Same Sex Marriage Debate (3 Viewers)

[SylviaB]

Okay, fair enough, I have realised that law is often based on widely held values and constructs in society. But in that case, shouldn't it be reflective of these changing values and constructs, as that is also an essential basis of law? Because then we can agree that our current awareness on the LGBTQ community, and the increasingly common acceptance and empathy for the community means that legislation around their rights should change. This is already reflected in the fact that the Law Council of Australia has backed marriage equality on human rights grounds, stating explicitly that discrimination on sexual orientation opposes Australia's protection of human rights obligations (it's observed in an Amnesty International source that I can't link).

All of that is subjective. Definitions of human rights are fundamentally subjective.

 

[SylviaB]

Fundamental / basic human rights are those that are possessed by every human being as a consequence of existing, they are inherent to all and exist from birth. As the UNHCR puts it, they "range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty."

Nobody is born with those rights. They only "exist" because people decided they exist.

And, they are connected with being able to meet our needs. As social animals, humans need to associate with others. Typically, this includes family who provide for our physical and emotional needs and offer protection as we develop the capabilities to become responsible for ourselves. It includes the associations we choose as we form friendships. And, it extends to our right to choose who we will not associate with. These rights are grounded in our needs as humans and function to ensure that our needs can be met; they are neither subjective nor based in emotion.

you think they are important based on your subjective viewpoint. It doesn't mean they're rights.Your definition of consent is also highly subjective.

Thus, I ask: On what basis are the rights of consenting, competent adults to satisfy their needs not basic human rights? On what basis can / should such rights be curtailed by society?

What on earth does that have to do with same sex marriage? Nobody was stopping people from having relationships or "satisfy their needs".

 

[Idek_yeetthis]

All of that is subjective. Definitions of human rights are fundamentally subjective.

Lol, if you actually read the reply you could see I agreed to that . You didn't really respond to the main point of my reply, the fact that the commonly accepted subjective perspective on marriage equality for the lgbtq community is reflected in our society. Since law is often based on being reflective of changing social constructs and values, there is no backed argument against the accepted legislation of same sex marriage. Honestly, debating this topic is pointless, most people realise that same sex marriage should be considered a basic right (and yes, based on subjective feelings).

 

[SylviaB]

Lol, if you read the reply you could see I agreed to that... You didn't really respond to the main point of my reply, the fact that the commonly accepted subjective perspective on marriage equality for the lgbtq community is reflected in our society. Since law is often based on being reflective of changing social constructs and values, there is no backed argument against the accepted legislation of same sex marriage.

"Commonly accepted"

 

[Idek_yeetthis]

Of course I mean it in the context of the debate: Australia, and from the depiction itself you can see that the western world has largely embraced it. Just admit it, this debate is pointless, stop replying with the same thing (you're just wasting your time).

 

[-YMCA-]

Thus, I ask: On what basis are the rights of consenting, competent adults to satisfy their needs not basic human rights? On what basis can / should such rights be curtailed by society?

Where do you draw the line, with this logic many current illegal things will be able to pass, it won't be long until marriages between 5 individuals will pass to satisfy the needs of polygamous relationships. In terms of consent, 5 year olds are currently able to consent to permanent sex changes, due to changing social constructs, so with knowledge of adults only being able to make rational decisions, why was the consent age lowered? The old laws weren’t forbidding same-sex couples to be together, they were preventing them from getting married, for the purpose of the family structure.

 

[dan964]

I got no issues with same sex marriage.

Feelings can not be used to make laws. Feelings are subjective and vary for everyone, free countries are great for a reason. Gay marriage is not harming any innocent person so legally there should be nothing wrong with it.

Socially it is better for a child to be with both their natural father and mother. There are benefits for a positive male and female role model in the rearing of children, which is intrinsically connected with marriage. Gay marriage doesn't seem to lend itself favourably towards children this way.

Secondly, I lot of people oppose, it for the ideology stands for, and for many represents further destabilization of society in particular the idea of the family.

