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.
Too many people in this conversation keep talking about the so called Christian spiritual connection in marriage.
Nearly the whole worlds cultures for most of history have specified marriage as a convention to try to ensure that women that have children have the protection of a supposedly stronger male, especially in the period that children are unable to look after themselves . Humans are not the only ones that do this as can be seen in that many species mate for life. eg. Eddie and Caro our two semi wild pet magpies.
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 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.
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.
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.
Only issue I have if gay marriage is made legal is if religious institutions still maintain their right not to marry a gay couple. The Catholic church does not believe in same sex marriage. Should it be forced to conduct a same - sex marriage? Just like I believe if you're not Catholic you shouldn't be forced into something you don't believe in. Has to work both ways.
It’s perfectly legal for divorcees to marry right now, but the Catholic Church is entitled to (and does) refuse to conduct the ceremony except in very rare circumstances. Religious institutions will retain their current right to refuse to conduct marriages that don’t fit their strictures.
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 actually is also about the marriage.
As long as they don't have the option to formalise their relationships in the same way as heterosexuals, gay people will be...for want of a better term...ghettoised.
So not 'gay marriage', just marriage.
I get that Wim and thats where whatever model is in place it has to ensure equality, as long there are people looking over the fence saying “why can’t i have what they have” then we won’t get far.
I think that’s why a great deal of the argument comes down to a faith issue, more specifically a Christian/non-Christian one.
I completely accept that for someone who doesn’t believe in the Christian God, and there are obviously plenty, that arguing “what God wants for us” is a totally pointless argument. Thats one of the reasons we get stuck.
Whether you agree with christianity or not, it is another belief system amongst many that people may have a preference and choose to fight for.
I’m sure you’ve had this argument enough times to know my rebuttal to that is some Christians, many who wouldn’t know Leviticus if it bit them on the ■■■■, place undue weight on a couple of verses while completely ignoring others.
It actually is also about the marriage.
As long as they don't have the option to formalise their relationships in the same way as heterosexuals, gay people will be...for want of a better term...ghettoised.
So not 'gay marriage', just marriage.
I get that Wim and thats where whatever model is in place it has to ensure equality, as long there are people looking over the fence saying “why can’t i have what they have” then we won’t get far.
I think that’s why a great deal of the argument comes down to a faith issue, more specifically a Christian/non-Christian one.
I completely accept that for someone who doesn’t believe in the Christian God, and there are obviously plenty, that arguing “what God wants for us” is a totally pointless argument. Thats one of the reasons we get stuck.
Whether you agree with christianity or not, it is another belief system amongst many that people may have a preference and choose to fight for.
I might add… Christianity doesnt own the “against same sex marriage” argument. Plenty of christians are for it and plenty of non christians are against it.
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.
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.
I don’t believe that the Catholic Church or any other institution should be forced to marry gay couples.
They are their own private club and they can set the rules. No problem with that.
Equally, the Catholic Church’s policy on what should constitute Catholic marriage should not, at all, influence or prescribe the State’s rules on what constitutes a marriage pursuant to the laws of the State.
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.
It actually is also about the marriage.
As long as they don’t have the option to formalise their relationships in the same way as heterosexuals, gay people will be…for want of a better term…ghettoised.
So not ‘gay marriage’, just marriage.
Currently same sex partners have less rights than married or de facto male-female couples.
Sure Gays love a Party and I will go to as many gay marriages as invited, but it is the rights we are are talking about.
For example, my Wife gets sick and goes to hospital and I have the right to see her and be involved in medical decisions even if her family think I am a dud.
If I am Gay and my life partner gets sick, then unless the family allow I have no rights even to visit or have any involvement.
Only issue I have if gay marriage is made legal is if religious institutions still maintain their right not to marry a gay couple. The Catholic church does not believe in same sex marriage. Should it be forced to conduct a same - sex marriage? Just like I believe if you’re not Catholic you shouldn’t be forced into something you don’t believe in. Has to work both ways.