Same Sex Marriage

[Fuzz]

Can't we all just live in sin?

[Dbone]

The reasons gays want to get married does not follow the same reasons God instituted marriage long before any state or government defined what marrage is. Gays want to be recognized before the state for legal rights they otherwise don't have just as partners. Religious folk believe God brings two people together as partners in life, mutual blessings, to compliment each other during the temporary life on earth. And yes, Jesus did talk against homosexuality. In a nutshell, that is the argument.

It is not correct to judge though, thats a big deal the church must stress. But do they make good parents? Are they nice people? That really has nothing to do with religion, that's just personal acceptance and no laws are going to change minds unfortunately.

[Ken Gargett]

The reasons gays want to get married does not follow the same reasons God instituted marriage long before any state or government defined what marrage is. Gays want to be recognized before the state for legal rights they otherwise don't have just as partners. Religious folk believe God brings two people together as partners in life, mutual blessings, to compliment each other during the temporary life on earth. And yes, Jesus did talk against homosexuality. In a nutshell, that is the argument.

It is not correct to judge though, thats a big deal the church must stress. But do they make good parents? Are they nice people? That really has nothing to do with religion, that's just personal acceptance and no laws are going to change minds unfortunately.

without wishing to offend anyone (too much), this is where things get so bizarre for me.

let us assume, for a moment, god did so and we have jesus saying whatever he might have said - it is in the bible so we can take it on faith. so now it is convenient for those who believe in this stuff to use the 'god said/it is in the bible' line. and yet given some of the patently absurd nonsense in that book (creationism, earth in 6,000 years and so much more), those same people take the 'well it is not literal etc etc' position. it really is wanting one's cake and eating it as well.

and yes, i would be of the school that the bible is pretty much a work of fiction bar that some bloke called jesus knocked about the middle east around 2000 years ago - i would strongly recommend that people on both sides of this argument read christopher moore's 'lamb: the gospel according to biff. christ's childhood pal'.

"God instituted marriage" - could we have some evidence that god instituted marriage. there was me thinking it was the powers that be of the day. given that various societies, pretty much across the planet and a great many of whom are not christian, all came up with marriage, how does this work? did all the gods have the same idea? did they plagarise one of the gods (did he get pissed?)?

how can we explain marriage around the world if we really do believe that the christian god came up with it?

and then we have the religion that supposedly preaches tolerance and forgiveness and love one's neighbour (but apparently not if he is a bloke) determined to deny happiness to a percentage of the population. does the monumental never-ending hypocrisy and convenience of the church not seem an appalling embarrassment? i did say 'too much'.

if there really is a devil, the greatest trick he ever pulled off was giving humanity religion.

[Ken Gargett]

i should add i have given the moore book to friends who are staunch believers and others from the other end of the spectrum and all have enjoyed it. whatever your beliefs, it is a very funny book.

[DrunkenMonkey]

The reasons gays want to get married does not follow the same reasons God instituted marriage long before any state or government defined what marrage is. Gays want to be recognized before the state for legal rights they otherwise don't have just as partners. Religious folk believe God brings two people together as partners in life, mutual blessings, to compliment each other during the temporary life on earth. And yes, Jesus did talk against homosexuality. In a nutshell, that is the argument.

Quite a nutshell there. So since you seem to have this all figured out, and know everyone's motivations. So why do you think that religious *** people want to get married?

And when precisely was it that Jesus spoke against homosexuality? That's news to me.

[Dbone]

I believe some were asking what's the big deal, counterpoint argument to *** marriage. I was just trying to explain, in my opinion, what that was KG.

[Ken Gargett]

I believe some were asking what's the big deal, counterpoint argument to *** marriage. I was just trying to explain, in my opinion, what that was KG.

i am absolutely fine with that. it is just that i still don't understand.

[Colt45]

it is just that i still don't understand.

It doesn't really matter if you understand or believe. It doesn't really matter if I understand or believe. If one subscribes to a certain religion, then they subscribe to the tenets of that religion, whatever the religion, whatever the tenets.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism.......

