Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[DemonTim]

Truth is you can call it a marriage
You can invest it with whatever legal terminology you like.

Fact is we will all ineffect be indulging in a pantomime.

That 1% or 2% of the population who are in a gay relationship and need to mimic being a heterosexual family.

You can change the map all you like
But if the terrain stays the same - you've just traded for a bad map.

Fact is, you can call it a marriage. You posting on a football forum that you can't actually proves nothing.

 

[mxett]

The truth is the bible neither condemns nor condones same-sex relationships. You'll probably want to quote Leviticus, Corinthians or similar, but you should be aware, these don't really say what many think because context is conveniently ignored. The bible does, of course in the same way, condone slavery. Are you advocating for slavery in modern-day Australia? I assume you are given your very strong moral stance on biblical ideas.

Those two examples you use are fallacious. No-one can be polygamous or marry outside the age-limits. So they're a) not discriminatory and b) terrible examples.

why are they terrible examples? They are laws based on beliefs or morals which restrict the freedom of some people. Abortion laws, prostitution, adoption etc etc. They could all be seen as discrimination based on moral believes could they not?

Also, the bible never refers to the union of same sex couples, only man and woman. The very creation of humanity, and the growth of civilisation is based on it, as is the example of Christ and the church. I could quote them all but I suspect you know them. However, as with your example of slavery, some religious people believe the bible should be interpreted in context of the beliefs of the time. I can understand that view but dont agree in the context of marriage given slavery was 'era' based in the bible, but male/female union was not

 

[Frank Bunn]

I can tell you that some psychological illness is most definitely subject to thresholds. Are you familiar with panic disorder?

I can certainly entertain the idea that rates of mental illness are subject to many complex factors, but in my opinion it's not necessarily very helpful to rule one out on the basis of a lack of linear correlation.

I'm not ruling anything out. I'm saying the accepted wisdom that the increased rates of mental illness, suicide and domestic violence in same sex couples is caused by societal pressure is not supported by the evidence.

 

[The_Ru]

Truth is you can call it a marriage
You can invest it with whatever legal terminology you like.

Fact is we will all ineffect be indulging in a pantomime.

That 1% or 2% of the population who are in a gay relationship and need to mimic being a heterosexual family.

You can change the map all you like
But if the terrain stays the same - you've just traded for a bad map.

So what constitutes "marriage" for you?

 

[sherb]

It is just about impossible to live life strictly according to the Bible. One inevitably has to pick and choose which bits to observe and which to ignore. It really is not a very useful guidebook on how to live your life in a modern world.

disclaimer - I have already voted.

And therein lies the problem with most "Christians".

 

[yebiga]

So what constitutes "marriage" for you?

The same as it does for everyone
even the SS couple who intend to mimic it.

 

[Procrastinator35]

So what constitutes "marriage" for you?

Any relationship that lasts longer than a weekend jaunt.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had seen that you apparently just rely on data that you accuse of being bias because you leave out data about the research

I'll continue waiting for you to provide the data I (and the secondary user) asked for

Although it won't happen, since you're notorious for disappearing when your view is questioned

Might be time for a new profile.

And you are notorious for trashing threads by making them personal. And you've done it again.

I asked for the link for the 2000 data you referred to. I'll have a look if you like with no promised timeframe. I don't apologise for having a life outside this website.

 

[mxett]

And therein lies the problem with most "Christians".

it's human nature to align with aspects that resonate with you. As long as they dont contradict the key aspects there's no real issue IMO

 

[Admiral Byng]

And therein lies the problem with most "Christians".

I know, I was raised in such a family. Seen it, lived it.. etc

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

why are they terrible examples? They are laws based on beliefs or morals which restrict the freedom of some people. Abortion laws, prostitution, adoption etc etc. They could all be seen as discrimination based on moral believes could they not?

Also, the bible never refers to the union of same sex couples, only man and woman. The very creation of humanity, and the growth of civilisation is based on it, as is the example of Christ and the church. I could quote them all but I suspect you know them. However, as with your example of slavery, some religious people believe the bible should be interpreted in context of the beliefs of the time. I can understand that view but dont agree in the context of marriage given slavery was 'era' based in the bible, but male/female union was not

Do you actually know the story of Adam and Eve?

It sounds like you've heard the "Adam and Steve" jokey line and have imagined the rest??

 

[mxett]

Do you actually know the story of Adam and Eve?

