• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Marriage Equality

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TOCC

Guest
Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough? That's great that you are supportive of gay marriage - I have no problem with that. But for some people the whole marriage thing IS deeply religious. To dismiss that, is being dismissive of what that person believes in. You can't quantify it and you can't rationalise it - it's a belief.

To try and bring this back to Rugby and Rugby to many is just like a religion. If a Tahs fan made a statement that QLD players showed no heart and had no pride in the jersey, a QLD fan would probably be insulted and instantly get defensive. You can't quantify these things, it's just something you believe to be true. But the statement from the Tahs fan is still disrespectful in the eyes of the QLD yet the Tahs fan will probably fail to see what the QLD fan is so upset about.

Edit: Agree with the equal rights statement. But is it still equal rights if in achieving it you step all over another persons belief system?

This is where the issue is, christians or any sort of religous organisation do not hold the rights to determine who can use the term 'marriage', its a civil matter not a religous one.

There will always be people out there getting offended when new laws or rulings are passed, however we shouldn't let the clout of religion impact on liberties that are afforded to us as citizens in Australia.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Christians don't own Marriage. I'm not a christian and I can get married tomorrow in a registry office in any city in this country. Just not to another man. Seems pretty silly to me. The only argument I hear from christians is the definition of the word. That's pretty weak.
 

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
This is where the issue is, christians or any sort of religous organisation do not hold the rights to determine who can use the term 'marriage', its a civil matter not a religous one.

There will always be people out there getting offended when new laws or rulings are passed, however we shouldn't let the clout of religion impact on liberties that are afforded to us as citizens in Australia.

But marriage is a religious ritual? if its a civil matter why not conduct a civil service?

i just dont see why this is any different to any other scenarios, are you offended you cant take part in ramadan? do you rights feel restricted that you cant play junior footy anymore, are you upset that you cant join in on indigenous ceremonies....for all these i doubt the answer is yes, so why is marriage any different?
 

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
Christians don't own Marriage. I'm not a christian and I can get married tomorrow in a registry office in any city in this country. Just not to another man. Seems pretty silly to me. The only argument I hear from christians is the definition of the word. That's pretty weak.

but thats the point you call it a "marriage" but its actually a civil service that your talking about, and i beleive strongly that gays should be able to have a civil service
 
T

TOCC

Guest
But marriage is a religious ritual? if its a civil matter why not conduct a civil service?

i just dont see why this is any different to any other scenarios, are you offended you cant take part in ramadan? do you rights feel restricted that you cant play junior footy anymore, are you upset that you cant join in on indigenous ceremonies..for all these i doubt the answer is yes, so why is marriage any different?

thats incorrect, who has determined marriage to be a religous ritual, it is a civil service which is also embraced by various religous organisations.
should those couples who are atheists not be afforded the right to have a wedding?

I can take part in Ramadan, in fact, having worked in the Middle East i have participated in parts of Ramadan.. But you are confusing a relgious ceremony with one which is a civil ceremony..
 

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
thats incorrect, who has determined marriage to be a religous ritual, it is a civil service which is also embraced by various religous organisations.
should those couples who are atheists not be afforded the right to have a wedding?

I can take part in Ramadan, in fact, having worked in the Middle East i have participated in parts of Ramadan.. But you are confusing a relgious ceremony with one which is a civil ceremony..

couple of thousands years of history and a religious text lay claim to it being part of christianity...my religion.

and no they can have a wedding, but its simply a civil service if it isnt religious

i guess you can take partin it if you want to.....but if your not muslim its rather a empty gesture, so props to you for starving yourself for no reason.

and please dont patronise me, you may not like my opinions but up unitl now ive tried to play the ball and not the man, wouldnt be bad for you to do the same too
 
T

TOCC

Guest
couple of thousands years of history and a religious text lay claim to it being part of christianity.my religion.
and no they can have a wedding, but its simply a civil service if it isnt religious
i guess you can take partin it if you want to...but if your not muslim its rather a empty gesture, so props to you for starving yourself for no reason.
and please dont patronise me, you may not like my opinions but up unitl now ive tried to play the ball and not the man, wouldnt be bad for you to do the same too

No, marriage is not owned by any religion.. Marriage in one form or another has been around since ancient Greece, Rome and ancient China...Neither historically, constituitionally nor legally is 'Marriage' reserved for those who are religious.

Ramdan isnt about "starving yourself", and its not an empty gesture to abide to customs of a foreign culture, its about showing respect..

Also, I was not patronising you or attacking you..
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Also, can someone please fix the spelling in the thread title, Marriage has an I
 

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
No, marriage is not owned by any religion.. Marriage in one form or another has been around since ancient Greece, Rome and ancient China.Neither historically, constituitionally nor legally is 'Marriage' reserved for those who are religious.

