Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[dieburndie]

Marriage isn't accorded based on sexual orientation, a woman and a man, both gay still have the capacity to marry, irreguardless of the fact that they are gay.

And heterosexuals would have the same right to marry a member of the same sex as homosexuals if laws were changed. It's an inconsequential, pointless right.

 

[KFunk]

Definitely, there should be no orientation rights at all, or rather rights accorded on the basis of sexual orientation.

But we're talking about rights which already exist for heterosexuals. This is a matter of equality --> that rights should not descriminate on the basis of a person's sexual persuasion - the notion of universal rights. So I ask you:

Why should rights descriminate on the basis of sexual persuasion?

 

[bshoc]

And heterosexuals would have the same right to marry a member of the same sex as homosexuals if laws were changed. It's an inconsequential, pointless right.

1. The laws wont be changed

So your point is moot, and

2. In the hypothetical situation that they were, marraige would still be an institution exclusive to normal people, irreguardless of what the law said, becuase off paper marriage only means one thing, the government doesen't create it, it only recognizes it

 

[bshoc]

But we're talking about rights which already exist for heterosexuals. This is a matter of equality --> that rights should not descriminate on the basis of a person's sexual persuasion - the notion of universal rights. So I ask you:

Why should rights descriminate on the basis of sexual persuasion?

Why should abortion clinics be open only to women? Why should male toilets be open only to males?

Marriage is not a "right" anyway, its a natural institution, people are free to marry in a church without the recognized governmental document.

 

[kami]

Why should abortion clinics be open only to women? Why should male toilets be open only to males?

Marriage is not a "right" anyway, its a natural institution, people are free to marry in a church without the recognized governmental document.

1. Abortion clinics are open to those who are pregnant, until a man gets pregnant then men would have no use for an abortion. I'm sure that if men too could have children then they would not be unable to use the services of an abortion clinic. The ability to retain a child in one's uetrus is also a biological one, marriage is social and does not have any constraints that we do not impose upon it. So the analogy fails.

2. There are toilets for women as well, by comparison with marriage there is no equal service. So this analogy fails too.

And yes people can marry without governmental approval however only opposite sex couples have the ability to seek this approval (which grants a whole bundle of rights). Therefore inequity is produced.

 

[KFunk]

Why should abortion clinics be open only to women? Why should male toilets be open only to males?

Marriage is not a "right" anyway, its a natural institution, people are free to marry in a church without the recognized governmental document.

Poor examples:
- men cannot have abortions, your point is redundant
- female toilets are always available when male toilets are --> no discrimination

It's a matter of affording homosexual couples the same level of social status that the government confers upon longstanding heterosexual ones. By not formally allowing for the civil union of homosexual couples we deny the level of seriousness/commitment that is present in their relationships. So, you have said that you are against civil unions for homosexuals -perhaps I should ask: why?

 

[KFunk]

And yes people can marry without governmental approval however only opposite sex couples have the ability to seek this approval (which grants a whole bundle of rights). Therefore inequity is produced.

Well put. To bhsoc: this is where you find the presence of unequal rights (which you advocate).

 

[Se!zuRe.]

Catholicism is not a religion, it is a religious denomination of christianity and marriage is not an exclusively christian concept otherwise jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus etc. would not be able to marry...which they currently can - both by their religions and with the legal ratification of the state.

Also, not all religions or denominations prohibit homosexual marriage - many will perform marriages between two men or two women however the government does not at present give these ceremonies the same legal ratification as those between an opposite sex couple.

Therefore it can be percieved as a form of religious discrimination as well if they ratify unions based only upon a single religious denomination's model.

No, the government does not recognise same-sex marriage but many religions do. And considering your 'no sex before marriage' point is derived from religion not law then you can't honestly apply that argument globally to all same sex intercourse.

iight dude thx for bringing that to my attention wasnt quite sure of those issues but now i am.. xD

 

[shrimps]

I strongly object to it

 

[ur_inner_child]

Oh okay. Can you elabourate why?

 

[jhopkins]

u see kami, those other religions u are talking about, aint the true religion.

 

[kami]

u see kami, those other religions u are talking about, aint the true religion.

But Australia is a secular state not a religious one, thus there is no 'true religion' for Australia. This statement is valid for practically every country in the world apart from certain Islamic states and the Vatican. That said, I don't see any christians making protest when a jewish man makes love with his wife so it seems this application of what is 'true' is rather selective.

 

[jhopkins]

Kami
"What happened to the precept of free will? Why would god 'control' people's writing if man's choice was 100%? Or do you believe god does not permit any to mispeak in his name?"

of course we have free will. that doesnt mean u can spread out ur arms and fly. thats as im possible as changing somthing protected by the all powerful.

