Same Sex Marriage Debate (3 Viewers)

[cosmo 2]

the 1950s were a pretty good time

 

[Prayer]

Could you please complete my survey for my Personal Interest Project thank you I can do yours in return. This will only take 3-5 mins.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NT2J3QH

 

[JasmineFlower]

im writting too late but i dont really care that they can get married however i do care that they are now adding it to the syllabus. i personally dont want my children knowing about lesbians and gays because its forbidden in my religion and tradition.

 

[Jaxxnuts]

im writting too late but i dont really care that they can get married however i do care that they are now adding it to the syllabus. i personally dont want my children knowing about lesbians and gays because its forbidden in my religion and tradition.

They already taught about same sex couples at school prior to when same sex marriage was legalised (well they did at my school, not sure about everyone else). They also had all these same sex awareness days and events like Madi Gras, the national day against biphobia, transphobia, etc

Basically what you're saying is what was said in this video

But yes if you're like Donald Trump then you could potentially reverse SSM? idk

 

[sida1049]

im writting too late but i dont really care that they can get married however i do care that they are now adding it to the syllabus. i personally dont want my children knowing about lesbians and gays because its forbidden in my religion and tradition.

i personally don't want my children witnessing/experiencing systemic discrimination because it's an abhorrent transgression in my (and the best) system of ethics and morality

 

[Jaxxnuts]

i personally don't want my children witnessing/experiencing systemic discrimination because it's an abhorrent transgression in my (and the best) system of ethics and morality

To an extent I agree with statement. LGBTI people are usually born that way and didn't "pick to be like that" hence you can't blame for being like it and because of this fact yes it's not right to discriminate against them.

And yes despite the fact that there are a number of countries supporting SSM, there are still countries that are against it such as the middle east as from a religious and cultural perspective it's deemed as "sinful" (but in some countries, the laws are based of religion)

I mean prior to when SSM was legalised, SS couples already had their rights recognised. And tbh I find the purpose of marriage pointless, like why do you need to get married? You can love someone without the need to get married. You can also have children without the need to get married either (from adoption). Maybe I just don't know what marriage really is?

But yes I do agree with this video (to some extent)

I also don't like the idea of children believing that having parents of both the same gender is appropiate (unless they know they were adopted which I'm sure is mostly the case and can accept that for them it's right to have 2 parents of the same gender) because children aren't made from 2 parents of the same gender (not trying to be homophobic here...just trying to say what's right). I mean don't get me wrong on this but there are children who are raised by single parents but I'm sure they would know that one of their parents (either their mum or dad) was divorced and yes there are children who do have step mums and step dads (but surely they would know one of their parents are biological). When a child raised by two parents of the same gender says "mum" or "dad" who on earth are they referring to?

 

[sida1049]

I mean prior to when SSM was legalised, SS couples already had their rights recognised. And tbh I find the purpose of marriage pointless, like why do you need to get married? You can love someone without the need to get married. You can also have children without the need to get married either (from adoption). Maybe I just don't know what marriage really is?

The issue is that marriage in a secular society is legally recognised, and married couples have certain rights that unmarried couples do not have access to. As a result, it is unfortunately a significant battlefield for same sex couples. But I agree that in an ideal society, marriage shouldn't really be a thing (or at the very least, marriage is a casual social idea that doesn't grant additional legal rights).

I also don't like the idea of children believing that having parents of both the same gender is appropiate (unless they know they were adopted which I'm sure is mostly the case and can accept that for them it's right to have 2 parents of the same gender) because children aren't made from 2 parents of the same gender (not trying to be homophobic here...just trying to say what's right). I mean don't get me wrong on this but there are children who are raised by single parents but I'm sure they would know that one of their parents (either their mum or dad) was divorced and yes there are children who do have step mums and step dads (but surely they would know one of their parents are biological). When a child raised by two parents of the same gender says "mum" or "dad" who on earth are they referring to?

