Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

Ron Burgundy !

I have no problem with civil unions but marriage is a religious sacrament so it should be left for the church to decide not the government if the church decides its okay then I have no problem with it.

Absoluvely

Ron Burgundy ! wrote: »

I have no problem with civil unions but marriage is a religious sacrament so it should be left for the church to decide not the government if the church decides its okay then I have no problem with it.

Civil marriage is not a religious sacrament

OldNotWIse

Oh sigh.....Cue "they will destroy the sanctity of marriage" rant.

I think I'll emigrate - I can't put up with six months of pros/cons/fors/againsts/media peddling rubbish sh1teology :rolleyes:


We've just finished with the IMF and abortion. Could they not have given us a break before starting on the next contentious issue ffs

theblaqueguy

old hippy wrote: »

There have been gay people since the dawn of time. How are is the human race suddenly going to cease to exist?

As I said in my post IF gay people were the only people left on the planet then the human race would cease to exist because no one would be making babies anymore it may never happen but it is a possibility

Delirium

Ron Burgundy ! wrote: »

I have no problem with civil unions but marriage is a religious sacrament so it should be left for the church to decide not the government if the church decides its okay then I have no problem with it.

A person doesn't have to be religious to get married. They can get married without any involvement from a church.

Delirium

theblaqueguy wrote: »

As I said in my post IF gay people were the only people left on the planet then the human race would cease to exist because no one would be making babies anymore it may never happen but it is a possibility

I didn't realise that gay people were sterile.

Czarcasm

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'm totally in favour of it and it's one of the few instances I can hand on heart say I know I'm 100% right and those opposed to it are 100% wrong.

There is literally not a single good reason to be opposed to it. No matter if it's based in religion or if you simply don't like the idea of gays being committed to one another in an official capacity- either way your view is rooted in bigotry and hate.

Thing is Lollipops you (not you specifically, your post is perfectly reasonable) don't overcome bigotry and hate with more hate, intolerance and derision as has been shown by some posters in this thread who are proponents of marriage equality.

That gets nobody anywhere, and only cements the NO voters in their position, whereas if the YES vote were to show some understanding as to why a person might be opposed to marriage equality on religious grounds, or opposed to it for reasons they can't sufficiently articulate, instead of ridiculing them, then those people might be more open to listening to the opinions of those who advocate marriage equality.

Dismissing them as "lesser intellectuals", etc, what does that achieve? They'll still be entitled to vote, only now you've just given them an extra reason to give two fingers to advocates of marriage equality.

Ron Burgundy !

Absoluvely wrote: »

Civil marriage is not a religious sacrament

what I mean is civil unions and marriages are different things i'll fully support civil unions but marriage should be left for the church to decide

pl4ichjgy17zwd

theblaqueguy wrote: »

As I said in my post IF gay people were the only people left on the planet then the human race would cease to exist because no one would be making babies anymore it may never happen but it is a possibility

You know gay people being gay at whatever percentage of population will happen regardless of marriage rights, though, yeah? (also, we have kids too )

Absoluvely

theblaqueguy wrote: »

As I said in my post IF gay people were the only people left on the planet then the human race would cease to exist because no one would be making babies anymore it may never happen but it is a possibility

Lots of fertile male and female gay couples who wanted babies, would agree to have babies. It happens.

Also; legalising gay marriage will eradicate heterosexuality?

Delirium

Ron Burgundy ! wrote: »

what I mean is civil unions and marriages are different things i'll fully support civil unions but marriage should be left for the church to decide

So no-one can get divorced and re-marry?

And the point was that civil marriage has nothing to do with the church.

Sarky

Anything approaching a cogent argument against gay marriage this time round?

Anything?


Guys..?

Czarcasm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Oh sigh.....Cue "they will destroy the sanctity of marriage" rant.

I think I'll emigrate - I can't put up with six months of pros/cons/fors/againsts/media peddling rubbish sh1teology :rolleyes:


We've just finished with the IMF and abortion. Could they not have given us a break before starting on the next contentious issue ffs

This could be a major factor in the decision on when to hold a Referendum on the issue actually, you're not the only one ONW suffering from what's been coined "Referendum Fatigue", given there was only a 40% turnout of the Electorate for the last Referendum.

old hippy

theblaqueguy wrote: »

As I said in my post IF gay people were the only people left on the planet then the human race would cease to exist because no one would be making babies anymore it may never happen but it is a possibility

So, you have no actual bona fide reason to be against gay marriage?

wp_rathead

theblaqueguy wrote: »

As I said in my post IF gay people were the only people left on the planet then the human race would cease to exist because no one would be making babies anymore it may never happen but it is a possibility

...how is it possible that everyone on planet will suddenly be gay?

