Marriage is totally Gay

If this is the most pressing issue this country is facing at the moment, then we are in good shape.

I don't fully understand the argument to be honest.

By wanting marriage equality there needs to be a change in the actual definition of marriage, currently that definition is based on our Christian heritage whether people like it or not.

I’m a Christian and I’m still working my way through it all.

I certainly believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure its members are looked after so that one is not discriminated over the other, I don’t know if that means the whole meaning of marriage needs to change.

Christianity is only one culture though, it’s not the only culture. Plenty of other cultures have/had different forms of marriage. I’m not Christian so why should I be bound by your beliefs?

I DO have an issue with forcing priests to marry people who don’t conform to the priests beliefs. Thankfully, this proposal isn’t doing that. This won’t effect you at all. And it won’t change any childrens rights either.

I have no idea why anyone would oppose this, unless your intent is to force people to conform to your personal beliefs.

That argument works both ways. Believing that everyone should have the right to live their own lives with equal opportunities and resources as the next person is, by definition, a belief system. Making laws to enforce that is doing exactly what you oppose. You may decide that that belief is more important than any other belief and that’s fine, but ultimately it’s the same criticism.


So what are you arguing? That there should be no laws? And how is allowing gays to marry forcing anyone to conform to someone elses personal beliefs??No-one is forcing you to marry against your will, no-one is forcing you to perform a ceremony against your will and no-one is forcing you to go to the wedding and give your blessing. All it is doing is allowing someone else to do something that is none of your business in the first place!

It is a fact that marriage is not something exclusive to Christianity. The legal definition in our secular society should not be bound to the Christian definition. You claimed that our marriage was built on a Christian tradition, and that may be the case but our society has evolved. We are no longer predominantly white-bred christians - we are also every other belief system out there, as well as those lacking in faith. The fact your lot were here first doesn’t mean you get to call the shots from now 'til forever.

Your missing my point. Belief systems inherently see their view as more beneficial to the world, the benefits being different depending on that system. Your belief is to leave others to live their lives as long as its not hurting anyone, am i right? And you might then want to base your societies systems around that view. I see alot of logic in that view.
The christian view, as far as i understand it, is that there is a spiritual connection in a marriage that replicates God and the church. I don’t expect you to agree with that or understand it, i have trouble getting my head around it.
So how do you or anyone else measure and evaluate something that isn’t natural if you don’t believe in the system it came from? Thats a big problem to overcome.


Actually I completely understand your point. Your point has been made by so many people it’s become a cliche. So I ask again, how do you make decisions in this world of deadlocked personal beliefs you are proposing?

The answer is you don’t.

If your worldview conflicts with someone elses it doesn’t mean you ignore their view and stay locked with your own. Instead of focussing on our own beliefs and worldview when we make decisions for society we should put aside our own worldview and consider the issue from other peoples perspectives instead. When I come across the roadblock of “I could never imagine myself wanting to X” it becomes even MORE important to ignore my own wants and try to understand the wants and perspectives of others.

And then I say “will it hurt me or mine?”. Unless your a placard carrying Westboro Baptist, the answer to that is “No, it won’t”.

It doesn’t mean you are completely ignoring your own worldview. But it DOES mean that you are humble enough to accept yours is not the only worldview and yours is no more or less valid than the next guys.

Feel free to keep your Christian marriage - no one is taking that away from you. If your marriage is a mariage between yourself, your partner and God, then the state allowing non-Christian marriages does not change that three-way relationship in any way. If the Christian God is real then the state making laws in no way at all changes your own personal contracts with him. Maybe instead of opposing gay marriage because you believe it is non-Christian you should worry about your own personal relationship with God, because if you think gay marriage somehow changes that then your faith is ■■■■ about.

Whether it’s a cliche is irrelevant.

The Christian belief is that its view of God is the right one and therefore it can’t defer to other views. The whole “I believe this and you believe that” doesn’t fit. There are greater spiritual ramifications that the Christian believes that the non-Christian does not accept. We will always disagree with what is right and what is not.
Your definition of what might or might not hurt someone is different to my definition.

I accept other views exist and I hope I don’t value people less whichever side they sit on, but as a Christian I believe that any other view ultimately is not what is best for me as an individual or society as a whole.

That will be viewed as arrogant, judgemental, divisive, none of my business etc. Ok. Fair comment.
I’m sitting behind a keyboard. We have no relationship so you have no otheir context with which to understand me. I like to think I can still have meaningful relationships with people I don’t agree with - maybe that is unrealistic.
If you don’t have a belief in God (Christian God) then I understand why you see my thoughts as ■■■■-about.

