Same sex marriage debate...

[hobbo]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

100% agree P&C….
My wife and myself will both be voting no .
It's all about tradition for us ...
Adam met Eve ... Not steve .

 

[Yossarian]

As much as I object to the principle of voting on someone else's right to do something, I'll be voting yes. This is a secular society after all. If churches don't want to marry lesbians fine. Excluding gay people will simply contribute to their declining influence and relevance. But denying something on the basis of sexuality is something I don't understand anyone can support.

 

[Yossarian]

One thing this debate has done is highlight how dumb some people from the No side of the argument are. That No ad was quite embarrassing, talking about how kids at school are being made to role play as same sex couples. Others who believe same sex marriage would encourage children to be gay, as if being gay is a choice. Plus the morons who ask "what next, will we start marrying animals?"

I will vote yes, but not because I support the "love is love" catchphrase or anything else, rather solely because 2 consenting adults marrying, regardless of their gender, does not change my life. There's something wrong with you if you wake up in the morning wanting to oppress others over things that have no affect on your life. Go find a hobby.

I've said all along and I will continue to say, whether it takes a month, a year, 5 years or 50, same sex marriage WILL be legalised because the world we live in is progressive. There will come a day when we look back on this the same way we look back now to a time when women and black people were not allowed to vote. Those voting no are only delaying the inevitable. They will ultimately come out on the losing end.

Because many on the no side are using this as a proxy to express their unease or displeasure with homosexuality in general. The amount of people who bang on about parenting is ridiculous - that bird has already flown.

 

[Yossarian]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

100% agree P&C….
My wife and myself will both be voting no .
It's all about tradition for us ...
Adam met Eve ... Not steve .

Fair enough but if you're taking cues from a story featuring a fruit peddling snake you might want to reconsider!

 

[GNR4LIFE]

One thing this debate has done is highlight how dumb some people from the No side of the argument are. That No ad was quite embarrassing, talking about how kids at school are being made to role play as same sex couples. Others who believe same sex marriage would encourage children to be gay, as if being gay is a choice. Plus the morons who ask "what next, will we start marrying animals?"

I will vote yes, but not because I support the "love is love" catchphrase or anything else, rather solely because 2 consenting adults marrying, regardless of their gender, does not change my life. There's something wrong with you if you wake up in the morning wanting to oppress others over things that have no affect on your life. Go find a hobby.

I've said all along and I will continue to say, whether it takes a month, a year, 5 years or 50, same sex marriage WILL be legalised because the world we live in is progressive. There will come a day when we look back on this the same way we look back now to a time when women and black people were not allowed to vote. Those voting no are only delaying the inevitable. They will ultimately come out on the losing end.

Because many on the no side are using this as a proxy to express their unease or displeasure with homosexuality in general. The amount of people who bang on about parenting is ridiculous - that bird has already flown.

A guy I went to school with went on a big rant about it on Facebook. He asked "What next, they will be able to adopt?" I told him they already could and his response was "Oh. Well it's probably easier for them to adopt then it is for normal couples".

 

[JD Tiger]

I'm voting yes.
And to those people who tell me that my own mother can't marry her partner and that my own daughter can not get married one day because they are lesser people and 'gay'… well, let me say this.

My mother is no less of a person because of being gay. She has blue eyes, how about stoping her from being considered a person like any other because of that?

Marriage is a legal union, it can mean whatever you want beyond that to whoever, but legally it is a union between two people. Citing someone's sexual preference as a reason to not allow that union is just discrimination. You don't have to prove you are hetero to get married.

Gay people can still get married now right here, in Australia, down at the local church. But only to someone of the opposite gender. How do you think that adds to the 'sanctity of marriage'?

'Not Adam and Steve' really, how are you going to treat your son or daughter if they are gay? I honestly thought we as a country was better than this.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

Do you believe that gay marriage devalues the institution of any more than a pair of ice addicts who have a family and neglect their kids, a marriage with domestic violence or hetero marriages that end in divorce?

N.B. The ancient Greeks had gay marriage. It predates the Abrahamic faiths.

Marriage was a way for women and their children not to starve to death when agriculture was perfected 10,000 years ago and it wasn't always strictly monogamous. It was borne out of survival instinct and bears little if at all resemblance to what marriage is now.

There is no such institution as "gay marriage".

No, you're right. It was just marriage, and it wasn't just limited to heterosexuals. I'm sorry if that is inconvenient development contrary to your world view.

