Ban on Gay Marriage (3 Viewers)

[neo o]

Unfortunately your beliefs are most likely the result of society, and I imagine very hard to resolve what has been hammered into you.

At least you agree that society is uncomfortable with and not ready for gay marriage.

Incidentally, as I pointed out, it has been found that homophobic people are more likely to be attracted to the same sex than non-homophobic people.

Thank you for proving my, "If your not for gays your homophobic" argument.

As has been pointed out the law does not necessarily equal what is moral. And what is socially accepted does not necessarily equal what is moral.

And why should we aim to achieve morality?

Let me spell this out to you:
1. Gay marriage is being banned
2. Normal marriages are not banned
3. Therefore they don't have the same right

Let me spell this out to you:

1. Everyone can get married including gays.
2. Gays however can't marry who they want.
3. Therefore everyone has the same right, yet gays want an ADDITIONAL right to marry who they want.

Because you must argue logically. Whether there is a God is a hugely controversial premise and therefore cannot contribute to a sound moral argument.

I'm not arguing whether there is a god. Im arguing that many people are Christians however and as a result society is uncomfortable with the thought of gay marriage (and you agreed with me further up there as well, by saying i've been somehow "conditioned" by society and as a result i'm not pro-gay)

When you get to uni, I suggest you take a philosophy course in logic because your points are not valid or sound.

I wouldn't mind doing philo actually, though I heard it's a pretty hard course

This is an utterly perfect articulation of hate and prejudice, and it shines out no clearer than your final sentence. I urge you to reflect on your words and ask yourself, if you were gay, how you would feel if someone said that to you.

I don't hate gays. But it doesn't take a genius to realise that they aren't the same as heterosexuals.

 

[Minai]

Just to comment - try to not personally attack someone for their beliefs, calling someone a homophobe isn't very nice. Argue your points, but dont make it personal, or I'll deal with it

 

[glycerine]

Ok well that basically sums up the opposite to my belief. Youve given your side of the story, I really cant be bothered typing mine but am more than willing to orally say it.

It's not me Im worried about, its the adverse effect homosexuality has on soceity. Yes unforunately I am a conservatist which is the binary opposite to your belief.

Really I could back up my claim but I have better things to do than my time that argue on the internet. Ultimately my point is summed up here (i wont reply to any critisicms to my post btw)

If we introduce homosexuality as a "natural thing" then the tendency to debase morals will vanish. First it will be homosexuality then child abuse etc. If we conserve we have rules and morals that allow society not to run in anarchy and live in a safe envirnoment. The only evidence that I would bring in here that homosexuality could lead to distarious consequenes, would be the bible. Unfortuantely most people dont care about it and will laugh and scorn such basic moralistic principles. I dont believe in the Church/Relgious affliations in running a government, just that they have some sort of moralistic bindings to their policies.

ohh and btw, homosexuality is one of the biggest causes of AIDS, HIV and other STD's so somehow I cant see the validity in your statemet that " it hasn't got germs and its not going to bite you." I guess those crabs might bite them though

i know you said you wouldn't reply, but i just wanted to comment anyhow. not to attack you, i just honestly don't understand some of your beliefs.

lots of people use the 'if we allow one thing, we'll allow another' line, but i just honestly can't comprehend the connection. child abuse is NOT the same thing as homosexuality, they've been associated together in the media because of the church scandals, but... what happens in the church does not reflect what happens in society. sorry, we live in a secular society. furthermore... pedophiles don't just prey on those of their own gender. it goes both ways, and it's disgusting and a genuine problem, but it hasn't been caused by growing acceptance of homosexuality. child abuse/pedophilia has always been around... in fact, it's LESS accepted now than it has ever been.

ps. homosexuality isn't the biggest cause. unprotected anal sex is. yes, this is also a problem, i agree. but you have to realise that it's only been fairly recently that sex education has included teaching the importance of homosexuals practising safe sex, and a LOT of institutions still refuse to acknowledge it. it is easier to contract diseases from anal sex because the skin there tears easier, thus allowing easier infection. so yeah, while it is a problem, it's largely a result of society/culture refusing to educate homosexuals about the need for safe sex to the extent that they do hetereosexuals.

i don't really care if you reply to this or not. this wasn't an attempt to attack you. rather, i just wanted to address the parts of your post that were pretty much just pure speculation.

