Fern
Member
- Location
- New Zealand
Have to agree with you there, Gdad.
Same sex marriage
- Thread starter Fern
- Start date
Fern
Member
- Location
- New Zealand
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
I'm not sure what the situation is in the US but in Australia marriage is not exclusively a religious institution. The Commonwealth government has passed laws about marriage and currently the law, not the churches, stipulate that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. There are certain conditions that must be met for a marriage to be considered legal i.e. both partners must be free to marry and cannot be legally married to someone else. They must be 18 years or older and enter into the contract of their own free will. Some of the wording of the marriage ceremony is mandatory for the marriage to be legal. The ceremony must be carried out by a licensed and registered celebrant.
Ministers of the word are considered to be celebrants with one condition - they are only permitted to perform marriage ceremonies where at least one of the couple is an adherent of their faith. A Presbyterian minister for example cannot marry two Hindus but can marry a Christian to a Buddhist if asked to do so. This is why they sometimes ask whether baptism has occurred.
It is the government that controls the marriage laws and in this country all that needs to happen is to remove the section of the act that stipulates that it is between a man and a woman to allow same sex marriages to become legal. This would not mean that ministers, priests, rabbis etc would be compelled to perform marriages that conflicted with the tenets of their faith.
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
This is the crux of it really though isn't it Warri?
The noise that some of them (not all) are making is directed at the church. They give the impression that they want to beat down Church standards into forcing ministers/priests to perform the ceremony. They maintain that only a religious ceremony gives them the 'real' marriage, even though the religion they insist they adhere to explicitly denies them that right. ... no, I don't see that logic either...
If it was as simple as civil ceremonies being enough for them there wouldn't be a problem.
As you well know I'm no supporter of religion at all but it galls me that these people, 'the velvet mafia' are demanding that the rights of those selling religion be subjugated to accommodate their own.
I don't care if a priest/shaman/whatever is a believer or a snake oil salesman he has a brand to protect and the right to adhere to whatever principles form the basis of whatever religion he's selling. His flock/customers have the right to expect that what they buy/believe in is a pure product, neither contaminated, nor altered, at the whim of current whim/fashion/or politics.
If it's supposed to be divinely written then unless homosexuals can perform miracles and exude haloes then they're not quite yet gods enough to alter that. They can either believe their religion is founded on 'God's' rules and accept that, or they can admit that it's just a power play to validate their own deviation from those rules. If homosexuals think that God's rules should be altered to accommodate them then they aren't really 100% believers and have no right to demand that those who are change a damned thing for them.
Homosexuals demand that we accept and tolerate their lifestyle without question, yet have no compunction in denigrating and doing their damnedest to dismantle the lifestyle of others.
It's purely their egocentric hypocrisy that puts me offside with them, nothing to do with religious beliefs, I don't have any.
But I do have a genetic tendency to combat bullsh*t when I see it, and too much of this gay marriage, new agey, emotional blackmail rhetoric just stinks of it.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Wandering down a side track for a moment, in Christian terms the minister or priest does not actually marry the couple. They marry each other by their commitment and their vows. The religious celebrant is acting as a witness to these vows on behalf of all the members of the church and blesses the union.
I used to teach a short course on marriage to the Year 9 students at the catholic schools. We taught that marriage could be considered from three angles - a contract recognised by the state (de jure marriage), a sacrament of the catholic church like baptism, reconciliation, eucharist and holy orders and it can also be a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman with or without the blessing of state or church (de facto marriage). Same sex couples can avail themselves of the last form and with a very simple amendment to the law, could have the first form as well. I think hell will freeze over (metaphor) before they will be able to receive the blessing of the catholic church but for some years now some Uniting Church ministers have conducted ceremonies acknowledging and blessing their unions. These ceremonies have no legal status whatsoever.
I used to teach a short course on marriage to the Year 9 students at the catholic schools. We taught that marriage could be considered from three angles - a contract recognised by the state (de jure marriage), a sacrament of the catholic church like baptism, reconciliation, eucharist and holy orders and it can also be a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman with or without the blessing of state or church (de facto marriage). Same sex couples can avail themselves of the last form and with a very simple amendment to the law, could have the first form as well. I think hell will freeze over (metaphor) before they will be able to receive the blessing of the catholic church but for some years now some Uniting Church ministers have conducted ceremonies acknowledging and blessing their unions. These ceremonies have no legal status whatsoever.
