a) This is drawing a tenuous link between one thing and another
Hardly, look at the US & Canada, even the UK. There are some things about the way that this is pushed using the exact same rhetoric and line of reasoning. While those who are of the "don't give a jatz cracker" camp when it comes to same-sex marriage, and will probably vote "yes" or in some places "no" (depends on a bunch of factors), realising that removing the distinction between genders, removes one critical barrier when it comes to pushing for "transgender" rights, which itself is a tricky issue to navigate and potential dangers in simply rolling through the next logical step after same-sex marriage.
b) Gay marriage and adoption are seperate issues - at present, gay couples can and do adopt children. So the argument is moot.
Yeah as if that somehow reduces the implication of same-sex marriage? You are right to say a certificate of paper won't affect adoption etc. But this is more broad, and looks at actually how children are brought into the world, and the children benefit best in a stable relationship, with 2 complimentary role models. After all, it is the main reason why the state gets involved in marriage. The state doesn't care about your private sexual lives, and even the church doesn't try to comment for those who aren't of the faith (and leaves that to God), so the government never sought to recognise marriage simply because of one man/one woman ; or two people (depending on your position)'s
sexual love for one another.
No, it is a related issue, because for those who disagree with same-sex marriage, marriage has a meaning/purpose other than just "lovey-dubby" sexual unions of adults, but consequentially the raising of children. Not saying that every married couple bears children, but naturally it is natural ends/consequence of man-woman marriage (that doesn't exist in same-sex marriage which relies on adoption and surrogancy and other methods, some of which are ethically grey areas or even problematic). It is because many who are for same-sex marriage,
I am also fairly certain, adoption laws favour married couples over de facto relationships, because the former is considered more stable, but also because of the presence of two complimentary role models.
Generally, you will find that at the same time as people who wish to preserve traditional marriage, also wish to favour those stable marriages (not talking about abusive ones here), over other relationships when it comes to adoption. The flow on effect of this change, will it happen?
c) I dont really see how free speech or practice is going to be affected. Churches wont have to marry gay couples, so why would this be a problem.
You yourself mentioned that church-protections aren't even guaranteed, a couple of replies earlier. Maybe at first
Maybe worth examining Canada and the US. Even already, if you don't agree, and you speak up respectfully you are named bigot, homophobic and even delusional, hardly a respectful way. This is just the tip, already cases of litigation of religious schools, bakeries in the UK, Canada, even parents who conscientiously object to a LGBTIQ narrative (and similar problems have been had with Safe Schools).
I am sure you are respectful but unfortunately there is a lot of presumptions and mud-slinging in this debate which isn't helpful.
But to answer your question, consider this senate enquiry. It has a range of opinions, which is the reality. Linked at end of reply.
But many, even those who support same-sex marriage, look at the way it is being argued, and frankly it is not very good for their ends.
When LGBTIQ activists go after those who oppose them, inciting/encouraging threatening action, it should be concerning. (And this is without SSM actually being legislated yet).
Another very important consideration, if same-sex marriage is passed, the next logical step is not beastiality or pedophilia or even polygamy, but a radical redefinition of gender, and we already see that in the classroom/society.
d) Religions dont own marriage and by extension the definition
I did mention that in passing, although most religious, and neither does the ME activist. The common law and the statute law which are currently in agreement, is what is applied consistently and fairly. The Sex Discrimination Act makes it clear than this is not an unreasonable case of discrimination.
But yet even the non-religious, some, still hold to a more traditional/conservative view of marriage. The church never owned it, marriage is an organic union, that grew out of the natural, biological and sexual differences between male & female, the evolutionary benefits of reproduction, and as mentioned earlier, until recently, procreation was seen as part of the purposes in marriage by design at least.
The heart of the debate, is on the definition. Misunderstanding why the definition is at is currently, and has been since Federation, and before, is probably a big reason why those who wish to preserve are not being well understood. That is why children are raised.
The problem with the way it is being argued for change, is sometimes, but instead poor arguments:
- labelling everyone who disagrees as bigots/homophobes
- pressuring religious/independent schools to accept and teach LGBTIQ theory, which amongst scholars is highly and rightly contested.
- pressuring bakeries and other wedding-related, to go against conscience, under threat of closing business.
- the Magaret Court incident and the immaturity of both sides, but notably the
- presuming that marriage equality has a majority (which it may do), but then arguing the reason against the plebiscite is "if the 'no' camp'
- accusing those who disagree of inciting and increasing LGBTIQ suicide, which is misleading.
If 16 years of Catholic education (primary, high school and uni) taught me anything, it's that the bible is far from clear cut on anything. Hence why there are a million Christian denominations claiming to have all the answers.
No, the reason there a million of denominations is because of the following reasons
- different churches associated with different regions of the world e.g. Anglican = English, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox etc.
- different teachings on minor matters, often things that aren't mentioned much in the Bible.
- different authorities (some groups reject the Bible)
I have been a Christian for 15 years, and Jesus is fairly clear cut on marriage and a lot of other things. There are other things where it isn't as clear. but when it comes to salvation for instance, the Bible couldn't be clearer. But that is probably better suited for the "Does God exist thread".
I reject Roman Catholicism for a variety of reasons, and I wouldn't be surprised that both Catholic and liberal teaching, does muddy the waters, in an attempt to interpret teachings to suit themselves (the latter particularly to a post-modernist reading); and that is a reason for me, to reject their teachings.
The way I always read it, I never really saw the whole argument against either homosexuality or gay marriage.
Fair enough. Although the argument should never be on homosexuality, as the government has no right to legislate for the bedroom, not to mention that the main emphasis on the current definition of marriage doesn't really comment on sexual orientation directly.