Kami:

"If you don't believe then why would you care about a curse which you'd see as meaningless? There is no reason to think some political power wouldn't attempt to change some words and meanings when there is basically no public opposition (remembering they couldn't read). If you think about it, its not that different to what King James did - effectively forcing the church to change its definition of marriage for his purposes. "

So u think mans politicakl power is greater to that of God?
King James could have changed al he ant about the church, but he is still wrong, and he didnt change the bible.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Just a casual reminder: try to tie in this tangent as much as you can to the topic.

I think everyone can see where this could potentially lead...

 

[jhopkins]

Rific:

about ur great research and deep readinbg about the church history, i couldnt give a fucjk.
the church is one thing the word of God is nother.
King James made his own Christyian church, that doesnt make it right.

As for the nmeaning of word soft and immoral and thart Paul doesnt ever say anything about homos. If u had read the newer tranlations of the bibkle, u would notice he repeatdly says "men who sleep with other men". True, he didnt say homsexuals or immoral, but i think the message is pretty direcrt. the word man has a literal tranlation from greek as well as the word sleep. and again, another pauls letters, says men will come up with any excuse in order to not understand the meaning of his words, whic are opretty clear. HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG

 

[skip89]

They can't marry now. In the future, who knows? Maybe they will be able to.

Yeah i no wat your getting at, lawfully homosexuals may be able to get married, which already happens in many parts of the world. But part of being religious is beliveing in a law that is above mankind set down by God. So no matter what a pice of paper from parliament says, i will never accept that a homosexual couple is married in the eyes of God. I acknowledge that this does not affect many people since they dont belive Him anyway.

 

[kami]

Kami
of course we have free will. that doesnt mean u can spread out ur arms and fly. thats as im possible as changing somthing protected by the all powerful.

It requires man as a physical agency to perpetuate the bible though, your suggestion that man cannot do suggests that god is controlling what man writes/controlling what they desire to write. Which opposes free will.

With your example of flying, well nothing all powerful is removing our ability to choose to spread our arms and fly, we still may make that decision and attempt it. It simply is a fact of life that a consequence of making that choice is that after a brief time in the air you must fall.

You also have not addressed my previous query - do you believe people are incapable of mispeaking in god's name?

And this is important because many christian priests have preached hateful things regarding homosexuals. If christianity is mainly about love and forgiveness, then how can this come from someone who speaks for god using interpretations from the holy text?

so u think mans politicakl power is greater to that of God?
King James could have changed al he ant about the church, but he is still wrong, and he didnt change the bible.

It doesn't matter whether I believe man is more powerful than god - that is not the issue. The point you established was that man would never dare to challenge the holy text even if they did not believe. I put forward that someone who did not believe would have no issue with making that challenge. So I brought in an example of a man who changed an entire church to reinterpret a definition from a holy text for his own personal gain.

The above change was also far more drastic and against any biblical definition than same-sex marriage would be (I don't know any passage that forbids the marriage of two women for instance, whereas I remember plenty saying 'till do you part')

 

[jhopkins]

Posted by Kami:
"But Australia is a secular state not a religious one, thus there is no 'true religion' for Australia. This statement is valid for practically every country in the world apart from certain Islamic states and the Vatican. That said, I don't see any christians making protest when a jewish man makes love with his wife so it seems this application of what is 'true' is rather selective."

fair enough. but if australia is a secular country, why did u previously even consider religious discrimination as a problem. if the country is secualr it should not care about the religion of people. if it wanted to it could make all marrigaes illegal, or not allow muslims to wear theor funny hats, or not allow any religious congregation to exist. it could simply shoot down all the people it does not think is helping the economical and military advancements of the sate. the question was simple : Do u believe gay marriages should be legal?
if the country is interested in asking people then they will hear whaty they have to say even if it is based on religious grounds.
It is my duty to tell gay marriages are wrong.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Yeah i no wat your getting at, lawfully homosexuals may be able to get married, which already happens in many parts of the world. But part of being religious is beliveing in a law that is above mankind set down by God. So no matter what a pice of paper from parliament says, i will never accept that a homosexual couple is married in the eyes of God. I acknowledge that this does not affect many people since they dont belive Him anyway.

As long as you consider heterosexual couples who do not marry within a church (or under traditional religious ceremony) similarly as "not being married under the eyes of God", then I'm content and respect your point of view.

 

[kami]

[/I]fair enough. but if australia is a secular country, why did u previously even consider religious discrimination as a problem.

Because Australia is not a religious state either, and the current definition discriminates in that it favours the Judeo-Christian model of marriage and not others. As a secular state it should not be favouring any religion.

it could simply shoot down all the people it does not think is helping the economical and military advancements of the sate.

No it could not. Australia is a democracy as opposed to a dictatorship/tyrancy. This is why we both can put forward arguments and viewpoints on the issue of homosexuality.