Marriage equality debate - Part 2

[tesseract]

Split from part I - https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality-debate-part-1.1142116/page-109

Now continued in Part III:
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-debate-the-plebiscite-is-on-its-way.1091155/

=================

I'm implying nothing.

Oh but you are when you state "Social conditioning (be via religious beliefs or general culture) is what leads to homosexuals feeling disgusted by themselves". Such implies Christians are the bad guys for hurting the feelings of homosexuals, due to disagreeing with their lifestyle choice.

no one is asking religious folk to give up their beliefs - merely to not use those beliefs to interfere in the lives of others.

Do gays not interfere with the lives of the religious when they take it upon themselves to call for a change to the definition of marriage - which was instituted by God? How about the gays not use their beliefs to interfere in the lives of the religious.

But by interfering with things such as gay marriage (seeking to deny equality on this issue), Christians (and members of other religions who would argue against gay marriage) are not merely forewarning, but directly interfering in other people's lives, without invitation.

The religious don't need the permission of homosexuals to voice their say in political matters which involve them due to pertaining to the definition of marriage.

(seeking to deny equality on this issue)

Gays getting married isn't about "rights", for gays don't have a right to a label unfitting of them. Gays can have all the rights of heterosexual married couples without the label "married". Yet they still reject this because the issue isn't about rights.

Could you clarify your question here please?

You previously stated: "unfortunately a lot of anti-gay proponents wield religious arguments as reasons to interfere". Hence I ask: "Why are religious reasons given "unfortunate"?

To my knowledge, homosexuals have not been burning Christians alive, or imposing the death penalty upon them, or locking them away, whereas religion has certainly been used to justify such actions against homosexuals for centuries.

So it's a matter of degrees to you? Anti-religious and gays rationalize their persecution toward the religious on these grounds do they?

Do you think such an approach was justified?

Depends. Were gays breaking the law of the land and thus receive such punishment, or is it a matter of folks acting out their hatred of homosexuals and their lifestyle choice?

And why should religion influence political choices in a secular country?

To deny the voice of the religious is to discriminate against them. Gays want into an institution founded by God, yet secularists don't want the religious belief included in their institution. Anti-religionists/gays/secularists seem to want their cake and eat it, too.

It makes the point that the homosexual community might have every reason to not desire religious interference in their live, given the violent history of such interference.

Speaking of Christianity meting out the death penalty for homosexuals throughout the Middle Ages in Europe is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.
This rationalization of yours holds no relevance at all.

Would you consider such laws to be fair or justified?

Have I not said that this issue isn't about "feelings". Why do you attempt to make such so?

And religion has imposed its will upon homosexuals, often violently- for centuries, for no other reason than because people interpreted the Bible as wishing it so.

There's no ambiguity of what the bible says about homosexuality. So, no interpretation required. The bible is clear on the matter.

This is the problem here - you see the Bible's views as infallible, and this leads us to trouble.

What trouble? Gays want the right to be labeled as something they don't fit the criteria for? Such isn't a "right".

Every believer sees their holy texts as infallible. There is no room for compromise or negotiation.

Both religious and anti-religious reveal this trait in themselves.

In a secular society you are free to believe what you wish, and practice your beliefs as you see fit, as long as you do not interfere with other people's lives.

In a secular society, only the religious aren't to impose upon the anti-religious; but the anti-religious are free to impose upon the religious. Yet the anti-religious still speak with a straight face about issues pertaining to equality.

Using your beliefs to justify political interference in the lives of others (including those who do not share your beliefs) is the unwanted imposition of your values onto those who do not wish to live their lives by your standards.

I don't use or justify my supposed political views because I'm politically neutral. I'm neither for nor against gay marriage.

To put it another way, gay marriage does nothing to affect anyone else's marriage.

That's up to each individual to say, not you. Gay marriage changes what marriage is. Some may see that as a devaluing of marriage as an institution. So, how how can you rightfully say "no affect"?

When gay marriage was legalised here, it did not impact my marriage in any way shape or form. It hasn't created any problems for me.

When you speak for your own marriage, that's fair enough, but when you speak for how gay marriage impacts other peoples marriage, that's out of order.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines morality as the following:


: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

: the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something

Your answer thus does not address the question - but I'll answer it for you. Different people define morality differently. It will mean different things to atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and of course Christians. There is no one set definition.

Incorrect. There is a set definition of morality, but it's something you, and the gays, reject.

For you Tesseract, the Christian definition is the one you follow. That is fine. What is not fine is when the believers of one religion try to impose their standards of morality upon the believers of other religions or on non-believers.

Why is it fine for non-believers to impose their view on morality on society by means of pushing for gay marriage - and undermining a Godly institution - but the religious mustn't impose their views on the irreligious?

