Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

The way I see it, gay marriage is less about whether you agree with the particular moral implications of this arrangement, and more about whether you support the right of two individuals to form a mutually agreeable contract, and to refer to that contract in the terms of their choosing.

As a pacifist, if I saw an iron ore supplier forming a business deal with a handgun manufacturer, I would protest against this arrangement. I would petition other businesses who dealt with the ore supplier to boycott their business. I would boycott the purchase of products made from ore that came from this same supplier, and let other companies know that as long as they purchased ore from this particular manufacturer, I would not buy their products.
The one thing I wouldn't demand is that their right to form a contract in terms of their own choosing be restricted.

No church should ever be forced to marry any coupling they disagree with, they should be free to discriminate. But similarly, there should be the freedom for two people to form a mutually agreeable contract, and for any church to choose to endorse it in terms of their choosing.

 

[Iron]

The way I see it, gay marriage is less about whether you agree with the particular moral implications of this arrangement, and more about whether you support the right of two individuals to form a mutually agreeable contract, and to refer to that contract in the terms of their choosing.

As a pacifist, if I saw an iron ore supplier forming a business deal with a handgun manufacturer, I would protest against this arrangement. I would petition other businesses who dealt with the ore supplier to boycott their business. I would boycott the purchase of products made from ore that came from this same supplier, and let other companies know that as long as they purchased ore from this particular manufacturer, I would not buy their products.
The one thing I wouldn't demand is that their right to form a contract in terms of their own choosing be restricted.

No church should ever be forced to marry any coupling they disagree with, they should be free to discriminate. But similarly, there should be the freedom for two people to form a mutually agreeable contract, and for any church to choose to endorse it in terms of their choosing.

We're broadly with you against discrimination; these people should certainly not be persecuted for announcing their sexual preference and, indeed, maybe justice does warrant them legal equality with married couples. We might grumble about this, but we accept that the role of government is to provide equality and justice for all - even sinners. However saying that a homosexual couple have an unqualified "right" to enter marriage is like demanding communion without being baptised. What hurts the most is that to us marriage is a sacrament rather than a meaningless title for a legal contract. It speaks very dearly about our relationship with our benevolent creator, who invites us to join in his divine creativity thru children and spiritual communion.

By all means take the legal equality that you already have - whatever. But watching them go after this last title, which is of no tangible benefit to them, is just too painful for the faithful like nametaken and I to silently endure. It smacks of a bitter, spiteful pride.
(editFor this you must suffer a full broadside of our exact and passionate feelings on the matter)

 

[SnowFox]

We're broadly with you against discrimination; these people should certainly not be persecuted for announcing their sexual preference and, indeed, maybe justice does warrant them legal equality with married couples. We might grumble about this, but we accept that the role of government is to provide equality and justice for all - even sinners. However saying that a homosexual couple have an unqualified "right" to enter marriage is like demanding communion without being baptised. What hurts the most is that to us marriage is a sacrament rather than a meaningless title for a legal contract. It speaks very dearly about our relationship with our benevolent creator, who invites us to join in his divine creativity thru children and spiritual communion.

By all means take the legal equality that you already have - whatever. But watching them go after this last title, which is of no tangible benefit to them, is just too painful for the faithful like nametaken and I to silently endure. It smacks of a bitter, spiteful pride.
(editFor this you must suffer a full broadside of our exact and passionate feelings on the matter)

But Christianity does not own a monopoly on marriage, or its title.

 

[Iron]

There are unavoidable spiritual/religious implications behind it though, which are all stamped out and denied by a purely state/legal instrument

 

[CecilyMare]

Who invented marriage anyway?

If they are here, and if they don't want people of the same sexes marrying each other, they should speak up. For the time being, nobody ought to shove words in the inventor's mouth

 

[Iron]

lol what? We imply marriage from the very creation of woman. We went over this in some detail. It's an institution with massive spiritual implications - this is my current point. My feeling is that homosexuals and their allies are driven by this mostly out of a desire to hurt Christians. Unsatisfied by legal equality, they demand a title they really have no right to
sinc
His Excellency, Dr. Iron.

 

[Name_Taken]

But Christianity does not own a monopoly on marriage, or its title.

Yea but why should a minority be able to contest its definition simply to progress its own agenda and add it to a list of "accomplishments" hoping that somehow it will as a result gain greater acceptance?

Marriage to the Christian means more than simply a party and a ring, and an element of its meaning is tarnished forever if gay relationships are promoted to the same level.

Its not a right you know, and it isn't like by denying gay marriage we are preventing gay people from being together or living in relationships with each other.

 

[CecilyMare]

Yeah but you are denying those tax benefits from them.

