Amazing that we've become less progressive than the UK, America, Canada, Mexico and even South Africa in recent years. Who'd have thought that we would be the stuffy conservatives lagging behind the world on social issues?
Even the bloody Kiwis will be ahead of us on this one, and with an all-but incumbent Coalition Government we can expect not a lot of shift on this until near-2020. GG Straya.
Do we have any wackjobs like this nutter on our forum?
This ruling helps erode the natural sanctity of a union between men and women. It is the this union which gives life to us all. It is a truly beautiful thing. The "equality" of gay marriage is a false, superficial definition. Nature has given the "right to give life " exlusively to the union between men and women, to attempt to deny this reality is superficial claptrap. I believe it very important that male female unions be held in higher regard than homosexual ones, if they are not, there truly will be a large price to pay in the future.
Not trying to derail but i saw this vid clip on rage a few nights ago:
Tried to find it online and read how the vid clip was having a crack at saudi women not being able to drive. They went on to talk about the nuts trying to prevent the rule from being changed:
Academics at the Majlis al-Ifta' al-A'ala, which is Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, said the relaxation of the rules would inevitably lead to “no more virgins”. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where women are banned from driving. The academics, working in conjunction with Kamal Subhi, a former professor at the conservative King Fahd University, produced the conclusions in a report for the country's legislative assembly, the Shura Council. It warned that allowing women to drive would "provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce". Within 10 years of the ban being lifted, it claimed, there would be "no more virgins" in the Islamic kingdom.
If I remember most of the times when we've talked about gay marriage on QGL the responses have been overwhelmingly in support of it (yay).
While I'm pleased that the Poms have got their shit together, it's a little depressing that we haven't yet. Given LNP is likely to get voted in with Tony Abbott in charge, I can't imagine that we'll be changing anything for at least another 4 years :(
I've been with my partner for over 5 years, it's really frustrating to think that we won't be able to take that next step and get legally married for AT LEAST another 4!!!
Even the bloody Kiwis will be ahead of us on this one, and with an all-but incumbent Coalition Government we can expect not a lot of shift on this until near-2020. GG Straya.
turnbull supports it, current govt could have done it this term if they wanted to. greens would have given them the numbers if they had the gravitis but they wimped out and let their members vote against the party line.
turnbull supports it, current govt could have done it this term if they wanted to. greens would have given them the numbers if they had the gravitis but they wimped out and let their members vote against the party line.
Yeh but its not looking like Turnbull will be PM anytime soon, they don't need him to defeat an unraveling federal ALP.
Crazy that in the UK the Tories offer a conscience vote and it gets up, meanwhile in Australia the ALP provides a conscience vote and it does not...
I think a lot of ALP members voted 'no' becuase they knew it was going to be defeated and didn't want to show their hand. But yeah, how fucking dysfunctional are we if the Tories can get their shit together!
Heh, I like how MP Tony Baldry said the bill would end marriage as it had been understood “for all recorded time”. Because marriage hasn't changed at all from times gone, take for example the customary medieval times of taking any woman as your bride, be they up for it or not.
It is a shame that Australia has yet to allow same-sex marriage, especially when we are now in the year 2013 with already so much advancements on so many platforms. Guess that is politics for you, they more so care about their face then the countries.
It's a play which is to re-enact (in an entertaining way) key portions of a case which was put forward to overturn proposition 8. It's refreshing to see some of the wild claims usually used by people who feel that gay marriage is going to destroy marriage and family - because you need EVIDENCE in a court room.
It's made more entertaining because it stars people like Martin Sheen, George Clooney, Brad Pitt , Kevin Bacon etc etc.
EDIT - Sorry, Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
I'm against gay marriage in Australia.If it is introduced, the Greens will have nothing to rant on about and they would be forced to focus on real issues such as jobs and poverty.This could be disastrous.
It's not legal yet. It still has to pass through a commitee and then the House of Lords. The House of Lords can say no if they wish. But only up to three times then it can pass through the House of Commons under the House of Parliament act of 1911.
Still time for this to get denied before it gets in to law. I doubt it will but saying it is legal now is a mistake.
This is probably one of the topics that pisses me off the most. Nobody has the right to tell other people how to live, behave and act when it comes to relationships and love.
There is absolutely *nothing* that would affect me, some priest, Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott if same-sex marriage was legal and was taking place every minute of every hour of every day.
This is probably one of the topics that pisses me off the most. Nobody has the right to tell other people how to live, behave and act when it comes to relationships and love. There is absolutely *nothing* that would affect me, some priest, Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott if same-sex marriage was legal and was taking place every minute of every hour of every day.
If we take this point to the extreme, does this mean I can have sex with a (willing) goat?
If we take this point to the extreme, does this mean I can have sex with a (willing) goat?
Two gay adults are already eligible to be married, but are told that they can only marry adults of the other gender by the religious. A goat was never eligible to be married.
It's the same as how letting "blacks" and "whites" get married didn't have anything to do with goats, it was just removing combination discrimination between people who were already eligible.
I'm up there on the flip side, I don't see why the hell you'd want to get married anyway? It doesn't take some weird and expensive ceremony for two people to show each other they care enough about each other to want to spend the rest of their lives together. Just put a ring on each others fingers in your back yard by the moonlight already.
Only thing I can think of would be certain financial benefits of living as a married couple but lol @ that because getting married for financial benefits != love anyway.
It's all just one big attempt at mind control, jesus style. Don't worry about the government trying to control your minds, the bible is doing a fine enough job of that already and no one even sees it.
I don't want to get married, but that these people can't because of their sexuality is a direct degradation of them for superstitious reasons, and so I want to see it fixed.
This is not a valid reason to exclude homosexuals from marriage.