 

[jessum]

that was a great response just had to say
very well argued
i bet ur good at english

 

[Xayma]

ohh and btw, homosexuality is one of the biggest causes of AIDS, HIV and other STD's so somehow I cant see the validity in your statemet that " it hasn't got germs and its not going to bite you." I guess those crabs might bite them though

Really? In Cambodia and Thailand the major cause of new cases is heterosexuals. And in Africa again it is heterosexuals, although they are mainly raping their young female victims. Alot has changed since the early 80's

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996114

 

[400miles]

400 Miles, I ignored your last post because it was the same as all your other posts. I have something to say to you now however.

God, but I hate you! I mock and deride your system of belief (please email me a brief summary of your system of belief, that I might mock and deride specific aspects of it). I make fun of your country of origin (or the region of the country from which you originate, in the event that we both hail from the same country) and state that the leaders of said area are incompetent. The food you eat is unsavoury and no one should eat it. You post worse than I do, and, assuming you have other interests, I am better at them than you are also. I throw doubt upon the legitimacy of your birth and make disparaging comments on your familial line!

This post has as much substance as all your posts.

You responded to none of the arguments I brought up and then tried to wave it off by saying my post had no substance. Saying it was the same as all my other posts is crap. I asked a lot of questions in my last post, a lot of questions that I've been asking for quite a while. You answered none and instead went for a personal attack. Sure, I've made personal attacks, I can admit that. But never as a means to resolve an argument. Your post simply makes me more adamant that I was right in what I say and you haven't proven otherwise.

Your attempt at a personal attack was piss-weak as well. All it has achieved is to make me surer that you really have less of an idea than you like to think.

 

[neo o]

You responded to none of the arguments I brought up and then tried to wave it off by saying my post had no substance. Saying it was the same as all my other posts is crap. I asked a lot of questions in my last post, a lot of questions that I've been asking for quite a while. You answered none and instead went for a personal attack. Sure, I've made personal attacks, I can admit that. But never as a means to resolve an argument. Your post simply makes me more adamant that I was right in what I say and you haven't proven otherwise.

Your attempt at a personal attack was piss-weak as well. All it has achieved is to make me surer that you really have less of an idea than you like to think.

I replied to both moonlit and tama. Take a hint.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Okay, Neo_o, because you don't understand the conventions for argument - you haven't studied it - (I'm not trying to sound like a wanker here, but this is called logic, and to have any successful debate it must be used properly), I'll break down your errors so its easy for you to understand. Please try to argue in a way that flows logically (validity) and that does so using true and uncontroversial premises (soundness). It will make discussion a lot smoother.

At least you agree that society is uncomfortable with and not ready for gay marriage.

Even if society is uncomfortable, this does not prove anything in terms of morality, or social justice. But incidentally no, I don't agree with the second part of that statement.

Thank you for proving my, "If your not for gays your homophobic" argument.

This is called a 'straw person fallacy'. What you're doing here is attacking an argument that wasn't actually put forward (ie. attacking the straw person).

And why should we aim to achieve morality?

Well if you are not aiming to achieve a moral outcome, why bother even arguing your current viewpoint? If you want to have a debate on morality itself then I'm sure you can start a different thread, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.

1. Everyone can get married including gays.
2. Gays however can't marry who they want.
3. Therefore everyone has the same right, yet gays want an ADDITIONAL right to marry who they want.

This is not a valid arugment. This is because premise 3 (conclusion) does not flow logically from the premises. Premise 1 is true, as is premise 2. But "everyone has the same right" is not true, because while hetrosexuals can marry who they want, gay people cannot.

Further, I again quote Kirby J:

"[It is an] absurd proposition that would insist upon acceptance of sexual orientation but prohibit all of its physical and emotional manifestations."

I'm not arguing whether there is a god. Im arguing that many people are Christians however and as a result society is uncomfortable with the thought of gay marriage

This is another fallacy of argument. It is called appealing to majority. Simply because a majority believes something does not necessarily mean it is right.

I wouldn't mind doing philo actually, though I heard it's a pretty hard course

I think you would enjoy and benefit from it.

Incidentally, Neo_o, I am not out to get you, and neither is anyone else here. I say this because there are a lot of people who are on my side here and it might feel like they are ganging up on you. I respect the fact you currently have a different viewpoint, but I put forward my views, because I believe you and other people would benefit from sharing them, not to prove who's right and who's wrong.

 

[Wilmo]

My belief is that gay people shouldnt get married. They dont need to.

The definition of marriage that I abide by is "One man and one woman joining together under one God". Scince this marriage is not joining a man to a woman, and its not under God, i dont consider it a marriage.