Interesting point, but I think this is a trivial issue. For example, if we believe that having two parents is better than having one (or none), and single parenting is a common thing that we have come to accept, then we should welcome the idea of having children raised by two loving and committed parents enabled through socially accepting same sex couples and their rights in raising children.

I think every kid should know fairly early how conception works, and biological parents aren't necessary good parents. If my parents were of the same sex, I'd call them by their names. We shouldn't let the dictionary nor trivial conventions get in the way of improving people's lives and doing what's ethical.

 

[dan964]

I think personally SSM should be handled as a sensitive/controversial cultural topic, due to the existence of religious/cultural minorities (i.e. multiculturalism) rather than just plainly advocation in the syllabus.

https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policies/controversial-issues-in-schools/

 

[sida1049]

I think personally SSM should be handled as a sensitive/controversial cultural topic, due to the existence of religious/cultural minorities (i.e. multiculturalism) rather than just plainly advocation in the syllabus.

An interesting thought, but SSM is a fundamentally a push against discrimination, which naturally places its advocation on the agenda according to the policy.

I think this is one of those things where even if a person comes from a cultural or religious background that is incompatible with SSM, the only compromise that works in contemporary society is for them to simply let it be. This is for the same reason why different cultures and religions must acknowledge one-another and coexist, despite having fundamentally conflicting tenets (that is, multiculturalism).

 

[Jaxxnuts]

The issue is that marriage in a secular society is legally recognised, and married couples have certain rights that unmarried couples do not have access to. As a result, it is unfortunately a significant battlefield for same sex couples. But I agree that in an ideal society, marriage shouldn't really be a thing (or at the very least, marriage is a casual social idea that doesn't grant additional legal rights).

Interesting point, but I think this is a trivial issue. For example, if we believe that having two parents is better than having one (or none), and single parenting is a common thing that we have come to accept, then we should welcome the idea of having children raised by two loving and committed parents enabled through socially accepting same sex couples and their rights in raising children.

I think every kid should know fairly early how conception works, and biological parents aren't necessary good parents. If my parents were of the same sex, I'd call them by their names. We shouldn't let the dictionary nor trivial conventions get in the way of improving people's lives and doing what's ethical.

IMO instead of legalising SSM, the govt should've had "legally registered couples" and should have made a legal requirement that when couples (regardless if they're heterosexual or homosexual) turn 18 they become "legally registered couples" and just keep marriage to be between a male and female. I know it sounds discriminating but I think that's how it should be (and married couples won't get any extra legal benefits, instead couples in a relationship can get it if they wish). I think marriage is still neccessary in a religious sense but not so much in a legal sense but that's my opinion. Also the word "bastard" means a person who was born prior to when their parents were married so I think there's a point that needs to be raised here

But yes 2 parents doesn't necessarily mean it's better for e.g. domestic violence in relationships which tears a family apart. In my opinion I think it should be up to the child and who they wish to accept as their family for example their biological family might be abusive to them hence they might want to leave and live with foster parents or something. But if I remember correctly, science/research shows that SS couples are as great parents as heterosexual. Despite the fact, to me I'm not in favour of having 2 parents of the same gender.

I think the reason for why cultures and religions oppose SSM is because SS couples can't physically have babies hence they might deem it as an offense or something? But regardless it's already accepted in a number of countries worldwide

 

[Jaxxnuts]

I think personally SSM should be handled as a sensitive/controversial cultural topic, due to the existence of religious/cultural minorities (i.e. multiculturalism) rather than just plainly advocation in the syllabus.

https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policies/controversial-issues-in-schools/

Well learning about SSM is important as it's important to learn that we cannot discriminate against the LGBTI community (as they were born that way). I think the only rights it would infringe on are those who are religious (learning about SSM in schools).

