Izabarack, you underline my point, you are stating a moral value by your comment...I never mentioned or inferred a 'low moral value' you made that decision, I clearly stated that it was a different value, we all hold to values both moral and amoral.
I would disagree about being born with a sexual orientation, there are many studies which would contest that idea. Just google it and you would see that it is not the given you hold to. There is no scientific or empirical genetic evidence for sexual preference being present in our DNA, you have swallowed the propaganda of the lGBT lobby, it underlines my statement that only the pro homosexual lobby get the media coverage, and those who contest the unscientific emotional arguments are called bigots and not able to tolerate their practice.
Tolerance is a subjective term and again is a moral value term, one that we all place on it....should we tolerate the Isis ideology because it is held as a moral value by those who believe in it ? Should we tolerate the porn we see or know exists because many people do ? Is having a moral value concerning SSM any different to having a moral value about any other sexual preference, if so why ? Empathy and understanding are moral values, we all have different degrees of empathy and understanding. You argue that people who hold to my view do not possess these qualities, my point has been to argue for all the social values and standards that all societies have held since recorded history, regardless of ethnicity and religion.
I would suggest that all the arguments for SSM are couched in emotional terms, none of the societal implications i have listed have been truly addressed, you cannot know the future implications of changing the traditional form of marriage to the one you say is ok, because it has never been documented or shown to be viable anywhere. That is why I cited the example of early Greek and Roman societies. These societies collapsed from within due to their changing of their moral values. Moral values are not necessarily connected to religion, you can have strong moral values as an atheist or agnostic. Our laws are based on moral values. I argue for not changing them because of some highly charged emotional unverified claims by the SSM lobby.
Young Simmo said
01:22 AM Nov 17, 2015
WOW, when I started this page I expected maybe a couple of sarcastic / comical comments. Now it seems I have opened a can of worms. Oh well, a can of worms is handy when you are going fishing, and that is what I was doing at the start. I better stop now before I get bitten.
As I said earlier, people can do what they like, just stop showing photos of blokes kissing on the TV news, as that is more offensive than seeing little kids in war countries walking bear footed across the dessert which is horrible.
Am I on my own there??????????
Simmo.
usedtobe said
01:23 AM Nov 17, 2015
Troopy, you state that I do not have the right to force my beliefs on others, I absolutely agree ! Doesn't the same right apply to you, this has been a chance for us all to put forward our personal beliefs as a reasoned argument for the opposing views we hold, yet you would deny me that right ?
If you have no evidence of how and why SSM will benefit our society, other than it will make same sex couples feel better, or enjoy the benefits of hetrosexual couples, you only have an argument based on opinion and and an emotional opinion at that. It has never been a right to marry, it has been a social and cultural norm. Because marriage has always been seen as between a man and woman, you and your side of the argument are saying we should change our social and cultural norms to suit a tiny percentage of people because they feel discriminated against. That is the basis of your argument, it has no validity other than feelings and emotions.
SSM couples have all the benefits of hetrosexual married couples, in civil law now ! Why change the meaning of marriage ?
This discussion has become circular and obviously entrenched views prevail, both sides will not change because we each believe we are right ! Those who are sitting on the fence will decide who is, and has, the more reasoned and logical view. Choose which way you will vote, because it seems we will have the opportunity to do so.
03_Troopy said
08:59 AM Nov 17, 2015
As you say usedtobe, neither has the right to impose their views and beliefs on others, and this is also supported in law. So whether we agree or not is immaterial. What is important is that people in the situation of wanting to be able to enter into a SSM are not denied simply by different points of view based on religious beliefs of others.
And they don't want it to be made compulsory that you have to be the same sex to get married...
2.28 De facto couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex, can register formally their relationships in Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Queensland. These states, with the exception of Victoria, recognise relationships registered in the other states.
2.29 The benefit of registering a relationship is to obtain proof of the relationship, similar to having a marriage certificate. Couples in a registered relationship do not have to prove their de facto status, as described above. Registering a relationship may be attractive to same-sex couples who do not have the option of obtaining a marriage certificate.