Because of that, its not just gay that i dont see not needing marriage. If a heterosexual couple didnt know God then why are they getting married. I wish that the church of old didnt force marriages (and a lot of other things) on people. If you arent a christian, you dont need to follow the christian rules or ceremonies.

The bible tells me in Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 6:10 that being gay is a sin. It also tells me lots of other things are sins too... Adultery and even liing is one just as bad as being gay (no such thing as relative holiness, so dont beliee anyone who says otherwise). If i slept with another woman before i got married, im writing the whole ceremony off as a sham. If i lied about one thing to my wife, the ceremony is a sham. Therefore if i am gay, the ceremony is a sham.

The problem with gay marriages is not the fact that both are men, its that if they were married, they would continue to indulge in sin. The problem is not that sin you do once, its the sin in your life you refuse to fight.

In summary, if i were a minister, I would not marry a gay couple... I dont care how much they love each other and want to be together forever, I would not do it. I dont think i would even marry a non-christian heterosexual couple. Not because its contrary to my opinion of them, but because they do not know God and therefore i would not bind them together under him.



This is what I believe all christians should hold to. Im not sure what other religeons believe on the subject, but I imagine if gay couples can find one which allows them to be married, let them do it. Everyone can do whatever they like... if you chose to ignore what jesus did for you, you arent bound by his laws, but you also arent included in his grace. But if you know god, you will be free indeed. It will be hard and you may have to deny what you feel... but your eternity is secure.

 

[400miles]

I replied to both moonlit and tama. Take a hint.

What's wrong? Don't you have answers to my very reasonable questions and arguments? Is this your way of sidestepping them? Avoiding them because you don't have any answers to them? I believe I raised some very good points but now suddenly you're too scared to answer up to what you've said when I refute it.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The definition of marriage that I abide by is "One man and one woman joining together under one God". Scince this marriage is not joining a man to a woman, and its not under God, i dont consider it a marriage[...etc]

Please don't bring religion into this. The existence of God is a controversial premise and therefore cannot contribute to a logical argument.

 

[poloktim]

My belief is that gay people shouldnt get married. They dont need to.

The definition of marriage that I abide by is "One man and one woman joining together under one God". Scince this marriage is not joining a man to a woman, and its not under God, i dont consider it a marriage.

Because of that, its not just gay that i dont see not needing marriage. If a heterosexual couple didnt know God then why are they getting married. I wish that the church of old didnt force marriages (and a lot of other things) on people. If you arent a christian, you dont need to follow the christian rules or ceremonies.

The bible tells me in Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 6:10 that being gay is a sin. It also tells me lots of other things are sins too... Adultery and even liing is one just as bad as being gay (no such thing as relative holiness, so dont beliee anyone who says otherwise). If i slept with another woman before i got married, im writing the whole ceremony off as a sham. If i lied about one thing to my wife, the ceremony is a sham. Therefore if i am gay, the ceremony is a sham.

The problem with gay marriages is not the fact that both are men, its that if they were married, they would continue to indulge in sin. The problem is not that sin you do once, its the sin in your life you refuse to fight.

In summary, if i were a minister, I would not marry a gay couple... I dont care how much they love each other and want to be together forever, I would not do it. I dont think i would even marry a non-christian heterosexual couple. Not because its contrary to my opinion of them, but because they do not know God and therefore i would not bind them together under him.



This is what I believe all christians should hold to. Im not sure what other religeons believe on the subject, but I imagine if gay couples can find one which allows them to be married, let them do it. Everyone can do whatever they like... if you chose to ignore what jesus did for you, you arent bound by his laws, but you also arent included in his grace. But if you know god, you will be free indeed. It will be hard and you may have to deny what you feel... but your eternity is secure.

Nobody is asking to be married under God though. Realise that marriage isn't just Christian. What gay couples (you neglected to mention lesbians too, two women who are in love with eachother are gay as well) want is to be married under the law.

Religion will still be able to continue to deny same-sex couples the ability to be married by their institution, as religion is allowed to deny people based on anything, religion is allowed to discriminate at their own discression.

Homosexuality may be seen as a sin in the eyes of some Christian religions, and other traditions, but there is nowhere in Australian law prohibiting it (anymore). Also many Christian religions, including Catholocism have adopted the concept of plurality , that is accepting and understanding of other religions, and not condemning them to Hell.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

A Rapid Reply to Rorix

Covering for neo_o
Assuming we should behave in a manor that is morally right, I'd like to know how you are determining what is morally right here.

