homosexuals (1 Viewer)

[qawe]

You are actually like one of the stupidest people ever.
If marriage isn't a government and legal thing then married couples wouldn't get the legal privileges they do. Every woman would be a single mother, etc.
Seriously, you're actually retarded. That doesn't make any sense at all.

u haven't addressed the fact that what u are suggesting may imply (i have sought clarification from the person who initially suggested it) that churches are banned from marrying ppl

 

[SnowFox]

One sounds industrial and cold, the other sounds nicer.

 

[Aquawhite]

no, fascist, here is an idea. Why don't we just get the government out of marriage. So by getting religion out of marriage what does that even imply? To ban churches for marrying people? You are worse than hitler.

Also, if you are so anti- religon, can you please not be a hypocrite and drop 1/10 of your vocabulary. (this includes the days of the week) Thanks.

I don't even know what to reply to that. You're making personal attacks and not even critiquing my opinion or attempting to inform me of your view. That is the point of a discussion, to inform the other side of your opinions and reasons. Discussion is not an attempt to degrade the other parties.

It's my belief that, if marriage is to be regarded as a legal construct in any way at all, then it should be only optional to involve the influence of religion (I believe this is already possible for heterosexual couples). If marriage is therefore considered only in the legal and social light, without the cofactor the marriage will result in offspring (it sure can, but that's totally optional), then homosexual couples should be provided this legal right also.

 

[nedzelic]

They should be allowed to marry of course, but I don't understand why they are obsessed with whatever their relationship is being termed 'marriage'. If I were them I would be more pragmatic and be worried about the actual rights that I have/don't have, rather than the word

 

[qawe]

One sounds industrial and cold, the other sounds nicer.

then change the name of civil union

it only sounds nicer because it has positive connotations that are about to be damaged by this move

 

[SnowFox]

They would get the same rights as heterosexual married couples, hence why they are duking it for marriage rather then a civil union.

 

[qawe]

They should be allowed to marry of course, but I don't understand why they are obsessed with whatever their relationship is being termed 'marriage'. If I were them I would be more pragmatic and be worried about the actual rights that I have/don't have, rather than the word

they already have equal rights. they want to do away with their inner feeling that what they are doing is wrong

 

[Aquawhite]

what's the difference?

There is also the social stigma associated with both. One must consider not only the legalities of both institutions.

I'm not aware of the specific differences, but it's to my knowledge from the rumour wheel that civil unions offer significantly less legal recognition and benefit (including the inability to adopt in most Australian states).

 

[SnowFox]

then change the name of civil union

it only sounds nicer because it has positive connotations that are about to be damaged by this move

Whats going to be damaged?

The foothold religion has in the government?

Good, piss off all religions.

Legislation and laws should be passed via societies views, not those of mindless zombies following some of the words from a 2000 year old book.

 

[Riproot]

ie there are no valid non-religious arguments (pretty unanimous) against gay marriage.
therefore it would be naive to think that there would be no move to polygamy (i can imagine all the arguments now, the usual + racist to muslims...), having thrown out religion
in fact, ur attempt to define marriage does not consider that this whole saga is about changing the definition, so ur definition would not be set in stone

Who has said anything against polygamy, mate?

 

[qawe]

It's my belief that, if marriage is to be regarded as a legal construct in any way at all, then it should be only optional to involve the influence of religion (I believe this is already possible for heterosexual couples). If marriage is therefore considered only in the legal and social light, without the cofactor the marriage will result in offspring (it sure can, but that's totally optional), then homosexual couples should be provided this legal right also.

this still isn't clear

 

[qawe]

Whats going to be damaged?

The foothold religion has in the government?

Good, piss off all religions.

Legislation and laws should be passed via societies views, not those of mindless zombies following some of the words from a 2000 year old book.

how is this not happening?

 

[SnowFox]

this still isn't clear

Remove religion from marriage.
If the couple requests Religious Activities, then allow them.

 

[SnowFox]

how is this not happening?

Marriage laws.
Game Rating Laws.
Probably more.
Religion should have no say in laws or legislation, yet they do by leaning on their premiers to not pass, or pass, certain laws which are at odds with their own views.

ACL is the worst.

 

[qawe]

There is also the social stigma associated with both. One must consider not only the legalities of both institutions.

I'm not aware of the specific differences, but it's to my knowledge from the rumour wheel that civil unions offer significantly less legal recognition and benefit (including the inability to adopt in most Australian states).

does have "civil union" have stigma attached

 

[Aquawhite]

Remove religion from marriage.
If the couple requests Religious Activities, then allow them.

This. Pretty sure I put it quite simply, sorry otherwise for being convoluted in anyway.

 

[qawe]

Remove religion from marriage.
If the couple requests Religious Activities, then allow them.

this isn't a suggestion. this is already the case

 

[Riproot]

what's the difference?

different recognition from government, different name, no equality, people see it as different and hence gay people as seen as different and are ostracised.

u haven't addressed the fact that what u are suggesting may imply (i have sought clarification from the person who initially suggested it) that churches are banned from marrying ppl

Marriage isn't controlled religiously in our society anymore. Done.

then change the name of civil union

it only sounds nicer because it has positive connotations that are about to be damaged by this move

You are so disrespectful. If gay marriage damages the positive connotations that so does polygamy.

they already have equal rights. they want to do away with their inner feeling that what they are doing is wrong

No they don't. Fuck off.

 

[qawe]

Marriage laws.
Game Rating Laws.
Probably more.
Religion should have no say in laws or legislation, yet they do by leaning on their premiers to not pass, or pass, certain laws which are at odds with their own views.

ACL is the worst.

there's an opposing gay lobby which drowned out the acl at a recent sydney rally

 

[SnowFox]

this isn't a suggestion. this is already the case

What is this i dont even