2.30 Civil unions are conducted only in the ACT and Queensland. Civil union legislation provides for a ceremony to declare a civil partnership in addition to providing for relationship registration. On Tuesday, 12 June, the Queensland premier announced amendments to the Civil Partnerships Act 2011 (Qld) that would remove the option of a state-sanctioned ceremony.[14] Civil unions are available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples in Queensland, but only to same-sex couples in the ACT.[15]
2.31 Civil union ceremonies must be conducted by an official civil notary, and eligibility requirements are similar to those prescribed in the Marriage Act, i.e. that notice of declaration must be given in a certain time period, neither party is already married or in a civil partnership, or is in a prohibited relationship with the other party. Civil union legislation also provides for formal termination of the civil partnership. The difference between marriage and other relationships
2.32 De facto, registered or civil union relationships do not equate to marriage. Although the vast majority of state and federal legislation apply equally to couples regardless of marital status and sexual orientation, there remain a few areas in which non-married couples are disadvantaged due to their lack of marital status, such as providing proof of relationship.
2.33 Whereas opposite-sex de facto or registered couples can choose to marry and avail themselves of the full rights that come with a marriage certificate, same-sex couples are prohibited by law to choose this option.
2.34 The Jones and Bandt/Wilkie Bills seek to change the Marriage Act to enable same-sex couples to marry if they so wish.
2.35 The debate around same-sex marriage rights is not limited to legal issues. Although solely a legal contract in Australia, marriage is a religious institution for many that is closely entwined with religious tradition, ceremony and meaning. It is also a symbolic social contract, reflecting Australias values about relationships and families, the meaning of the institution of marriage, and equality. These issues are discussed in the next chapter.
3.25Many of the above opinions about family and marriage derive from religious beliefs and traditions.
3.26Religious traditions form an integral part of Australian society. While Australia was founded as a predominantly Christian British colony, processes of migration and shifts towards embracing multiculturalism have created a modern Australia that is rich in religious diversity. The varieties of communities that practice religion in Australia have many different structures of beliefs and values that shape peoples attitudes to life.
3.27While Australian society includes citizens of differing faith beliefs and their respective faith-based organisations, it is a secular state. This means that citizens can hold whatever religious beliefs they choose. However, as Professor Andrew Lynch commented, the Constitution of Australia ensures that the Commonwealth cannot impose any religious observance upon people.[23]
3.28Section 116 of the Constitution sets out the separation of the Church and State in Australia. It states that:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.[24]
3.29This means that although Australia respects religious beliefs and traditions, legislation is a matter reserved for the deliberation of parliaments in our secular state in the best interests of society and without favour to one or other faith system.
3.30Australias religious diversity was evident at the Sydney public hearing which included the participation of representatives of the Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran and Seventh Day Adventist Churches, the Salvation Army, the Union of Progressive Judaism, the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils, the Hindu Council of Australia, and the Sikh Council of Australia.
3.31In addition to the participation of these organisations, the Committee received written responses from a range of other religious organisations, including Quakers Australia, the Chinese Methodist Church in Australia, the Episcopal Assembly for Oceania and the Rabbinical Council of Victoria.
3.32The religious representatives who spoke to the Committee at the public hearing held a range of views about the nature of marriage and of the passage of the two Bills. A common view held by all the participants was that marriage has a spiritual component in addition to it being a social or legal contract between two people. The views diverged, however, when it came to same-sex marriage.
3.33Reverend Dr Michael Semmler, President of the Lutheran Church of Australia, strongly supported the separation of church and state, saying that Lutherans do not want to interfere with the government ordering society, but urged the government to preserve the uniqueness of the husband/wife the male/female in marriage.[25]
3.34According to Professor Nihal Singh Agar, marriage within the Hindu religion is between a man and a woman for progeny and for their spiritual growth.[26] Similarly, Mr Bawa Singh Jagdev stated that according to the Sikh religion, marriage unites a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising children in a caring and loving family environment.[27]
3.35Representatives of the Salvation Army and the Anglican, Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist Churches all held marriage to be a spiritual and social joining of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.[28]
3.36Conversely, Mr Steve Denenberg from the Union for Progressive Judaism supported the bills and took the position that it is time for our society to move on.[29] Similarly, Venerable Bhante Sujato from the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils said that the overwhelming response of the Buddhist community has been supporting marriage equality.[30]
3.37It was made apparent to the Committee that even within faith-based organisations, there is often a wide range of divergent beliefs and values on the question of the recognition of same sex marriage. The Uniting Church in Australia acknowledged this diversity, stating that:
There is a great diversity of opinion amongst our Church members, derived from the different ways in which people understand the Bible and their own Christian faith.[31]
3.38While some Christian churches are adamant that marriage is a lifelong union solely between a man and a woman, others support marriage equality for samesex partners. Reverend Greg Smith from the Metropolitan Community Church Sydney, said that:
We at MCC Sydney strongly believe in the holy rite of marriage for all couples ... Practicing the rite of holy matrimony for same sex couples is as much a part of our faith as is practicing the rite of holy matrimony for opposite sex couples.[32]
3.39Different attitudes arise from different values placed on, or interpretations of, religious texts.For example, while the Rabbinical Council of Victoria does not support the bills on the basis that the Torahs conception of marriage is a covenantal relationship between men and women, the Union of Progressive Judaism considers that the behaviour of people has to reflect both modern values as well as the eternal values that we have from the Torah.[33]
Grandad5 said
11:05 AM Nov 17, 2015
That was an interesting read Troopy.