I will not post a moral theory here. Instead take it for granted that everyone should be treated equally, unless there is some reason not to. I assume you can at least agree to that. The point I make therefore, is that there is no reason to treat gays differently.

Your vague outline of morality will be similarly uneffective, unless you have a sound logical proof of what is right (which would be quite a feat).

I could go on about morality for ever - I've studied a lot of theories in moral philosophy in great detail. But I think we can take it for granted, especially for the purposes of this argument, that as mentioned, everyone should be treated equally, unless there is some reason not to.

Regarding gays right to marriage

Premise: Every person in Australia has the right to marriage, defined as "the union between a man and a woman" (or something like that, want to sleep so no time to look up the Marriage Act)
Premise: Homosexuals are persons
Conclusion: Homosexuals have the right to marriage

See, the problem is, marriage isn't the right to marry 'who you love', or 'who you wish' (both of these definitions are clearly ridiculous anyway, what if I wanted to marry a woman who I loved but she didn't want me), it's the union between a man and a woman.

And gays have the right to that union. There is no such thing as a "gay marriage", under the law, unless you mean a happy marriage. So, the problem stems from you both using different definitions of marriage.

However, even if your definition was correct, even if the definition of marriage was broad enough to have a 'gay marriage', gays are not being deprived of a right that everyone else has. This is because the right they are being deprived of is 'the union between a man and a man' (or a woman and a woman), and every other citizen is being equally deprived of that right.

No, and I'll show you why. That is analagous to saying:

1. All people have the right to marry a white person
2. Black people are persons
Conclusion: Black people have the right to marriage

In this case, yes, black people have the right to marriage. But you can't tell me that they aren't being discriminated against with this argument. Surely, black people would want it to be possible to marry other black people. White people on the other hand can marry other white people. As you can see one of these two classes has a right to marry their own kind, and one does not.

Do you think the government would ever pass a law like that?

I understand what you are trying to say, but what you put forward is only based on a superficial view that does not look into the underlying effect.

See, the problem is, marriage isn't the right to marry 'who you love', or 'who you wish' (both of these definitions are clearly ridiculous anyway, what if I wanted to marry a woman who I loved but she didn't want me), it's the union between a man and a woman.

Not really. In light of all the arguments, what is wrong with saying marriage is the right to a consentual bond with someone you love?

 

[Rorix]

I will not post a moral theory here. Instead take it for granted that everyone should be treated equally, unless there is some reason not to. I assume you can at least agree to that. The point I make therefore, is that there is no reason to treat gays differently.

I disagree. People are inherantly different at birth (genetic factors etc.). This is irrelevant right now, my point is that you are making a moral argument without specifying what is moral!

Many major moral theories completely ignore the idea of 'treating everyone equally' as being always good e.g. utilitarianism, emotivism, Kantian views, etc. If you're holding neo_o to a logical standard, you should hold yourself to a logical standard as well.

I think you're purposely ignoring this because you know how much trouble it will cause

No, and I'll show you why. That is analagous to saying:

1. All people have the right to marry a white person
2. Black people are persons
Conclusion: Black people have the right to marriage

Not exactly, as in this case, blacks are prohibited from marriage, as their partner is not allowed to marry them, but I'll take it in the spirit of what I think you mean (that is, no black and black marriages are allowed)

In this case, yes, black people have the right to marriage.

Yup.

But you can't tell me that they aren't being discriminated against with this argument. Surely, black people would want it to be possible to marry other black people.

But white people can't marry black people either. White people and black people are being treated in exactly the same way, logically. The only way it would be descriminatory would be if the law said something like "black people can't marry other black people" - but it doesn't. It says "all people can't marry black people".

White people on the other hand can marry other white people. As you can see one of these two classes has a right to marry their own kind, and one does not.

White people can't marry black people.
Black people can't marry black people.
Where's the descrimination? "Marrying your own kind" is just a fancy way of saying there is no logical descrimination, you're manipulating the statement to make it seem like there is descrimination. The statement is "no person has the right to marry a black person".

Do you think the government would ever pass a law like that?

Logical fallacy.

I understand what you are trying to say, but what you put forward is only based on a superficial view that does not look into the underlying effect.

Not a logical counterargument.

Not really. In light of all the arguments, what is wrong with saying marriage is the right to a consentual bond with someone you love?

Because it's not. It's perfectly consistant for me to marry somebody that I don't love.