It might be because Christians are pushing (sometimes quite aggressively) Biblical standards heavily in the faces of those who do not share those values and have no interest in sharing them. It is almost inevitable that when you push something unwanted upon someone, they will not react kindly.

You're not saying anything here that the religious haven't confronted themselves from those that oppose their views.

The article also says "
For the study Sanders and his team collected blood and saliva from 409 pairs of gay brothers and analysed their genetic code for markers known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

Although Xq28 and 8q12 were the two regions that were most frequently identified as home to genetic markers common among the 818 gay men, three other SNPs were also highlighted.

Speaking to the New Scientist, neuroscientist Simon LeVay commented: “This study knocks another nail into the coffin of the 'chosen lifestyle' theory of homosexuality.”

"Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else's idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with,” said LeVay, who previously claimed to have found a region of the brain that was smaller in gay men."

None of the above from the article is evidence for gays being born gay.

The New Scientist article expands a bit more on the evidence, as does this article.

"No studies have found specific "gay genes" that reliably make someone gay." "Those studies also suggest...". "A 2012 study proposed that epigenetic changes, or alterations in marks on DNA that turn certain genes on and off, may play a role in homosexuality". It goes on. It's not evidence, it's theory.

To this I present to you this article, written by a Baptist Pastor in the US, who I feel has the right approach toward homosexuals.

You and I could both pick out many denominations of so-called Christianity not following the bible. That's not hard to do. That's why when God comes to judge the nations and the peoples, He's to start with religion and clean His own house first.

Do you think that is justification for what amounts to discrimination? 'Oh, it happens, so just get over it?'.

Are homosexuals to have special consideration and protections from such impositions, whilst everyone else simply has to deal with others imposing their beliefs on them? The gays don't happen to be welcomed with open arms by everyone. Boo hoo. Such can and usually does happen to everyone at some point in their lives over various issues. They should deal with it, just like everyone else has to.

 

[cartwright]

Again, for the peanuts.

Secular country.
Separation of church (cult) and state.

Don't like it? Vatican City is waiting for you. Buh-bye.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

What goat rights are being taken away by allowing me to marry him?

the right not to be married to an a grade campaigner like you?

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

It's not even a full moon...

 

[Gough]

We will legalise weed in this country with less torturous debate than this. This thread is embarrassing, and a little offensive to be honest. There's still a lotta homophobia out there still, and there's plenty in here too.

 

[Gough]

Let's equate a person's right to marry the person the love. With marrying a goat. All in the name of the "equality" you understand, this' the twenty first century, nobody is so gauche as to be
anti gay marriage in this day, and age.

 

[cartwright]

They're the minority.

A disgusting minority.

 

[Lebbo73]

I find it offensive that people want to destroy one of God's institutions.

 

[Gough]

Marriage is a legal, not religious entity.

 

[Roylion]

I find it offensive that people want to destroy one of God's institutions.

That marriage is one of "God's" institutions is extremely debatable.

 

[Maggie5]

They're the minority.

A disgusting minority.

I was having great difficulty in working out what wedding present to buy for a wedding that involves kfc1 and a goat. Finally found a pair of matching bells to hang around their necks.

 

[Roylion]

Oh but you are when you state "Social conditioning (be via religious beliefs or general culture) is what leads to homosexuals feeling disgusted by themselves". Such implies Christians are the bad guys for hurting the feelings of homosexuals, due to disagreeing with their lifestyle choice.

What gives you the right to condemn other people's lifestyle choices, especially when those choices are legal under the law of the land?

Belief in Yahweh and adherence to the laws of 6th century BC Israel seems to be your only reason.

Do gays not interfere with the lives of the religious when they take it upon themselves to call for a change to the definition of marriage - which was instituted by God? How about the gays not use their beliefs to interfere in the lives of the religious.

How do same sex couples wishing to avail themselves of the institution of marriage under Australian law interfere with your life as a worshiper of Yahweh? Does the fact that same sex couples can marry, stop you or your friends and family from entering into the institution of marriage?

Gays getting married isn't about "rights", for gays don't have a right to a label unfitting of them. Gays can have all the rights of heterosexual married couples without the label "married". Yet they still reject this because the issue isn't about rights.

It's about equality for all consenting adults under the law. A fact which you repeatedly ignore.

To deny the voice of the religious is to discriminate against them. Gays want into an institution founded by God, yet secularists don't want the religious belief included in their institution. Anti-religionists/gays/secularists seem to want their cake and eat it, too.

Religious people can still be married with the blessing of their religious denomination, even if the right to marry is extended to same sex couples. That right will not be denied to them.

That marriage was founded by Yahweh, (whom you call 'God') is very debatable.

