Homosexuality in Australia (10 Viewers)

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

The reason can be completely stupid (and it can be one which you do not relate or agree with), but the state is obliged to serve the wishes of the people. If everyone in this country said we want to legalise racist hate crime, sorry but it becomes law. Yeah, it may not be morally "right"in your opinion (or mine) but laws are based on the will of the people.

That's good then. If homosexuals truely have gained greater recognition over the years then...

Or what do you think of this name_taken?

Well seriously now, I think you should meet us in the middle here. How about... only christian homosexuals should be denied the "right" to marry and "adopt" and all non-christians should be given the right to enter in to "civil unions", which would grant them all rights normally vested to a married couple. Though... it would be weird to ask your partner, "Will you 'civil union' me?"

 

[Graney]

Anyone in society has the right to oppose legislature, and for whatever reason they want. Government serves the people, not the other way around.

The reason can be completely stupid (and it can be one which you do not relate or agree with), but the state is obliged to serve the wishes of the people. If everyone in this country said we want to legalise racist hate crime, sorry but it becomes law. Yeah, it may not be morally "right"in your opinion (or mine) but laws are based on the will of the people.

All the current polling shows majority support for gay marriage. The status quo does not reflect the will of the people, but rather the government pandering to religious lobbyists.

The survey commissioned by lobby group Australian Marriage Equality showed support for gay marriage rose to 60 per cent, up from 57 per cent two years ago, following changes last year that removed some forms of discrimination against gay couples but did not allow marriage.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage-20090616-ce8k.html

Before you try to criticize the methodology of this poll (any attempt to do so it would be based on a complete misunderstanding of the science of statistics), I would ask you to find a contrary poll. This is far from the only poll ever taken on this subject.

Nobody has yet presented a credible case (without any religious or anti-religious points) as to why society should go out of its way to accept same sex marriage and promote homosexuality.

If you're so strongly in favour of democracy being representative of the will of the people, you should be outraged by legislation on gay marriage currently acting contrary to that will. The majority do accept same sex marriage, they are being forced to 'go out of their way' to accept a minority opposition.

 

[Name_Taken]

If you're so strongly in favour of democracy being representative of the will of the people, you should be outraged by legislation on gay marriage currently acting contrary to that will. The majority do accept same sex marriage, they are being forced to 'go out of their way' to accept a minority opposition.

Lol, I'm in favour of decmocracy, and if the majority of the population choose to agree on something and it becomes law, I'm going to respect it, whether I personally disagree with it or not.

Hurry up and legislate it then. I'm still going to oppose it, but I'm not going to deny the population the right to vote, simply to advance my own views.

I am more annoyed about the complete destruction of marriage however, and it's not merely the fault of the gay population, they just want in.

Marriage to me is a religious ceremony, a holy sacrament. I have no objection to you or anyone else finding peace in Christ, in fact I think thats great.

But whats so important about matrimony? I don't see many athiests and homosexuals lining up to the confession booth.

 

[Graney]

Marriage wasn't invented by the church, and in contemporary times has come to signify any union between two (heterosexual) people. Secular people are not really edging their way into your tradition, because they make no claim that their relationship is endorsed by god.

It's a concept entirely divorced from it's religious meaning for those who are not married by a church. You've really got no grounds to claim that tradition, with symbolic ceremonies honouring partnering for life existing in pre-christian and non-christian cultures globally.

 

[Name_Taken]

Marriage wasn't invented by the church, and in contemporary times has come to signify any union between two (heterosexual) people. Secular people are not really edging their way into your tradition, because they make no claim that their relationship is endorsed by god.

It's a concept entirely divorced from it's religious meaning for those who are not married by a church. You've really got no grounds to claim that tradition, with symbolic ceremonies honouring partnering for life existing in pre-christian and non-christian cultures globally.

Why get married in a Church then, the house of God, as it were, if you don't require His endoresement of your commitment to your partner?

Marriage, to the state is no more than signing a form with you partner. Why is though, that so many people insist in going through with the (deeply religiously rooted) ceremony?

Like, I conceed such an event merits a party, but it is possible to celebrate something without having to rely on said fundamentally religious ceremony, isn't it? (Would simply seem a logical conclusion, as most people don't even agree with the views of the organisation which would otherwise be conducting the ceremony).

 

[evilflic]

Nothing against homosexuality.
Not such a fan of marriage (including heterosexual) though.
If gay people want to marry then let them. You get less for murder, anyway.

 

[Graney]

Why get married in a Church then, the house of God, as it were, if you don't require His endoresement of your commitment to your partner?

Marriage, to the state is no more than signing a form with you partner. Why is though, that so many people insist in going through with the (deeply religiously rooted) ceremony?

Like, I conceed such an event merits a party, but it is possible to celebrate something without having to rely on said fundamentally religious ceremony, isn't it? (Would simply seem a logical conclusion, as most people don't even agree with the views of the organisation which would otherwise be conducting the ceremony).

Well if an atheist is getting married in a church, it's probably just because it's a nice, cheap, public building with good parking

If you're going to get married somewhere, churches have the logistics and organisation.

I don't see how you can say it's fundamentally religious, and particularly fundamentally christian. What part of a secular marriage ties it to christianity? That's not it's origin, and the couple committing to each other aren't claiming any association with that aspect of the ceremony.

