Same Sex Marriage Debate (3 Viewers)

[spaghettii]

I was interested in this reply especially as it comes from a supposedly well educated person (an assumption I made based on your chosen subjects) and I'd just like to reply with some notes and maybe start a debate:

1. This shouldn't be a matter of religion, as our government is meant to be keeping religion and state separate - this is a state issue, not a religious one. If it were, we wouldn't be having atheists getting married.

This is absolutely correct and I stand for a secular society that can function morally and still uphold the traditional values that make up its foundation.

2. Legalisation of same sex marriage will not even affect you unless you yourself are planning on entering a same sex marriage.

I believe this assumption is incorrect. Firstly, the traditional values of parenthood and family will be threatened by schools who will promote homosexuality and the acceptance of homosexual relationships. Even as a non-religious person, I still wish for my children to uphold these traditional values however the fragility of children's minds will be taken advantage of and if they do not conform to this educational overhaul, they will be subject to bullying and discrimination. If you don't believe so, take a look at the horrendous behaviour of many of those who support gay marriage in response to people who do not agree with them. And gay marriage isn't even legal yet!

3. Your point on freedom of speech

I agree with some of what you say. In Australia you can still be fired from your job if the things you say do not uphold the values of the organisation and whether this is fair or not is another argument. However, freedom of speech is very much at risk and this is a significant factor towards the no vote argument. Like I stated above, people are already being attacked for voicing their opinions against gay marriage and no laws have even been passed yet. One more thing for this point, recently a bill has been proposed which states that those who speak against homosexual relationships could be fined a significant sum. These are all significant ramifications to those who aren't even in a homosexual relationship.

I'd just like to add one more thing. Straying away from the issue of marriage for just a moment, gay intercourse is extremely dangerous and unhealthy to both parties. Just look up the HIV and other STD rates in gay couples. I am very much for the privacy of couples in a consensual relationship however these rates in STDs means billions of Dollars for treatment. This effect you and me.

I agree with your statement that SSM will affect other areas of society, and I was wrong to state otherwise. However, regarding schools, I do believe that some form of inclusive education to do with the LGBTI community is required. Rates of depression and suicide are much higher in LGBTI teenagers, often as a result of bullying/abuse due to a lack of acceptance. Hence, I believe that some form of program within schools is required, as such programs in other countries such as the USA have resulted in a reduction in bullying and a higher chance of LGBTI students completing school. In saying that, I understand your concerns about bullying and discrimination, hence why I believe that such education should be
1) limited to secondary schools
2) only involve information regarding types of sexualities and sexual health (as a way to combat the HIV epidemic you have mentioned)
3) be presented using accurate information in a neutral manner
This way, teenagers can be allowed to make up their own minds as to what the ideal family environment looks like, whilst simultaneously reducing rates of bullying against LGBTI students

Regarding free speech, I also agree that the Yes side needs to calm their tits. Idk if this is going to make me sound hypocritical or not, but jumping straight to calling people "bigots" or "homophobes" isn't going to help anybody. I also think that bill you mentioned is going to create a lot of issues involving both sides - the Yes will say its necessary whilst the No may have valid reasons for their opinions. That being said, there needs to be a clear line drawn as to whether someone is homophobic or simply opposing such an issue, because there is a huge difference between someone having a valid argument such as yours and someone simply yelling out "god hates fags" or shit like that.

Lastly, I agree with you on the importance of the rates of HIV and STDs in gay couples, which are far too high. However, this issue has likely resulted due to the lack of information regarding protection in same-sex relationships, as well as a fear of judgement from doctors/nurses. If society is to combat such an issue, we need to look at ways to urge the LGBTI community to get tested, as well as informing them of protection methods and reassure them that they will be able to get tested/treatment without fear of judgement/discrimination. This may or may not involve raising acceptance of LGBTI within our society, linking back to my previous point.

I hope I have mentioned everything correctly and I apologise if I have misinterpreted any of your points

 

[cosmo 2]

i dont think it even fucking matters lol like how hard is it to have an adoption. its not like this is victorian days when there were huge orphanages stuffed with sooty indigents just waiting for someone to take them home the wait lists for adoptions these days are huge and adopting parents are heavily vetted. like people who try to turn the transsexual nexus into a giant drama, we're squabbling here about a statistically microscopic (but enormously media heralded) sample of cases. who cares

 

[spaghettii]

(1) It is more so an observation of the way the Yes campaign is arguing. If particular vocal members of the Yes campaign weren't so quite to label "homophobic" or "bigot" those who respectfully disagree, and not slander religious people for simply holding consistently to their views, maybe the argument of "restriction of free speech" could be then ignored.