 

[sida1049]

IMO instead of legalising SSM, the govt should've had "legally registered couples" and should have made a legal requirement that when couples (regardless if they're heterosexual or homosexual) turn 18 they become "legally registered couples" and just keep marriage to be between a male and female. I know it sounds discriminating but I think that's how it should be (and married couples won't get any extra legal benefits, instead couples in a relationship can get it if they wish). I think marriage is still neccessary in a religious sense but not so much in a legal sense but that's my opinion. Also the word "bastard" means a person who was born prior to when their parents were married so I think there's a point that needs to be raised here

I agree with you here, and that as long as the legal rights of couples of the same sex are on-par with heterosexual couples, there's nothing more to be discussed in the SSM issue.

But it should be noted that in this case, your definition of "legally registered couples" become equivalent to that of the current married couples under the state. The distinction is the same of that of the number "2" and "1+1".

I think the reason for why cultures and religions oppose SSM is because SS couples can't physically have babies hence they might deem it as an offense or something? But regardless it's already accepted in a number of countries worldwide

I think that the opposition to SSM is almost entirely made up of those who are religious, though their arguments are not always made on a religious basis (and for a good reason: those don't count).

Well learning about SSM is important as it's important to learn that we cannot discriminate against the LGBTI community (as they were born that way). I think the only rights it would infringe on are those who are religious (learning about SSM in schools).

That's kind of interesting. While learning about SSM in schools is kind of a controversial topic, the bigger picture is learning about sexual identity. It's important for people to be aware of it, because otherwise we'd be systematically denying the existence of huge portion of the people you coexist with every day. Half of me thinks that it's fair for parents to seek exemption from SSM-related education for their children, while the other half thinks it's discriminatory to not have being taught about people with different sexual identities, which logically leads to being taught about SSM.

 

[enoilgam]

At the end of the day, the most important result of this whole issue is one of choice. Now that SSM is legal, people are free to choose that option if they so wish. If they dont agree with it, then they are free to not engage in it.

On the whole topic of religious freedom laws, I dont really have a strong opinion, I see arguments for both sides. I dont see an issue with business refusing to serve gay marriages, at the end of the day, if I was having a gay wedding, Id want to give my hard earned money to people who support me, so I support anything that makes this easier to see. I dont agree with people being denied employment or access to vital services though (i.e. gay people being fired from a Catholic school or a gay partner not being recognized in a Catholic Hospital). I dont think the latter is really at issue though.

On the whole education piece, I think the school curriculum is crowded enough as is - just teach kids to respect all people regardless of their beliefs, gender, sexuality etc. There isnt enough of that going around to be honest, respectful disagreement. I dont mind passionate arguments, but geez people these days really take disagreements to heart way too much.

 

[cosmo 2]

there was a guy in a rhino suit

 

[Jaxxnuts]

I agree with you here, and that as long as the legal rights of couples of the same sex are on-par with heterosexual couples, there's nothing more to be discussed in the SSM issue.

But it should be noted that in this case, your definition of "legally registered couples" become equivalent to that of the current married couples under the state. The distinction is the same of that of the number "2" and "1+1".



I think that the opposition to SSM is almost entirely made up of those who are religious, though their arguments are not always made on a religious basis (and for a good reason: those don't count).



That's kind of interesting. While learning about SSM in schools is kind of a controversial topic, the bigger picture is learning about sexual identity. It's important for people to be aware of it, because otherwise we'd be systematically denying the existence of huge portion of the people you coexist with every day. Half of me thinks that it's fair for parents to seek exemption from SSM-related education for their children, while the other half thinks it's discriminatory to not have being taught about people with different sexual identities, which logically leads to being taught about SSM.

Well yes. I mean married couples and unmarried couples should get the same benefits in my opinion, other than that, marriage (in a heterosexual sense) in a societal sense doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose other than a man and a woman becoming husband and wife and some legal form saying that legally you two are married and that's about it. Once your child is born he/she won't be considered as a "bastard"

But I get this feeling that legally registered couple will cause a fair bit of issues (in a legal sense)

IMO I don't care if people are homophobic or not. I guess if people don't agree with SSM for whatever reason, they have their entitlement to do as they wish. I remember during that time frame when people were voting for SSM, the "no" voters would be labelled as homophobes and bigots by the "yes" supporters when I think in reality it's the "yes" supporters who are being the bigots by pressuring others to vote yes.....