 

[Name_Taken]

Well if an atheist is getting married in a church, it's probably just because it's a nice, cheap, public building with good parking

If you're going to get married somewhere, churches have the logistics and organisation.

I don't see how you can say it's fundamentally religious, and particularly fundamentally christian. What part of a secular marriage ties it to christianity? That's not it's origin, and the couple committing to each other aren't claiming any association with that aspect of the ceremony.

Could go RSL or book out a conference hall, lol there's plenty of alternative areas to hold such a funtion.

Lol, then what point is the ceremony itself, if you're just using it as a means of celebration (like good on you for celebrating and all) but marriage is a ceremony which does hold religious meaning for the Christian, and like if you don't do it for the meaning...

And as you say, "marriage" is hardly exclusively Christian, other religions have their own ceremonies. Why is it that among unbelievers, the most common preference is to follow that of the (broadly speaking) Christian ceremony (obv. different demoninations have varying traditions and all etc.).

If the Christian faith is as meaningless to you as the Jewish faith or Islamic faith, why not a Synagogue or a Mosque?

 

[Kwayera]

Woah wait hold on. I'm pretty sure gays aren't demanding that they be allowed to get married in churches (i.e. that churches have to accomodate them). But they are asking for the right to be married, which for many purposes is different (tax, next of kin, benefits, rah rah) and superior to a civil union (which they also aren't allowed in Australia?).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Could go RSL or book out a conference hall, lol there's plenty of alternative areas to hold such a funtion.

Lol, then what point is the ceremony itself, if you're just using it as a means of celebration (like good on you for celebrating and all) but marriage is a ceremony which does hold religious meaning for the Christian, and like if you don't do it for the meaning...

And as you say, "marriage" is hardly exclusively Christian, other religions have their own ceremonies. Why is it that among unbelievers, the most common preference is to follow that of the (broadly speaking) Christian ceremony (obv. different demoninations have varying traditions and all etc.).

If the Christian faith is as meaningless to you as the Jewish faith or Islamic faith, why not a Synagogue or a Mosque?

Personally, I wouldn't get married in a church lol.

Maybe at some function centre or something

 

[Name_Taken]

Lol, but bear in mind, this is more of a general compaint directed towards athiest in general, like I'm not crying about how they are irrepairably laying waste to the Churches traditions, and like if they insist in getting married, I'm not going to stop them, just it seems so pointless if you're an unbeliever.

Like as a Christian, I wouldn't take part in a Muslim marriage ceremony, so I don't see why athiests seem so keen on taking part in this particular Christian ceremony. IDK it just irks me I suppose <shrug>.

 

[Iron]

You are so "lol" mate.

Well seriously now, I think you should meet us in the middle here. How about... only christian homosexuals should be denied the "right" to marry and "adopt" and all non-christians should be given the right to enter in to "civil unions", which would grant them all rights normally vested to a married couple. Though... it would be weird to ask your partner, "Will you 'civil union' me?"

church has no pr5oblem with this

yay toenails is finally happy

 

[bio_nut]

I would get married to symbolise a (hopefully!) long term committment to my partner. Some financial and social benefits too.

Not because of any faith. Would also rather be married outdoors.

This guy is struggling to understand why gays would want his kind of marriage without realising most people DON'T feel the same way about marriage.

 

[Name_Taken]

I would get married to symbolise a (hopefully!) long term committment to my partner. Some financial and social benefits too.

Not because of any faith. Would also rather be married outdoors.

This guy is struggling to understand why gays would want his kind of marriage without realising most people DON'T feel the same way about marriage.

No I appreciate why gays want to get married, but these goals (celebrating commitment and love etc.) can be acheived and even expressed openly without marriage itself.

 

[Graney]

Lol, then what point is the ceremony itself, if you're just using it as a means of celebration (like good on you for celebrating and all) but marriage is a ceremony which does hold religious meaning for the Christian, and like if you don't do it for the meaning...

The commitment between two people, and the public celebration of this, is all it means for those people.

And as you say, "marriage" is hardly exclusively Christian, other religions have their own ceremonies. Why is it that among unbelievers, the most common preference is to follow that of the (broadly speaking) Christian ceremony (obv. different demoninations have varying traditions and all etc.).

Because it's cultural, it's just the done thing, it makes Auntie Maureen happy. People do the thing that their parents, and their parents parents did, just because. It's a comfortable and familiar environment to be in. A mosque is too full of brown people.

 

[SnowFox]

Oi dick breath you still havnt answered the transsexual question.

 

[Name_Taken]

Oi dick breath you still havnt answered the transsexual question.

And suddenly for some reason feel even less inclined to do so.

 

[SnowFox]

And suddenly for some reason feel even less inclined to do so.

I've asked atleast 3 times now, and you have still yet to answer it.

 

[Name_Taken]

I've asked atleast 3 times now, and you have still yet to answer it.

I don't recall reading it but w/e it is, the answer is probably going to be "no".

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I don't recall reading it but w/e it is, the answer is probably going to be "no".

But does the bible say anything about transexuals?

Also, insider trading is obviously wrong. Does the bible forbid it?