As far as what I oppose I’m still getting my head around the marriage issue. This forum has given me the opportunity to lay down some ideas.

serious question... would same - sex couples care if they had all the same rights as heterosexual couples without calling it marriage? ps.. im not being a smart ■■■■. sincere question.

Yes they would care.

This is the complete summary of why:

(apologies for the horrendous video quality, but its the only recording of this on the tubes)

Serious answer: yes.

Rights are one thing. Wills, medical power of attorney and so on.
Equality is another.
Some of them want their intended lifelong monogamous relationships recognised not just by law, but by society in general.
They want ‘gay partner’ or whatever term you want to give it, to be husband. Or wife.
And for that not just to be okay, but normal.
And a bit for them, sure. Although they know they’re not going to get it in this generation.
But if not the next, then the one after will.

serious question… would same - sex couples care if they had all the same rights as heterosexual couples without calling it marriage?
ps… im not being a smart ■■■■. sincere question.

Why should homosexuals be spared the destructive and costly shambles that is divorce? Equality.

Bizarre issue. Should be a non issue. change the wording. Go about your life thereafter. No one loses anything.

All of the likes.

Bizarre issue. Should be a non issue. change the wording. Go about your life thereafter. No one loses anything.

LOL.

I don't fully understand the argument to be honest.

By wanting marriage equality there needs to be a change in the actual definition of marriage, currently that definition is based on our Christian heritage whether people like it or not.

I’m a Christian and I’m still working my way through it all.

I certainly believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure its members are looked after so that one is not discriminated over the other, I don’t know if that means the whole meaning of marriage needs to change.

How the fark, does it affect you if two men or two women decide to get married?

Do you care if two people live together and devote their lives to each other? It is their farking business and not mine or yours.

I am not a Christian, and I am atheist; and I don’t hate much beside Carlton and their supporters, but I hate farking Christians who think the world started when some fictional character named Jesus was born. Your whole argument is about your religion and nothing to do with human rights or even the warped reality that you farking Christians own the place and are the only one who have any morals.

It wasnt brought in under an athiest PM that was controlled by the greens. Dont blame Christianity.

It wasn’t brought in by an atheist PM that was controlled by the greens with a very prominent member in a long term gay relationship because the Conservatives had the balance of power in the upper house and the leader of the opposition would not allow a conscience vote.
It’s been ALP policy for a long, long time.

What that actually has to do with the rather rude op, I’m not sure.
However I can understand the rudeness.
And you can too.
Just imagine he’s talking about bringing in Sharia law because the prophet said so.

See your point… my point is Christianity hasnt got a gun to anyones head. It doesnt make or change laws. It has the right to voice its opinion just like same -sex advocates do.

I absolutely concede your right to voice your opinion.
Would not dream of anything less.

The gun to the head thing…reasonable, but I would argue incidental.
With or without guns, you’re talking about core beliefs based on the words of a prophet.

Core beliefs ? Prophets ? Give me their names !!! Still think it is a human historic shiboleth irrespective of any particular faith. Haven’t been to church apart fro m weddings/funerals for years but can see the good that comes from them as well as the bad.

:notsureifseriousjpg:

Jesus and Muhammad in particular.
Throw in Moses if you like for the holy trinity.

Shorten currently speaking for his Bill in Parliament.

Won’t pass, and is in a lot of ways a stunt, but its served a purpose in accelerating the process at least.

I don't fully understand the argument to be honest.

By wanting marriage equality there needs to be a change in the actual definition of marriage, currently that definition is based on our Christian heritage whether people like it or not.

I’m a Christian and I’m still working my way through it all.

I certainly believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure its members are looked after so that one is not discriminated over the other, I don’t know if that means the whole meaning of marriage needs to change.

Christianity is only one culture though, it’s not the only culture. Plenty of other cultures have/had different forms of marriage. I’m not Christian so why should I be bound by your beliefs?

I DO have an issue with forcing priests to marry people who don’t conform to the priests beliefs. Thankfully, this proposal isn’t doing that. This won’t effect you at all. And it won’t change any childrens rights either.

I have no idea why anyone would oppose this, unless your intent is to force people to conform to your personal beliefs.

That argument works both ways. Believing that everyone should have the right to live their own lives with equal opportunities and resources as the next person is, by definition, a belief system. Making laws to enforce that is doing exactly what you oppose. You may decide that that belief is more important than any other belief and that’s fine, but ultimately it’s the same criticism.