(2) The Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and related legislations do not say that it is "discriminatory" to hold to the idea which has been commonly accepted since federation and even before that, that marriage is between a man and a woman. In fact it says the opposite, specifically highlighting the Marriage Act 1961 (which until 2004 had a implied rather than written definition) as consistent with the 1984 legislation. As Orwell mentioned, nothing in the UN charter of rights, requires for a country to recognise same-sex marriage. In fact not all Western countries do.

(3) I think the debate is a definition of marriage one. I think to bring up gay-rights or even children, while these are flow-on issues, the real issue, is what purpose does marriage have?

If that purpose is not extendable to generic loving couples, then the definition should not be changed.

The rights afforded within marriage can be given to same-sex couples in better ways than changing the function and purpose and definition of an institution that is fairly important as it stands currently for society. Most people who vote no, once you strip back their religious, conservative or other views on the topic, basically their view is dependent on what marriage actually is for them, and for many it is one man and one woman. These people don't mean to be "bigots", but simply because apparently marriage is actually only about love, they are wrong to deny loving people the chance to marry. While it is a very emotive argument, I personally think that it is a terrible reason to change the definition.

Recognition of same-sex couples, or celebration of same-sex couples, and as I have mentioned on a previous thread (which was a reply to a thread which has been removed), in the view of some (not me though), same-sex relationships are better and can be celebrated as unique. Why conform it to marriage? Especially when some of the most high profile advocates are claiming they really hate marriage and want it removed.

(4) To argue it won't affect others is wrong. At the very least, it has and will effect sex education in classrooms. Look at case studies overseas. It will change discrimination legislation. This is the concern. Will it be illegal to not accept same-sex marriage as a good thing? That are the concerns raised within 'free speech'.

1) I wholeheartedly agree that members of the Yes campaign are being quick to judge others by labelling them "homphobes" and "bigots" and those people should really calm the heck down and discuss things rather than snapping at people. Fair enough if people's arguments are on the simple basis that "homosexuality is disgusting", because if someone said that to me I would be offended. Otherwise, the Yes need to be able to look at things constructively, rather than tearing down other people with labels

2) Ah I see. Thank you for informing me of that. I didn't mean to come across as believing those who simply appose SSM are acting discriminatory, only those who purposefully act in offensive ways (such as the example I mentioned earlier, or using language such as "fags"). But I do acknowledge that the UDHR doesn't mention sexuality, though this is likely due to the time period in which it was written in

3) I agree that this is an issue on how one defines marriage, which is why I think there needs to be a concrete definition that everyone can use, not involving gender/sex of course seeing as that is what this issue is revolving around. For example, "a union between two consenting adults" or something like that (pls don't take me too seriously I'm just some Yr11 student who should be studying for yearlies). Similarly I agree that "love" is a somewhat weak argument - my basis for my beliefs is that I feel people should be free to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others. If LGBTI people want to enter marriage, whether it turns out successful or ends up in a shitty divorce, I don't care. Whatever floats their boat.

4) I agree that my statement that SSM will not affect others is wrong. This can and likely will affect discrimination legislation, as well as sex education. Regarding sex education, I believe that a change is necessary, simply to combat both the high STD and HIV rates within the LGBTI community and the high rates of bullying, depression and suicide in LGBTI teens.

 

[Vankyrie Ludenberg]

I would vote no if i was eligible.

Society is evolving and social taboos of the past are slowly fading. 30 odd years ago, homosexuality, pedophilia (Islam?), beastiality, gender dysphoria would have been considered crimes against nature and mental illnesses (which they are). Today however, these are perfectly acceptable with even young children being indoctrinated in the education system, rather than being taught to read and write.

My greatest fear is that in time, like how homosexuals and transexuals have been welcomed as healthy members of society today, the other taboos i have previously listed will be part of the social standard tomorrow. A man should be allowed to marry a horse or a child, because at the end of the day "it's just love between two individuals that doesn't affect me in anyway, so i shouldn't care too much".