Even if it was, there is no discrimination, as I've said before. Even if a law banned gay marriage, the law is not "gay men can't marry men", it's "all men can't marry men" (or a suitable law for lesbians). I could want to marry a good friend for a tax break, or something like that - and I would be unable to. But this isn't the point - the law doesn't say this.

edit: I'm not going to respond to anyone but MoonlightSonata unless you're offering a logical argument, something which evil_tama, 400miles and crew do not do. So, basically, unless you structure your argument with premises and conclusions, so that I can tell it's logical, I'm not going to respond to it (MoonlightSonata excepted).

 

[Wilmo]

Nobody is asking to be married under God though. Realise that marriage isn't just Christian.

It doesnt matter if you dont want to be married under God, if you go into a church then the person who marrys both together has been given that right by the law and by God. If you wish to get married, find somewhere else where they will do it.

Just because of your sexual preference you cannot be excluded from church. If you are looked down on by the "christians" who go there, they are obviously not doing what God wants which is to love everybody.

What gay couples (you neglected to mention lesbians too, two women who are in love with eachother are gay as well) want is to be married under the law.

I just used one example, i think it is safe to say everybody here knows that gay includes lesbians as well. I would have to say that gay couples should be able to be married under the law as there is no law that i know of against it. BUT I still continue with my belief that they dont need marriage.

What is a marriage under the law? It is just a ritual which is only significant to the two people. What shows they are married? A ring and a piece of paper. If you want to get married without God, you can do it yourself pretty much. There is no need for another person to marry you because your marriage would only be important to you.

Religion will still be able to continue to deny same-sex couples the ability to be married by their institution, as religion is allowed to deny people based on anything, religion is allowed to discriminate at their own discression.

Religion can do whatever the hell it wants... and it can suffer for it. True christians cannot add or take away from what the bible says and therefore cannot discriminate against anything at its own discression.

Homosexuality may be seen as a sin in the eyes of some Christian religions, and other traditions, but there is nowhere in Australian law prohibiting it (anymore).

In my opinion, if people want to be sinful, the law isnt going to stop them so im glad there is no law against being gay anymore. If i want to murder someone, i know that there is a lifetime jail sentence to go with it, but thats not going to stop me. So if im in love with another man, the law couldnt stop me. In a sense, the law is useless to anyone except those who want to follow it.

Also many Christian religions, including Catholocism have adopted the concept of plurality , that is accepting and understanding of other religions, and not condemning them to Hell.

I accept that not everyone is going to be christian. I also except mine is not the only belief in the world, there are many many different ones. BUT I will not accept plurality.

I said earlier that christians are bound to believing what the bible says and thats what I will continue to do. John 14:6 says "Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. Noone comes to the father except through me." I think there is no mistaking that that is a bible verse which says there is only one way, and there are many others like it.

Ill also say John 3:17-18 for you. "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in him stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

I see no grounds for plurality. I will love and accept people of other beliefs because that is what Christians are called to do, but I will not tell my friends of other faiths that they will get to heaven without believing in Jesus. That is devaluing the horrible death my saviour died to save me and the rest of the world, and thats not something I can do.

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but the truth is meant to hurt. The positive side is that its so easy for Jesus to save you. I guess thats one of the hardest things I find about Christianity. Its nothing I can do, but what God has done for me. It seems too simple, but thats because it is...

 

[neo o]

Put your money where your mouth is and stone some homosexuals then

 

[poloktim]

edit: I'm not going to respond to anyone but MoonlightSonata unless you're offering a logical argument, something which evil_tama, 400miles and crew do not do. So, basically, unless you structure your argument with premises and conclusions, so that I can tell it's logical, I'm not going to respond to it (MoonlightSonata excepted).

I tried to be pleasant for the latter part of this post. But reading this just gives me the impression that you're a fucktard. You place yourself higher above those who argue against you, except one person. Pull your head out of your arse and get over your 'holier than thou' attitude.

Anyway.

It doesnt matter if you dont want to be married under God, if you go into a church then the person who marrys both together has been given that right by the law and by God. If you wish to get married, find somewhere else where they will do it.

Just because of your sexual preference you cannot be excluded from church. If you are looked down on by the "christians" who go there, they are obviously not doing what God wants which is to love everybody.

You don't have to go into a Church to get married though. There are other places where it can happen, and other people besides priests who can do it.

As for your second paragraph, I totally agree with you. It's up to God and God alone to judge people in Christianity, however, living with secular government, we cannot leave people at the hands of a deity alone, there must be laws and punishments to judge people in this life.