That Guy
Homegrown Unknown
- Location
- Monterey Bay
basefare
New Member
This has been a topic of discussion in the news for many years. I am of two minds on the subject. Most in my circle of friends are okay with same sex marriage. It has been a crime in many states for two centuries. I find it hard to readily sign on to this arrangement. I suppose like many other changes in the way things are done, acceptance will come in bits and pieces. Still...
Fern
Member
- Location
- New Zealand
There's an age old saying "trust your instincts, your inner voice", something that I've adhered to all my adult years & I have to say not once have my instincts let me down. When I see 2 men kissing in a manner that leaves nothing to your imagination (that's the simplest way of putting it) my instincts react ,& not in a positive way, the same goes if it is 2 women in the same scenario. There's nothing wrong with a friendly gesture, but not with sexual connotations.
According to some medical science, some people are 'born that way' for one reason or another. That I can handle albeit with reservation, but those who choose homosexuality as a lifestyle, it's an absolute no no.
According to some medical science, some people are 'born that way' for one reason or another. That I can handle albeit with reservation, but those who choose homosexuality as a lifestyle, it's an absolute no no.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
I have a bigger problem with prostitution because it involves exploitation of one person by another.
Fern
Member
- Location
- New Zealand
Not always. Now that prostitution has become legal there are many women/girls on the streets or have set up their 'business' in their own home, they certainly are not being exploited and you can bet their 'customers' certainly wouldn't say they are being exploited.
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
Nup. I don't see it that way Warri, unless you mean that pros exploit men. 
As usual we seem to have different views of 'morality'.
Totally aside from 'sex slavery' which is not prostitution as such, and the disease aspect of the trade, I have no problem with prostitution at all.
Any woman who chooses that path to make money is in a service industry and doing society a favour. I don't see her as lesser being for her choice of occupation, just a braver one than me.
On thinking about it, all PCness, and eggshell tippytoeing aside, I guess my reactions are more like Fern's, it's the way we're wired I guess.
Seeing a prostitute at work doesn't elicit the same instinctive and uncontrollable reaction of distaste that seeing two blokes, or women, pashing in public does. Guess it's my 'problem' eh??
Logic tells me that homosexuality exists, always has, and what they do is their business but I don't want to see it, or hear about it. It's private.
The flaunting of it is what burrs me up. I've never reacted by wanting to launch a crusade against it, I simply find it a distasteful human trait that we don't need to have constantly shoved into every damned aspect of our daily lives. It's just not that important.
We especially don't need to be including it in an election campaign as though a candidate's tolerance level to them is a priority to be considered in choosing who should be entrusted to run the Country! We shouldn't for a second consider that we should vote for those with their brains between their legs over those with brains between their ears! A Nation needs more than sexual orientation to base it's constitution and economic future on.
The subject of same sex marriage has no place whatever in an election campaign! aaaaagh!
A question for you Warri, how come normal male behaviour, is seen as patronising misogyny and triggers cries of outrage and gibber about glass ceilings and exclusion by the 'old boy network' from feminists, while homosexual behaviour, elicits their supportive tolerance??
The velvet mafia look after their own in society, politics, and in the workplace too, they don't cut 'normal' women any slack either when it comes to the choice of promotion. The 'old boys' aren't the only ones who network. I've seen the 'velvets' networking, but am yet to see a cabal of prostitutes keeping women from furthering their careers. Pick your poison.
Heterosexual male behaviour is perceived by 'feminists' as an aberration which needs to be changed, yet homosexual behaviour is 'normal' and acceptable??
It's okay that homosexuals are 'born that way' but not okay that heterosexuals are??
I don't get that thinking process at all, sorry. Logic doesn't live there.
So, what is it? Double standards on principles and morality or have they been hoodwinked by the emotional hype ??
As usual we seem to have different views of 'morality'.
Totally aside from 'sex slavery' which is not prostitution as such, and the disease aspect of the trade, I have no problem with prostitution at all.
Any woman who chooses that path to make money is in a service industry and doing society a favour. I don't see her as lesser being for her choice of occupation, just a braver one than me.
On thinking about it, all PCness, and eggshell tippytoeing aside, I guess my reactions are more like Fern's, it's the way we're wired I guess.
Seeing a prostitute at work doesn't elicit the same instinctive and uncontrollable reaction of distaste that seeing two blokes, or women, pashing in public does. Guess it's my 'problem' eh??
Logic tells me that homosexuality exists, always has, and what they do is their business but I don't want to see it, or hear about it. It's private.
