Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[neo o]

i don't think they are indicitive of anything really.. other than the amount of people too lazy to donkey vote that get fined for not voting. *shrugs* People are forced to vote for someone... doesn't mean they want to, hell it doesn't even mean that the person they vote for will get in nor that if they vote for a smaller party that their vote will go with that voters preferred major party. To be truthful i think that voting in australia really sorta sucks... but thats my opinion.

Actually i'd say mainly the ignorant and disinterested gravitate towards the left as opposed to the right. You only need to look at this forum to realise that. Also, what system do you propose to implement if the voting "sucks"?

Not to mention that Australia isn't a conservative country.. you only have to look around to see that.

That's why a conservative government was elected.

Australia may seem to have a 70% Christian/Catholic majority... but take into account how long ago the cesus was taken, how many christians/catholics do not practise and how many of those consider them selves 'not really religious but i was brought up catholic/christian' as well as how many people change religion constantly and how many may have changed since those numbers were put out....

nice to know we have a Christian-Conservative government, who love rich people and americans. Quite the opposite to the majority of Australians

The census was taken 3 years ago. As it stands the main religions are Christian (70%) and Islam (10%) with 20% Aethiest or Agnostic. So you are trying to tell me, that in 3 years 25% of all Christians became aethiests/agnostics? Additionally you didn't mention anyone who might have converted etc etc . If you look at Birds quote he said that the MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIANS AREN'T represented by a Christian government (btw i'd say our government is secular), so unless 25% of Christians became aethiests in 3 years....

Your argument about psuedo Christians is ridiculous, if they put down they are Christian on the census they are Christian, they can go for the agnostic bubble if they think otherwise.

 

[neo o]

The general populace does not necessarily 'want' the winner per se. In fact a lot of the time it is the lessor of two evils.

So i assume the general populace would rather noone then?

 

[Xayma]

I think elections are usually indicitive of what the general populace want eh?

The problem is that you may not agree with all their policies however, the majority of them you do. Also no major party has gone in support of gay marriage, so it isnt really a choice considering the lesser parties get minimal advertising etc (due to lack of funds etc)

 

[eviltama]

Actually i'd say mainly the ignorant and disinterested gravitate towards the left as opposed to the right. You only need to look at this forum to realise that. Also, what system do you propose to implement if the voting "sucks"?

The ignorant and disinterested gravitate towards whatever box looks best on the day. I don't think voting should be compulsory, it makes ppl vote.. but compulsory voting doesn't make people give a shit about the government much less their policies or how it will affect others. They only care if it affects them (think HECS), but even then they don't give a shit. I think there should be more of an effort made to get people interested in politics and make it more available to everyone... not just those involved in political parties.
*shrugs* The government and its members should reflect the public it serves... not just 'be there' and be tolerated as a neccesary evil.

That's why a conservative government was elected.

There isn't a choice really. Liberal or labour... even if you don't like either one of them will get your vote. What choice do we have?

The census was taken 3 years ago. As it stands the main religions are Christian (70%) and Islam (10%) with 20% Aethiest or Agnostic. So you are trying to tell me, that in 3 years 25% of all Christians became aethiests/agnostics? Additionally you didn't mention anyone who might have converted etc etc . If you look at Birds quote he said that the MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIANS AREN'T represented by a Christian government (btw i'd say our government is secular), so unless 25% of Christians became aethiests in 3 years....

Your argument about psuedo Christians is ridiculous, if they put down they are Christian on the census they are Christian, they can go for the agnostic bubble if they think otherwise.

Who knows how many people have converted, or just completely dropped out... until another census is held the numbers we have are somewhat old. 25% may seem a large number... but there are alot of factors to consider... arrivals, departures, conversions, death, birth... *shrugs* Either way my 'psuedo christians/catholics' holds alot more water than you'd guess. There are alot of people out there who just tick the box because thats what they were brought up... despite the fact they may not have put foot in a church for years or celebrated any religious holidays since they were a child. No-one in my family celebrates anything catholic, and yet they put catholic down... i'm not even catholic. And how many people say 'i'm not religious but...' and despite that they'd still probably be inclined to tick their religion even tho they don't think the are. In a way its a reaction to the stereotypes surrounding agnostics/atheists *shrugs* each to their own and never to anothers.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Your argument about psuedo Christians is ridiculous, if they put down they are Christian on the census they are Christian, they can go for the agnostic bubble if they think otherwise.

There are a lot of people who, as mentioned, were raised christian or have some loose tie to the religion, who don't necessarily adopt its beliefs in their day to day lives, or as a whole.

