1. 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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jets, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,482
    Agreed that marriage is not a Christian institution. But where the sensitivity comes into it, is that some get married for solely religious reasons. So to them, on a personal level, it may be a religious institution? It's not exclusively theirs but they may have difficulty differentiating between a marriage within the church as an institution and a legal marriage. As to them, they are one and the same. They need to yield on their side for the argument to move forward but by the same token the pro gay marriage movement can't be simply dismissive of what they believe, by saying that they are simply wrong. I think it's important to establish a point of difference between a marriage in the church and a legal marriage which is what I think you are saying. This seems to be the stumbling block. You can have a legal marriage without a church marriage but not vice versa. So the church can set as many restrictions it wants on the church marriages but leave the legal side of things alone?
  2. TOCC Guest

    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not about been treated the same, it's about been afforded the same civil liberties.
    MrMouse, AngrySeahorse and louie like this.
  3. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    22,972
    It only flows in one direction. The state determines which marriages it accepts to be legal marriages.

    The church can make their own rules for the marriages they either accept or perform however they can't dictate to the state which marriages the state chooses to legally accept.
  4. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,482
    In this issue, yes. Spot on. That's a great way to put it. When I said treated the same I was speaking more broadly.

    Agreed as well. My point I was trying to get at is that for some, getting married is a spiritual thing. Take me for example. The legal recognition (for want of a better expression) is a consequence of my spiritual choice and to date has provided me with no benefit. I would gladly get married in the church without it being recognised by law but I acknowledge that this view may/will probably change some day. All I'm saying is that I have received no benefit to the legal side of marriage but immense benefit from the spiritual side. So for me, regardless of what the law or government says, the choice to marry was solely spiritual. Where the issue comes from is that the law does not impact on my choice so I am content with it being a necessary consequence. If I were homosexual, then my situation would be reversed entirely. Which is where the civil liberties are impeded as TOCC put it so well.

    BUT, when someone suggests to me that marriage is a purely legal process, keeping in mind that to me it is not, and that my spiritual emphasis that I place upon it has little consequence, or they extend that argument to a point where they say that my beliefs are based on a fictitious deity (which is a personal opinion that has no relevance to the argument), can you see how I might take that as undermining my set of spiritual beliefs?

    Personally it doesn't bother me if gay people were allowed to marry, but if my set of beliefs also included a rigid belief that marriage was between a man and a woman, then this is where we need to show sensitivity and help those people to separate the legal and spiritual side of marriage so that they can accept gay marriage without denigrating or disrespecting what they hold to be true. Do you see where I'm coming from?

    I know it's probably being a little to soft and cuddly, you know, don't upset anyone, wrap us all in cotton wool etc, but when you are fighting for an inclusive society then more than ever you need to avoid being exclusive in any way, shape or form.
  5. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    22,972
    You could have walked out of the church after being announced as man and wife. You would still be married in the eyes of the church.

    The signing of the certificates (and then the subsequent registration of them) is the bit that makes your marriage legal in regards to the law.
  6. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,482
    I didn't actually know that.
  7. Karl Bill McLean (32)

    Likes Received:
    354
    For starters, no Christian is getting married "solely for religious reasons". There is no Christian or religious requirement mandating compulsory marriage. Arranged marriages, where they persist, are cultural customs, not religious requirement.

    If any particular Christian is so block headed that they have "difficulty differentiating between a marriage within the church as an institution and a legal marriage" then their opinion on any related matter should be excised from any further discussion on the topic. The stance of such a person, or any group sharing such stance, should certainly not be permitted to influence Government decision making.

    And if someone IS simply wrong, then pandering to their ignorance is detrimental to the advancement of any sensible discussion and they should be dismissed. If that offends them, tough. In this case they are wrong not because they hold some valid and arguable position that is at odds with some other valid and arguable position, but because they choose to cling to dogma, ignore established facts and otherwise conduct themseles in an intellectually lazy and ignorant fashion.