Tbh thats an extreme example (though if it ever happens we'll know what went wrong lmao)

But in line with the "society is slowly evolving ..." legalising ssm would be redefining marriage right? A less extreme argument might be how it could potentially affect the upbringing of children (quite subjective) and society's view towards marriage, which can destabilise family structure. Still from a conservative perspective though. Feel like none of the arguments from either side are super strong

edit: can someone explain why this issue has become a thing/suddenly at the forefront? cant tell if sjws actually had impact/gov wants to look good. I do think the high rate of mental issues in the lgbt community should be addressed (mixed view on plebiscite as a way to deal with this) but yeah. or has it always been a thing? .-.

Ft meme where lawyers vote yes so they can cash in on the divorces

 

[dan964]

1) I wholeheartedly agree that members of the Yes campaign are being quick to judge others by labelling them "homphobes" and "bigots" and those people should really calm the heck down and discuss things rather than snapping at people. Fair enough if people's arguments are on the simple basis that "homosexuality is disgusting", because if someone said that to me I would be offended. Otherwise, the Yes need to be able to look at things constructively, rather than tearing down other people with labels

2) Ah I see. Thank you for informing me of that. I didn't mean to come across as believing those who simply appose SSM are acting discriminatory, only those who purposefully act in offensive ways (such as the example I mentioned earlier, or using language such as "fags"). But I do acknowledge that the UDHR doesn't mention sexuality, though this is likely due to the time period in which it was written in

3) I agree that this is an issue on how one defines marriage, which is why I think there needs to be a concrete definition that everyone can use, not involving gender/sex of course seeing as that is what this issue is revolving around. For example, "a union between two consenting adults" or something like that (pls don't take me too seriously I'm just some Yr11 student who should be studying for yearlies). Similarly I agree that "love" is a somewhat weak argument - my basis for my beliefs is that I feel people should be free to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others. If LGBTI people want to enter marriage, whether it turns out successful or ends up in a shitty divorce, I don't care. Whatever floats their boat.

4) I agree that my statement that SSM will not affect others is wrong. This can and likely will affect discrimination legislation, as well as sex education. Regarding sex education, I believe that a change is necessary, simply to combat both the high STD and HIV rates within the LGBTI community and the high rates of bullying, depression and suicide in LGBTI teens.

since I am on a phone. Replying to (4), I think the way to deal with mental health issues and sexual education have been conflated in attempts to address these problems. Teaching sex education and anti bullying programs should not be mixed.

 

[enoilgam]

The LGBTQ people are ridiculing the Christian religion and most of Australia is Christian

Christian churches have been responsible for persecuting LGBT people for many years. In the past, they have opposed all efforts to provide any rights for LGBT people including legalization. Now they wonder why LGBT people direct so much harsh rhetoric towards them? Christianity needs to understand that they are not above people and that there are consequences for their actions.

 

[Queenroot]

pretty much every yes voter

 

[cosmo 2]

is that song meant to be sarcastic

 

[Queenroot]

Nope

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

Im fully expecting the no vote to prevail - ultimately, a plebiscite (and especially a postal plebiscite) is the only chance the no vote has of winning. If anyone thinks the Yes vote is a strong favorite, they need to get their head examined.

Ultimately, Im a strong supporter of SSM. Id consider myself to be largely a centrist with a lean leftward (Ive voted Liberal and Labour), but to me the SSM issue is an easier one. I have yet to see a good argument against SSM that goes beyond a shallow appeal to tradition. I think the whole religious freedom thing is a crock - what about the freedom of LGBT people? Last I checked, religion was a BELIEF and a CHOICE, being LGBT isnt. Dont get me wrong, Im all for freedom of religion, but I am a big supporter of freedom FROM religion for the large part of the population who are either athiest/agnostic or dont rate religion as being important to them. Freedom of religion means able to practice your beliefs as you please, it does not mean you have the right to impose your beliefs on others or have others lose their own freedoms to appease your beliefs.

All that being said, the Yes campaign predictably is playing this all wrong. They need to forget about attacking people and run a positive campaign because that is what will win over the centre. A good example of this is the fiasco over the Vote No ad. Yes, the ad is an outrage and thinnly veiled biogtry but at the end of the day, the kind of people who will fall for that nonsense will never vote yes anyway. So I would just issue a strong statement saying the ad is false and move on. They need to craft a narrative where love is the focus. In this day and age, most people have a loved one who is LGBT, they need to shift our focus on voting yes for the people we love in our lives who are LGBT. As I said before, Im a centrist and Im also straight. The main reason I feel strongly about this is because I have a few friends who are LGBT and I want SSM for them. That's the narrative that will work. Forget the bigotry game, you arent going to win them over so ignore them.

proof?