 

[Ethanescence]

Yea but why should a minority be able to contest its definition simply to progress its own agenda and add it to a list of "accomplishments" hoping that somehow it will as a result gain greater acceptance?

Marriage to the Christian means more than simply a party and a ring, and an element of its meaning is tarnished forever if interracial relationships are promoted to the same level.

Its not a right you know, and it isn't like by denying interracial marriage we are preventing interracial couples from being together or living in relationships with each other.

I replaced gay with interracial (in bold).

So do you feel the above argument is still valid? Or is it now discriminatory and bigoted?

It's still the same argument, just a different minority.

 

[SnowFox]

Yea but why should a minority be able to contest its definition simply to progress its own agenda and add it to a list of "accomplishments" hoping that somehow it will as a result gain greater acceptance?

It isnt a minority thats contesting its definition, its basically everyone but the religious.

Marriage to the Christian means more than simply a party and a ring, and an element of its meaning is tarnished forever if gay relationships are promoted to the same level.

But if the homosexual couple are not religious, then why cant they gain the same title as every other Athiest/Agnostic in the world? Bit stupid in my opinion to be critical of sexual orientation that wants the same benefits as every human can have.

Its not a right you know, and it isn't like by denying gay marriage we are preventing gay people from being together or living in relationships with each other.

No, you are denying them a title that is universally known as the final proof of love (in most cases) and government benefits.

 

[Name_Taken]

I replaced gay with interracial (in bold).

So do you feel the above argument is still valid? Or is it now discriminatory and bigoted?

It's still the same argument, just a different minority.

Lol... you don't get it.

Race is not of concern. God did not say, marriage is between a man and a women of x race only. But it is clear from all relgious teachings that homosexual relationships are not valid.

A white person marrying a black person is just as right as two white people marrying, and any other race combination.

A man marrying a man/women marrying another women etc. does not carry the same meaning. As a relationship it is a meaningless perversion and not worthy of celebrating through marriage.

 

[Kwayera]

It's funny how God didn't say anything about marriage being between one man and one woman (lol polygamy). Perhaps because back then, marriage was more about a business contract than about love?

FUNNY HOW TIMES AND DEFINITIONS CHANGE, ISN'T IT.

 

[SnowFox]

Lol... you don't get it.

Race is not of concern. God did not say, marriage is between a man and a women of x race only. But it is clear from all relgious teachings that homosexual relationships are not valid.

A white person marrying a black person is just as right as two white people marrying, and any other race combination.

A man marrying a man/women marrying another women etc. does not carry the same meaning. As a relationship it is a meaningless perversion and not worthy of celebrating through marriage.

Id assume you would refuse a transsexual marrying one gender person, but allow two transsexuals because they are marrying opposite sex's?

(M+f/F or M+f/M) (M+F/M+F)

 

[Ethanescence]

Lol... you don't get it.

Race is not of concern. God did not say, marriage is between a man and a women of x race only. But it is clear from all relgious teachings that homosexual relationships are not valid.

A white person marrying a black person is just as right as two white people marrying, and any other race combination.

A man marrying a man/women marrying another women etc. does not carry the same meaning. As a relationship it is a meaningless perversion and not worthy of celebrating through marriage.

But why do you believe the Bible is the sole authority on legally recognised marriages? Marriage existed long before Christianity or the Bible, and modern marriages are nothing like marriages during the Biblical era. Claiming the Bible has authority on marriages is about as reasonable as claiming the Bible has authority on our educational system.

And if we are to briefly pretend that the Bible is indeed an authority on legally recognised marriages, what about interreligious marriages? The Bible forbids interreligious marriage specifically, and even goes as far as to discourage mere association with unbelievers.

 

[M3riJaan]

But Christianity does not own a monopoly on marriage, or its title.

Perhaps, but most religions that practice marriage forbid homosexuality.

 

[SnowFox]

Procreation didn't occur to you?

Eh? What has procreation got to do with polygamy?

 

[SnowFox]

Perhaps, but most religions that practice marriage forbid homosexuality.

But if the homosexual couple are not religious, why should they be discriminated by a religious rule they do not follow?

It would be like a middle eastern saying to a atheist women to put a shade clothe on their head, they will not do it because they dont follow the religions ruling.

 

[zaxmacks]

Eh? What has procreation got to do with polygamy?

More female partners to one man, means more babies popping out of her. DUH

 

[SnowFox]

More female partners to one man, means more babies popping out of her. DUH

Even though i understand the meaning behind the message, the way you wrote it makes you look absolutely retarded.

 

[zaxmacks]

Even though i understand the meaning behind the message, the way you wrote it makes you look absolutely retarded.

Why are you trying to insult me? Seems like something someone with below average intelligence would do.