Thanks for posting that.
Jim
usedtobe said
01:07 AM Nov 18, 2015
As an agent of satan I would not expect anything less than you opposing the position held by those who hold to the traditional Judeo Christian ethic of marriage. After all the name satan means adversary and accuser so go for it.....
dorian said
07:13 AM Nov 18, 2015
The term "progressive Christianity" or "progressive Judaism" or progressive [insert your religion of choice here] is an oxymoron. These religions are based on a static document, either the Bible or the Koran, or some other Holy Book. These texts don't change. They are not affected by the moral Zeitgeist, and, unlike the constitution, they are not subject to amendment by the People. In fact, if anyone were to use their Holy Book as their moral guide in the literal sense, they would probably end up in jail.
03_Troopy said
10:18 AM Nov 18, 2015
usedtobe wrote:
As an agent of satan I would not expect anything less than you opposing the position held by those who hold to the traditional Judeo Christian ethic of marriage. After all the name satan means adversary and accuser so go for it.....
hmmm never mind
-- Edited by 03_Troopy on Wednesday 18th of November 2015 10:20:29 AM
dorian said
10:48 AM Nov 18, 2015
In my honest opinion, homosexual marriage is inevitable, as is euthanasia, an Australian republic, new flag, etc. Moreover, I predict that today's religions will eventually become tomorrow's mythology, and the sooner the better. I also predict that one day we will all be vegetarians, and future societies will look down on meat eaters such as myself as barbarians.
I'm just playing the devil's advocate, but should the naysayers just accept the inevitable and not risk being seen by history as bigoted or old fashioned? Imagine you were one of those white adults who were hurling abuse at young Rosa Parkes when she dared to sit at the front of the bus on her way to a non-segregated school. How would history judge you today?
That said, I can't see myself ever using the term "African American" when I mean "black", or "partner" when I mean "spouse", or "actor" when I mean "actress". I'm even uncomfortable using the word "gay" when I mean "homosexual".
Webmaster said
12:19 PM Nov 18, 2015
Thanks everyone for your input on this. I agree that it has been an interesting thread and great that no one got personal about the posts. However, I am very keen to avoid the topic of religion so I think I will close this now. Thanks again for the positive discussion.
I would disagree about being born with a sexual orientation, there are many studies which would contest that idea. Just google it and you would see that it is not the given you hold to. There is no scientific or empirical genetic evidence for sexual preference being present in our DNA, you have swallowed the propaganda of the lGBT lobby, it underlines my statement that only the pro homosexual lobby get the media coverage, and those who contest the unscientific emotional arguments are called bigots and not able to tolerate their practice.
Tolerance is a subjective term and again is a moral value term, one that we all place on it....should we tolerate the Isis ideology because it is held as a moral value by those who believe in it ? Should we tolerate the porn we see or know exists because many people do ? Is having a moral value concerning SSM any different to having a moral value about any other sexual preference, if so why ? Empathy and understanding are moral values, we all have different degrees of empathy and understanding. You argue that people who hold to my view do not possess these qualities, my point has been to argue for all the social values and standards that all societies have held since recorded history, regardless of ethnicity and religion.
I would suggest that all the arguments for SSM are couched in emotional terms, none of the societal implications i have listed have been truly addressed, you cannot know the future implications of changing the traditional form of marriage to the one you say is ok, because it has never been documented or shown to be viable anywhere. That is why I cited the example of early Greek and Roman societies. These societies collapsed from within due to their changing of their moral values. Moral values are not necessarily connected to religion, you can have strong moral values as an atheist or agnostic. Our laws are based on moral values. I argue for not changing them because of some highly charged emotional unverified claims by the SSM lobby.