 

[Queenroot]

proof?

How about this. This is anecdotal but most (not all) gay men display very feminine mannerisms and personalities. This is even before they "choose" as you say, to be gay. It is often that way since they are a child, there is always something different about these people. I can stand in a crowd and as bad as it sounds I can probably pick gay people out. I don't think it's their choice when inherently they display such flamboyant personalities and gestures.

 

[Queenroot]

And similarly a lot of lesbians display very masculine personalities and/or behaviours, as a child and as an adult.

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

How about this. This is anecdotal but most (not all) gay men display very feminine mannerisms and personalities. This is even before they "choose" as you say, to be gay. It is often that way since they are a child, there is always something different about these people. I can stand in a crowd and as bad as it sounds I can probably pick gay people out. I don't think it's their choice when inherently they display such flamboyant personalities and gestures.

I wouldn't consider "mannerisms" to be solid evidence for genetic homosexuality. If anything, mannerisms are probably the least inherent characteristic of a person...

And although just giving a broad brush of "children showing flamboyant personalities and gestures" as solid evidence, even if we did see this, it just shows elements of the environment they're growing up in. Children are highly influential, and pick up what they see. If you see a young boy running around shooting a fake gun in the air you wouldn't say he's an inherent murderer.

Where's the proof it's inherent?

I'm not disagreeing that people who say they're homosexual have tendencies to act like the opposite gender, I'm just saying there's no proof it's not a choice.

 

[cosmo 2]

Nope

lol

her musics the dumbest shit ive ever heard

 

[spaghettii]

since I am on a phone. Replying to (4), I think the way to deal with mental health issues and sexual education have been conflated in attempts to address these problems. Teaching sex education and anti bullying programs should not be mixed.

I agree that they shouldn't be mixed. My point was that if sex education was changed in order to include information regarding LGBTI relationships, presented in a neutral manner, then bullying would likely reduce as a result of exposure to the topic that isn't negative/biased

 

[spaghettii]

proof?

I have many friends who come from homophobic families yet are gay - why would they choose to be something that can (and sometimes, has) lead to harassment, abuse and bullying from their own family?

 

[sinophile]

i used a drop of soy sauce to mark my vote

 

[crymeariver]

love me some gays

 

[dan964]

I have many friends who come from homophobic families yet are gay - why would they choose to be something that can (and sometimes, has) lead to harassment, abuse and bullying from their own family?

What does "being gay" even mean? Does it mean having same-sex attraction, or does it mean actually being involved in a sexually active relationship (which is clearly a choice made)?
Because the term has such wide implications, often I have seen those argue I was 'born this way' to argue that is why the latter is ok and acceptable.

I think in general, is sexual attraction something one is born with or something that develops over time?
I think the latter during puberty, which could be influenced by a variety of factors. Mainly very hazy.

Do we really have a say over who we like or who we don't? (rhetorical). if a married person becomes attracted to another woman, is that wrong, or is it just the way he was born?
I think we are too easy to say "born this way" or "it is a choice". I think the answer is neither.

But to enter into a sexually active relationship is clearly a consent and hence a choice.

 

[spaghettii]

What does "being gay" even mean? Does it mean having same-sex attraction, or does it mean actually being involved in a sexually active relationship (which is clearly a choice made)?
Because the term has such wide implications, often I have seen those argue I was 'born this way' to argue that is why the latter is ok and acceptable.

I think in general, is sexual attraction something one is born with or something that develops over time?
I think the latter during puberty, which could be influenced by a variety of factors. Mainly very hazy.

Do we really have a say over who we like or who we don't? (rhetorical). if a married person becomes attracted to another woman, is that wrong, or is it just the way he was born?
I think we are too easy to say "born this way" or "it is a choice". I think the answer is neither.

But to enter into a sexually active relationship is clearly a consent and hence a choice.

I define gay in my previous message as same-sex attraction, or attraction not limited to the opposite sex

On another note, I think it would be quite interesting to find out whether sexual attraction is a genetic or environmental factor, especially given that humans aren't the only species who display such behaviours