If one desires to be married in any of these churches, one should be willing to adhere to the tenets. I can't think of any married couple I know personally, married in a church, who've had any business being married in a church ceremony.

For what it's worth, I was civil serviced by the captain of an old sailing schooner.....

[Ken Gargett]

It doesn't really matter if you understand or believe. It doesn't really matter if I understand or believe. If one subscribes to a certain religion, then they subscribe to the tenets of that religion, whatever the religion, whatever the tenets.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism.......

If one desires to be married in any of these churches, one should be willing to adhere to the tenets. I can't think of any married couple I know personally, married in a church, who've had any business being married in a church ceremony.

For what it's worth, I was civil serviced by the captain of an old sailing schooner.....

i suspect i am not a candidate to believe but that does not mean i would not like to understand. or do you feel it is impossible to understand without belief?

[Colt45]

or do you feel it is impossible to understand without belief?

A question more than fair - without thinking on it too much, I suppose to truly understand, we would need to believe. And believe it or not, The Passion of The Christ is on the telly right now.......

[Ken Gargett]

A question more than fair - without thinking on it too much, I suppose to truly understand, we would need to believe. And believe it or not, The Passion of The Christ is on the telly right now.......

i've got norman mailer on my tv in the background. not sure where that leaves me.

i suspect that you might be right re the full understanding. but then i'd like to know how many believers truly understand and how many follow blindly.

[earthson]

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/155034/were-getting-married

[Fosgate]

I grew up with a *** step brother. I saw first hand the crap he went through as he tried to remain silent and eventually moved to Denver CO and got married. Not my bag and I'm not for nor against either way. It would be cool to see them qualify for the same healthcare, tax and insurance benefits as married couples. Funny thing is that he and his spouse are both middle of the road or slightly right in their political thinking as both feel they have all this attention they don't want being drawn to them over this debate and don't like the bashing of religion over their feelings for one another. They often feel there are many in the LGBH and transexual community are over the top drama specialists starting national arguments against certain businesses (florists, cake makers trying to force churches to marry them etc) to try and start big issues when if they would have just not thrown attitude they would have gotten what they wanted instead of making a national debate over the issue and try to get more govt to force us to comply. In turn violating what they feel is other peoples freedom of choice and does nothing but stack the deck against them. They believe in religious freedom and feel it is wrong to force the church into endorsing what they feel will eventually backfire and they will be the ones to pay the price.

[Ryan]

My two cents on the whole thing.

I realised on Saturday evening after the results came in that legalising *** marriage in this country is about much, much more than simply marriage for *** people.

From seeing the reaction of so many gays and lesbians, what this has meant for them is the rest of us (at least the majority of us) showing them they we are willing to accept them as full members of society, i.e. that we care that they are afforded the same rights as any of us under the constitution.

That we regard homosexuals as full citizens of this country.

It’s a big one, and much bigger than I, or I think most people, had realised. I actually get a bit emotional thinking about it. That we could have excluded people from the same rights as the rest of us because of who they happen to be.

The “No” campaign here mostly focused on “the children”, with campaign posters such as “Every child deserves a mother and a father”, also raising questions about surrogacy and adoption. Ignoring the fact that *** people in this country already have the same rights as anyone else to adopt as it is, with or without marriage. Also “every child deserves a mother and father” insults thousands of single mothers/fathers, widows, abused wives etc.

The “Yes” campaign came back with a good positive response , “What about children who turn out to be ***? Don’t they deserve the same right to happiness?”

Surrogacy is an issue here that needs to be cleared up in the law, and that’s in the works. But surrogacy, and laws around it, will be an issue regardless of whether or not there is same-sex marriage.

The church, understandably, got behind the “No” campaign with the bishops here writing letters to be read out at mass last week. To their credit, many priests refused to read them. Also people here have got a little tired of being told what’s best for children by the same institution that in the 1950s and 60s was selling Irish babies to American couples, against the wishes of their mothers. Not to mention the history of child abuse which the church is still trying to cover up. But’s that’s another story.