The flaunting of it is what burrs me up. I've never reacted by wanting to launch a crusade against it, I simply find it a distasteful human trait that we don't need to have constantly shoved into every damned aspect of our daily lives. It's just not that important.
We especially don't need to be including it in an election campaign as though a candidate's tolerance level to them is a priority to be considered in choosing who should be entrusted to run the Country! We shouldn't for a second consider that we should vote for those with their brains between their legs over those with brains between their ears! A Nation needs more than sexual orientation to base it's constitution and economic future on.
The subject of same sex marriage has no place whatever in an election campaign! aaaaagh!
A question for you Warri, how come normal male behaviour, is seen as patronising misogyny and triggers cries of outrage and gibber about glass ceilings and exclusion by the 'old boy network' from feminists, while homosexual behaviour, elicits their supportive tolerance??
The velvet mafia look after their own in society, politics, and in the workplace too, they don't cut 'normal' women any slack either when it comes to the choice of promotion. The 'old boys' aren't the only ones who network. I've seen the 'velvets' networking, but am yet to see a cabal of prostitutes keeping women from furthering their careers. Pick your poison.
Heterosexual male behaviour is perceived by 'feminists' as an aberration which needs to be changed, yet homosexual behaviour is 'normal' and acceptable??
It's okay that homosexuals are 'born that way' but not okay that heterosexuals are??
I don't get that thinking process at all, sorry. Logic doesn't live there.
So, what is it? Double standards on principles and morality or have they been hoodwinked by the emotional hype ??
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
By prostitution I did not mean prostitutes. I mean the whole industry. Girls and boys too are often exploited, trafficked, abused and have their health destroyed. I am naïve about a lot of things but I don't buy the idea that this is an industry like any other. I place it on a par with child workers in mines.
Any way, we were talking about same sex marriage, and if prostitution is acceptable and legal, why are we objecting to same sex monogamous relationships being legally recognised? Aren't all 'abominations' equal or is there a hierarchy?
Any way, we were talking about same sex marriage, and if prostitution is acceptable and legal, why are we objecting to same sex monogamous relationships being legally recognised? Aren't all 'abominations' equal or is there a hierarchy?
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
[Joust alert. ]
(Note: The arguments stated are for the purpose of debate and while in the main honestly held at present, don't preclude the possibility of them being changed in future to either make a point, or being stretched to breaking point.)
Yes there is a heirarchy Warri. Paeodophiles claim to be 'born that way' would it be discriminatory to deny them equal right under the law to 'marry' a 10 year old??
Of course not, and of course I'm stretching the point, (as usual), but where is the legal line to be drawn?
Who's gross out factor is to be held as the 'abomination' benchmark??
When does Democracy become Anarchy?
How many minority cause driven amendments need to be applied before a law stops being relevant to the majority any more?
You see the subject on an emotional and ethical level, I see it on a political and agenda driven level. While you see it as an enlightened acceptance and tolerance of a very small minority I see it as the latest assault on breaking down the rules that have held our particular brand of society together for millenia by a very focused and egocentric group. I don't include all homosexuals in that group, just the 'crusaders'.
I don't see why society should change, and upset many, to accommodate the need of some small minority to boost their own self esteem by forcing society to validate their difference.
I'm not against changing the rules as circumstances, technology, even majority attitudes change. But only logically beneficial changes. Not changes to cater to the whims of minority cult beliefs, twitter fads, sexual orientations, or despot's visions.
How will this emotionally enlightened negation of the basic foundation of the marriage laws benefit society as a whole exactly? Other than to shut the velvet mafia while they plan their next move towards superiority?
Marriage as an institution is about knackered anyway so why bother at all??
Let's get the emotion out of it. Allow all that romantic tosh be 'solemnised' by spiritual ritual by all means, but that shouldn't be the legal version.
My druthers are that they scrap it entirely as it stands and make the legal version a straight out business contract signed and sealed for a set number of years to protect accrued joint assets and 'legitimize' progeny. When the time's up the contract is void unless renewed. No lawyers necessary, other than for the inevitable dust ups over who gets to control the children.
No alimony on bust ups, penalties for early termination of contract, no support from the 'losing' party in custody settlements, just 50/50 split of the assets.... yeah, dreamin'. Maybe then neither of them would want the kids.
btw: Contracted marriage wouldn't have to be gender exclusive, just a third box ticked 'other' would suffice under law.
](Note: The arguments stated are for the purpose of debate and while in the main honestly held at present, don't preclude the possibility of them being changed in future to either make a point, or being stretched to breaking point.
