If gay marriage is legalized it will spark an uproar due to the influence of religion in Australian Society. Christian Communities who feel uncomfortable to let gays marry will get sued for discrimination. A coalition force could easily revoke any sort of same-sex marriage agreement if they came into power. However people get over this and they learn to accept this, remember when they banned interracial marriage in the States. It was overturned and people are okay with it, even tho their may be minority oppositon towards those unions.

[Mech]

There is no valid/rational argument against gay marriage.

Of course there are!

• P1. God condemns homosexuality.
  P2. God sets my moral constitution as a believer.
  C1. Homosexuality is wrong.
  P3. Marriage is in accordance to God's morals.
  C2. Homosexual marriage is wrong.
  

Logically valid, but the soundness of the premises, and therefore the conclusions, can be questioned and criticized.

For example, the argument presupposes God and it also presupposes that marriage is a matter of the Church. The veracity of these presuppositions is questionable.

With re: to incest, it has been suggested that greater degrees of genetic variance stops transmission of defective alleles. However, there is negligible reasoning really to prohibit incest purely on these grounds; it is prohibited because of the potential of sexual grooming and exploitation in the familial situation. Furthermore, in some jurisdictions, it is deemed incestuous to have relations between say a step-father and a step-daughter because an "incestuous" relation is qualified by the social proximity of the couple and not the genetic. It has everything to do with consent and reduction of exploitation of the minor.

The argument of bestiality is absurd. An animal cannot consent or have the cognizance to enter a formal and explicit relationship. The comparison of gay marriage to zoophilia is just some droll hyperbole employed by people who cannot form a coherent argument and wish to cheapen the oppositions arguments with tasteless analogies.

Polygamy is another issue altogether. About the most biologically sound argument; there have been studies done to suggest that the penises of homo sapiens are shaped the way they are so as to scrape out the semen of rival males. Also, it has been shown that men have higher levels of seminal virility in their ejaculates when watching pornography involving more than one male. Men seem to be naturally competitive. I am not sure how well that bodes with our cerebral ethical codes though. 

[ninwa]

yeah no, an argument from god is not rational

[Mech]

yeah no, an argument from god is not rational

Not quite sure how you use the word "rational". I was using it as consistent with reason (a basis) or valid logic.

Nonetheless, I never said I endorsed it. 

[aes_999]

^Another type of unionship ceremony like marriage should be created and should be used exclusively by homosexual couples.

That's the problem, homosexual couples want marriage just like normal couples, not some other unionship ceremony.

[Mech]

Firstly, the passage in the Bible where the writer states that homosexuality is a sin is merely the opinion of the author writing on behalf of the named prophet. It is not the prophet's opinion nor Jesus' nor God's.

How does that bode with Sodom and Gomorrah? 

Now upon reading various religious textbooks, the issue has been dissected thoroughly by the Roman Catholic Church.

And they still want to condemn people apparently biologically "faulted" by the grand deity himself. Does not sound too convincing to me. 

That's the problem, homosexual couples want marriage just like normal couples, not some other unionship ceremony.

Why should they want any other form of unionship other than what makes them an equal to everyone else in the country they live in?

[Mech]

However, it makes me feel better as a person knowing I can be gay and still believe in my God.

Fair enough, but it seems counterproductive to me. Each to their own.

The point is in today's society, marriage has been separated from religion, but the definition has not changed. That's why I am all for another unionship ceremony.

So why are religious groups lobbying to have a say in politics? If you are going to bother with a new union ceremony, I do not see why you could not just change the definition if the majority are for the change.

C'est la vie.

[enwiabe]

tl;dr
through research

I humbly invite you to include this entire document in your research. Skip the first 2 questions.

http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/atheism

[enwiabe]

tl;dr
through research

I humbly invite you to include this entire document in your research. Skip the first 2 questions.

http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/atheism

I found this highly offensive, enwiabe. I post my views in a civilised manner and then I'm attacked for believing in my faith. This argument is not about religion, it's about gay marriage. Let me believe in what I want to. Don't force your beliefs on others. I didn't force mine on you.

I didn't force my views on you in the slightest. I presented an alternative view and requested that you read up on it. At no point did I command you to click the link and read its contents.

I am simply saying that if you truly want to claim that you have researched the topic thoroughly, then you need to properly digest the opposing viewpoint. Otherwise all you've done is read a book that says god is true because the book says god is true. The very definition of circular logic.

[Mech]

I think we should bother with another unionship ceremony because you cannot change the definition of marriage in one country only.

Why not?

I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally, but not the same.

e·qual·i·ty/iˈkwälitē/
Noun:   

    The state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities.
    The condition of being equal in number or amount.

Synonyms:   
parity - par - evenness - sameness - uniformity

[ninwa]

through research, I have come to a conclusion that God does not 'hate' homosexuals.

Firstly, the passage in the Bible where the writer states that homosexuality is a sin is merely the opinion of the author writing on behalf of the named prophet. It is not the prophet's opinion nor Jesus' nor God's. Now upon reading various religious textbooks, the issue has been dissected thoroughly by the Roman Catholic Church.

In Roman Catholicism, homosexual acts are considered contrary to natural law and sinful, while homosexual desires are considered "disordered" but not themselves sinful.

If you want an article that cites specific passages, http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

They do acknowledge that people do not have a choice over homosexuality and furthermore have said that it is only a sin if you take part in any sexual conduct outside of marriage (this just happens to encompass gay sex).

Nope

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

Because of the way I've been raised, I believe the term 'marriage' is defined as the unionship of a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with its religious origin as marriage has now been separated from religion. To me, changing the marriage act to include gay marriage is like saying that all hares can now be classified as rabbits. So what do I believe should happen? As stupid as this sounds, I think another type of unionship ceremony like marriage should be created and should be used exclusively by homosexual couples. Being classified as same-sex de facto relationships is not enough.

Separate but equal... sounds familiar

[chocolatedaddy]

The point is in today's society, marriage has been separated from religion, but the definition has not changed. That's why I am all for another unionship ceremony.

Marriage was never a religious institution to begin with. Marriage predates recorded history. The ancient Greeks has marriage. All that was required was mutual agreement and for the couple to regard each other as partners. Why would another union ship ceremony be necessary when a Korean guy can marry a pillow. http://wakpo.com/articles/neat-stuff/korean-otaku-marries-his-anime-pillow-fate-testarossa. They didn't have a separate union ship ceremony. They wanted the real deal.

[ninwa]

^ that dota be added to all high school curriculums

SORRY OFF TOPIC

um.

Look, as I've said earlier, when it comes to religion, different people will interpret things differently.

But surely the word of the Holy See is as close as you can get to the true word of god?

[Mech]

I think the point has been made, guys. Relax a bit.