I think that in school's it's important to learn the history of marriage and how it has been changed over time (including social norms) hence it would make logical sense as to why SSM is legalised. Now let's trace back to what marriage was in ancient times. Marriage wasn't even about love in ancient times. It was about social status and whether you were a peasant/slave you couldn't marry a king/queen, etc or someone in the upper class. Of course it was between a man and a woman. Now as we fast forward it wasn't about social status, it was redefined for "love", etc, etc. You should get where I'm coming from and now as children/students are growing up in a much different era than Gen Y there will be a lot of social changes.

But yes given the trend of marriage being redefined over time, it will most likely continue to be redefined and change society significantly. Personally I think these changes and redefinitions of marriage will be bad but who knows? We should be looking at trends in other countries where SSM was already legalised way before than when it was in Australia.

 

[Jaxxnuts]

At the end of the day, the most important result of this whole issue is one of choice. Now that SSM is legal, people are free to choose that option if they so wish. If they dont agree with it, then they are free to not engage in it.

On the whole topic of religious freedom laws, I dont really have a strong opinion, I see arguments for both sides. I dont see an issue with business refusing to serve gay marriages, at the end of the day, if I was having a gay wedding, Id want to give my hard earned money to people who support me, so I support anything that makes this easier to see. I dont agree with people being denied employment or access to vital services though (i.e. gay people being fired from a Catholic school or a gay partner not being recognized in a Catholic Hospital). I dont think the latter is really at issue though.

On the whole education piece, I think the school curriculum is crowded enough as is - just teach kids to respect all people regardless of their beliefs, gender, sexuality etc. There isnt enough of that going around to be honest, respectful disagreement. I dont mind passionate arguments, but geez people these days really take disagreements to heart way too much.

I agree

But I guess it depends on people and their moral beliefs

@Sida1049

Getting married for the point of "legal purposes" doesn't seem to serve much of a meaning so I get this feeling that now that non religious people are getting married, they're not doing it just for the sake of love but for the sake of "legal purposes". I mean I feel that now people are going to start making excuses as they believe they are entitled to "legal rights"

 

[sida1049]

@Sida1049

Getting married for the point of "legal purposes" doesn't seem to serve much of a meaning so I get this feeling that now that non religious people are getting married, they're not doing it just for the sake of love but for the sake of "legal purposes". I mean I feel that now people are going to start making excuses as they believe they are entitled to "legal rights"

Hey, part of the reason why my parents married is because their company had a policy that provided newly-wed employees an apartment. I'd totally get married asap if something like this was offered to me.

I think mostly everyone nowadays would agree that the important and meaningful part of a romantic relationship isn't about getting married, but being in the relationship in the first place. So marriage in and of itself, if anything, should be seen as a means to securing certain legal rights, since it doesn't necessarily add anything meaningful to a relationship that isn't already provided by simply being in the relationship (unless, of course, if the persons come from religious upbringing).

Religious individuals may not necessarily enter a marriage for the sake of romantic love either. If you ask a religious individual who isn't married yet, you can probably bet your HSC that they absolutely plan on getting married and having children, whereas secular individuals are much more hesitant on both of those topics. Religion can be an overriding force behind a person's decisions in that area, but this is derailing from topic lol.

 

[cosmo 2]

im gay

 

[Queenroot]

im gay

haram

 

[dan964]

Well learning about SSM is important as it's important to learn that we cannot discriminate against the LGBTI community (as they were born that way). I think the only rights it would infringe on are those who are religious (learning about SSM in schools).

yep, I am not saying that it cannot be covered in the classroom. but I think it be best handly safely and as sensitive as possible, for the sake of both those who agree or disagree with whether it should be legal/moral including cultural/religious reasons.

give parents informed information about what is actually being said about it in the classroom. if parents feel the need to withdraw their child, then the child should not be mistreated for that, since that would be counterproductive and ironically hypocritical.