)Yes there is a heirarchy Warri. Paeodophiles claim to be 'born that way' would it be discriminatory to deny them equal right under the law to 'marry' a 10 year old??
Of course not, and of course I'm stretching the point, (as usual), but where is the legal line to be drawn?
Who's gross out factor is to be held as the 'abomination' benchmark??
When does Democracy become Anarchy?
How many minority cause driven amendments need to be applied before a law stops being relevant to the majority any more?
You see the subject on an emotional and ethical level, I see it on a political and agenda driven level. While you see it as an enlightened acceptance and tolerance of a very small minority I see it as the latest assault on breaking down the rules that have held our particular brand of society together for millenia by a very focused and egocentric group. I don't include all homosexuals in that group, just the 'crusaders'.
I don't see why society should change, and upset many, to accommodate the need of some small minority to boost their own self esteem by forcing society to validate their difference.
I'm not against changing the rules as circumstances, technology, even majority attitudes change. But only logically beneficial changes. Not changes to cater to the whims of minority cult beliefs, twitter fads, sexual orientations, or despot's visions.
How will this emotionally enlightened negation of the basic foundation of the marriage laws benefit society as a whole exactly? Other than to shut the velvet mafia while they plan their next move towards superiority?
Marriage as an institution is about knackered anyway so why bother at all??
Let's get the emotion out of it. Allow all that romantic tosh be 'solemnised' by spiritual ritual by all means, but that shouldn't be the legal version.
My druthers are that they scrap it entirely as it stands and make the legal version a straight out business contract signed and sealed for a set number of years to protect accrued joint assets and 'legitimize' progeny. When the time's up the contract is void unless renewed. No lawyers necessary, other than for the inevitable dust ups over who gets to control the children.
No alimony on bust ups, penalties for early termination of contract, no support from the 'losing' party in custody settlements, just 50/50 split of the assets.... yeah, dreamin'. Maybe then neither of them would want the kids.
btw: Contracted marriage wouldn't have to be gender exclusive, just a third box ticked 'other' would suffice under law.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
We have a meeting of the minds on that point, at least.
Now you're talking Sharia law. Limited term marriage contracts are a feature of Islam.
:lol:
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
Fair dinkum??? Didn't know that. Well well, proves even stopped clocks are right twice a day.
Happyflowerlady
Vagabond Flowerchild
- Location
- Northern Alabama
Having grown up as a church-going Christian, I have been taught all my life that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, as the Bible says it supposed to be . My mind is not apt to change in that thinking.
However, I also realize that a person who was not brought up believing the Bible was holy, and not taught Christian principles would not necessarily think the same way.
I do not believe that we are supposed to try and push our religious beliefs on anyone, so even if it is different than my belief, then they have the right to their own lifestyle, as long as they are not trying to force their lifestyle on me either.
I think there is a huge difference between something being religiously acceptable, and being legally acceptable, and I do not think that church and state belong together; therefore, if the law says that two men or two women can marry legally, I have no quarrel with that law, even if it is distasteful to me personally.
I agree that it should not be publicly flaunted, but neither do I think that anyone of ANY sexual persuasion should be involved in public display of what is meant to be private.
However, I also realize that a person who was not brought up believing the Bible was holy, and not taught Christian principles would not necessarily think the same way.
I do not believe that we are supposed to try and push our religious beliefs on anyone, so even if it is different than my belief, then they have the right to their own lifestyle, as long as they are not trying to force their lifestyle on me either.
I think there is a huge difference between something being religiously acceptable, and being legally acceptable, and I do not think that church and state belong together; therefore, if the law says that two men or two women can marry legally, I have no quarrel with that law, even if it is distasteful to me personally.
I agree that it should not be publicly flaunted, but neither do I think that anyone of ANY sexual persuasion should be involved in public display of what is meant to be private.
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
That sums it up nicely HFL, wish I could keep it short like that. .... bet others do too.
MercyL
Member
AS long as one's disapproval is guideance for their own lives, all is well. That disapproval should not extend beyond one's self.
People living peaceful lives and contributing to society in a positive manner, should be allowed to live, unmolested by bigotty.
MercyL
Member
There are prostitutes who have chosen sex work for many reasons, one of them being their need to make a living "wage" while having more control over their time and the sorts of customers they must deal with. Far from being forced, they cultivate their own clientele without being used by pimps or standing on street corners.
Exploitation exists everywhere. Employers, outside of sex work, exploit employees just as much as pimps exploit prostitutes.