Anyone who votes no is a dumb cunt!
A shitload of the 'no' campaigners arguments are based on bullshit like transgenderism and boys wearing dresses.... Like what the fuck, nice of them to completely change the topic and not only invoke homophobia but also transphobia. Oh and the stats they keep rehashing from some absurd Canadian report, not only exaggerated but heavily edited to fit their narrow point of view.
Yeah except for the fact, that logically for the push/advance of LGBTIQ "rights", which for them* (some not nec. all) this is what is all about, transgenderism and the removal of gender distinction is the next battle to be won. You could accuse it of a slippery slope of course, except that is exactly how the campaign has headed in the UK and in other countries that have adopted ssm as their marriage policy/definition.
Also, anyone who argues for it on religious grounds shouldn't be throwing stones at glass houses. Sure, the Bible/quran/torah etc. are all strict on marriage being between man and woman, but they also have very strict laws on no sex before marriage, dietary requirements, and a bunch of other rulings which many hypocrites go around saying are "outdated" or whatnot.
Kind of a theological sidetrack to explain:
Jesus clearly declares all food clean in the New Testament, so that one is clear. Besides in the same section, he slams the religious elite for holding to their own traditions, and nullifying God's word. What makes a person unclean is what comes out of their heart, this is why certain things are emphasised by the Jesus/apostles in the New Testament, such as sexual immorality and all that, and things like food laws, laws of wearing clothing are not.
The primary purpose of those strict laws most of which are in the Old Testament, was to set Israel apart from other nations, including the food laws. Ultimately Jesus says he is the fulfillment of the law in Matthew 5 for instance, but then proceeds to teach to his disciples, about how following him would impact the way they live. What sets Christians apart, is no longer their adherance to the law of Moses or even the 10 Commandments, but rather as people depending on Jesus alone for salvation rather than their own obedience or good works. (that said the latter leads to a changed life)
With respect to the debate on marriage, Jesus in speaking on divorce, clearly affirms an understanding of marriage as one man and one woman. Paul in the same section when describing homosexual acts as sin, also comments that it is not the place of Christians to judge those outside the church and also comments "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.", that because Christians are bought/redeemed back by Jesus death.
So what stops the definition of marriage from being outdated? Or do you only pick and choose parts of your religious book to fit your agenda when you see fit.
Some do pick/choose, whether it be religious or not. Ironically it is sometimes those who want to affirm same-sex marriage and all that.
Marriage isn't simply a religious concept anyways, as many have said. You can put forward a case to say that marriage as a secular institution is outdated in terms of its definitions, but the real question, is can you do that, without removing the whole reason marriage was put into statute law in the first place...
As for Christian teaching on marriage, is firmly rooted in how Christians believe God purposed the world to be; and God's purposes behind it. That does inform Christian people when they speak of their views on the subject, so I myself cannot claim, not to be as biased as the most avid gay-rights supporter either.
P.S. Wasn't the Anglican Church created by an English King to change the definition of marriage/divorce? Ironic.
There is some truth in that but it is also slightly misleading to a degree.
The Anglican church (or church of England) existed well (it was established in 587BC) before Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wives. But it depends on which view you take.
With regards to the particular time you have in mind, the wider religious context was the Reformation which was said to begun 500 years (to date 31/10/17) with Martin Luther nailing his 95 thesis on a church door in Wittemburg. this is also in a time where religion and politics often affecting each other more closely.
Many government used the opportunity of religious split that the Reformation & Luther in general had from Roman Catholic dogma (and also the catholic Counter-Reformation), for their political ends, often pushed ironically by religious extremists and zealots (who even in Luther's day such figures existed and were opposed by Luther and other key figures in the Reformation).
One notable example is that of Henry VIII, in his own interests, mainly political sought to severe his ties with the political powers of Rome (in the papacy), so that yes he could divorce his wife; and so rejecting both the poltical (and consequently the spiritual) authority of the Pope/papacy in 1534; thus distinguishing the Church of England as being separate/a schism occured.
As a result of this political climate, the religious reforms and the character and teachings of the church, as being reformed; came not at the hand of Henry VIII, but people like Thomas Cramner. Cranmer was an influential person, who held to the teaching of the Reformation, that salvation was by grace alone, through faith alone and in Christ alone; and it is him, and others like him, that had the influence in shaping the church's understanding not just on salvation but also marriage itself; rather than Henry VIII. Even though the church was separated itself from Rome, major religious reforms away from Catholic teaching did not happen during Henry VIII's rule (since Henry himself indeed had spoken out against Lutheranism in 1521, and remaining "essentially Catholic" to some degree)
Religious reform and political reform continued progress. It was in the reign of Henry VIII's son, Edward VII, that the teachings (of Anglicanism of the variant you have in Sydney) took shape, adopting the teaching of the Reformation, reflecting in the production of the Prayer Book in both 1549, 1552.
These reforms were reversed in 1553, under Queen Mary I, to a more catholic position (which resulting in Cranmer and Latimer being burnt at the stake for refusing to renounce Protestant/Reformed teaching).
It returned to a more reformed position with Queen Elizabeth I in 1558/1559; with a settlement between the Catholic and Protestant groups within the church occuring during her reign. Although in 1570, she was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church
An interesting history of religion and politics
Oh and can't forget about the crowd that votes 'NO' because they're anti-SJW/PC. That takes the cake for utter stupidity they showcase. The same crowd (mostly men) who complain about men being discriminated and victimised against and degrade women as thots and whatnot, are against the fellow "Brodies" marrying the superior gender and avoiding "thots".
The far right is far from right, may I say.
Although their position does reveal one thing: is should we neglect the situations when men are victims of abuse or inequalities in legal proceedings such as divorce cases?; it is a much tricky issue than it would appear on the surface.
Anyway, this is all coming from a straight, conservative guy with no gay mates who doesn't give 2 fucks about the $122 MILLION OPINION POLL. Just get equal rights over and done with in 30secs, and focus on real issues like housing prices, the energy market fuckers and telling China to fuck off bullying others countries in the South China Sea and supporting North Korea.
fair enough