Often people, like myself, oppose it on other grounds, typically moral or spiritual grounds, which understandable are not shared necessarily by the rest of society. But again these moral grounds and spiritual grounds often connect marriage with the rearing of children. That even if children are not on cards, then why bother with marriage?

 

[dan964]

Where do you draw the line, with this logic many current illegal things will be able to pass, it won't be long until marriages between 5 individuals will pass to satisfy the needs of polygamous relationships. 5 year olds are already able to consent to permanent sex changes, so how long until the consent age is lowered due to changing social constructs. The old laws weren’t forbidding same-sex couples to be together, they were preventing them from getting married, for the purpose of the family structure.

While I agree that it represents an trend which is at the very least concerning, it is slippery slope to suggest that gay marriage will necessarily result in the legislation of marriage for 5 year olds or polygamous marriage (I doubt the former, and the latter while being more likely but not necessarily will happen).

It is definitely concerning the way the same movement is advocating in the area of gender, and I think there a lot of harm has been done.

 

[-YMCA-]

While I agree that it represents an trend which is at the very least concerning, it is slippery slope to suggest that gay marriage will necessarily result in the legislation of marriage for 5 year olds or polygamous marriage (I doubt the former, and the latter while being more likely but not necessarily will happen).

It is definitely concerning the way the same movement is advocating in the area of gender, and I think there a lot of harm has been done.

It does sound like im suggesting that haha, I'll quote it for clarification

 

[dan964]

Okay, fair enough, I have realised that law is often based on widely held values and constructs in society. But in that case, shouldn't it be reflective of these changing values and constructs, as that is also an essential basis of law? Because then we can agree that our current awareness on the LGBTQ community, and the increasingly common acceptance and empathy for the community means that legislation around their rights should change. This is already reflected in the fact that the Law Council of Australia has backed marriage equality on human rights grounds, stating explicitly that discrimination on sexual orientation opposes Australia's protection of human rights obligations (it's observed in an Amnesty International source that I can't link).

Sorry but things such as gender are not mere constructs, neither is sociology. Take gender for instance, it is biologically determined (even intersex can be explained genetically). Granted, not everything is rooted in biology and it doesn't have to be. I take it that even social conventions should be grounded in something unchanging for it to be meaningful. (e.g. Christians appeal to God's character, while on the opposite end, atheists will appeal to universal laws of natures that lie behind things aka. evolutionary principles)

Discrimination is not actually a bad thing, it is a loaded word in our society, but it need not be. Should gay people be put to death or imprisoned or brainwashed because they are same-sex leaning? By no means. Does that mean we need to accept every sexual/gender preference as valid without questioning the implications of such blind acceptance? Of course not.

The point of law is to discriminate, between what is legal and what is not. This is a form of healthy discrimination. Is it racial discrimination to favour Aboriginal people with more health funding? By no means, because they are more at risk.

 

[Idek_yeetthis]

Sorry but things such as gender are not mere constructs, neither is sociology. Take gender for instance, it is biologically determined (even intersex can be explained genetically). Granted, not everything is rooted in biology and it doesn't have to be. I take it that even social conventions should be grounded in something unchanging for it to be meaningful. (e.g. Christians appeal to God's character, while on the opposite end, atheists will appeal to universal laws of natures that lie behind things aka. evolutionary principles)

Discrimination is not actually a bad thing, it is a loaded word in our society, but it need not be. Should gay people be put to death or imprisoned or brainwashed because they are same-sex leaning? By no means. Does that mean we need to accept every sexual/gender preference as valid without questioning the implications of such blind acceptance? Of course not.

The point of law is to discriminate, between what is legal and what is not. This is a form of healthy discrimination. Is it racial discrimination to favour Aboriginal people with more health funding? By no means, because they are more at risk.