No church here is going to be required to marry anyone they don’t want to, *** or straight. That will not change. We do not have a state church here. They are private institutions and can make their own rules according to their beliefs. Like golf clubs.

I know that for many people, marriage is a religious sacrament, a sworn oath, under God, until death.

The problem is, the word “marriage” has also been used to define the civil institution and the worldly rights and benefits that go with it. As a civil institution, access to it is a civil rights issue.

We’ve had “civil partnership” here since 2011. A sort of “Marriage-lite” for *** people. I had issues with it from the start but it was a step in the right direction. There are always problems with “separate but equal” laws, in that they are never equal, otherwise why would we need two sets of legislation?

Also “civil partnership” is not protected under our constitution in the same way marriage is.

For people who would still argue that being *** is a choice. If who we are attracted to (our sexuality) is a choice then do you remember the day you decided to be straight? If it is really a choice, that’s quite a big decision. I’m sure you’d remember it.

Our sexuality is no more a choice than the colour of our skin.

For people who say “marriage should not be redefined”. My marriage hasn’t changed nor does anyone else’s as a result of Friday’s vote. In 1996, divorce was legalised in this country, again by referendum. Overnight, that actually did redefine everybody’s marriage, turning it from a permanently binding legal contract into a breakable contract. I don’t remember anyone at the time making the argument, “divorce is going to redefine my marriage”.

Regarding the “opening the door to polygamists, people who want to marry their horse etc.” argument. Marriage (in this country and most of the western world) is between two people. If polygamists and horse-lovers want to make a case well let them make a case and see how they do, but it is a different issue. A different issue and that’s the important part. When women got the right to vote that didn’t mean, and hasn’t meant, that children also got the right. Because it’s a different issue.

As for the percentages of *** people who are in favour or *** marriage. I know that here at least, it is the vast majority. Because as I said, what I realise now is that it is about more than marriage. It is about being regarded as full and equal citizens.

On a final note, I spoke to my mother yesterday about the result. She’s 81 and worried about the outcome. “What if they all start ‘coming out’ now? We’ll be overrun with them!"

[Ken Gargett]

On a final note, I spoke to my mother yesterday about the result. She’s 81 and worried about the outcome. “What if they all start ‘coming out’ now? We’ll be overrun with them!"

many many years ago, the abc news had a clip of the '*** and lesbian mardi gras' parade in sydney. dad was muttering and spluttering, not the sort of thing that should be shown on tv, etc etc.

mum leant over and patted him on the shoulder and said, and i remember it word perfectly, "don't worry dear, i think you'll find that they are all hairdressers". have not laughed so hard in years. they thought i'd gone mad.

[Rushman]

My two cents on the whole thing.

I realised on Saturday evening after the results came in that legalising *** marriage in this country is about much, much more than simply marriage for *** people.

From seeing the reaction of so many gays and lesbians, what this has meant for them is the rest of us (at least the majority of us) showing them they we are willing to accept them as full members of society, i.e. that we care that they are afforded the same rights as any of us under the constitution.

That we regard homosexuals as full citizens of this country.

It’s a big one, and much bigger than I, or I think most people, had realised. I actually get a bit emotional thinking about it. That we could have excluded people from the same rights as the rest of us because of who they happen to be.

The “No” campaign here mostly focused on “the children”, with campaign posters such as “Every child deserves a mother and a father”, also raising questions about surrogacy and adoption. Ignoring the fact that *** people in this country already have the same rights as anyone else to adopt as it is, with or without marriage. Also “every child deserves a mother and father” insults thousands of single mothers/fathers, widows, abused wives etc.

The “Yes” campaign came back with a good positive response , “What about children who turn out to be ***? Don’t they deserve the same right to happiness?”

Surrogacy is an issue here that needs to be cleared up in the law, and that’s in the works. But surrogacy, and laws around it, will be an issue regardless of whether or not there is same-sex marriage.