Ramdan isnt about "starving yourself", and its not an empty gesture to abide to customs of a foreign culture, its about showing respect..

Also, I was not patronising you or attacking you..

but all those ancient civilisations had religion tied in with their differing forms of marriage, did they not? and nothings changed in western society marriage and christianity are linked together

please i know its not but for a none believer it mayaswell be, and dont give me that half my family live in dubai there is no need to practice another cultures religious exercises sure participate in customs and what not but religion is sacred and personal you shouldnt participate in it if you dont believe in it. As for respect why is there none shown to the link between marriage and christianity then? if you respect ramadan so much why not a christian marriage?
 
T

TOCC

Guest
No, christianity has zero reference in the Australian constitution...
And again no, the definition of marriage is not bound to any religion under australian law...

Dubai is Western fusion, try living in a middle eastern country which isnt so liberal to foreigners going against their religious beliefs..
Even in Dubai, you may choose not to participate in Ramadan, but if you eat or drink during daylight hours in a public place you can bet your ass you will be either escorted off the premises or arrested....
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Again I'll preface this with the fact that I was raised on catholic values, but can someone please explain to me why Gay marriage is against the beliefs of the Church.

I'm not a religious person these days, but the one great thing I did take from Christianity was its ideals; Love one another, do unto other and you would have them do unto you, acceptance, forgiveness, etc. In the early days of Christianity, its main strength as a religion was that it welcomed all followers. That was the biggest single difference between Judaism and Christianity and in the end, its biggest strength. It was not about elitism. It appealed to people from all walks of life and unlike the Jewish synagogues, which were for Jewish followers only, the Christian churches welcomed people with open arms.

Christians should concentrate on the ideals of their religion not its engrained traditions.

It seems to me this argument of "Our belief is that Marriage should be between a man and women" doesn't seem to reflect what Christianity is meant to be about. It more so reflects "tradition" which was established a long time ago, in a society nothing like the 21st century. Traditions made be men living in backwards societies, that did not tolerate same sex relationships.

The main flaw with all religions is that they are run by humans and humans are invariably flawed. They use the religion to push there own agenda.

I would like to think that the X and Y generation Christians of the 21st century can see beyond that type of outdated thinking, and remember the true ideals of their religion
 

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
Nope. Religion want really a religious concern until The Catholic Church decided it should be in 110 AD.
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
I find it somewhat amusing that the Labour Party has at least one openly gay Minister who to all intents and purposes is "married" but isn't, as was Senator Bob Brown from the Greens. Isn't there a young Greens MP (Moana Pasifika) from Melbourne central who is also openly gay?

With some prominent MP (Moana Pasifika)'s and senators who are gay, I find it a little amusing (and slightly hypocritical*) that the Labour Government, who needs the Greens votes to govern, is so anti the concept.

* I am told that the Hypocratic nerve is surgically removed upon entry to politics.
 

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
No, christianity has zero reference in the Australian constitution.
And again no, the definition of marriage is not bound to any religion under australian law.

Dubai is Western fusion, try living in a middle eastern country which isnt so liberal to foreigners going against their religious beliefs..
Even in Dubai, you may choose not to participate in Ramadan, but if you eat or drink during daylight hours in a public place you can bet your ass you will be either escorted off the premises or arrested..

it doesnt need to, just have a look at the basic laws and priniples that we live by then go and have a look at the 10 commandments, you may see a few similarities.

well in that context its just unfortunate that you feel the need to practice a religion you dont believe in can i ask though, is you practising ramadan really out of respect then in that context then?. That also is incorrect been to dubai a couple of times smack bang in the middle of ramadan no restrictions, even have restraunts open...but guess thats not really relevant
 

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
Again I'll preface this with the fact that I was raised on catholic values, but can someone please explain to me why Gay marriage is against the beliefs of the Church.

I'm not a religious person these days, but the one great thing I did take from Christianity was its ideals; Love one another, do unto other and you would have them do unto you, acceptance, forgiveness, etc. In the early days of Christianity, its main strength as a religion was that it welcomed all followers. That was the biggest single difference between Judaism and Christianity and in the end, its biggest strength. It was not about elitism. It appealed to people from all walks of life and unlike the Jewish synagogues, which were for Jewish followers only, the Christian churches welcomed people with open arms.

Christians should concentrate on the ideals of their religion not its engrained traditions.