WOW, when I started this page I expected maybe a couple of sarcastic / comical comments. Now it seems I have opened a can of worms. Oh well, a can of worms is handy when you are going fishing, and that is what I was doing at the start. I better stop now before I get bitten.
As I said earlier, people can do what they like, just stop showing photos of blokes kissing on the TV news, as that is more offensive than seeing little kids in war countries walking bear footed across the dessert which is horrible.
Am I on my own there??????????
Simmo.
If you have no evidence of how and why SSM will benefit our society, other than it will make same sex couples feel better, or enjoy the benefits of hetrosexual couples, you only have an argument based on opinion and and an emotional opinion at that. It has never been a right to marry, it has been a social and cultural norm. Because marriage has always been seen as between a man and woman, you and your side of the argument are saying we should change our social and cultural norms to suit a tiny percentage of people because they feel discriminated against. That is the basis of your argument, it has no validity other than feelings and emotions.
SSM couples have all the benefits of hetrosexual married couples, in civil law now ! Why change the meaning of marriage ?
This discussion has become circular and obviously entrenched views prevail, both sides will not change because we each believe we are right ! Those who are sitting on the fence will decide who is, and has, the more reasoned and logical view. Choose which way you will vote, because it seems we will have the opportunity to do so.
As you say usedtobe, neither has the right to impose their views and beliefs on others, and this is also supported in law. So whether we agree or not is immaterial. What is important is that people in the situation of wanting to be able to enter into a SSM are not denied simply by different points of view based on religious beliefs of others.
And they don't want it to be made compulsory that you have to be the same sex to get married...
From this site
History of Marriage Laws in Australia
Relationship registers and civil unions
2.28 De facto couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex, can register formally their relationships in Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Queensland. These states, with the exception of Victoria, recognise relationships registered in the other states.
2.29 The benefit of registering a relationship is to obtain proof of the relationship, similar to having a marriage certificate. Couples in a registered relationship do not have to prove their de facto status, as described above. Registering a relationship may be attractive to same-sex couples who do not have the option of obtaining a marriage certificate.
2.30 Civil unions are conducted only in the ACT and Queensland. Civil union legislation provides for a ceremony to declare a civil partnership in addition to providing for relationship registration. On Tuesday, 12 June, the Queensland premier announced amendments to the Civil Partnerships Act 2011 (Qld) that would remove the option of a state-sanctioned ceremony.[14] Civil unions are available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples in Queensland, but only to same-sex couples in the ACT.[15]
2.31 Civil union ceremonies must be conducted by an official civil notary, and eligibility requirements are similar to those prescribed in the Marriage Act, i.e. that notice of declaration must be given in a certain time period, neither party is already married or in a civil partnership, or is in a prohibited relationship with the other party. Civil union legislation also provides for formal termination of the civil partnership.
The difference between marriage and other relationships
2.32 De facto, registered or civil union relationships do not equate to marriage. Although the vast majority of state and federal legislation apply equally to couples regardless of marital status and sexual orientation, there remain a few areas in which non-married couples are disadvantaged due to their lack of marital status, such as providing proof of relationship.
2.33 Whereas opposite-sex de facto or registered couples can choose to marry and avail themselves of the full rights that come with a marriage certificate, same-sex couples are prohibited by law to choose this option.
2.34 The Jones and Bandt/Wilkie Bills seek to change the Marriage Act to enable same-sex couples to marry if they so wish.
2.35 The debate around same-sex marriage rights is not limited to legal issues. Although solely a legal contract in Australia, marriage is a religious institution for many that is closely entwined with religious tradition, ceremony and meaning. It is also a symbolic social contract, reflecting Australias values about relationships and families, the meaning of the institution of marriage, and equality. These issues are discussed in the next chapter.
Religious values
3.25 Many of the above opinions about family and marriage derive from religious beliefs and traditions.
3.26 Religious traditions form an integral part of Australian society. While Australia was founded as a predominantly Christian British colony, processes of migration and shifts towards embracing multiculturalism have created a modern Australia that is rich in religious diversity. The varieties of communities that practice religion in Australia have many different structures of beliefs and values that shape peoples attitudes to life.
