• Julia Gillard makes stand as a social conservative
    158 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28732931][/QUOTE] dont do that, it takes me extra effort to quote your post anyways, what does it matter if some churches allow homosexual marriage or not? thats bears no relevance to my claim, and churches can still legally marry someone, showing that it is still a religious ceremony seriously, why do you cling to the word marriage so much? your as bad as the conservatives who cling to the word, this is another reason it should be seperated from the church there is no reasonable debate against homosexual marriage when the word marriage isnt used and marriage becomes solely a church thing that isnt state recognized
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28732700] i mean seriously, my solution gives everyone a winning situation people can still get married how they see fit but it isnt recognized homosexuals, heterosexuals, and polygamists also now have the same rights because a new secular agreement has been created that cant be refused based on religious or moral grounds[/QUOTE] My solution gives everyone a winning solution. Blacks and whites can do everything the same, they just have to use different bathrooms and sit on different parts of the bus. It's genius! [QUOTE=yawmwen;28733048]dont do that, it takes me extra effort to quote your post anyways, what does it matter if some churches allow homosexual marriage or not? thats bears no relevance to my claim, and churches can still legally marry someone, showing that it is still a religious ceremony seriously, why do you cling to the word marriage so much? your as bad as the conservatives who cling to the word, this is another reason it should be seperated from the church there is no reasonable debate against homosexual marriage when the word marriage isnt used and marriage becomes solely a church thing that isnt state recognized[/QUOTE] What does it matter? You're whole point is that it's religious and so gays shouldn't be "married" but some similar but different union. I pointed out that there are churches that do allow gay marriage. And I also pointed out that it's NOT a religious union because you can get married without anything religious involved. You're calling me as bad as conservatives because I want people to have equal rights? Okay. Also IT'S NOT SOLEY A CHURCH THING. There are religions where you can get married and there is no church. Hell Celtic traditions have no churches at all and allow same sex marriage, they also allow different kinds of marriage. You're whole arguement is semantics. "It's still marriage we'll just call it something else." It's stupid.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28733282]My solution gives everyone a winning solution. Blacks and whites can do everything the same, they just have to use different bathrooms and sit on different parts of the bus. It's genius![/quote] you know damn well that isnt what i suggested at all i never once said anything even remotely hinting at separate but equal [quote] You're calling me as bad as conservatives because I want people to have equal rights? Okay.[/quote] no. you dont. you have a facade of wanting people to have equal rights, you really just want to appear progressive you cant take a suggestion that would actually allow people to have equal rights and crush opposition to gay marriage because your so stuck in what looks most progressive and liberal [quote]Also IT'S NOT SOLEY A CHURCH THING. There are religions where you can get married and there is no church. Hell Celtic traditions have no churches at all and allow same sex marriage, they also allow different kinds of marriage.[/quote] [b]it's partially a church thing, that means that the state has no right to recognize it because of the first amendment[/b] [quote]You're whole arguement is semantics. "It's still marriage we'll just call it something else." It's stupid.[/QUOTE] no, its not still marriage at all, its a legal contract to whomever wants to get it the state has no right getting in the affairs of love or sexuality, marriage has no place being recognized by the state just for that
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28733410]you know damn well that isnt what i suggested at all i never once said anything even remotely hinting at separate but equal[/QUOTE] You're suggesting that there'll be marriage and a secular agreement. Which are the exact same fucking thing. [quote]no. you dont. you have a facade of wanting people to have equal rights, you really just want to appear progressive you cant take a suggestion that would actually allow people to have equal rights and crush opposition to gay marriage because your so stuck in what looks most progressive and liberal[/quote] No. You don't get to tell me what I fucking want. Your suggestion is to separate marrage and legal unions, when MARRIAGE IS A LEGAL UNION. Just because there are religious marriages does NOT mean there can't be secular marriages. You just ignore everything I've said about marraige not religious and needing a legal certificate to even be married. [quote][b]it's partially a church thing, that means that the state has no right to recognize it because of the first amendment[/b][/quote] 1. That's not what the first ammendment means. The first ammendment means the state can not legally promote one religion above another, not that everything related toreligion has to be avoided like the plague. [b]2. This is AUSTRALIA we're talking about.