The church, understandably, got behind the “No” campaign with the bishops here writing letters to be read out at mass last week. To their credit, many priests refused to read them. Also people here have got a little tired of being told what’s best for children by the same institution that in the 1950s and 60s was selling Irish babies to American couples, against the wishes of their mothers. Not to mention the history of child abuse which the church is still trying to cover up. But’s that’s another story.

No church here is going to be required to marry anyone they don’t want to, *** or straight. That will not change. We do not have a state church here. They are private institutions and can make their own rules according to their beliefs. Like golf clubs.

I know that for many people, marriage is a religious sacrament, a sworn oath, under God, until death.

The problem is, the word “marriage” has also been used to define the civil institution and the worldly rights and benefits that go with it. As a civil institution, access to it is a civil rights issue.

We’ve had “civil partnership” here since 2011. A sort of “Marriage-lite” for *** people. I had issues with it from the start but it was a step in the right direction. There are always problems with “separate but equal” laws, in that they are never equal, otherwise why would we need two sets of legislation?

Also “civil partnership” is not protected under our constitution in the same way marriage is.

For people who would still argue that being *** is a choice. If who we are attracted to (our sexuality) is a choice then do you remember the day you decided to be straight? If it is really a choice, that’s quite a big decision. I’m sure you’d remember it.

Our sexuality is no more a choice than the colour of our skin.

For people who say “marriage should not be redefined”. My marriage hasn’t changed nor does anyone else’s as a result of Friday’s vote. In 1996, divorce was legalised in this country, again by referendum. Overnight, that actually did redefine everybody’s marriage, turning it from a permanently binding legal contract into a breakable contract. I don’t remember anyone at the time making the argument, “divorce is going to redefine my marriage”.

Regarding the “opening the door to polygamists, people who want to marry their horse etc.” argument. Marriage (in this country and most of the western world) is between two people. If polygamists and horse-lovers want to make a case well let them make a case and see how they do, but it is a different issue. A different issue and that’s the important part. When women got the right to vote that didn’t mean, and hasn’t meant, that children also got the right. Because it’s a different issue.

As for the percentages of *** people who are in favour or *** marriage. I know that here at least, it is the vast majority. Because as I said, what I realise now is that it is about more than marriage. It is about being regarded as full and equal citizens.

On a final note, I spoke to my mother yesterday about the result. She’s 81 and worried about the outcome. “What if they all start ‘coming out’ now? We’ll be overrun with them!"

IMHO, this is about as well put and informed view on this subject as it gets. Agreed all the way around.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[asmartbull]

Apologies. ..I was off

The CDC stated 1.3

Gallop , over the first 4 months of this year, 3.8

(Gallup) – The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are *** or lesbian, little changed from Americans’ 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the *** and lesbian population. These estimates are many times higher than the 3.8% of the adult population who identified themselves as lesbian, ***, bisexual or transgender in Gallup Daily tracking in the first four months of this year.

Trend: Just your best guess, what percent of Americans today would you say are *** or lesbian?

The stability of these estimates over time contrasts with the major shifts in Americans’ attitudes about the morality and legality of *** and lesbian relations in the past two decades. Whereas 38% of Americans said *** and lesbian relations were morally acceptable in 2002, that number has risen to 63% today. And while 35% of Americans favored legalized same-sex marriage in 1999, 60% favor it today.

I will try and find the actual CDC and Gallop internal.....not that it matters much.

With many friends and family in the medical field, I can say that the CDC results come from numbers pulled from hospitals, Dr office, Insurance companies, and census data.

The numbers related to Transgender is admittedly suspect.

.......back to cigars

[DrunkenMonkey]

Apologies. ..I was off

The CDC stated 1.3

Gallop , over the first 4 months of this year, 3.8

(Gallup) The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are *** or lesbian, little changed from Americans 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the *** and lesbian population. These estimates are many times higher than the 3.8% of the adult population who identified themselves as lesbian, ***, bisexual or transgender in Gallup Daily tracking in the first four months of this year.

