Gay marriage

[Doubting Thomas]

What is hilarious is that (currently a discussion with a religious friend) their bigest objection is that the "churches" will be FORCED to marry gay couples?

Sorry but WTF? hock:

They obviously have no understanding of the First Amendment or the wall of separation. They want the churches to be able to tell the government what to do, but react with horror at the thought of the government telling churches what to do.

---

Religious people can go on wrapping marriage in whatever primitive ceremony they wish.

And they will, but for some reason they're totally freaked out about two men or two women calling their ceremony and life together by the same name.

[Bad Writer]

People against gay unions are ever edging towards the fringe. Good riddance. They'll die out, and the younger, more tolerant generations will take over.

[NoraBrimstone]

What is hilarious is that (currently a discussion with a religious friend) their bigest objection is that the "churches" will be FORCED to marry gay couples?

Sorry but WTF? hock:

Yes, that argument was going around here, too. Probably still is. lol
Churches have the right to refuse to marry any couple. Couples where one or both people have been married before get turned down by Churches all the time. They just go and find another Church. The same will happen with this. There are Churches that are planning to offer weddings to same-sex couples, and they were unhappy when Churches were nearly excluded from being permitted to perform the marriages after the Church Of England threw a tantrum about the "Definition Of Marriage" being changed (You know, like the way the Church Of England was founded so that Henry VIII could redefine marriage to enable him to divorce Catherine of Aragon without the Pope's permission and marry Anne Boleyn.)

[Violet]

"Marriage is a right" I totally agree, it is a religious right performed by a religious community in accordance with their interpretation of their doctrine.

To say everyone has a right to be married in accordance with a specific interpretation of a religious doctrine, irrespective of whether they meet the criteria denies that sects right to freedom of religion.

You do understand, that marriage is, infact, a sociopolitical invention (and independent religion), yes? Oh good. I'm glad that we agree.

That commonfolk are being wed, on a religiohistorical basis, is hilarious

[Aractus]

---

Hi, is first post. Apologies in advance for my inadequacies with the English language.

Bored and can't sleep, I was wondering what people opinions were on gay marriage. I'll go first, to encourage discourse....... disagree please, and if my opinion makes you angry don't just shout at your screen. TYPE IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS


I was of the opinion that it the argument (at it's core) is merely different interpretations of what "God" wanted, that aside, if civil partnerships have the same rights as a married couples should atheists even care about then infighting of theists?

If we are to take sides, firstly by granting the premise of their "God", could we not challenge the homophobia prevalent within Christianity. Encourage an interpretation that was more tolerant to be taught, we seem to be stuck with religion........ why not warp it in something that's more inclusive than exclusive?

I suppose I want the Church to exclude lots of people on such grounds, gives ammunition for shyte throwing matches if nothing else.

---

Why do you word your question in such a nonsensical way?

In the ACT, we had civil unions, which I personally believe were too discriminatory - and that's because they were designed by the government simply for being "pro same-sex", I would have preferred it to allow full registrations of de-facto unions, not discriminating on age, number of partners or whether the couples are incestuous. It granted the same legal status as marriage - the same "benefits", etc. The only benefit it doesn't give is adoption but I'll get to that later. The left wing government thought it'd be a terrific idea to re-legislate it into marriage, and they did, and it was then thrown out in the High Court as I knew it would be.

Now, you're thinking but what if a 26 year old registers a relationship with a 12 year old?

Well the only law that could be broken is if they are having sexual intercourse, and if they aren't then their relationship isn't illegal. So my point stands that in my mind the civil union bill should have allowed full access to everyone, no matter how disturbing it might seem.

On to marriage. Marriage discriminates against age, where the person is already married (number of partners), incestuous couples and same-sex couples.

Finally, adoption. Children need both a father and a mother, and there are psychological studies that prove this. We also need two feet, two legs, two arms and two hands - people who lack one of these are usually classed as "disabled", giving the legal recognition that they are physically challenged.

If a child is born with only one arm, then unfortunately that is the cards that he has been dealt. But no one would advocate arbitrarily removing it at birth just because you can. In exactly the same way, no one should advocate deliberately denying a child a father or a mother from birth. The most suitable people for adoption are married couples, they are preferred above any others. It is the most stable environment for a child.

Now this doesn't, nor should it, stop people from adopting from family or friends, in any situations no matter what their relationship status is. But what it means is that the State considers applications made by married couples above others, and then assesses their suitability for state-controlled adoptions (eg, babies given up for adoption). After married couples, the state looks at other couples or singles.

In my opinion, and it's based as I mentioned on psychological studies, there is no way that same-sex couples should be preferred by the state, on the basis that it would be denying either a father or a mother for the child.

[NoraBrimstone]

Acutually, two mothers might be better than a mother and a father. Not that it makes that much difference anyway. It doesn't matter whether a child has one parent or four, or what gender the parents are. As long as they are loved and cared for they will be fine.

[rexbeccarox]

So, Aractus, am I getting this right? You're saying "married" couples, as in couples that are recognized by the church as "married" (not united civilly) should get preferential treatment in adoption cases? And who is to decide which "married" couple that might be? What if someone wants her lesbian aunt to adopt her baby, but her parents want it?

Please cite your peer-reviewed psychological studies. I'm all ears.

[JohnCrichton72]

"Marriage is a right" I totally agree, it is a religious right performed by a religious community in accordance with their interpretation of their doctrine.

To say everyone has a right to be married in accordance with a specific interpretation of a religious doctrine, irrespective of whether they meet the criteria denies that sects right to freedom of religion.

You do understand, that marriage is, infact, a sociopolitical invention (and independent religion), yes? Oh good. I'm glad that we agree.

That commonfolk are being wed, on a religiohistorical basis, is hilarious

Do I understand that marriage is independent religion......

I assume you mean that marriage is/can be exist independently from religion and is a socio-political invention, I think you are contradicting yourself.

It is instinctual for some animals to form a union and choose one mate for life devoid of any higher level communication capability. Swans, turtle doves, wolves ect.

I do not deny that political governance (or even primitive social hierarchy) and culture recognises and influences the union and that the instinctive process has been altered by the socio-political context and called marriage.

The main socio-political influence was religion, so marriage couldn't be a socio-political-religious invention and exist independently from religion.

I am honestly still on the fence, not that it's like I have a say in the matter anyway.

---

So, Aractus, am I getting this right? You're saying "married" couples, as in couples that are recognized by the church as "married" (not united civilly) should get preferential treatment in adoption cases? And who is to decide which "married" couple that might be? What if someone wants her lesbian aunt to adopt her baby, but her parents want it?

Please cite your peer-reviewed psychological studies. I'm all ears.

He didn't say which church, what I don't understand is why homosexuals don't just form their own sect of Christianity. Then they could legally get married, right?

If enough people filled in their census forms describing themselves as the new branch of Christianity it becomes an officially recognised religion does it not?

[rexbeccarox]

That's ridiculous. That's like saying atheists or Muslims or women should form their own sect of Christianity in order to raise a child. You must see how silly that is.

[JohnCrichton72]

That's ridiculous. That's like saying atheists or Muslims or women should form their own sect of Christianity in order to raise a child. You must see how silly that is.

I am still on thread topic not adoption.......... I am not saying marriage is a grounds for being allowed to adopt.

What I am saying is;

Homosexual Christians say God allows gay marriage, the ones against say he doesn't. Different interpretations, the basis for a branch off Christian group. I don't see why that would be offensive to anyone, seems logical if anything.