What is a marriage under the law? It is just a ritual which is only significant to the two people. What shows they are married? A ring and a piece of paper. If you want to get married without God, you can do it yourself pretty much. There is no need for another person to marry you because your marriage would only be important to you.

A marriage under the law also gives people the right to property in the event of death. Also superannuation claims can go to the partner under marriage. However, John Howard has changed the law to force superannuation payouts to go to the deceased's partner in a de facto relationship as well. Still, at death, if there is no will, the family of the deceased can contest his/her property, so that the partner is left with nothing. Under marriage this is a much harder process for the family, and normally impossible.

Religion can do whatever the hell it wants... and it can suffer for it. True christians cannot add or take away from what the bible says and therefore cannot discriminate against anything at its own discression.

The Bible has been added to and edited many times. Things have been removed, not much, but some things. Things have changed as well. The sad thing is, which is what as a Catholic, I was brought up to understand, is that the Bible is written by man. Laws in the Bible were made to reflect the views of that society. Things change. In Christianity nothing is static apart from what Jesus did for us, and God's undying love.

In my opinion, if people want to be sinful, the law isnt going to stop them so im glad there is no law against being gay anymore. If i want to murder someone, i know that there is a lifetime jail sentence to go with it, but thats not going to stop me. So if im in love with another man, the law couldnt stop me. In a sense, the law is useless to anyone except those who want to follow it.

The Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide (if he still is in Adelaide before) said that there was nothing wrong with gay people, it's the way God made them, so there should be no hostility towards them, in an effort to stop gay bashers.
Laws are in place because government is secular (well, it's supposed to be). As I said before, the law cannot wait for a deity to decide on what's to happen to a murderer, it must take matters into its own hand. The law never prevented two people of the same sex from loving each other, but commiting homosexual acts. Just like my understanding of the Bible, it does not condemn gay people, but their acts of love (ie sex).

I accept that not everyone is going to be christian. I also except mine is not the only belief in the world, there are many many different ones. BUT I will not accept plurality.

I said earlier that christians are bound to believing what the bible says and thats what I will continue to do. John 14:6 says "Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. Noone comes to the father except through me." I think there is no mistaking that that is a bible verse which says there is only one way, and there are many others like it.

Ill also say John 3:17-18 for you. "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in him stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

I see no grounds for plurality. I will love and accept people of other beliefs because that is what Christians are called to do, but I will not tell my friends of other faiths that they will get to heaven without believing in Jesus. That is devaluing the horrible death my saviour died to save me and the rest of the world, and thats not something I can do.

I can totally understand this. It again shows the differences that people can have when it comes to religion. I accept plurality. You don't. I don't think that either view is wrong.

It's one thing trying to change somebody's opinion on something, but when you start challenging the very foundations of their personal religious beliefs, and attacking them for it, you're asking for trouble. Religious differences started the Crusades, fundamentalist groups are formed to fight. If I were to say that your religious beliefs were wrong, where would I get the proof? God hasn't told me so himself, so I have no grounds to say you're wrong.

Anyway (again).
It is my personal opinion that in order for society to progress any further, we must move forward and realise that homosexuals have been around for a long time, and they will be around for as long as humanity will be. Denying them the priviledge to marry the person who they love, regardless of gender, if both people are consenting and of age to consent, is a set back for society. Marriage should not be an exclsuive opposite-gender couple institution, it should be there for everyone with the aforementioned details (consentual and age).

 

[Rorix]

I tried to be pleasant for the latter part of this post. But reading this just gives me the impression that you're a fucktard. You place yourself higher above those who argue against you, except one person. Pull your head out of your arse and get over your 'holier than thou' attitude.

Pot, kettle, black, etc.

EDIT: the reason I put that there is that otherwise I'd get responses along the lines of "I don't believe in extra rights, therefore you are wrong. qed" (which obviously isn't a logical response). Then, when I ignore the post, I'd be asked why I'm not responding to a valid argument. MS has shown he/she wants to argue logically, which I have appreciated.

 

[Wilmo]

A marriage under the law also gives people the right to property in the event of death. Also superannuation claims can go to the partner under marriage. However, John Howard has changed the law to force superannuation payouts to go to the deceased's partner in a de facto relationship as well. Still, at death, if there is no will, the family of the deceased can contest his/her property, so that the partner is left with nothing. Under marriage this is a much harder process for the family, and normally impossible.