Besides which can you stop the pertinacious appeals to majority please? Its a really annoying fallacy of argument (especially irritating for agnostics/athiests).

Even if Australia was 99% Christian and wanted to ban gay marriages - that doesn't say anything about what's right or wrong, only whats popular.

 

[poloktim]

that doesn't say anything about what's right or wrong, only whats popular.

People tend to believe, something popular is right. Sadly, that's the way the world works.

Lets look in the past, it was popular for only white people to enter Australia, the whole White Australia Policy showed that. It wasn't right. In fact, it was racist. The popular decision was the morally wrong one.

Could it be possible that the same is happening with gay marriages. The majority may be against them, but is it possible that they're morally wrong?

I'll not judge them and say they are morally wrong, as who am I to make that judgement? But, I will say it is possible that they are.

 

[neo o]

So are you trying to say anything that is popular is wrong? You rebel. You know, society is sometimes right

 

[neo o]

There are a lot of people who, as mentioned, were raised christian or have some loose tie to the religion, who don't necessarily adopt its beliefs in their day to day lives, or as a whole.

Besides which can you stop the pertinacious appeals to majority please? Its a really annoying fallacy of argument (especially irritating for agnostics/athiests).

Even if Australia was 99% Christian and wanted to ban gay marriages - that doesn't say anything about what's right or wrong, only whats popular.

1) So? As far as the government and the ABS are concerned - they are Christian if they put it down on the census

2) Im an aethiest actually, I'm not arguing based on religious grounds. Im arguing based on

- Gay marriage devaluing marriage as an institution
- Societies general tolerance/acceptance of gay marriage, which just isn't there.

btw You can't marry a family member no matter how much you love each other, even someone who was adopted and then left your family because society deems it as inappropriate (or do you think those people are being discriminated against?)

 

[poloktim]

So are you trying to say anything that is popular is wrong? You rebel. You know, society is sometimes right

Oh no, I'm not saying everything that's popular is wrong. The reason Australia signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was because it was popular (most likely to get a good reputation with other countries). So saying that all things popular is wrong would be rather silly of me.

I'm saying that because society has been wrong in the past, maybe, just maybe it could be wrong now. I'm not saying it is, just that it could be.

Another example of popular things being wrong is Nikki Webster. What was Australia thinking when it thought she was any good? (A slight addition of humour never hurt anyone).

 

[eviltama]

1) So? As far as the government and the ABS are concerned - they are Christian if they put it down on the census

2) Im an aethiest actually, I'm not arguing based on religious grounds. Im arguing based on

- Gay marriage devaluing marriage as an institution
- Societies general tolerance/acceptance of gay marriage, which just isn't there.

btw You can't marry a family member no matter how much you love each other, even someone who was adopted and then left your family because society deems it as inappropriate (or do you think those people are being discriminated against?)

1) The census is old. People are born, they die, they convert, they move countries, they give up on religion all together... that has to be taken into account. And the ABS has conducted other surveys on religion since the census.. but i ain't fkn paying them to see it.

2) -Gay marriage devaluing marriage as an institution- without the religious aspect marriage is only really a legal institution. So i guess this means your against divorce as well.

-Societies general tolerance/acceptance of gay marriage, which just isn't there.- If it wasn't there would you be here arguing? If it wasn't there would Canada allow it, would Spain be bringing it in in 2005, would liberal and labour candidates be sweating their asses off wondering if they'll still hold their seats after the election? (there were a number of articles about candidates who held their seats by 0.6 and similar numbers who were antsy because they feared they would lose their seats over this issue.) If the tolerance or acceptance wasn't here people wouldn't see this as an issue, the government wouldn't see this as an issue, they wouldn't be running scared.

As for wanting to marry an adopted family member, its irrelevant. Sanguinous relations aren't allowed for a reason. And if they are adopted then it becomes sanguinous (even tho its not).

 

[neo o]

1) The census is old. People are born, they die, they convert, they move countries, they give up on religion all together... that has to be taken into account. And the ABS has conducted other surveys on religion since the census.. but i ain't fkn paying them to see it.

2) -Gay marriage devaluing marriage as an institution- without the religious aspect marriage is only really a legal institution. So i guess this means your against divorce as well.

-Societies general tolerance/acceptance of gay marriage, which just isn't there.- If it wasn't there would you be here arguing? If it wasn't there would Canada allow it, would Spain be bringing it in in 2005, would liberal and labour candidates be sweating their asses off wondering if they'll still hold their seats after the election? (there were a number of articles about candidates who held their seats by 0.6 and similar numbers who were antsy because they feared they would lose their seats over this issue.) If the tolerance or acceptance wasn't here people wouldn't see this as an issue, the government wouldn't see this as an issue, they wouldn't be running scared.