The contemporary take on gender (being accepted in academia-especially in principles like psychology and social science) is that it differs from sex, where sex is your assigned "male" and "female". However, in this case when I refer to constructs I'm referring to the changing construct of marriage to being defined additionally as same sex. I agree with your argument on law being used as means to "discriminate" at risk individuals, and the example listed. But the right to marriage and intimacy is something I and many people believe is owed to same sex couples as it is owed to heterosexual people. We can agree to disagree, and you have the right to you own view but Australian (and- increasingly- other countries) legislation on this has changed to accept same sex marriage. I don't really have much knowledge concerning the implications of same sex marriage in terms of its impacts on the construct of family, so I won't comment on that.

 

[SylviaB]

Of course I mean it in the context of the debate: Australia, and from the depiction itself you can see that the western world has largely embraced it. Just admit it, this debate is pointless, stop replying with the same thing (you're just wasting your time).

Im not replying the same thing. You said that a lack of same sex marriage infringes on the right to relationships, and I asked you to explain how.

 

[dan964]

The contemporary take on gender (being accepted in academia-especially in principles like psychology and social science) is that it differs from sex, where sex is your assigned "male" and "female".

Perhaps, regardless of that, it is still something grounded in biology. albeit it harder to understand the human brain/mind then to observe ones physical bodily features as such. And I don't necessarily agree the contemporary view of gender is grounded in the right things. I often see this as one area where ideology (in this case the LGBTIQ one) colours sound judgement. And even if you distinguish between gender and sex, and it is not as if these two things are disconnected concepts. Ones sex should in my view, determine their gender, and ones gender should conform to their sex (not the other way round as in contemporarily). (That is driven by ones view of what it means to be human)

However, in this case when I refer to constructs I'm referring to the changing construct of marriage to being defined additionally as same sex.
But the right to marriage and intimacy is something I and many people believe is owed to same sex couples as it is owed to heterosexual people. We can agree to disagree, and you have the right to you own view but Australian (and- increasingly- other countries) legislation on this has changed to accept same sex marriage.

I would disagree with you use of the word 'owed'. Marriage is not something that is owed per-say to heterosexual people, because there are many cases, whether on legal or moral reasons - basically any man cannot just marry any woman.

Secondly, one must acknowledge the fundamental difference between the nature of a same-sex relationship vs. a heterosexual relationship. The logic that they are the same, and therefore owed the same rights, kind of ignores the differences, one biologically differences between men and women, two the former cannot not naturally lead to the birth of children (without use of intervention of a third party), while the second does. The reason why society sees no difference is because of advances in other areas that favour against child bearing
(e.g. the idea of a business women being more useful to society apparently then being a mother raising children, discouraging women from getting married or if they do get married, from bearing children), and thirdly, gender differences (if we are making the distinction), the way a biological male thinks is different to the way a biological female thinks, their brain structures are slightly different).

I agree that marriage is not something universally agreed on, as it is evident by the differing views on its debate. But what is the essence and basis for marriage really? That is the fundamental question. if it is as Christians propose, the basis of marriage being a lifelong commitment of a complementarian relationship (including the bringing about of children), then by nature, homosexual relationships not matter how sincere, cannot fulfil that, and therefore cannot be called a marriage. (and thereby consequently should not be called such in legal terms). In fact, the debate in Australia is fundamentally a definition debate about marriage.

All that talk about rights, well of course if you have a broader or looser definition of marriage, and gender, and that men and women should be equal every way, then of course you will say a homosexual relationship is no difference to heterosexual one. The whole same sex marriage debates comes from the same movement that brought us radical feminism in a way.

So in the end, the reason why we oppose SSM, is that marriage is grounded in the complementary principle of a man with a woman; something that is for the good for society, for the good of children, and for the good of women.

I agree with your argument on law being used as means to "discriminate" at risk individuals, and the example listed.

I don't really have much knowledge concerning the implications of same sex marriage in terms of its impacts on the construct of family, so I won't comment on that.

Again, I cannot comment much on the details either. I'm more appealing to what is commonly understood, but I have read some of the psychology stuff around it, but again that's not really my expertise.

 

[dighead]

FYI even in Australia, the 2017 same-sex marriage survey resulted in 60% voting for, 40% against same sex marriage. It certainly is the majority, but it's not overwhelming - 40% of the population is still against it, which is no small number. If you live in a capital city, it would certainly feel like it's the overwhelming majority due to your circles, but if you went rural it would be a completely different story. Everyone lives in their own echo chamber.