[/b] [QUOTE]no, its not still marriage at all, its a legal contract to whomever wants to get it the state has no right getting in the affairs of love or sexuality, marriage has no place being recognized by the state just for that[/QUOTE] Marriage IS a legal contract. And the state DOES have a right to get involved in the affairs of love and sexuality when people are being discriminated against soley because of their sexual orientation.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28733714]You're suggesting that there'll be marriage and a secular agreement. Which are the exact same fucking thing.[/quote] then why are you so apposed to it? if its gonna be the same fucking thing in your eyes theres no problem with changing the wording of the contract to please the religious assholes [quote]No. You don't get to tell me what I fucking want. Your suggestion is to separate marrage and legal unions, when MARRIAGE IS A LEGAL UNION. Just because there are religious marriages does NOT mean there can't be secular marriages. You just ignore everything I've said about marraige not religious and needing a legal certificate to even be married.[/quote] a legal union that cant be applied to gays or polygamists with wording that allows the religious right to keep it that way sounds like a good union to me [quote]1. That's not what the first ammendment means. The first ammendment means the state can not legally promote one religion above another, not that everything related toreligion has to be avoided like the plague.[/quote] by promoting any religion at all it is discriminating against atheists and non religious [quote] [b]2. This is AUSTRALIA we're talking about.[/b][/quote] not anymore, we are talking about gay marriage [quote]Marriage IS a legal contract. And the state DOES have a right to get involved in the affairs of love and sexuality when people are being discriminated against soley because of their sexual orientation.[/QUOTE] no it doesnt, it needs to provide equal rights to anyone regardless of sexual orientation or motives, this should be a financial decision solely that doesnt even look at the matter of sexuality or whether the two(or more) people "love" each other or not that is not the states right [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] really i dont think you get what im argueing janus i am not saying gays should be forced into civil unions while straight people can marry im saying that marriage is a flawed term to use and that all "marriages" should be allowed, renamed, and done on different terms so there is no confusion marriage is associated with love and often religion, if we change the name of marriage it gets rid of these associations and makes it a purely secular equal contract while not confusing it with the religious and emotional ceremonies [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] and also allowing churches to marry who they want for whatever reasons, and for people to have their own private ceremonies to declare their love without any interference of the state
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28733988]then why are you so apposed to it? if its gonna be the same fucking thing in your eyes theres no problem with changing the wording of the contract to please the religious assholes [/QUOTE] Because there's no need to please the religious assholes. That's half the arguement. Homosexuals want the right to get married, not the right for a civil union. [quote]a legal union that cant be applied to gays or polygamists with wording that allows the religious right to keep it that way sounds like a good union to me[/quote] What? There are plenty of religions which allow gay marriage and polygamy. You keep acting like it's only Judeo-Christian religions which have marriage. [quote]by promoting any religion at all it is discriminating against atheists and non religious[/quote] Atheist can get married. I know a few atheist couple who are married. I don't see your point. [quote]not anymore, we are talking about gay marriage[/quote] Then I should pont out that 195 of the 196 countries in the world don't use American laws, so they don't really apply to the discussion. [QUOTE]no it doesnt, it needs to provide equal rights to anyone regardless of sexual orientation or motives, this should be a financial decision solely that doesnt even look at the matter of sexuality or whether the two(or more) people "love" each other or not that is not the states right[/QUOTE] The state defines what is and isn't marriage, by disallowing people to be married because of their religion or sexual orientation is descrimination.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28734170]Because there's no need to please the religious assholes. That's half the arguement. Homosexuals want the right to get married, not the right for a civil union.[/QUOTE] no one gets the right to be married, thats up to a church or your dad or whoever wants to do a private ceremony everyone gets the right to civil union thats what im trying to say [quote]What? There are plenty of religions which allow gay marriage and polygamy. You keep acting like it's only Judeo-Christian religions which have marriage.[/quote]not legally [quote]Atheist can get married. I know a few atheist couple who are married. I don't see your point.[/quote]you know what, i dont really see my point here either, you are right that atheists can get married [quote]Then I should pont out that 195 of the 196 countries in the world don't use American laws, so they don't really apply to the discussion. [/quote]im not discussing american laws right now, im discussing what is right and wrong for the state to do, whether its australian, american, or french, it doesnt matter [quote]The state defines what is and isn't marriage, by disallowing people to be married because of their religion or sexual orientation is descrimination.[/quote]exactly, so lets just get rid of the wording the state has [B]no right[/B] to get involved in sexual orientation, we are in complete agreement here