Iv heard some daft "slippery slope" arguments but this takes the biscuit

theblaqueguy

old hippy wrote: »

So, you have no actual bona fide reason to be against gay marriage?

I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

Czarcasm

old hippy wrote: »

So, you have no actual bona fide reason to be against gay marriage?

Here's a novel idea hippy -


Instead of berating and mocking him for his admittedly assinine views, how about you give him reason to SUPPORT marriage equality instead of asking him why he's against it? You've established that he's against it- now you need to ask yourself, which matters more to you - showing off your perceived intellectual superiority, or trying to foster understanding and support for marriage equality?

I know which one matters more to me, and it's not whether or not I'm more intellectual or can argue more eloquently than the guy whose views I wish to change.

Being full of one's own self-importance is never very smart.

Absoluvely

theblaqueguy wrote: »

I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

Are there any other equally arbitrary restrictions you think should apply to marriage eligibility?

Like regarding race, interest in sports, body shape, weight, height, skin colour etc, wealth...

Gender is an awfully arbitrary and needless restriction to place on marriage or any other legal rights.

All it is is a binary trait based on what your genitals looked like when you were born. That's all.

Daith

theblaqueguy wrote: »

I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

Do you think that two gay people who are raising a child should not have the same rights as man and woman raising a child?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

theblaqueguy wrote: »

As I said in my post IF gay people were the only people left on the planet then the human race would cease to exist because no one would be making babies anymore it may never happen but it is a possibility

Technically, no. A gay man and a gay woman can still procreate.

theblaqueguy wrote: »

I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

May I ask why? (Honest question)

OldNotWIse

theblaqueguy wrote: »

I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

Since when does placing "I just think..." before a statement qualify it?

theblaqueguy

wprathead wrote: »

...how is it possible that everyone on planet will suddenly be gay?

Iv heard some daft "slippery slope" arguments but this takes the biscuit

Ok this is my doomsday scenario
An airborne virus is released into the air turning straight people into gay people and it his highly contagious eventually everyone on the planet will be gay and therefore we as a population won't be reproducing so eventually we will all die and there will be no new generation of children to replace us
Speaking of biscuits I'll have a chocolate digestive thanks

Absoluvely

theblaqueguy wrote: »

Ok this is my doomsday scenario
An airborne virus is released into the air turning straight people into gay people and it his highly contagious eventually everyone on the planet will be gay and therefore we as a population won't be reproducing so eventually we will all die and there will be no new generation of children to replace us
Speaking of biscuits I'll have a chocolate digestive thanks

And the vaccine for this virus; the solution to the doomsday scenario; is blocking civil marriage.

OldNotWIse

Daith wrote: »

Do you think that two gay people who are raising a child should not have the same rights as man and woman raising a child?

Indeed, and in fact the children of same sex parents are being denied the same rights as those of straight parents, insofar as they do not have the same stability.

theblaqueguy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

May I ask why? (Honest question)

Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

Daith

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Indeed, and in fact the children of same sex parents are being denied the same rights as those of straight parents, insofar as they do not have the same stability.

Absolutely. The bloody constitution talks about the State will protect the family. Unless you're a same sex family.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

theblaqueguy wrote: »

Ok this is my doomsday scenario
An airborne virus is released into the air turning straight people into gay people and it his highly contagious eventually everyone on the planet will be gay and therefore we as a population won't be reproducing so eventually we will all die and there will be no new generation of children to replace us
Speaking of biscuits I'll have a chocolate digestive thanks

And that's an acceptable scenario on which to practically oppose gay marriasge...?

Sleepy

I think it's high time we separated the concept of legal and religious marriage anyway.

Agents of state should carry out all legal weddings and those who want religion brought into that can go have whatever ceremony they like carried out afterwards.

Thundercats Ho

Sarky wrote: »

Anything approaching a cogent argument against gay marriage this time round?

Anything?


Guys..?

I'm new to this thread, so it's possibly been covered, and i haven't read up on the bill, so it could be a stupid question.

I'm not in the stightest bit religous and have no beef with gay marriage.

Would this include church weddings? If so, can lay people change the rules of a religous organisation?
I know a referendum can change the laws within our country, but if we're talking about church weddings, do churches here have any say on the matter if the bill was passed, as it affects their own laws?

As i said, i've no objections to this either way. Morally, people should be able to make their own choices, but i'd be curious as to how it works legally as it affects both state and religous bodies.
(obviously i know civil ceremonies are not religous, and am just curious about the religous thing).

Grayson

cletus van damme wrote: »

I would have a similar opinion on my peers (30s/40s) who a decent minority would vote against it not for religious reasons but just cos they're given a choice and pick x instead of y

Technically it's x instead of y it's XX & XY Vs XX & XX or XY & XY