The argument for a Christian with marriage, theologically speaking (so not really relevant as an argument against in secular law btw, but people still can exercise with their feet), is primarily based on 2 things:
- God's design in creation, male & female, and then the creation of marriage, to spread God's blessing to the nations through physical descendants,
(which is only biologically possible between one man and one woman). Ethics on sexuality come out of God's design for sex to be exclusively in this union.
- But more importantly, when Jesus came in Matthew 19/Mark 10, he affirmed this understanding of marriage, but a shift is less on marriage, but more on spreading God's blessing to the nations, in the proclaiming of forgiveness and reconciliation found in Jesus, that is the Gospel.
- And so marriage becomes a picture of the complimentary relationship between Christ and his bride, the church; where Christ radically lays down his life for his bride and the bride humbly follows Christ's leadership (Ephesians 5). (It also points to relationships within God). I am currently studying Revelation, alongside my uni studies, and there is a picture of this heavenly marriage in Revelation 19. Hence emphasis on two genders not just two of the same partaking in the marriage.
I also didnt read the ABC article you mention, but it would probably prove my point on the whole, open to intepretation since even scholars cant agree.
Nah it doesn't. Any one can read the Bible, like people read Shakespeare, a feminist reading, a post-modernist reading; doesn't make it actually true to what the text is actually saying in its historical context (think of it as literature). The problem is when people read modern ideas into the text, because they want it to say something, when it is clearly saying something else.
Yeah we will probably have to agree to disagree though. As mentioned above, the heart of the debate is what marriage is.
for many I suspect it is just a way to be validated or seen as the pinnacle expression of love. However I think it involves a lot more than that, and the implications of changing one part, does have a flow on effect.
====
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...rriage/~/media/Committees/ssm_ctte/report.pdf
Some items of interest, pasted for easy reading, although best to read the full report. I think in Australia, we are striving to have more protections than other nations.
2.45 Item 6 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 proposes to insert new section 47A into the
Marriage Act, to provide marriage celebrants with a right to refuse to solemnise
same-sex marriages:
(1) A marriage celebrant (not being a minister of religion) may refuse to
solemnise a marriage despite any law (including this Part) if:
(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a
woman; and
(b) the marriage celebrant's conscientious or religious beliefs do not
allow the marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage.
2.46 However, some submitters and witnesses contended that the two classes of
'marriage celebrants' are distinct from one another and should not be treated
identically. In particular, some argued that civil celebrants should not be provided
with an exemption, allowing them to opt out of solemnising same-sex marriages.
Section 3
3.5 Australia is the signatory to several international instruments on human rights
relating to marriage and familial relationships, some of which have been ratified
• Internationally, the right to marry is enshrined in Article 23 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
• The right to non-discrimination and equality is enshrined in the Articles
2 and 26 of the ICCPR.
• Freedom of religion, including the freedom to publically manifest one’s
religious beliefs is enshrined in Article 18(1) of the ICCPR, described as
'freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public
or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance,
practice and teaching.'
3.6 The UN Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) has only considered the issue
of same-sex marriage once, in the case of Joslin v New Zealand (Joslin) in 1999. The
UN HRC found that:
In light of the scope of the right to marry under article 23, paragraph 2,
of the Covenant, the Committee cannot find that by mere refusal to provide
for marriage between homosexual couples, the State party has violated the
rights of the authors under articles 16, 17, 23, paragraphs 1 and 2, or 26 of
the Covenant.
3.7 In recent cases, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has similarly
concluded that a comparative provision in the European Convention on Human Rights
does not require Contracting States to afford access to same-sex marriage. In the 2014
case, Hämäläinen v Finland, the ECHR ruled that Article 12 and Article 8 of the
European Convention on Human Rights:
[Did] not impose an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex
couples access to marriage. Nor could Article 8, a provision of more
general purpose and scope, be interpreted as imposing such an obligation.
3.8 Despite these rulings, the ECHR has recognised that this is an evolving
question, and in recent cases has moved towards encouraging states to offer protection in law to same-sex couples that is equivalent to marriage.
3.9 A further affirmation of this position was the 2015 case of Oliari and Others v
Italy, where the ECHR identified the relevant criteria for determining claims of
equality as:
…the extent to which same-sex couples are 'in a relevantly similar situation
to a different-sex couple as regards their need for legal recognition and
protection of their relationship'.
On the Right to Marry
3.12 Article 23 of the ICCPR protects 'the right of men and women of marriageable
age to marry and to found a family'.10 In 1999, the UN HRC considered whether this right encompasses same-sex marriage, ultimately finding that it does not. Further, a State Party is not obliged by Article 23 of the ICCPR to introduce same-sex
marriage.
3.29 The question of whether different treatment under the law always amounts to
discrimination has arisen in international jurisprudence on the issue of same sex
marriage. The UN HCR General Comment 18 on Article 26 of the ICCPR is clear that
under certain circumstances it does not:
[T]he Committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment will
constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are
reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is
legitimate under the Covenant.
3.30 The question of whether different treatment under the law always amounts to
discrimination is a fundamental question in the same-sex marriage debate. The UN
HCR General Comment 18 on Article 26 of the ICCPR is clear that under certain
circumstances it does not:
[T]he Committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment will
constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are
reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is
legitimate under the Covenant.
3.31 The ICCPR's traveaux préparatoires is similarly clear when discussing "All
persons are equal before the law" in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights:
The provision was intended to ensure equality, not identity, of treatment,
and would not preclude reasonable differentiations between individuals or
groups of individuals
====
And pretty much all of reasons given for/against marriage come down to that statement, whether we should "differentiate", or whether it does make a difference.
(And of course, and I cannot be bothered editing them, i have incompleted sentences and bad grammar)