 

[Russell]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

100% agree P&C….
My wife and myself will both be voting no .
It's all about tradition for us ...
Adam met Eve ... Not steve .

Fair enough but if you're taking cues from a story featuring a fruit peddling snake you might want to reconsider!

I think that is below the belt Yoss.

If people want to vote Yes/no according to their religious beliefs - I can't see any difference in voting yes/no according to their secular beliefs. Isn't that a democracy.

By the way the story of the fruit peddling snake comes from a book called the "Bible" - you really won't turn into a pumpkin if you mention the word.

 

[JD Tiger]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

100% agree P&C….
My wife and myself will both be voting no .
It's all about tradition for us ...
Adam met Eve ... Not steve .

Fair enough but if you're taking cues from a story featuring a fruit peddling snake you might want to reconsider!

I think that is below the belt Yoss.

If people want to vote Yes/no according to their religious beliefs - I can't see any difference in voting yes/no according to their secular beliefs. Isn't that a democracy.

By the way the story of the fruit peddling snake comes from a book called the "Bible" - you really won't turn into a pumpkin if you mention the word.

It fires me up, but yes you're right mate about people being able to vote and say and think how they like.

I'm sticking up for my family, and I understand of course that other people/ families/ groups are just sticking up for theirs and what they believe in too.

I'm just glad that we are dealing with this perceived injustice, (whether it is or not, who am I to say for sure) as there are many more things which I perceive as injustices which I hope one day are addressed also.

 

[Yossarian]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

100% agree P&C….
My wife and myself will both be voting no .
It's all about tradition for us ...
Adam met Eve ... Not steve .

Fair enough but if you're taking cues from a story featuring a fruit peddling snake you might want to reconsider!

I think that is below the belt Yoss.

If people want to vote Yes/no according to their religious beliefs - I can't see any difference in voting yes/no according to their secular beliefs. Isn't that a democracy.

By the way the story of the fruit peddling snake comes from a book called the "Bible" - you really won't turn into a pumpkin if you mention the word.

It was a stab at humour. I know a lot of Christians, Jews Muslims - I respect their faith. But if you're going to use it to advance your case I reserve the right to say otherwise. The Bible brings a lot of comfort and good to many people but taking everything in it literally is IMO ridiculous. Use it to inform your view not dictate what your view is (I use your as a general concept not you personally).

My personal opinion is a person shouldn't get the right to stop other people doing something solely because their religion forbids it. By that logic we'd never have abortions, divorces. If the majority decided that Christians shouldn't be allowed to vote or drive a car I'd be as sttong in my objections.

 

[TrueTiger]

Well guys there are some great opinions on this issue,I myself was taught from a very young age that man and woman get married have children and look after each other,however I now find myself in a world of ever changing ways,do I stand staunch in my view and teachings or do I take on board that things are changing dramatically around me..I first posted because I could see that there is a need to step out of the shadows of teachings long gone,do I still follow what I was taught??,absolutely,but I also have the demeanour to discuss and understand others plights and/or sufferings..take the example of Ian Roberts as

stated in the original post,he was a hard and tough competitor who also had the guts to come out and state his sexuallity,of course people were horrified,but most would have said its his life he can choose his own destiny,this is my main stand….we can all be taught something from early on in our lives but as we grow and develope we should have a right to choose which ever way we want in life its a personal choice,should I condemn that choice?NO,because what I was taught may not have been the same as they were taught....in this day and age we are free to choose,it may not be popular but its that freedom of choice that should be Paramount in anybodies life..
Lastly if a young guy or girl are at school and they have gay tendancies they should still be treated as human beings not lesser persons and be bullied until the brink of suicide...after all we all grow,get sick,bleed and eventually die,what you do with your life is entirely up to you as long as you don't interfer with others lives....
\
\
And Stryker I don't want to marry Ian ,he's not my type...he wouldn't be happy if I told him he would be mummy.... :smiley:

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

If I walked into a Church/Mosque/Synagogue today with some random girl from the street and asked to be married there and then, I have no problem them turning around and saying "No, we don't approve of the validity of your relationship". I respect their right to do that and, honestly, they are absolutely correct.

But the state has no right to make a judgement on the validity of a relationship.

By all means, protect religious freedoms and let the respective congregations have internal debates about the matter.

But there is another side to this. Some people like myself were brainwashed into a religion from a very young age which can result in two re-actions. Okay you wanted me and you got me so my gay wedding is taking place in my RCC come hell or high water. The RCC is the only institution that I recognise - blame yourself.