I dont like that whole structure... if the person I loved died and i had all the things we worked so hard for taken away, it would be like rubbing salt in a wound. It would be so painful to lose everything you spent your life working for. And if i was the family of the deceased, i could no way take the stuff from the partner. I could not in good conscience do it.

But this is not just a problem gay people have to deal with. There are heterosexual defactos who have to go through the same thing. It can be just as devastating to them to. This by no means gives justification for everything being taken away from gay people, but sometimes its good to remember that it doesnt only happen to people like you.

The Bible has been added to and edited many times. Things have been removed, not much, but some things. Things have changed as well. The sad thing is, which is what as a Catholic, I was brought up to understand, is that the Bible is written by man. Laws in the Bible were made to reflect the views of that society. Things change. In Christianity nothing is static apart from what Jesus did for us, and God's undying love.

This is partly true, yes, but not fully. We know the validity of the bible as a historical document because we have found copies of the texts written close to the time the real ones were. And there were many techniques used by the translators to maintain the integrity of the data. You can translate the original languages into english yourself and find almost the exact same as the english.

Many people like to pick up on how the bible was put together. A whole bunch of people high up in the church got together and decided which books should be included and which shouldnt. They say that all books should have been included and because some were left out the bible has been comprimised. I disagree. If i were alive back then, I could have put my own spin on what i wrote and therefore would have destroyed the true message if it were included. The people who put it together did a very good job by collecting letters written by people with actual credentials (Luke was a doctor, Paul was someone who knew the Jewish law well and was talked about not just by christians etc).

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is God breathed and is usefull for teaching, correcting and rebuking." The fact of the matter is that the bible was written by the hands of men, but it is a message from the heart of God. 1 Thessolonians 2:13 "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." You cannot say the bible is from man, because man did not make this up.

The Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide (if he still is in Adelaide before) said that there was nothing wrong with gay people, it's the way God made them, so there should be no hostility towards them, in an effort to stop gay bashers.
Laws are in place because government is secular (well, it's supposed to be). As I said before, the law cannot wait for a deity to decide on what's to happen to a murderer, it must take matters into its own hand. The law never prevented two people of the same sex from loving each other, but commiting homosexual acts. Just like my understanding of the Bible, it does not condemn gay people, but their acts of love (ie sex).

That archbishop is very wise

My belief is that laws are in place in a secular world because God has given us a sense of justice. If you saw someone who only stole money and didnt work having a good life, while you were working so hard just to survive, you would feel thats unjust. If you saw someone nailing a persons cat to their doorway, you would know its wrong. Proper judgement is given by God, but society needs immediate judgement. That is why there are laws. But as you see in the news a lot, justice is not always shown in earthly courts, which is why you can take heart that God will judge them when he comes back. That may not comfort now, but one day it will.

You're sort of right with your understanding of the bible. The main thing wrong with it is the "indecent acts" (Romans 1:27) which makes them become "homosexual offenders" (1 Corinthians 6:10). But the underliing problem is the lust that you feel for other people of the same sex. It is exaclty the same lust that a heterosexual couple has. Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-28 "You have heard it was said 'Do not commit adultery', But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already commited adultery with her in his heart." The same goes for a person of the same sex. But you realise that it is impossible not to think lustful thoughts. Great! That shows how much you needed Jesus to die for you.

You can be gay and be a christians. Theres even a newsletter that you can get from a gay christian support group. But you cannot get married if you are a gay christian. Just like its stupid for an alcaholic to work in a bar, it is stupid for a gay person trying to please God but living with another person who it would be so easy to give into temptation with. But as I've said many a time... non christians are not bound by these laws.





I thank you kindly for being plesant, because im certainly not here to start a fight. I really dont want to put across the idea that im really good, because im not. Im not gay, but I do lie which is all the same to God. The only thing that makes me any different to other people is that Jesus has forgiven me... and now i try my best to repay him by living how he wants me to, but i still fail every day.




*Please not that when I say "you" and stuff like that, a lot of the time i dont literally mean you. I just find it easier to talk about a point when it's directed as if im talking to someone.