It sounds like you've heard the "Adam and Steve" jokey line and have imagined the rest??

Yes. Point?

 

[sherb]

it's human nature to align with aspects that resonate with you. As long as they dont contradict the key aspects there's no real issue IMO

I love people like you.

You follow the word of God. Unless you disagree with it.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Yes. Point?

As with your comments last page, you don't sound like you know the Bible much at all. I don't think you are being genuine.

You have repeatedly ducked questions about what in the Bible you were referring to. You still haven't graduated past what was said in The Simpsons.

 

[The_Ru]

why are they terrible examples? They are laws based on beliefs or morals which restrict the freedom of some people. Abortion laws, prostitution, adoption etc etc. They could all be seen as discrimination based on moral believes could they not?

Also, the bible never refers to the union of same sex couples, only man and woman. The very creation of humanity, and the growth of civilisation is based on it, as is the example of Christ and the church. I could quote them all but I suspect you know them. However, as with your example of slavery, some religious people believe the bible should be interpreted in context of the beliefs of the time. I can understand that view but dont agree in the context of marriage given slavery was 'era' based in the bible, but male/female union was not

They restrict the freedom of all people. Equally. That's the point. I can't marry more than one person, you can't, nobody can. Not discriminatory.

You admit you choose to take some of the bible contextually, and some without historical context. Ask yourself whether this is a reasonable stance. Particularly given that same-sex union is AT LEAST as historically contextualized in the bible as slavery. You might be interested to read some Graeco-Roman history to see just how accepted same-sex relationships were at the time the new testament was written.

 

[The_Ru]

The same as it does for everyone
even the SS couple who intend to mimic it.

You miss my point. Why are SS couples mimicking it? What is it about Heterosexual marriage that can't be attained by a SS couple?

 

[mxett]

I love people like you.

You follow the word of God. Unless you disagree with it.

the bible allows for a level of interpretation, of course. But the primary message is the same irrespective of which parts resonate

 

[mxett]

As with your comments last page, you don't sound like you know the Bible much at all. I don't think you are being genuine.

You have repeatedly ducked questions about what in the Bible you were referring to. You still haven't graduated past what was said in The Simpsons.

again, there is only references to heterosexual union, not homosexual. This is central to both the old and new testament. Maybe you interpret these aspect differently to me but spare me the "you know nothing" comments please

 

[sherb]

the bible allows for a level of interpretation, of course. But the primary message is the same irrespective of which parts resonate

Lol.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

again, there is only references to heterosexual union, not homosexual. This is central to both the old and new testament. Maybe you interpret these aspect differently to me but spare me the "you know nothing" comments please

Hahaha. You yet again duck a question on your knowledge of the bible. Responding to a question about what you actually know about the story of Adam and Eve with a guess that there are only references to "heterosexual union". You are deliberately vague, most likely to cover your lack of knowledge. Or you aren't genuinely religious. Maybe you're culturally "religious". Maybe you're just trolling.

But all signs suggest you don't know your Bible.

 

[skilts]

sorry

I'm almost on the verge of forgiving you.

 

[Procrastinator35]

What is it about Heterosexual marriage that can't be attained by a SS couple?

John Howard's blessing.

 

[mxett]

They restrict the freedom of all people. Equally. That's the point. I can't marry more than one person, you can't, nobody can. Not discriminatory.

you think divorce laws restrict everyone equally? Polygomy laws discriminate against those whose religions permit polygomy.

Particularly given that same-sex union is AT LEAST as historically contextualized in the bible as slavery

I disagree. Where was slavery in the garden of eden?

 

[The_Ru]

you think divorce laws restrict everyone equally? Polygomy laws discriminate against those whose religions permit polygomy.

I disagree. Where was slavery in the garden of eden?

You are seriously struggling with logic tonight. If a law applies to everyone, regardless of gender, religious belief, race or other attribute then it is, by definition, non-discriminatory. If my religion suggests murder is ok, but the law doesn't allow it, I'm not being discriminated against.

Do you think the bible was written in the Garden of Eden? Is that what you're saying?

I feel like this really isn't going well for you mate.

 

[Goldenblue]

I also respect your view on religion. I cannot expect someone to believe what I believe simply because I say so.

I respect your view on religion. Don't get me wrong here, I am not against religion, I am against bigotry and hypocrisy. If someone does believe in God, or any other deity, I am not against it at all, each to their own.

I just don't tolerate religion being pushed into the private lives of people.