As for wanting to marry an adopted family member, its irrelevant. Sanguinous relations aren't allowed for a reason. And if they are adopted then it becomes sanguinous (even tho its not).

1) The Census is 3 years old, not quite old. People may convert from Christianity, but you never seem to mention that people also become Christians. so, it wouldnt have deviated much from the stat of 3 years ago.

2) Personally, i'm not against divorce. Additionally, divorce has been accepted for the last 40-50 years and is hear to stay, even though religious fundamentalists would argue from Mark 10:6-9

But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate

3) This is Australia, not Canada or Spain.

4) Gay marriage is already prohibited, so it's basically irrelevant. Btw, I'd be worried about losing my seat if it was in the inner city, but I doubt you'd see much action outside of marginal seats.

5) Why should it be illegal? When two people love each other....

 

[eviltama]

1) The Census is 3 years old, not quite old. People may convert from Christianity, but you never seem to mention that people also become Christians. so, it wouldnt have deviated much from the stat of 3 years ago.

2) Personally, i'm not against divorce. Additionally, divorce has been accepted for the last 40-50 years and is hear to stay, even though religious fundamentalists would argue from Mark 10:6-9



3) This is Australia, not Canada or Spain.

4) Gay marriage is already prohibited, so it's basically irrelevant. Btw, I'd be worried about losing my seat if it was in the inner city, but I doubt you'd see much action outside of marginal seats.

5) Why should it be illegal? When two people love each other....

1) I spose i never specifically mention ppl wanting to become Christians/Catholics because i'd think you stupid if you did convert to that out of your own choice. But thats my opinion. And i did mention being converted.. i just never said which way.

2) religious fundementals can go get ****ked as far as i'm concerned. fundamentalist religions and their offspring are never good news. >_< And for someone who isnt religious you seem to quote religion alot.

3) Yes this is Australia, and it is an issue here otherwise there this wouldn't have been brought up. I read a letter to the editor in the paper today which i thought was funny it was something along the lines of 'George W Bush will know when our election is going to be help before anyone else does. Why... because bush is the big bush and howard is the little scrub.' Its amazing that until Bush decided to bring in his constitutional amendments howard hadn't even made a statement on the issue... much less consider it as one of his draw cards for re-election. (a re-election which doesnt seem to be going as smoothly as he hoped)

4) Any marriage... unless its between a male and a female is prohibited... so does that make anything that isn't between a male and a female irrelevant? Since you've said that gay marriage will devalue the institution does it mean that the institution is so fragile that if any of it is disturbed its going to fall apart in front of our eyes, and all marriage will mean nothing. (as far as i'm concerned.. its a nice thought) Or does it mean that every married couple is going to have their marriage affected by this action? Or are you referring to marriage as a cultural symbol? (because marriage as a social entity is genderless) Either way if we all thought the way you did, love would only be allowed between males and females, of certain preferences (religons, races.. and such other criteria) and of course polygamy and polyghandry as well as defacto relationships wouldn't exist. Because it all devalues marriage!

5) Sanguinous marriages are illegal because in-breeding is gross... and its wrong to bring a child into the world like that... especially when you know wtf its going to inherit or possibly end up being like( ie The chances of ending up with disabled, ill, weak, deformed sick children). Two people can love each other as much as they want to, and i really don't care if they did marry (a sanguinous couple)... but people bitched that gay couples couldn't procreate naturally (despite the fact they can) so they shouldn't marry... sanguinous couples can procreate but hell you'd be stupid if you did.

 

[neo o]

1) I spose i never specifically mention ppl wanting to become Christians/Catholics because i'd think you stupid if you did convert to that out of your own choice. But thats my opinion. And i did mention being converted.. i just never said which way.

That's nice.

2) religious fundementals can go get ****ked as far as i'm concerned. fundamentalist religions and their offspring are never good news. >_< And for someone who isnt religious you seem to quote religion alot.

I think it's always good to know what your talking about. That's why im reasonably familiar with the Bible.

3) Yes this is Australia, and it is an issue here otherwise there this wouldn't have been brought up. I read a letter to the editor in the paper today which i thought was funny it was something along the lines of 'George W Bush will know when our election is going to be help before anyone else does. Why... because bush is the big bush and howard is the little scrub.' Its amazing that until Bush decided to bring in his constitutional amendments howard hadn't even made a statement on the issue... much less consider it as one of his draw cards for re-election. (a re-election which doesnt seem to be going as smoothly as he hoped)

That's nice.