OR THE OPPOSITE

you (the RCC) immorally brainwashed me (child abuse) so now I will do whatever I want to take revenge on you - you harvest what you sow and if you don't want gay weddings I will be trying my hardest that they will take place.

 

[colmcd]

Sorry Col, your spittting out 50 random thoughts on a matter per post… makes it very hard to respond to, or engage in any sort of serious debate.

Sure (our posts are of the same size), Why on earth would you vote "NO" now if you fear for religious freedom?

Labor has committed to a parliamentary vote in future. Do you think religious freedoms will be better protected under Lee Rhiannon, Penny Wong and Labor when they get into government?

If you vote "YES" now then Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals will be passing the motion. If you vote "No" then Lee Rhiannon, Penny wong and Greens/Labor will draft a future motion.

 

[Russell]

100% agree P&C….
My wife and myself will both be voting no .
It's all about tradition for us ...
Adam met Eve ... Not steve .

Fair enough but if you're taking cues from a story featuring a fruit peddling snake you might want to reconsider!

I think that is below the belt Yoss.

If people want to vote Yes/no according to their religious beliefs - I can't see any difference in voting yes/no according to their secular beliefs. Isn't that a democracy.

By the way the story of the fruit peddling snake comes from a book called the "Bible" - you really won't turn into a pumpkin if you mention the word.

It fires me up, but yes you're right mate about people being able to vote and say and think how they like.

I'm sticking up for my family, and I understand of course that other people/ families/ groups are just sticking up for theirs and what they believe in too.

I'm just glad that we are dealing with this perceived injustice, (whether it is or not, who am I to say for sure) as there are many more things which I perceive as injustices which I hope one day are addressed also.

Just one last word on this from me, because in a way it is going off topic.

If my church, synogogue, mosque or whatever says to me - vote NO.

I don't have to, I have free will, it is a democracy. The point is, religions can say one thing but it is still a choice of sticking with what your religion says or not.

Religious people for the most part are not brainwashed.

 

[colmcd]

If I walked into a Church/Mosque/Synagogue today with some random girl from the street and asked to be married there and then, I have no problem them turning around and saying "No, we don't approve of the validity of your relationship". I respect their right to do that and, honestly, they are absolutely correct.

But the state has no right to make a judgement on the validity of a relationship.

By all means, protect religious freedoms and let the respective congregations have internal debates about the matter.

Not 1 single priest/Imam/religious leader will be forced to perform a gay wedding. There will be an exemption for these people and their should be. Every bill that has come to the parliament has left them alone.

In fact what the current legislation does is stops a priest/Imam/Rabbi/celebrant from performing a Same sex wedding! So your church may recognise Same sex Marriage but you CANNOT have a gay wedding!

Vote "yes" for religious freedom!

 

[Abraham]

Did I ever say that the religious couldn't have their say? I said I have no interest in them telling me what I can and can't do in a secular society, and despite that if they want to vote no I'm not going to carry on like a sook because people are exercising their democratic right. I am in strict agreement with you that I don't agree with gaoling any person who disagrees with my opinions, I go even as far to say the crusade against the doctor featuring in the no campaign ad is a ridiculous reaction and par for the course now from the new age leftist movement. I distance myself from that.

IMO, hierarchy of religious organisations petitioning against things is not the same as the individual voting in accordance with their beliefs. The individual pays tax and in that civic duty they have a civic right to have their say in accordance with their beliefs. The institution does not. A secular law IMO is supposed to consider and cover all individuals and exclude faith so as not to preference one over the others. I would call that the definition of religious freedom.

I thought i responded but somehow it looks like my post didnt make it through for some reason.

Basically, i am glad we agree that Freedom is paramount.

We have also spoken before about Church involvement in social issues. The Church is by its very definition a group of like minded people. To use secular terms, its no different than a Trade Union or Special Interest Group, in that it lobbies for the interests of its tax paying and voting members.

Do you believe that gay marriage devalues the institution of any more than a pair of ice addicts who have a family and neglect their kids, a marriage with domestic violence or hetero marriages that end in divorce?

Why use the lowest common denominator as the example?

Why not use the example of the couple married for 50 years, who raised their children in a loving home, and whose children are now in loving relationships and raising their own families in similar environments.

The starting point should be to emulate the desired situation, not the reverse.
\

N.B. The ancient Greeks had gay marriage. It predates the Abrahamic faiths.

