Gay marriage

[Kanon]

As a pretty committed Christian, my question is now what about gay divorce? Is that double sin? Does that then cancel out (-1 * -1 = +1)? 

But seriously, my views and beliefs about homosexuality are just that, my views. It's a combination of my personal, unverifiable and untestable beliefs so I don't really understand why people would try and superimpose their beliefs over anyone elses. But at the same time I think there's a real danger in allowing a country's legal system to be a substitute for your own morality system.

[sjayne]

I can't even read all of this.

I just wanted to say that it hurts me when someone says they are homophobic, which has to be far greater than whatever 'pain' they experience. Who a person loves is their own business, it has nothing to do with anybody else and it isn't causing them any harm. If you don't believe that gay marriage should be legal then you don't believe in equality. And while everyone is entitled to their own opinion when those opinions infringe on the rights of others, that's when there is a problem.

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.

Then you should be able to understand that identifying as anything other than heterosexual isn't easy either. Nobody would willingly make themselves vulnerable to oppression or abuse. I don't think the argument should be about whether it is right or wrong for two people to marry, but how to protect the people who are in less than ideal circumstances because of their sexuality or gender identity.

[slothpomba]

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.

It really depends on the structure the vote takes.  Will it be a conscience vote or a matter of party policy?

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.

[slothpomba]

I think what is sometimes sorely missed in debates is recognition that people have different base facts.

It's a fact from which you derive a lot of other things from. Say you believe peanuts are horrible as a true fact about the world and i believe they're amazing. We then go on to argue about whether snickers is good. We will never agree because as a fundamental part of your view, you believe a certain fact about peanuts to be true.

When people argue about things like religion, people fail to recognise the debates may not go anywhere useful because people hold different base assumptions about reality. For some people the bible is or isn't the word of God and they believe that as a true fact. Many other things spring from this. People who disagree about the nature of what is reality will have trouble ever agreeing. It is fairly useless in this respect to try tell someone how they ought to practice their religion or change their minds on a basic fact.

It's fairly uncontroversial that the bible prohibits homosexual acts, especially so male homosexual acts (with female counterparts rarely, if ever, mentioned). Marriage is a bit more fuzzy. The bible was composed for a small group of people who shared a rich cultural framework. Many things left unsaid or unclarified were probably none the less prohibited in this society.  Where the crux really lies is what people do with that and various controversies over interpretations (should Christians still obey the Old testament, etc).

It's quite clear though, if you do not like gay marriage, do not get gay married. We live in an age of civil, secular laws. The old days of laws and religion being intertwined formally died long ago. In a secular state, religion should not be a deciding factor (and neither should atheism). Marriage is (or ought to be) a civil right, what we have right now is a discrimination between classes of people and that is not right.

[Russ]

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 just struggle to understand why it's important you tell people it's difficult for you to think homosexuality is evil. Logically it would be to explain your internal struggle for the purposes of rationalisation or creating sympathy.

In any case, the only acceptable response to a statement like that is 'good, I'm glad it's difficult'. Maybe that should be a clue or something, in terms of the evolution of your views?

[Deshouka]

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.

I always thought my teacher was being disrespectful and narrow-minded when she slipped in some religious banter in class. Now I understand why...

[Yacoubb]

In regards to this topic, I feel that many people immediately label those anti-gay marriage as bigots... But everyone is entitled to an opinion. It would be remiss to say that people are using religion as their POV support, but everyone is entitled to an opinion. My religion says that homosexuality is wrong, and I am against it. However, I have friends who are gay & I have never treated then any differently. Ellen DeGeneres is a perfect example of an amazing human being who is gay - but I have multiple reasons for why I don't believe in it. Same time though, a lot of pro gay marriage supporters who claim that religious people bash same-sex marriage which is sacred to them, make extremely disgusting bashing at religion (something sacred to me). It all comes down to the fact that everyone just needs to respect and acknowledge the opinions of others.

[zyzz101]

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

[lzxnl]

I haven't read through the pages of discussion here so I'm going to clearly state my views on gay marriage and you can all bash me or whatever you feel is appropriate.

I personally don't like the idea of gay marriage. I personally cringe inside whenever I see pictures of guys kissing or girls kissing. It's just how my mind works. However, I only dislike the notion of homosexuality. I don't actually look down on homosexuals; I just see them as different to me and if they want to be gay, so be it. As long as I don't feel discomfort around gays, I don't care about their gender orientation. 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...). I'm just saying I'm not supporting it; I'm not opposing it either. I'm sitting on the fence for this debate as while I understand gays should have their love recognised legally, it nevertheless makes me personally feel uncomfortable.

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?

[sjayne]

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.

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...)

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.

[MonsieurHulot]

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 think that you raise an interesting point. Traditionally, the concept of marriage has been inextricably linked with procreation and family. It's a religious creation essentially designed to further to human species. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden, and any sex within marriage should be for the sole purpose of procreation, according to the Bible.
Allowing gay people to marriage essentially changes the definition of marriage, as between any two adults who love each other. Obviously, this reflects the changing of views over time; people have sex outside of marriage all the time and contraception is widely used, between married and non-married couples.

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.

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.

 

You could change every instance of "gay" to "incest" and you'd have an argument for legalising incest marriage that's just as convincing as for gay marriage.

To be honest, if you think about that it's not as offensive at is may first seem. The parallels are pretty strong. Incestuous couples have been around for recorded history, and, just like homosexual couples were and in some places still are, are taboo.

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?

[Jay.C]

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?

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.

[sjayne]

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?

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.

[nino quincampoix]

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

Organised religion just complicates things! (But do what you want in your own home so long as it affects no one else.) And yes, these texts, in a sense, can be viewed as outdated and as having little accord with modern life. They are not entirely obsolete, though.

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 things like the above encourage "passive action." Changing a picture on FB does not equate to real change. It is superficial and is steeped in contradiction. To me it says, "I think I want to support this movement...but, I'm not going to do much about it." It quickly becomes tacky and weakens the overall idea that the movement had intended to signify. Remember "je suis Charlie?" They had that slogan on coffee mugs. Yeah: coffee mugs.


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 (let your mind fill in the blanks...) 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.

[mahler004]

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.

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.

1. Yes, lurking lawyers, I know that the ACT's relationship with the Commonwealth is quite different to that between the Commonwealth and the states .

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.

Indeed. Power imbalance. Also worth pointing out that plenty of societies throughout history (including Western ones, surprisingly recently) have accepted same sex relationships, but the incest taboo is one of the most universal known in anthropology.

It's also worth pointing out that, in many ways, it's remarkable that we're even having a conversation about same sex marriage. Homosexuality was illegal in Tasmania and Queensland up until the 1990s (although not enforced,) and illegal and enforced in several US states until 2003. Recognition that homosexuals (and their relationships) deserve full, civil rights has happened remarkably quickly.