Either way if we all thought the way you did, love would only be allowed between males and females, of certain preferences (religons, races.. and such other criteria) and of course polygamy and polyghandry as well as defacto relationships wouldn't exist. Because it all devalues marriage!

Are you racist? Because i don't understand how interacial marriages devalue marriage.

Are you a bigot? Because i don't understand how inter-faith marriages devalue marriage.

Last time i checked polygamy was illegal, same deal with polyandry. Do you support these practices?

Defacto relationships dont devalue marriage, because obviously the couple involved aren't married?

5) Sanguinous marriages are illegal because in-breeding is gross... and its wrong to bring a child into the world like that... especially when you know wtf its going to inherit or possibly end up being like( ie The chances of ending up with disabled, ill, weak, deformed sick children). Two people can love each other as much as they want to, and i really don't care if they did marry (a sanguinous couple)... but people bitched that gay couples couldn't procreate naturally (despite the fact they can) so they shouldn't marry... sanguinous couples can procreate but hell you'd be stupid if you did.

Well, I could say the same thing about gay marriage couldn't I.

"gay marriages are illegal because gay marriage is gross... and its wrong to bring a child into the world like that... especially when you know wtf its going to inherit or possibly end up being like"

 

[neo o]

Oh in an incestuous marriage, is adoption not an option?

And, if as you say, the kid will be a little well retarded, then should we somehow disallow from women with breast cancer having children, since the disease is hereditary? etc etc

 

[neo o]

Do you propose we forcibly sterilise people with Down Syndrome? Because adults with down syndrome can only raise more kids with down syndrome.

Are you a fascist?

 

[Butterfly_Wings]

Well, I could say the same thing about gay marriage couldn't I.

"gay marriages are illegal because gay marriage is gross... and its wrong to bring a child into the world like that... especially when you know wtf its going to inherit or possibly end up being like"

No, I don't think you can really say that. If you're parents are gay, what's the difference? However, if you're born retarded, there is an obvious difference.

I am definately all for allowing homosexual marriages. I don't see how it makes any negative impact on society, and I think the whole "man and a woman" rule was made in a very different time. It's not the couples fault for being gay, it's really not much of anyone elses business.
As for incestuous marriages, I don't understand how someone can be sexually attracted to a family member, and to be honest the thought makes me uncomfortable. On the other hand-I think people should be allowed to marry whomever they fall in love with, so whether it makes me feel uncomfortable or not, I think it is selfish of me to frown on incestuous marriages, just because it doesn't fall in with my own viewpoint. However-people should be counselled on the risk of having a child with a disability. If they decide they still want to from there, then I guess that is their decision.

 

[poloktim]

Life would be so much easier should people all think like me. Yes, I think I'm going to become a "lifelong president" and take over the world. By the time I'm done with it, I'd have found a way to make the moon/sun crash into the earth.

Anyway, the issue at hand. Yes, some members of parliament are sweating over the issue of smae-sex marriages, and as neo_o stated. This is likely only going to be marginal seats. Also, it did seem pretty funny that when George W. Bush decided he'd push his agenda on the US regarding the issue by attempting to change the consitution, John Howard joined the bandwagon and forbode these sorts of marriages. People might decide to vote Liberal out if only because they're following the US and not Australia. I know I am (and that's my own opinion).

The issue of incestious marriage is a tricky one. Incest is criminal. Homosexuality isn't. It hasn't been for a while now. Perhaps to stop incestious marriages, one should realise that, yes incest is criminal. People can go and fight for rights to decriminalise incest before they start worrying about marriage between siblings.

I think sterilising people because they have hereditary diseases is rather foolish. It'd be hard to find a "clean" bloodline. Many Australian families have either a history of cancer, diabetes, blindness, motor neurone, arthritis, etc, so the "purging" of these families would see nobody left, most likely.

Also, the amusing thing about the Bible, and just about any sacred text, is that it says a lot of things. While the Bible forbids homosexuality, it permits slavery with neighbouring nations. If we're to use the Bible alone to decide what's right or wrong, I should be able to sell my sister (well my father should be able to sell her) to New Zealand or East Timor or Indonesia for slavery. Exodus and Leviticus have quite a few amusing tidbits in them. One shouldn't laugh because they're in the Bible, I myself am a Catholic, but one should laugh because of how amusing, historically they are. How much we've changed. We could basically tick off laws that don't exist anymore from it.

Anyway, that's all for me at the moment.

 

[neo o]

No, I don't think you can really say that. If you're parents are gay, what's the difference? However, if you're born retarded, there is an obvious difference.