 

[eviltama]

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/919/919_cyberhate.asp

Conservative cyber-hate
As the mainstream media moves away from the topic of gay marriage, conservative Web sites continue to preach hate
By Thom Metzger

An Advocate.com exclusive posted July 9, 2004

Conservatives have carved out a rather large section of the cyberuniverse—a cyber--“big tent” where even the nuttier elements of their ilk converse without the rather liberal restraint of their talk-radio, Fox News, and Washington Times cousins. As a Republican in recovery, I still find it interesting to monitor these online musings. My partner thinks I need to go cold turkey, as some of the worst sites—that are home to outright homo haters—have a tendency to make me pretty depressed. Nevertheless, because I live in a gay-friendly neighborhood in a largely gay-friendly city, I think that it’s important to keep my finger on the pulse of the worst of “real” America. Understanding what our enemies are saying about us reminds me how far we have to go and how we cannot be complacent.

It should not surprise anyone that these sites have concentrated on the faults of Senator Kerry and the importance of the war in Iraq in recent months. However, it might be somewhat surprising that a close third has been the amount of attention that has been given to gay issues...especially gay marriage. Many of the conservative sites contain at least one antigay article or post during the average day.

It is true that the mainstream media also gave gay marriage attention when gay and lesbian couples were lining up in San Francisco, Portland, Ore., New Paltz, N.Y., and Provincetown, Mass. When is the last time you saw the issue reported on CNN or in your daily paper? These wider-audience journalists have largely moved on, leaving the details of the various legal appeals to be reported primarily in the gay and rabidly conservative presses.

The average gay man or lesbian, who probably isn’t an avid reader of the National Review or TownHall.com, might mistakenly think that the issue has fallen completely off America’s radar screen. We need to understand that it hasn’t—and that some of the reporting is just plain ugly.

The queen of gay-marriage-is-causing-the-sky-to-fall parade is Maggie Gallagher. Her site—marriagedebate.com—purports to be a neutral online home for discussion about the issue. Unfortunately, her personal bias isn’t subtle, as she claims that any legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships will usher in the apocalypse.

TownHall.com, a site that publishes the “best of” conservative commentary on a daily basis, features its daily anti-gay-marriage screed. The pieces largely are impossible to differentiate. Like hate-filled Mad Libs, the various authors recycle the same shrill warning to their good, God-fearing, red-state-inhabiting readers: “Once gay marriage is legalized throughout America, your (positive adjective) (noun) will be forced to accept (negative adjective) (noun).” The slippery-slope favorites include polygamy, bestiality, mandatory gay scouting, and witchcraft. Some authors of these items take really creative leaps, asking their readers to imagine a day soon when Christianity will be illegal. One article recently suggested that the government literally would need to steal children from good heterosexual parents to feed the insatiable demand for gay and lesbian couples to adopt. Rosie and Kelly better start planning a lot more cruises for gay families.

National Review’s Web site has been home to nearly a dozen pseudoscience rants from Stanley Kurtz, who would have his readers believe that gay marriages (or civil unions) are responsible for just about every social ill in Europe. Every few weeks he has highlighted a new threat in a different Scandinavian country and warned ominously that it can happen here. His theme could be summed up as: If gay unions are recognized in the United States, it is only a matter of hours before we all will be forced to speak Esperanto and use the Euro as our official currency!

Andrew Sullivan, one of the few remaining gay voices in the conservative wilderness, needs to be extolled for trying to beat back this flood of hate. His daily online blog (AndrewSullivan.com) dissects some of the most ridiculous arguments. His very vocal opposition has been important because his readers are a largely straight and very conservative crowd. It is a shame that some of his supporters have begun to voice their irritation that he is “obsessed” with the marriage issue. A week ago, when a National Review editor publicized the fact that Sullivan had questioned his support of President Bush (in a piece in The Advocate), the conservative online world finally became impatient with his “preaching,” and blog after blog became littered with “I hate (insert antigay epithet) like Sullivan” posts.

However, gay men and lesbians are very Web savvy. Just like we are happy to take over a rough block of urban real estate, we need to move into this rather inhospitable online neighborhood. We need to add our voices to these online blogs—we need to rain e-mail responses on the authors of the worst commentaries. We need to hold the quasi-mainstream conservative press accountable by calling and e-mailing Dr. Laura, Rush, O’Reilly and anyone else who will listen. We may not change the commentators’ minds, but their listeners may not be lost causes.

Conservatives are beginning to prepare for the July 12 U.S. Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. They are sharing their rather absurd opinions about our lives with anyone who will listen. Let’s make sure that they aren’t allowed to have a one-sided debate.

Thom Metzger directs communications and media relations activities for a trade association. He lives with his partner of 13 years in Washington, D.C., where he likely spends too much time surfing the Web. He can be reached at thomasmetzger@starpower.net.