Trend: Just your best guess, what percent of Americans today would you say are *** or lesbian?

The stability of these estimates over time contrasts with the major shifts in Americans attitudes about the morality and legality of *** and lesbian relations in the past two decades. Whereas 38% of Americans said *** and lesbian relations were morally acceptable in 2002, that number has risen to 63% today. And while 35% of Americans favored legalized same-sex marriage in 1999, 60% favor it today.

I will try and find the actual CDC and Gallop internal.....not that it matters much.

With many friends and family in the medical field, I can say that the CDC results come from numbers pulled from hospitals, Dr office, Insurance companies, and census data.

The numbers related to Transgender is admittedly suspect.

.......back to cigars

Three questions: Where is this 1.3% number in your 'citation', what does it refer to, and what is the point you're trying to make by using it?

Or maybe just stick to cigars.

[asmartbull]

Earlier in the thread I referred to the numbers and some wanted the sorce. I will have to scan the CDC sorce when I get home.....I brought these study up to demonstrate the perceived numbers vs actual numbers.....frankly, I don't care. Someone pages ago asked for opinions on the other side of the discussion. ...from there it went sideways.

[DrunkenMonkey]

But what was your point?

[Ryan]

I don't think there's really any need to make a big deal about the numbers.

Some people are ***.

Most people aren't.

More people now, *** and straight, are in favour of same-sex marriage than there were 10-15 years ago.

[DrunkenMonkey]

Correct. I was just trying to tease out exactly what was the point that Bull was trying to make. From what I can piece together, he was saying that fewer people are *** than most people think. I was trying to get him to state that coherently, or if it's not what he was saying, then to find out what it was he was trying to say.

And then my next question would be, what does it matter whether it affects 1% or 30%? Right is right.

[Scroats]

I notice there seems to be a general negativity towards the idea of polygamy. I'm curious why?

I can't find a compelling argument for the continued illegality of bigamy. It doesn't harm me, it doesn't harm society. Society really has no business regulating religious morality. As long as the existing spouse is aware and consents, I see no harm.

[Ryan]

I notice there seems to be a general negativity towards the idea of polygamy. I'm curious why?

I can't find a compelling argument for the continued illegality of bigamy. It doesn't harm me, it doesn't harm society. Society really has no business regulating religious morality. As long as the existing spouse is aware and consents, I see no harm.

While I don't see what it has to do with same sex marriage, I'll have a go. Traditionally where polygamy happens or has happened, it is one man with multiple wives, not one wife with multiple husbands. This could lead to problems where there are laws regarding equality of the genders on the books. Can one of multiple wives have the same rights as one husband?

Also, if men of "higher status" can have 2, 4 or 10 wives, and given in most populations male/female ratios are around 50/50, who do "lower status" men marry? As older men take on younger wives as second, third and sixth wives, suddenly there is a disproportionate amount of young, unmarried men. This can and has caused problems. China and india are having problems already with inequality in gender numbers. That can and does "harm society".

If you feel strongly enough about it and that men and women should have the same rights regarding multiple spouses well then start a campaign, go out and do something for your rights and best of luck!

It has nothing to do with allowing same sex marriage though.

[galtline]

I notice there seems to be a general negativity towards the idea of polygamy. I'm curious why?

I can't find a compelling argument for the continued illegality of bigamy. It doesn't harm me, it doesn't harm society. Society really has no business regulating religious morality. As long as the existing spouse is aware and consents, I see no harm.

I see no problem with legal prostitution or legal/controlled drug use. If you cant stop it monitor it... The amount of money we spend on fighting the war on drugs is just silly. You can ask any drug addict how hard it is to get drugs on the street. The war on drugs is a failed strategy. Marijuana is now being legalized in the states and I would like to see other harder drugs be legalized in a setting where users can walk in and use them. Tax the **** out of all the drugs and provide free rehabilitation.It would be much cheaper to do that then do what we currently doing on a failed strategy. Same with prostitution... Personally I don't care for *** people but they should have the same rights as everyone else.