Homosexuality in Australia (32 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

with religious connatations, and find a source more valid than wikipedia

No, not necessarily with religious connotations. Follow the citations given. Wikipedia is fine in this context.

 

[gingasam]

I have nothing against them being together, but marriage seems wrong, because like what pman said, why would you get involved with a religion that condemns you.

 

[Silver Persian]

1) What Kwayera just said.
2) Even if it were true that marriage always had been a religious practice, this says nothing about whether marriage has to be a relifious practice, or whether it should be a religious practice.

 

[spyro14]

No, not necessarily with religious connotations. Follow the citations given. Wikipedia is fine in this context.

"the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history"

Straight from your wikipedia article, so that would mean noone is at liberty to say whether it originated from religion or not.

I now expect someone to tell me that i've missed something.

 

[Silver Persian]

It really doesn't matter where marriage originated from:

2) Even if it were true that marriage always had been a religious practice, this says nothing about whether marriage has to be a relifious practice, or whether it should be a religious practice.

 

[Kwayera]

"the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history"

Straight from your wikipedia article, so that would mean noone is at liberty to say whether it originated from religion or not.

I now expect someone to tell me that i've missed something.

Feel free to suggest a religion it has come from, then, considering it certainly predates most of the religions currently practiced today.

Marriage and pair-bonding existed in the stone age, where there are no links between it and any sort of demonstrated ceremonial practices. Christianity certainly only got involved in it in Europe the early medieval periods, like the 12th century or something, and before that religion definitely didn't have much to do with it at all. It was a business transaction, one generally required to ensure the progression of property to legitimate heirs. Again, nothing really to do with religion.

 

[Tangent]

Didnt we all have this argument a few pages back?? The argument still stand that there is want for equility, as marriage is the ultimate form of commitment. If civil union is 'just as good', then why not have marriage anyway?
When you look at it, there is no real reason for there not to be same- sex marriages. for the 'marriage is tied to religion' argument, even if that is true, amny athiests marry these days anyways. Why should marriage be between only a man and a woman?

dyk that if you get a sex change your marriage would be recognised in Aust. ? Things aren't black and white.

 

[Empyrean444]

The important fact regarding the 'religion vs politics' question for the origin of marriage is that it certainly predates Christianity, which in turn means that Christians do not have a fair case for arguing against it as a secular practice. If the Churches themselves refuse to marry gays (irrespective of state/secular practice), then that too is acceptable (their freedom of choice etc).

 

[Tangent]

The important fact regarding the 'religion vs politics' question for the origin of marriage is that it certainly predates Christianity, which in turn means that Christians do not have a fair case for arguing against it as a secular practice. If the Churches themselves refuse to marry gays (irrespective of state/secular practice), then that too is acceptable (their freedom of choice etc).

Exactly. Let there be marriage for everyone, no matter what religion, race or sexuality. Besides, the final hurdle should always be the in-laws. It's an equality thing. Who is someone to deny rights to another person for no reason?

 

[fieldingsmitha]

i agree with you tangent. but i do think the fact that gays can't legally be married is a bit unfair. if they want to do that. then let them, no it wouldn't be sanctified by the church [any one of them that have been mentioned in this thread] but it would still make them equal in the eyes of the tax office and centrelink. they deserve to have the same rights as the rest of us.
i admit that the main issue regarding gay/lesbian marriage would be the families that are involved but if that hurdle was over come there shouldn't be anything that restricts 2 people who love each other form being unified in marriage. its the best thing to show commitment to another person, especially if you feel that deeply for them.
the fast that our western view has been shaped so much by christian values is because our governing system is based on it. unless you changed the entire running system and value base of our country its not going to be really any different to what it is now, obviously with a few revisions on certain laws regarding womens rights ect ect... but it'll be an interesting path to observe as the argument develops [politically i mean]... whats your opinon guys?

 

[brittanica-]

traditions change.. yes?
women, negros, indigenous australians etc are being granted more rights than what they were previously afforded... so why shouldn't the gay community be allowed a small thing that has absolutely no effect on the heterosexual community?

touche!

 

[Tangent]

YouTube - Equal Love: Marriage: It's not too much to ask

This is the last ad in the ad campaign. I think it cuts straight to the heart of the matter, even though it may seem melodramatic

 

[spyro14]

I finally get to use this word after all these years. By principle I would be an Antidisestablishmentarian if I actually cared about what's going on around me.

 

[kokodamonkey]

haha nice one spyro.

 

[meeatu]

Wow! I was surprised by how even(ish) the polls are...
Do us fags really scare you that much.
Lol.
Frankly, I'm not too fussed about marriage myself...
The whole civil partnership thing is fine for me.
In my eyes, Let the Catholics have their "no fags allowed" club.
But equally, I understand that plenty of homosexual couples aren't as easy going as my boyfriend and I are, and sure... I don't see why (morally) they should have any less rights then straight couples... I mean marriage itself is no longer a religeous thing anyway, so you can't really draw the "holy matrimony between MAN AND WOMAN card on us - You can get married by a completely secular organization... Soo... yeah... I think it should be llegalized from a moral perspective, but I also see that causing problems practically, and I am willing to wait for it, because when you think about it, there are far more serious homophobic notions around.... so honestly... Deal with fag bashings first... then w can worry about marriage.

Let me put it this way.
I'd rather have a civil partnership, and be able to walk down the street hand in hand with him without getting into a fight, than get married, and then fag dragged.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Interesting points...and very true. Best case scenario would be marriage and no 'fag bashings', of course...

 

[kokodamonkey]

who let "them" post on bos..

 

[Tangent]

yes, damn 'them'

 

[Iron]

Homosexual marriage will do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the homosexual. The oppression is, and always will be, from your conscience, not society

 

[kokodamonkey]

why are we bending to the whims of a minority to destroy important institutions..