    Marriage is not a religious institution or function. It predates Christianity although it, like so many things, has been incorporated into its practices. Christians and the Church need to stop trying to force their beliefs and values (such as they are) onto the rest of society and dictate legislative policy to elected governments.

    Run your services and assist those that want you. Do good in the world (which you do more often than not, although arguably barely) alongside all of the non religious people and organizations who do the same. But otherwise, pull your damn heads in.
  8. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,482
    Did you even read my post!? You speak about block headed people being barred from arguments and trot out this drivel. Fuck off.

    I just wrote that I did exactly that. So don't dare tell me what MY reasons are for getting married. There are so many things wrong with your post I actually don't know where to start. Fuck it. I'm not going to. Take your own advice man.
  9. Karl Bill McLean (32)

    Likes Received:
    354
    Calm down big fella. I didn't call you a block head. I said if people couldn't make the distinction between the religious and legal aspects of marriage, as you said yourself that many Christians can't, then they were blockheads. You clearly can so I wasn't referring to you.

    Edit- the last para of my post was directed at "The Church" not any individual.

    On the issue of getting married "soley for religious reasons" - are you saying that love had nothing to do with it? Would you not have wanted to make a lifelong and exclusive commitment to your wife if there wasn't a Church to sanctify that bond? Edit - Solely means exactly that - to the exclusion of all other things.

    I think you're overstating it a bit although I appreciate that God and your faith is very important in your life.

    You need to realize though that he's not relevant at all to a lot of people who should be able to enjoy the same rights as you.

    Edit- and once again you fly of the handle and get insulting while conveniently using your righteous indignation as an excuse to not deal with the issues or mount a reasoned argument. Like I said before, it's a predictable pattern with religious fundies of all stripes when you dare to challenge their God given truths and superior morality.
  10. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,482
    My point the whole way through this is that insensitivity to people's beliefs is contributing to this argument being protracted and forward progress being difficult to achieve. I then go on to say that my reasons for getting married were purely spiritual and that I had/have no need for legal recognition. I then make the point that I would be offended if someone suggested otherwise, and then you make the statement you did. It completely undermines and insults my beliefs. You made a call that you had no right to make. In doing so you display almost every single quality that you say that the religious types do and then say this is the reason that their opinion should count for nothing.

    The thing I felt most insulting is that you presumed to know, no actually, to tell me what my reasons were for getting married, and then you tell my I should calm down.

    I do realise that God isn't relevant to a large number of people. I openly acknowledge that and have absolutely no problem with it. You need to realise that God is relevant to a lot of people and that pissing on people's beliefs is a quick way to get them offside. How do you suppose to advance the cause when you inflame the other side in that manner. I'll say it again, when you are fighting for an inclusive society then more than ever you need to avoid being exclusive in any way, shape or form. Your post was so exclusive it's ridiculous.
    southsider likes this.
  11. cyclopath Phil Waugh (73)

    Likes Received:
    14,444
    Both of you tone it down. There is no need to tell people to "Fuck off" or " Butt the fuck out". Civility, or it gets nuked.
    Ruggo, Sully and AngrySeahorse like this.
  12. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,482
    No drama's Karl. Mate if you can't see the contradiction in your own argument, then you're doing a better job of arguing against yourself than I ever can, so we'll leave it there.

    Noted Cyclo. Cheers.
  13. TOCC Guest

    Likes Received:
    0
    No one is been dismissive, those who are arguing that marriage belongs to 'religion' do so under false pretense.

    It is socially acceptable for those who don't believe in religion and even for those who strongly oppose religion to be married in a heterosexual wedding, yet a gay couple arent.. Hypocritical?

    Those who are arguing the religious point of view need to realise that Christianity does not own the right to 'marriage', nor does Christianity or any religion have the right to influence Australian law or the civil liberties of Australian citizens.