 

[Idek_yeetthis]

Perhaps, regardless of that, it is still something grounded in biology. albeit it harder to understand the human brain/mind then to observe ones physical bodily features as such. And I don't necessarily agree the contemporary view of gender is grounded in the right things. I often see this as one area where ideology (in this case the LGBTIQ one) colours sound judgement. And even if you distinguish between gender and sex, and it is not as if these two things are disconnected concepts. Ones sex should in my view, determine their gender, and ones gender should conform to their sex (not the other way round as in contemporarily). (That is driven by ones view of what it means to be human)


I would disagree with you use of the word 'owed'. Marriage is not something that is owed per-say to heterosexual people, because there are many cases, whether on legal or moral reasons - basically any man cannot just marry any woman.

Secondly, one must acknowledge the fundamental difference between the nature of a same-sex relationship vs. a heterosexual relationship. The logic that they are the same, and therefore owed the same rights, kind of ignores the differences, one biologically differences between men and women, two the former cannot not naturally lead to the birth of children (without use of intervention of a third party), while the second does. The reason why society sees no difference is because of advances in other areas that favour against child bearing
(e.g. the idea of a business women being more useful to society apparently then being a mother raising children, discouraging women from getting married or if they do get married, from bearing children), and thirdly, gender differences (if we are making the distinction), the way a biological male thinks is different to the way a biological female thinks, their brain structures are slightly different).

I agree that marriage is not something universally agreed on, as it is evident by the differing views on its debate. But what is the essence and basis for marriage really? That is the fundamental question. if it is as Christians propose, the basis of marriage being a lifelong commitment of a complementarian relationship (including the bringing about of children), then by nature, homosexual relationships not matter how sincere, cannot fulfil that, and therefore cannot be called a marriage. (and thereby consequently should not be called such in legal terms). In fact, the debate in Australia is fundamentally a definition debate about marriage.

All that talk about rights, well of course if you have a broader or looser definition of marriage, and gender, and that men and women should be equal every way, then of course you will say a homosexual relationship is no difference to heterosexual one. The whole same sex marriage debates comes from the same movement that brought us radical feminism in a way.

So in the end, the reason why we oppose SSM, is that marriage is grounded in the complementary principle of a man with a woman; something that is for the good for society, for the good of children, and for the good of women.





Again, I cannot comment much on the details either. I'm more appealing to what is commonly understood, but I have read some of the psychology stuff around it, but again that's not really my expertise.

I understand where you come from, but I guess we'll just agree to disagree (lol, I know I'm using this phrase a lot) on our beliefs concerning marriage and its role in society.

 

[dan964]

I understand where you come from, but I guess we'll just agree to disagree (lol, I know I'm using this phrase a lot)

Yes, and that is what tolerance looks like. I hope people can see the rationale, and see that it isn't just bigotry.

on our beliefs concerning marriage and its role in society.

I would use principle, yes I have beliefs regarding that (which are much more than what I have expoused), I've simplified provided the rationale, devoid of any religious/moral reasons of which I would have some, but I've tried to show some of other non-moral arguments.

Obviously some of them would be hard to accept for some people, as reasonable, for the same reason that not all accept the basis for my faith in God.

 

[Drdusk]

Socially it is better for a child to be with both their natural father and mother. There are benefits for a positive male and female role model in the rearing of children, which is intrinsically connected with marriage. Gay marriage doesn't seem to lend itself favourably towards children this way.

Secondly, I lot of people oppose, it for the ideology stands for, and for many represents further destabilization of society in particular the idea of the family.

Often people, like myself, oppose it on other grounds, typically moral or spiritual grounds, which understandable are not shared necessarily by the rest of society. But again these moral grounds and spiritual grounds often connect marriage with the rearing of children. That even if children are not on cards, then why bother with marriage?

These are all fair points and I’ve thought about it from this point of view as well since biologically speaking traditional marriage is what allows for the species to continue existing so to speak.