So what are you arguing? That there should be no laws? And how is allowing gays to marry forcing anyone to conform to someone elses personal beliefs??No-one is forcing you to marry against your will, no-one is forcing you to perform a ceremony against your will and no-one is forcing you to go to the wedding and give your blessing. All it is doing is allowing someone else to do something that is none of your business in the first place!

It is a fact that marriage is not something exclusive to Christianity. The legal definition in our secular society should not be bound to the Christian definition. You claimed that our marriage was built on a Christian tradition, and that may be the case but our society has evolved. We are no longer predominantly white-bred christians - we are also every other belief system out there, as well as those lacking in faith. The fact your lot were here first doesn’t mean you get to call the shots from now 'til forever.

Your missing my point. Belief systems inherently see their view as more beneficial to the world, the benefits being different depending on that system. Your belief is to leave others to live their lives as long as its not hurting anyone, am i right? And you might then want to base your societies systems around that view. I see alot of logic in that view.
The christian view, as far as i understand it, is that there is a spiritual connection in a marriage that replicates God and the church. I don’t expect you to agree with that or understand it, i have trouble getting my head around it.
So how do you or anyone else measure and evaluate something that isn’t natural if you don’t believe in the system it came from? Thats a big problem to overcome.


Actually I completely understand your point. Your point has been made by so many people it’s become a cliche. So I ask again, how do you make decisions in this world of deadlocked personal beliefs you are proposing?

The answer is you don’t.

If your worldview conflicts with someone elses it doesn’t mean you ignore their view and stay locked with your own. Instead of focussing on our own beliefs and worldview when we make decisions for society we should put aside our own worldview and consider the issue from other peoples perspectives instead. When I come across the roadblock of “I could never imagine myself wanting to X” it becomes even MORE important to ignore my own wants and try to understand the wants and perspectives of others.

And then I say “will it hurt me or mine?”. Unless your a placard carrying Westboro Baptist, the answer to that is “No, it won’t”.

It doesn’t mean you are completely ignoring your own worldview. But it DOES mean that you are humble enough to accept yours is not the only worldview and yours is no more or less valid than the next guys.

Feel free to keep your Christian marriage - no one is taking that away from you. If your marriage is a mariage between yourself, your partner and God, then the state allowing non-Christian marriages does not change that three-way relationship in any way. If the Christian God is real then the state making laws in no way at all changes your own personal contracts with him. Maybe instead of opposing gay marriage because you believe it is non-Christian you should worry about your own personal relationship with God, because if you think gay marriage somehow changes that then your faith is ■■■■ about.

I don't fully understand the argument to be honest.

By wanting marriage equality there needs to be a change in the actual definition of marriage, currently that definition is based on our Christian heritage whether people like it or not.

I’m a Christian and I’m still working my way through it all.

I certainly believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure its members are looked after so that one is not discriminated over the other, I don’t know if that means the whole meaning of marriage needs to change.

How the fark, does it affect you if two men or two women decide to get married?

Do you care if two people live together and devote their lives to each other? It is their farking business and not mine or yours.

I am not a Christian, and I am atheist; and I don’t hate much beside Carlton and their supporters, but I hate farking Christians who think the world started when some fictional character named Jesus was born. Your whole argument is about your religion and nothing to do with human rights or even the warped reality that you farking Christians own the place and are the only one who have any morals.

It wasnt brought in under an athiest PM that was controlled by the greens. Dont blame Christianity.

It wasn’t brought in by an atheist PM that was controlled by the greens with a very prominent member in a long term gay relationship because the Conservatives had the balance of power in the upper house and the leader of the opposition would not allow a conscience vote.
It’s been ALP policy for a long, long time.

What that actually has to do with the rather rude op, I’m not sure.
However I can understand the rudeness.
And you can too.
Just imagine he’s talking about bringing in Sharia law because the prophet said so.

See your point… my point is Christianity hasnt got a gun to anyones head. It doesnt make or change laws. It has the right to voice its opinion just like same -sex advocates do.

I absolutely concede your right to voice your opinion.
Would not dream of anything less.

The gun to the head thing…reasonable, but I would argue incidental.
With or without guns, you’re talking about core beliefs based on the words of a prophet.

Core beliefs ? Prophets ? Give me their names !!! Still think it is a human historic shiboleth irrespective of any particular faith. Haven’t been to church apart fro m weddings/funerals for years but can see the good that comes from them as well as the bad.

I don't fully understand the argument to be honest.

By wanting marriage equality there needs to be a change in the actual definition of marriage, currently that definition is based on our Christian heritage whether people like it or not.