There's no ambiguity of what the bible says about homosexuality. So, no interpretation required. The bible is clear on the matter.

6th century Hebrew / Israelite law. Why should 21st century Australia necessarily follow 6th century Hebrew / Israelite law?

In a secular society, only the religious aren't to impose upon the anti-religious; but the anti-religious are free to impose upon the religious. Yet the anti-religious still speak with a straight face about issues pertaining to equality.

Any introduction of same sex marriage in Australian law does not impinge on the right of religious people to be married by whatever religious rite they see fit to engage in.

There is a set definition of morality, but it's something you, and the gays, reject.

That is one version of morality. One version amongst many. Why is the morality of the worshippers of Yahweh superior to other moralities?

Why is it fine for non-believers to impose their view on morality on society by means of pushing for gay marriage - and undermining a Godly institution - but the religious mustn't impose their views on the irreligious?

Same sex marriage does not stop religious people continuing to be married by whatever religious rite they see fit to engage in.

 

[kfc1]

So you want to introduce forced marriages into Australia?

Only by a technicality and only for human + animal. I dont see any reason not to

 

[kfc1]

the right not to be married to an a grade campaigner like you?

The goat has a choice, and he has chosen yes. More importantly tho, what actually changes for the goat once we are married? Nothing. I mean, i will probably let myself go a little bit as im no longer in the shop window but we will continue our special bond til death do us part.

 

[Crow54]

I don't think any of the religious people here ever responded to this ...

 

[kfc1]

I don't think any of the religious people here ever responded to this ...

They did actually. Old Testament was the laws for the time and is no longer relevant.

 

[cartwright]

The goat has a choice, and he has chosen yes. More importantly tho, what actually changes for the goat once we are married? Nothing. I mean, i will probably let myself go a little bit as im no longer in the shop window but we will continue our special bond til death do us part.

The goat signed a piece of paper did it?

Do you realise how offensive you are being?

 

[kfc1]

The goat signed a piece of paper did it?

Do you realise how offensive you are being?

Well it hasnt yet as we cant get married. It said 'I do' in goat speak when i asked it to marry me.
No. How offensive am i being?

 

[Slax]

There's no ambiguity of what the bible says about homosexuality. So, no interpretation required. The bible is clear on the matter.

The question is are we a secular state or are we a religious state?

Obviously then you believe that we should be living in a religious state, given that then abortion should be banned along with lots of other things banned in the bible, yet you are highly selective in the passages that you quote from it, which shows you aren't actually following the word of god, but instead being prejudiced to suit your own personal circumstances and choices out of fear of those different to you.

The Greeks and Romans had absolutely no problem with homosexuality, so given it is fair to say that the Greeks and Romans had more influence over the way modern culture actually operates then why do we have this problem.

 

[cartwright]

Well it hasnt yet as we cant get married. It said 'I do' in goat speak when i asked it to marry me.
No. How offensive am i being?

Not just offensive, but incredibly stupid. Carry on making a fool of yourself.

 

[kfc1]

Not just offensive, but incredibly stupid. Carry on making a fool of yourself.

Not surprised that youre unable to confront your own prejudices. Stick to your Disney-brainwashed gender roles

 

[Gough]

You are making damned fool of yourself though, unless you're trying out satire. People are rightly mocked for comparing a human marrying another human, to a human marrying a goat, it's an incredibly stupid argument, and has nothing to do with equality.

 

[cartwright]

Not surprised that youre unable to confront your own prejudices. Stick to your Disney-brainwashed gender roles

I'm sorry kfc, you are. Its a stupid and offensive argument.

There is no prejudice. A marriage contract needs to be signed, by individuals who understand what they are entering into. come back to me when you can get a goat to pick up a pen.

oh, and further proof you are unable to comprehend very much at all. I thought I was very clear in stating that I paid no attention to Disney.

 

[kfc1]

You are making damned fool of yourself though, unless you're trying out satire. People are rightly mocked for comparing a human marrying another human, to a human marrying a goat, it's an incredibly stupid argument, and has nothing to do with equality.

Not really worried what others think of me.
How many times do I have to say I am not comparing goat marriage with anything? It's you guys doing all the comparing. I'm addressing the issue independently.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Could you provide some quotes to show who has made that argument?
Do you understand that marrying a goat is not bestiality?
Not surprised you of all posters fail to grasp the nuances of polite conversation. You have lots of bluster but little substance in your posts.

Under current laws, you can't have sex with your goat, that would be bestiality. You can however kill it then have sex with the corpse. Then eat it.

Many goat marriage advocates would say that at that stage the marriage was over. But this is about equality, right? You still love it and there's no harm to anyone else's marriage or society.