I would think the effects of a child growing up with two of the same sex parents would have even a bit of overlap to those growing up with in a single parent house hold. You’re always gonna miss the other half that should be there because usually men and women will contribute differently in their children’s lives.

Having looked at some of the research the general verdict I can see is that same sex marriage doesn’t really seem to make a great difference in the lives of their children. Especially in this day and age where every info you need is at your fingertips so you don’t really ‘need’ a mother or a father to instil it in you though obviously it is extremely helpful and often predicts how you will be as an adult. Personally I had a pretty bad childhood and my parents always instilled religious values in me like prayer but with the internet I had access to so much information and became the exact opposite. I think the best option for a child is to have two parents that love you and can instil the required values in you and the famous Ben Shapiro says this all the time. For a same sex couple they would have to also do the part of what usually the opposite sex would do in a traditional marriage which seems to be going fine because I personally haven’t found any research showing any real negative impact on a child with parents of the same sex.

So tbh I don’t really see it as an issue unless I/someone can find any credible research which shows that same sex marriage actually has a negative impact on the children they adopt.

Most definitely it destabilises the traditional idea of a family but the question is does that really come with any negative impacts, as mentioned above at least I can’t find anything of the sort.

That literally happens in numerous countries around the world

Yes sadly. Which is why the West and some other countries are the land of the free.

 

[dighead]

Growing up in "this day and age" isn't relevant. Technology does not control how you turn out - 5 to 6 year olds don't use the internet to do research. They use the internet to play games. It's how you were brought up by your parents that will impact your behavior, so the nature of your upbringing definitely does matter regardless of the day and age.

Ben Shapiro is very right wing. While he might agree that a child can turn out fine with same sex parents, he does not agree with same sex marriage overall, so he shouldn't be used as an example for pro same sex.

 

[Drdusk]

Growing up in "this day and age" isn't relevant. Technology does not control how you turn out - 5 to 6 year olds don't use the internet to do research. They use the internet to play games. It's how you were brought up by your parents that will impact your behavior, so the nature of your upbringing definitely does matter regardless of the day and age.

For sure this is totally true. I even said that. What I’m saying is that I can’t find any research or reason showing that an upbringing with same sex parents has really any negative impact on the child they adopt or anyone else. I’m sure good same sex parents can bring up a child just fine provided they do what good traditional parents do and instil good values.

Ben Shapiro is very right wing. While he might agree that a child can turn out fine with same sex parents, he does not agree with same sex marriage overall, so he shouldn't be used as an example for pro same sex.

Sure he believes same sex marriage is a sin however I’m just discussing whether there should be a law preventing same sex marriage not whether it’s immoral. I am against drinking because I don’t like what it does to you but I acknowledge people have the right to drink and am totally cool about my friends & future partner drinking. Ben has said himself that whether or not people believe it’s immoral should not impact its legality. He has said in an interview with Joe Rogan for example how he is against gay marriage personally but not from a secular POV which is what matters in Law making. So I don’t see the issue here.

 

[Qeru]

For sure this is totally true. I even said that. What I’m saying is that I can’t find any research or reason showing that an upbringing with same sex parents has really any negative impact on the child they adopt or anyone else. I’m sure good same sex parents can bring up a child just fine provided they do what good traditional parents do and instil good values.


Sure he believes same sex marriage is a sin however I’m just discussing whether there should be a law preventing same sex marriage not whether it’s immoral. I am against drinking because I don’t like what it does to you but I acknowledge people have the right to drink and am totally cool about my friends & future partner drinking. Ben has said himself that whether or not people believe it’s immoral should not impact its legality. He has said in an interview with Joe Rogan for example how he is against gay marriage personally but not from a secular POV which is what matters in Law making. So I don’t see the issue here.

A lot of laws are based on morality. For example indecent public exposure (especially for women) is seen as immoral by western society and many religions whereas in other cultures its perfectly ok. This law is almost entirely based on 'personal feelings,'' i.e. women should dress modestly.