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28734285]no one gets the right to be married, thats up to a church or your dad or whoever wants to do a private ceremony everyone gets the right to civil union thats what im trying to say[/QUOTE] Your dad? Okay. [quote]not legally[/quote] Yes, but that's because of a LAW SET BY THE STATE, not because of religion. [quote]im not discussing american laws right now, im discussing what is right and wrong for the state to do, whether its australian, american, or french, it doesnt matter[/quote] Not discussing American laws. [quote]because of the first amendment[/quote] :raise: [QUOTE]exactly, so lets just get rid of the wording the state has [B]no right[/B] to get involved in sexual orientation, we are in complete agreement here[/QUOTE] It's easier to give gays the right to marry than it is to change ALL the laws with the word marriage in them. The logistics of doing that would be insane.
I'm gonna have to side with Janus on this one. The very act of changing around all current marriage laws is just impossible right now.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28734538]Your dad? Okay.[/QUOTE] there should be no legal restrictions on who can perform "marriage"(the non legal ceremony) is what im saying [quote]Yes, but that's because of a LAW SET BY THE STATE, not because of religion.[/quote]why is the law that way then? what is the logical reason to keep gays and polygamists from marrying [quote]Not discussing American laws. :raise:[/quote]good point, however, i wholeheartedly agree with the first amendment morally, so i cite that as a standard all countries should follow [quote]It's easier to give gays the right to marry than it is to change ALL the laws with the word marriage in them. The logistics of doing that would be insane.[/quote]its easier to just not give gays the right to marry we need to do whats right, not whats easy [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] also even if we legalize gay marriage what about polygamist marriage? thats still illegal and i dont see anyone fighting for that
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28734604]there should be no legal restrictions on who can perform "marriage"(the non legal ceremony) is what im saying[/QUOTE] I know, just the 'your dad' in the middle kind of threw me for a second. [quote]why is the law that way then? what is the logical reason to keep gays and polygamists from marrying[/quote] There isn't one, it's like that because the people who set the laws all those years ago were set in their ways/bigots/very religious. They passed laws in such a way that these days you never pass. [quote]good point, however, i wholeheartedly agree with the first amendment morally, so i cite that as a standard all countries should follow[/quote] Agreed. [QUOTE]its easier to just not give gays the right to marry we need to do whats right, not whats easy[/QUOTE] Giving gays the right to marry would do the exact same thing as what you're suggesting, save a LOT of money, has less risk of being shot down by bigots and pisses off the extremely religious (always a good thing IMO).
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28734708] Giving gays the right to marry would do the exact same thing as what you're suggesting, save a LOT of money, has less risk of being shot down by bigots and pisses off the extremely religious (always a good thing IMO).[/QUOTE] if it pisses off the extremely religious it is more likely to get shot down by bigots really we dont need to piss off the religious people, its sort of a backwards way of getting to whats right we should be willing to compromise with the religious to see that people get the same rights, if this appeases the far right and bigots more than gay marriage it should be done, we dont need more enemies and hatred, we need understanding and tolerance
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28734843]if it pisses off the extremely religious it is more likely to get shot down by bigots really we dont need to piss off the religious people, its sort of a backwards way of getting to whats right we should be willing to compromise with the religious to see that people get the same rights, if this appeases the far right and bigots more than gay marriage it should be done, we dont need more enemies and hatred, we need understanding and tolerance[/QUOTE] Systematicall removing the rights of marriage (and transfering them to legal unions) would gain more ire from religious bigots as it would be widespread, by convincing them to accept gay marriage you get the same result faster and with less hate. Also, compromise only works when everyone is willing to do it.