3.27 While Australian society includes citizens of differing faith beliefs and their respective faith-based organisations, it is a secular state. This means that citizens can hold whatever religious beliefs they choose. However, as Professor Andrew Lynch commented, the Constitution of Australia ensures that the Commonwealth cannot impose any religious observance upon people.[23]
3.28 Section 116 of the Constitution sets out the separation of the Church and State in Australia. It states that:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.[24]
3.29 This means that although Australia respects religious beliefs and traditions, legislation is a matter reserved for the deliberation of parliaments in our secular state in the best interests of society and without favour to one or other faith system.
3.30 Australias religious diversity was evident at the Sydney public hearing which included the participation of representatives of the Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran and Seventh Day Adventist Churches, the Salvation Army, the Union of Progressive Judaism, the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils, the Hindu Council of Australia, and the Sikh Council of Australia.
3.31 In addition to the participation of these organisations, the Committee received written responses from a range of other religious organisations, including Quakers Australia, the Chinese Methodist Church in Australia, the Episcopal Assembly for Oceania and the Rabbinical Council of Victoria.
3.32 The religious representatives who spoke to the Committee at the public hearing held a range of views about the nature of marriage and of the passage of the two Bills. A common view held by all the participants was that marriage has a spiritual component in addition to it being a social or legal contract between two people. The views diverged, however, when it came to same-sex marriage.
3.33 Reverend Dr Michael Semmler, President of the Lutheran Church of Australia, strongly supported the separation of church and state, saying that Lutherans do not want to interfere with the government ordering society, but urged the government to preserve the uniqueness of the husband/wife the male/female in marriage.[25]
3.34 According to Professor Nihal Singh Agar, marriage within the Hindu religion is between a man and a woman for progeny and for their spiritual growth.[26] Similarly, Mr Bawa Singh Jagdev stated that according to the Sikh religion, marriage unites a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising children in a caring and loving family environment.[27]
3.35 Representatives of the Salvation Army and the Anglican, Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist Churches all held marriage to be a spiritual and social joining of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.[28]
3.36 Conversely, Mr Steve Denenberg from the Union for Progressive Judaism supported the bills and took the position that it is time for our society to move on.[29] Similarly, Venerable Bhante Sujato from the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils said that the overwhelming response of the Buddhist community has been supporting marriage equality.[30]
3.37 It was made apparent to the Committee that even within faith-based organisations, there is often a wide range of divergent beliefs and values on the question of the recognition of same sex marriage. The Uniting Church in Australia acknowledged this diversity, stating that:
There is a great diversity of opinion amongst our Church members, derived from the different ways in which people understand the Bible and their own Christian faith.[31]
3.38 While some Christian churches are adamant that marriage is a lifelong union solely between a man and a woman, others support marriage equality for samesex partners. Reverend Greg Smith from the Metropolitan Community Church Sydney, said that:
We at MCC Sydney strongly believe in the holy rite of marriage for all couples ... Practicing the rite of holy matrimony for same sex couples is as much a part of our faith as is practicing the rite of holy matrimony for opposite sex couples.[32]
3.39 Different attitudes arise from different values placed on, or interpretations of, religious texts. For example, while the Rabbinical Council of Victoria does not support the bills on the basis that the Torahs conception of marriage is a covenantal relationship between men and women, the Union of Progressive Judaism considers that the behaviour of people has to reflect both modern values as well as the eternal values that we have from the Torah.[33]
Thanks for posting that.
Jim
hmmm never mind
-- Edited by 03_Troopy on Wednesday 18th of November 2015 10:20:29 AM
I'm just playing the devil's advocate, but should the naysayers just accept the inevitable and not risk being seen by history as bigoted or old fashioned? Imagine you were one of those white adults who were hurling abuse at young Rosa Parkes when she dared to sit at the front of the bus on her way to a non-segregated school. How would history judge you today?
That said, I can't see myself ever using the term "African American" when I mean "black", or "partner" when I mean "spouse", or "actor" when I mean "actress". I'm even uncomfortable using the word "gay" when I mean "homosexual".
Thanks everyone for your input on this. I agree that it has been an interesting thread and great that no one got personal about the posts. However, I am very keen to avoid the topic of religion so I think I will close this now. Thanks again for the positive discussion.