I’m a Christian and I’m still working my way through it all.

I certainly believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure its members are looked after so that one is not discriminated over the other, I don’t know if that means the whole meaning of marriage needs to change.

How the fark, does it affect you if two men or two women decide to get married?

Do you care if two people live together and devote their lives to each other? It is their farking business and not mine or yours.

I am not a Christian, and I am atheist; and I don’t hate much beside Carlton and their supporters, but I hate farking Christians who think the world started when some fictional character named Jesus was born. Your whole argument is about your religion and nothing to do with human rights or even the warped reality that you farking Christians own the place and are the only one who have any morals.

It wasnt brought in under an athiest PM that was controlled by the greens. Dont blame Christianity.

It wasn’t brought in by an atheist PM that was controlled by the greens with a very prominent member in a long term gay relationship because the Conservatives had the balance of power in the upper house and the leader of the opposition would not allow a conscience vote.
It’s been ALP policy for a long, long time.

What that actually has to do with the rather rude op, I’m not sure.
However I can understand the rudeness.
And you can too.
Just imagine he’s talking about bringing in Sharia law because the prophet said so.

See your point… my point is Christianity hasnt got a gun to anyones head. It doesnt make or change laws. It has the right to voice its opinion just like same -sex advocates do.

I absolutely concede your right to voice your opinion.
Would not dream of anything less.

The gun to the head thing…reasonable, but I would argue incidental.
With or without guns, you’re talking about core beliefs based on the words of a prophet.

Core beliefs such as democracy & free speech that this country and many like it were built on.

I don't fully understand the argument to be honest.

By wanting marriage equality there needs to be a change in the actual definition of marriage, currently that definition is based on our Christian heritage whether people like it or not.

I’m a Christian and I’m still working my way through it all.

I certainly believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure its members are looked after so that one is not discriminated over the other, I don’t know if that means the whole meaning of marriage needs to change.

Christianity is only one culture though, it’s not the only culture. Plenty of other cultures have/had different forms of marriage. I’m not Christian so why should I be bound by your beliefs?

I DO have an issue with forcing priests to marry people who don’t conform to the priests beliefs. Thankfully, this proposal isn’t doing that. This won’t effect you at all. And it won’t change any childrens rights either.

I have no idea why anyone would oppose this, unless your intent is to force people to conform to your personal beliefs.

That argument works both ways. Believing that everyone should have the right to live their own lives with equal opportunities and resources as the next person is, by definition, a belief system. Making laws to enforce that is doing exactly what you oppose. You may decide that that belief is more important than any other belief and that’s fine, but ultimately it’s the same criticism.


So what are you arguing? That there should be no laws? And how is allowing gays to marry forcing anyone to conform to someone elses personal beliefs??No-one is forcing you to marry against your will, no-one is forcing you to perform a ceremony against your will and no-one is forcing you to go to the wedding and give your blessing. All it is doing is allowing someone else to do something that is none of your business in the first place!

It is a fact that marriage is not something exclusive to Christianity. The legal definition in our secular society should not be bound to the Christian definition. You claimed that our marriage was built on a Christian tradition, and that may be the case but our society has evolved. We are no longer predominantly white-bred christians - we are also every other belief system out there, as well as those lacking in faith. The fact your lot were here first doesn’t mean you get to call the shots from now 'til forever.

Your missing my point. Belief systems inherently see their view as more beneficial to the world, the benefits being different depending on that system. Your belief is to leave others to live their lives as long as its not hurting anyone, am i right? And you might then want to base your societies systems around that view. I see alot of logic in that view.
The christian view, as far as i understand it, is that there is a spiritual connection in a marriage that replicates God and the church. I don’t expect you to agree with that or understand it, i have trouble getting my head around it.
So how do you or anyone else measure and evaluate something that isn’t natural if you don’t believe in the system it came from? Thats a big problem to overcome.


Actually I completely understand your point. Your point has been made by so many people it’s become a cliche. So I ask again, how do you make decisions in this world of deadlocked personal beliefs you are proposing?

The answer is you don’t.

If your worldview conflicts with someone elses it doesn’t mean you ignore their view and stay locked with your own. Instead of focussing on our own beliefs and worldview when we make decisions for society we should put aside our own worldview and consider the issue from other peoples perspectives instead. When I come across the roadblock of “I could never imagine myself wanting to X” it becomes even MORE important to ignore my own wants and try to understand the wants and perspectives of others.

And then I say “will it hurt me or mine?”. Unless your a placard carrying Westboro Baptist, the answer to that is “No, it won’t”.