no because it is simply making it so religious people can have their marriages how they want them, with whatever definition they seek to choose, while everyone gets to sign into a legal contract with whomever they want also if you just legalize gay marriage that still does nothing for polygamists and still keeps marriage a lifelong decision, you should be able to set terms of a legal contract beforehand, including how long the union will last before needing to be renewed or dissolving
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28735023]no because it is simply making it so religious people can have their marriages how they want them, with whatever definition they seek to choose, while everyone gets to sign into a legal contract with whomever they want also if you just legalize gay marriage that still does nothing for polygamists and still keeps marriage a lifelong decision, you should be able to set terms of a legal contract beforehand, including how long the union will last before needing to be renewed or dissolving[/QUOTE] I never said anything about polygamists. Infact that's a completely separate issue. And there are forms of marraige where you choose how long the marriage lasts and I was going to link to a page describing various forms but I can't seem to find it right now.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28735635]I never said anything about polygamists. Infact that's a completely separate issue. And there are forms of marraige where you choose how long the marriage lasts and I was going to link to a page describing various forms but I can't seem to find it right now.[/QUOTE] no it isnt you demand equal rights for homosexuals but not for anyone else who is persecuted?
I agree with yawmwen, marriage should grant absolutely no special rights and should not be recognized by the state. However, that will never happen so let's make it so everyone can get married instead.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28723755]How can you insinuate that anyone against gay marriage is a homophobe. Just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't mean they possess any "disdain" for homosexuals. I believe men can't become nuns - do I hate men? Seriously, that's really thick. umm: marriage: [url]http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinskic.html[/url] [url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gay-marriage-demands-should-be-left-on-shelf/story-e6frg6zo-1225956787304[/url] (fun fact: christopher pearson most likely isn't a "homophobe", given he's a public homosexual. euthanasia: [url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/test-of-conviction-on-a-life-and-death-issue/story-e6frg6zo-1225979620586[/url] look here's an entire site: [url]http://www.noeuthanasia.org.au/[/url] You're wrong.[/QUOTE] i like how you claim to not be a homophobe yet one of the arguments you link is about thinking that gay marriage will make a decrease in national fertility.
I must be the only person in Aus who couldn't give two fucks either way about gay marriage
[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;28742717]I must be the only person in Aus who couldn't give two fucks either way about gay marriage[/QUOTE] No, I can almost guarantee you're not. And that apathetic attitude is crippling this country.
[QUOTE=SBD;28742811]No, I can almost guarantee you're not. And that apathetic attitude is crippling this country.[/QUOTE] This. What's the point in a democracy if the majority of people don't fucking care anyway.
[url=http://www.comics.chickennation.com/archive/bastardry/]haha, australia.[/url]
Pretty much.
[QUOTE=SBD;28742811]No, I can almost guarantee you're not. And that apathetic attitude is crippling this country.[/QUOTE] Sorry mom, just a bit sick of all the petty squabbling surrounding gay rights, since... Well forever.
[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;28743328]Sorry mom, just a bit sick of all the petty squabbling surrounding gay rights, since... Well forever.[/QUOTE] You're going to keep hearing it if the country is full of you ignorant apathetic types. Sadly it is. Change yourself.
I forgot, you're better than everyone
[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;28743351]I forgot, you're better than everyone[/QUOTE] *no reply, better insert a personal attack*
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28743412]*no reply*[/QUOTE]
what.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28743428]what.[/QUOTE] Obviously he applies the same level of thought and effort to politics as he does to arguing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.