Well, I've been arguing for a while now that homosexuality is based on environmental and genetic factors. However, I'll take 400 Miles' and evil_tama's view of "its all genetic" for this one. Since according to them, homosexuality is 100% genetic, it's a genetic mutation that results in deformity (incorrect chemical levels in the brain etc etc) Do we really want our children being born deformed? According to these two, homosexuals have no choice...so they are born deformed.

It's not the couples fault for being gay, it's really not much of anyone elses business.

They can be gay all they want and nobody cares. They can love each other all they want and nobody cares. Allowing homosexuals to marry is a bad idea however see : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9533603^32522,00.html

@evil_tama and 400 Miles - Homosexuality is either a disease/deformity caused by a genetic mutation or a lifestyle choice with a contribution by genetic factors. Pick one :uhhuh:

I am definately all for allowing homosexual marriages. I don't see how it makes any negative impact on society, and I think the whole "man and a woman" rule was made in a very different time.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9533603^32522,00.html

As for incestuous marriages, I don't understand how someone can be sexually attracted to a family member, and to be honest the thought makes me uncomfortable. On the other hand-I think people should be allowed to marry whomever they fall in love with, so whether it makes me feel uncomfortable or not, I think it is selfish of me to frown on incestuous marriages, just because it doesn't fall in with my own viewpoint. However-people should be counselled on the risk of having a child with a disability. If they decide they still want to from there, then I guess that is their decision

As long as you agree that if gay marriages are allowed, incestuous marriages should be allowed.. :uhhuh:

 

[MoonlightSonata]

As long as you agree that if gay marriages are allowed, incestuous marriages should be allowed.. :uhhuh:

No. Incest can often produce severe biological deformities, such as mental retardation, etc. Gay people can't procreate, so I don't see what your point is there.

But anyway, there are no rational, moral reasons for banning gay marriages. All you've come up with is that it devalues the institution of marriage. But this is an exceedingly anachronistic and hollow argument. Tell me what ought to make up the institution of marriage? Should it not be commitment, devotion and love? Why is it important to restrict the institution of marriage to that of a man and woman, and be chained to the past in some form of ancestor worship? Religion, as we've discussed, is not a valid reply to this point so don't bring that up.

It seems to me that this 'devaluing the institution of marriage' argument is a thin public veil over an overwhelming repugnancy and prejudice, conscious or not.

I quote Kirby J again:

"Science may not unravel the precise causes of homosexuality in human beings. But that a proportion of people exist who are exclusively homosexual and cannot change, and who engage in consenting adult homosexual acts, is the starting point for an attitude of professional integrity and social justice. Such people continue to suffer many disadvantages. It is unacceptable. It is now irrational. It has to stop."

Incidentally, it has been found that homophobic, or more 'anti-gay individuals', were more likely to be attracted to men than those not so against homosexuals. Adams, Wright & Lohr (1996). I'll resist the temptation to point out the religious community *cough*priests*cough*. Oops. Too late.

 

[Butterfly_Wings]

Well, I've been arguing for a while now that homosexuality is based on environmental and genetic factors. However, I'll take 400 Miles' and evil_tama's view of "its all genetic" for this one. Since according to them, homosexuality is 100% genetic, it's a genetic mutation that results in deformity (incorrect chemical levels in the brain etc etc) Do we really want our children being born deformed? According to these two, homosexuals have no choice...so they are born deformed.

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make...that being born gay is the same as being born retarded because they are both "deformities"? For starters, whether you consider homosexuality to be a deformity or not, I don't see what thats got to do with whether or not they can marry. I'm sure you wouldn't say that 2 people who were born with 6 fingers aren't allowed to marry, on the basis of having a deformity. So as far as I can see, what you are saying is irrelevant to the argument.
Or are you saying that 2 gay people shouldn't have children as they may pass it on? Well, a gay couple cannot reproduce, so for most people this isn't an issue. For those who do, a genetic link has been proven, however it seems to be very weak. So the chances of it being passed down are slim...and if it does get passed down, then who gives a shit? Being gay doesn't lower your quality of life. (or rather, it shouldn't.)

They can be gay all they want and nobody cares. They can love each other all they want and nobody cares. Allowing homosexuals to marry is a bad idea however see : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9533603^32522,00.html

So you are worried that allowing gay marriages will increase the instances of defacto relationships and out of wedlock births? For a start, I refuse to believe that allowing gays to marry has solely led to this. And either way, I don't see the problem with either of those situations. If a child is loved and well cared for, then who are we to say that their situation is wrong? Again, it all comes down to social norms. (Very out of date social norms.) As soon as we start moving away from them we think it's wrong and start panicking, but we have to face it-marriage is not what it used to be. Look at the divorce rate for your first clue.