    The Fed Govt will ammend the laws in time, some people will be offended(religious types), that's an unfortunate situation for them but their beliefs are depriving other Australians of something they should legally be entitled to do.
    Swat likes this.
  14. BDA Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    2,529
    I completely agree. The real difficulty I have is that at the heart of this issue is one side (religious followers) demonising people (gays) for what they believe in. But somehow its unfair for people on the other side of the debate to rubbish their belief system. It is rubbish.
    Karl and Scoey like this.
  15. ChargerWA Mark Loane (55)

    Likes Received:
    3,562
    This issue is so simple that I can't even believe it needs to be debated. The facts are:

    • Religion does not own marriage.
    • No one is going to force religion to recognise or perfom gay marriages
    • Therefore, this really has nothing to do with them. Society should not have it's laws and rights dictated to it by increasingly irrelevant special interest groups.
    yourmatesam, Swat, slydare and 2 others like this.
  16. nomis Herbert Moran (7)

    Likes Received:
    25
    I don't think it's a matter of whether marriage is a christian thing or not. In any case, I think most Christians would say it’s a human thing, albeit invented by god. But that’s beside the point.

    All sections of society should be able to air their views in a respectful manner, and on what they think will be best for our society. No voice should be shut out of the discussion whether it be religious or atheist or somewhere in between.

    Changing the marriage law is a big deal for both sides of the debate. Everyone has values and world views built upon unprovable presuppositions. And everyone sees their own values as just common sense. But values in societies change. And what they change to is sometimes good and sometimes not so good. And this is where the debate lies.

    When all is said and done, we can vote for who we agree with or not. This is part of what makes Australia a great country!

    The question we got to keep asking ourselves is this: do you think it’s possible to profoundly love and respect someone with whom you disagree?
    Scoey likes this.
  17. nomis Herbert Moran (7)

    Likes Received:
    25
    There’s a strong belief in society that says if you truly want to love someone you have to endorse their lifestyle choices.

    And if you don’t endorse their life-style choices then you can’t possibly love them.

    And so people either end up just endorsing a larger range of life-style choices, or they just love a fewer amount of people.

    But it seems to me (and I’m no expert) that Jesus didn’t seem to fit either of these two categories.

    He was criticized and hated by society because he certainly didn’t endorse every life style.

    But he was also criticised and hated by the religious people of his day, because he still ate, drank and was merry with the perceived “sinners” of his day.

    He just seemed to be a master of the lost art of flexing those two muscles AT THE SAME TIME - the muscle of conviction, and the muscle of compassion.

    The church (and society at large, though mostly in the past) has done a great deal of damage to gay people by isolating and excluding them and making them feel like they are guilty of the “unforgivable sin”, all the while forgetting that they’d be excluded too, unless Jesus was willing to eat and associate with “sinners” like them.

    Instead, I think we’d all do well to regain that lost art of being able to profoundly love and respect and associate with those who's lifestyles we don’t endorse or agree with.
    Scoey likes this.
  18. TOCC Guest

    Likes Received:
    0
    il just inject that you are referring to minorities on both sides. There are plenty of religious people who don't believe gays couples should be allowed to marry but it's not because of dislike towards homosexuals, it's more of a religious belief and they are in fact quite happy to work with and befriend homosexuals..

    There are small Christian extremists who demonise homosexuality and in turn there is also a small group of homosexuals who outwardly mock and ridicule the beliefs of the religious type.

    It's a two way street
    Scoey likes this.
  19. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,482
    Agree on nearly all points TOCC. The point that I'm clearly struggling to make is that because you (not you in particular) don't believe in religion you need to be careful not to dismiss a persons 'beliefs' as fictitious or not worthy of consideration on a topic on the basis that they are founded in religion. They may be without base in fact, but if they form someone's beliefs and you dismiss them then you insult that person and from that point they are probably not going to be willing to discuss the topic rationally. The result? Exactly what we have now. A dead set loggerhead with no winners.
  20. BDA Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    2,529
    True. But I think there's a very fine line between Religious followers who don't want gay marriage and religious followers who believe it is not ok to be gay. I'm still yet to have anyone on this board who claims to have the former view, give any clear reason as to why that is the case. The only poster that came close ended up quoting passages from the bible, which clearly falls into the latter category.

    maybe im missing something?

Share This Page