This is actually incorrect.

The ancient greeks used different words to describe gay relaitonships to traditional marriages (gamos), and gay people were never married in Ancient Greece.

Its also worth noting that the majority of gay relationships involved pedophilia, with men being in relationships with boys who had hit puberty (they were literally called 'boy love'). And in the rare cases where two men entered into a public relationship, one of the guys would assume the female role and be ostracized from society.

So if the inference is that the Judeo-Christian religions are the cause of gay people not being able to marry, that is simply incorrect.

 

[Abraham]

Sorry Col, your spittting out 50 random thoughts on a matter per post… makes it very hard to respond to, or engage in any sort of serious debate.

Sure (our posts are of the same size), Why on earth would you vote "NO" now if you fear for religious freedom?

Labor has committed to a parliamentary vote in future. Do you think religious freedoms will be better protected under Lee Rhiannon, Penny Wong and Labor when they get into government?

If you vote "YES" now then Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals will be passing the motion. If you vote "No" then Lee Rhiannon, Penny wong and Greens/Labor will draft a future motion.

I already addressed this claim previously.

It doesn't matter what religious protections the coalition puts in place, because they will be reversed as soon as the next leftist government takes charge.

They said the exact same thing about religious protection in every country that legalised SSM, and it took all of about 5 seconds before the state turned around and started demonising anybody who spoke out for traditional marriage and family values.

It also doesn't address the concerns of private citizens and business people who may not want to take part on a gay wedding, who will be literally thrown in jail if what happened in the USA is anything to go by (it is).

I said previously, there is a Marxist base to the SSM movement, and if your familiar with cultural Marxism, then you should know that this will not end well for a free society.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

….......................

I already addressed this claim previously.

It doesn't matter what religious protections the coalition puts in place, because they will be reversed as soon as the next leftist government takes charge.

They said the exact same thing about religious protection in every country that legalised SSM, and it took all of about 5 seconds before the state turned around and started demonising anybody who spoke out for traditional marriage and family values.

It also doesn't address the concerns of private citizens and business people who may not want to take part on a gay wedding, who will be literally thrown in jail if what happened in the USA is anything to go by (it is).

I said previously, there is a Marxist base to the SSM movement, and if your familiar with cultural Marxism, then you should know that this will not end well for a free society.

The United States case was about a cake business refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Why can't a gay couple have the option of their favourite cake shop making their cake? Would be so difficult for a baker to accept that his customers have evolved differently? Even if an ape come from the jungle and ordered a cake it would not hurt him to supply as long as he got paid.

How is it different to refusing to serve a black man 50 years ago?

 

[Pawsandclaws]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

Do you believe that gay marriage devalues the institution of any more than a pair of ice addicts who have a family and neglect their kids, a marriage with domestic violence or hetero marriages that end in divorce?

N.B. The ancient Greeks had gay marriage. It predates the Abrahamic faiths.

Marriage was a way for women and their children not to starve to death when agriculture was perfected 10,000 years ago and it wasn't always strictly monogamous. It was borne out of survival instinct and bears little if at all resemblance to what marriage is now.

There is no such institution as "gay marriage".

No, you're right. It was just marriage, and it wasn't just limited to heterosexuals. I'm sorry if that is inconvenient development contrary to your world view.

It is interesting you felt the need to preface marriage with gay. This is my issue that with all the goodwill in the world, a marriage and same sex relationship are fundamentally different.

 

[Yossarian]

….......................

I already addressed this claim previously.

It doesn't matter what religious protections the coalition puts in place, because they will be reversed as soon as the next leftist government takes charge.

They said the exact same thing about religious protection in every country that legalised SSM, and it took all of about 5 seconds before the state turned around and started demonising anybody who spoke out for traditional marriage and family values.

It also doesn't address the concerns of private citizens and business people who may not want to take part on a gay wedding, who will be literally thrown in jail if what happened in the USA is anything to go by (it is).

I said previously, there is a Marxist base to the SSM movement, and if your familiar with cultural Marxism, then you should know that this will not end well for a free society.

The United States case was about a cake business refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Why can't a gay couple have the option of their favourite cake shop making their cake? Would be so difficult for a baker to accept that his customers have evolved differently? Even if an ape come from the jungle and ordered a cake it would not hurt him to supply as long as he got paid.

How is it different to refusing to serve a black man 50 years ago?

Mate can you stop posting things I agree with? It's doing my head in!