It seems to me this argument of "Our belief is that Marriage should be between a man and women" doesn't seem to reflect what Christianity is meant to be about. It more so reflects "tradition" which was established a long time ago, in a society nothing like the 21st century. Traditions made be men living in backwards societies, that did not tolerate same sex relationships.

The main flaw with all religions is that they are run by humans and humans are invariably flawed. They use the religion to push there own agenda.

I would like to think that the X and Y generation Christians of the 21st century can see beyond that type of outdated thinking, and remember the true ideals of their religion

There are two points i want to touch on,

1) catholasism is pretty different to other forms of christianity, comming from the uniting church i can say that being gay is accaptable, however acting on these urges is where the line is drawn. but then again all people sin and seeing as sins dont really have a severity scale a gay person can be a active christian.

2)i would agrre with you that is a backward tradition except for the fact it explicitly says in the bible is between a man and a woman not a man and a man, even though socially i struggle with it abit if its in the book its in the book got to take the good with the bad
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
I find it somewhat amusing that the Labour Party has at least one openly gay Minister who to all intents and purposes is "married", as was Senator Bob Brown from the Greens. Isn't there a young Greens MP (Moana Pasifika) from Melbourne central who is also openly gay?

With some prominent MP (Moana Pasifika)'s and senators who are gay, I find it a little amusing (and slightly hypocritical*) that the Labour Government, who needs the Greens votes to govern, is so anti the concept.

* I am told that the Hypocratic nerve is surgically removed upon entry to politics.

It really is the disease of modern day politics. The aim of the party is to get re-elected, not to make a change or support what they believe in. Not just in relation to this issue but basically every political issue, if it doesn't equal votes, it will get put to the side. It really is refreshing to see Obama taking a stance for what he believes in. You don't see too many politicians taking that type of risk in this day and age and I think its commendable.
 

AngrySeahorse

Peter Sullivan (51)
Most people from the gay community I talk to say the prospect of "civil unions" rather than marriages is a cop out. It is not the same as marriage & therefore not on equal footing. It reminds me of the South Park episode where the government said they'd call a union between two men "butt buddies" instead of married. I believe you give the gay community marriage or nothing because anything less you may as well have nothing in this case.

I don't think Louie was saying "right to be gay" as in choice & that being gay is not biological - I interpreted the comment as more "the right to be your true self without fear of abuse, discrimination, & the like".

I am gay & raised Catholic. Despite my sexuality I still believe in a lot of the things I was raised with which include commitment & monogamy. If someone were brave enough to stay with me for life (no takers so far) then it is looking like my best chance at actual marriage may be Tasmania. Off the track a little but Victoria I believe has the best IVF/Surrogacy laws. So in summary I may have to go to AFL infested Victoria for reproduction & I may have to go to, gulp, Tasmania in order to wed...............thanks a lot society :mad:.

I'm joking of course. I happy to see Vic & Tas doing what they are doing in relation to gay rights.

Actually, forget the gay marriage side for a moment. If people like the Kardashians can file for divorce in under 80 days of being married then I should be able to go & get 'trans-species' surgery to become a dolphin, fly up to Sea World & marry that lady Dolphin that was really into me. I can bet you our marriage would last longer than 80 days too.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
it doesnt need to, just have a look at the basic laws and priniples that we live by then go and have a look at the 10 commandments, you may see a few similarities.

The basic laws and principles we live by also have a lot of similarities to common sense.

It is entirely possible to come up with a set of rules to live by without any influence of religion.

Non-Christian societies have come to pretty similar conclusions on a lot of things. The 10 Commandments aren't some great secret of how to live your life that is unique to Christians.

If you want to start a debate about ethics then maybe we should start a new thread. :D
 

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
Most people from the gay community I talk to say the prospect of "civil unions" rather than marriages is a cop out. It is not the same as marriage & therefore not on equal footing.

can i ask as a gay person what you see are the main differences between a civil union and marriage that make it a cop-out? would be good to have the opinion of somebody that knows what theyre talking about. ive talked to my uncle about it before too (his gay) and his against any form of marriage, although i suspect thats more to do with his personality than political/social beliefs
 

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
The basic laws and principles we live by also have a lot of similarities to common sense.

It is entirely possible to come up with a set of rules to live by without any influence of religion.

Non-Christian societies have come to pretty similar conclusions on a lot of things. The 10 Commandments aren't some great secret of how to live your life that is unique to Christians.

If you want to start a debate about ethics then maybe we should start a new thread. :D

true, so your saying christianity is all common sense:p


i agree but when the english came out here they did have a strong christian influence, same as england, america any of the old western countries that formed todays western society they all had a strong christian basis especially amongs politicians etc


haha nah im good, havin enough trouble keeping up with this one :oops:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top