It doesn’t mean you are completely ignoring your own worldview. But it DOES mean that you are humble enough to accept yours is not the only worldview and yours is no more or less valid than the next guys.

Feel free to keep your Christian marriage - no one is taking that away from you. If your marriage is a mariage between yourself, your partner and God, then the state allowing non-Christian marriages does not change that three-way relationship in any way. If the Christian God is real then the state making laws in no way at all changes your own personal contracts with him. Maybe instead of opposing gay marriage because you believe it is non-Christian you should worry about your own personal relationship with God, because if you think gay marriage somehow changes that then your faith is ■■■■ about.

Love how Jesus and the bible are fictional… but a scientist comes up with a theory with no physical proof (see Lawrence Kraus- Theory of nothing) and he’s a genuis.

ah huh… how relevant

I don't fully understand the argument to be honest.

By wanting marriage equality there needs to be a change in the actual definition of marriage, currently that definition is based on our Christian heritage whether people like it or not.

I’m a Christian and I’m still working my way through it all.

I certainly believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure its members are looked after so that one is not discriminated over the other, I don’t know if that means the whole meaning of marriage needs to change.

How the fark, does it affect you if two men or two women decide to get married?

Do you care if two people live together and devote their lives to each other? It is their farking business and not mine or yours.

I am not a Christian, and I am atheist; and I don’t hate much beside Carlton and their supporters, but I hate farking Christians who think the world started when some fictional character named Jesus was born. Your whole argument is about your religion and nothing to do with human rights or even the warped reality that you farking Christians own the place and are the only one who have any morals.

It wasnt brought in under an athiest PM that was controlled by the greens. Dont blame Christianity.

It wasn’t brought in by an atheist PM that was controlled by the greens with a very prominent member in a long term gay relationship because the Conservatives had the balance of power in the upper house and the leader of the opposition would not allow a conscience vote.
It’s been ALP policy for a long, long time.

What that actually has to do with the rather rude op, I’m not sure.
However I can understand the rudeness.
And you can too.
Just imagine he’s talking about bringing in Sharia law because the prophet said so.

See your point… my point is Christianity hasnt got a gun to anyones head. It doesnt make or change laws. It has the right to voice its opinion just like same -sex advocates do.

I absolutely concede your right to voice your opinion.
Would not dream of anything less.

The gun to the head thing…reasonable, but I would argue incidental.
With or without guns, you’re talking about core beliefs based on the words of a prophet.

I don't fully understand the argument to be honest.

By wanting marriage equality there needs to be a change in the actual definition of marriage, currently that definition is based on our Christian heritage whether people like it or not.

I’m a Christian and I’m still working my way through it all.

I certainly believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure its members are looked after so that one is not discriminated over the other, I don’t know if that means the whole meaning of marriage needs to change.

How the fark, does it affect you if two men or two women decide to get married?

Do you care if two people live together and devote their lives to each other? It is their farking business and not mine or yours.

I am not a Christian, and I am atheist; and I don’t hate much beside Carlton and their supporters, but I hate farking Christians who think the world started when some fictional character named Jesus was born. Your whole argument is about your religion and nothing to do with human rights or even the warped reality that you farking Christians own the place and are the only one who have any morals.

I don’t have all the answers mate. I am trying to understand all the issues on both sides.
I know that me hating anything is not going to get me any closer to that.

As far as a warped reality is concerned. Find me someone who doesn’t feel that their ideas/values should be taken on by others, thats our nature.

Part of the christian belief system is that there is something beyond all of us. That means it impacts everyone. If you believed something was ulitmately better for someone and had pretty significant consequeneces you might be inclined to want them to know. That gets viewed as arrogance, fair enough, in a lot of cases I’m sure it is. But I don’t think you can automatically deny the principle even if it comes from people you don’t respect.

Marriage? I want people to be happy. I also don’t believe that I always know what is best for me because I’m flawed. That’s why i believe in something outside of me. The bible, as i understand it, says there is a spiritual element to us that is pretty significant. Just because something doesn’t effect us physically as we see it doesn’t mean it may not effect us spriritually.
Measuring that spiritual element for us who live in a physical world is pretty challenging and complicates it alot. Particular if alot of people don’t take on that view of the spiritual world in the first place.

Whether you believe that or not doesn’t make me any better than you.

I’m happy to continue this discussion but I also understand it may get tedious for people and am happy to be guided by mods etc.
I’m not wanting to make people upset but i understand why it does, just thought i could give another view to the picture.