Yes it is. It is a quasi religious arrangement that has no place in a properly secular society. Less people should be able to get married not more. Broadening the net is the opposite of what needs to get done.
Yes it is. It is a quasi religious arrangement that has no place in a properly secular society. Less people should be able to get married not more. Broadening the net is the opposite of what needs to get done.
No, it is really not.
Secular marriages happen (I wasn't married by anyone who believes in a sky magician) and your outrage about religion is not a reason to deny gay people marriage. If anything, homosexual marriage should be allowed because it is inherently secular.
No what you're talking about is a formalised government recognised relationship. Doesn't need to be and shouldn't be a marriage.
So yes the fact that marriage is frequently farcical between non-gay couples is evidence that the whole institution should be done away with. Giving it to more people is only going to make it harder to fuck it off.
Does Marriage actually confer any benefits that a 'civil union' doesn't anymore?
Er civil unions are totally permitted, depending what state you live in, and can be used to prove your defacto status which confers, as far as I am aware, nearly all the rights of a regular marriage.
And yes Hogfather that is exactly what I'm saying, or status quo working towards removal. You can't be against Marriage and advocate its expansion.
@Zapo, that is exactly the problem, marriage shouldn't be a formal government arrangement. The religious significance is not slapped on top, it is en-grained in the fabric of the institution hence you have retarded restrictions on who can do it.
Getting rid of Marriage and having only civil unions would dissolve the problem.
It is a quasi religious arrangement that has no place in a properly secular society
Marriage pre-dates the Christian religion. Zeus had a wife. Julius Caesar had a wife. Leonidas had a wife. The christian church only took over the marriage ceremony more recently during the Catholic reign in Europe, and there are recordings of same sex marriages being church-blessed until the bible thumpers redefined marriage as an exclusionary practice.
If that's the case then the government should legalise polygamous marriages too and you'd be all ok with that right?
There are difficulties which come with this, but I suspect that one day we will be ok with it. The issue of homosexual marriage is however one of exclusion for those who are already able to marry, but just not each other. It seems ironic that you would object, given that not long ago inter-faith and inter-ethnic marriage was an issue which had to be fought for while arguing against the exact same logic.
I really dont get it. you would think a life of getting pounded in the ass would be punishment enough? why the fuck would you wanna get married aswell?
no, gay marriage causes earthquakes according to some wackjob.
Gay marriage passes in the UK and on the same day people in the Soloman Islands, still a part of the Commonwealth Realm are killed by an 8.0 earthquake. Coincidence? I think not!
If that's the case then the government should legalise polygamous marriages too and you'd be all ok with that right?
Yes. On the condition that both genders can have multiple husbands/wives whether gay or straight.
Currently gay couples relationships are in the correct basket. The problem is getting everyone else's there.
I'm gonna come out now and declare this a weasel, bigoted position. Its a made up argument because marriage isn't going away and you're using it to advance a situation of discrimination.
Do you support making marriage white-only, or religious-only as well? That would cut back on the number of marriages.
I still don't get why this is even an issue. Hopefully we'll get it right soon enough.
No because there are too many people hiding their prejudices behind religion or other equally dopey ideas (like the one I just quoted).
If that's the case then the government should legalise polygamous marriages too and you'd be all ok with that right?
Why would I *not* be OK with this? If other people want 10 wives then by all means go for it - it has 0 impact on my life and if that's how the consenting parties want to live then I only ask to be invited to the wedding.. will have some cracker stories coming from the best man and MC.
I like this PornoPete's ideas, down with marriage!
And...
This is probably one of the topics that pisses me off the most. Nobody has the right to tell other people how to live, behave and act when it comes to relationships and love.
This was the statement made and the goat response is correct in this instance; bringing up who is currently eligible is irrelevant to the point and counter point.
But if we play along with Nerf, a counter point to the irrelevant counter point is: Should we be ok with family members marrying each other too then? They were both eligible by that logic.
I'm gonna come out and say that your sexual relationship should have no bearing on any legal rights. It's not a bigoted position. I don't see why if you tell the government you're fucking someone you should get better super or tax breaks.
Less marriage not more it's really that simple.
If your going to shit the bed and make moronic conflations to race, why didn't extend slavery to all races. Less of a dumb or bad thing is better than more of it.
Whether or not marriage is religious or no is very much up to the individual. Marriage can be a religious term if you are religious, if you're not - then it's not. What it is though is a universally recognised union between 2 consenting adults. People understand what marriage is, and while homosexual marriage being legalised in Australia doesn't mean it will be recognised elsewhere - it does mean it is recognised here. There is no ambiguity here.
Show me how the general heterosexual population will be adversely affected by this change and I will be interested.
Pete you are talking about something totally different, and it just distracts from the importance of this conversation.
Because expanding the status quo, makes it that much harder to get rid of, and moreover the level of recognition that homosexuals get now is probably about the correct level of recognition anyone should get. People with 'rights' seldom like to give em up. Probably isn't too hard to guess at this stage that I'm single. The idea of government endorsed, particularly financial, reward for a particular kind of relationship I find discriminatory, and I might add much more broadly then just sexual orientation.
The validity of Marriage at large is inseparable from who gets to do it.
Zapo, I fail to see the how the actual institution can not be relevant. If you feel that discussing the overall validity of marriage takes away from the plight of these people, maybe it could be a reflection of the level of discrimination that is actually going on.
What you define as the "actual institution" of marriage, I'm assuming you mean the religious institution is already on 'optional' part of marriage because you can be married and not have a religious ceremony!
Did this change detract or change marriage? Are religious people no longer getting married because there are secular weddings?
You now extend that to include homosexual marriage. Are heterosexual couples likely to no longer get married en masse because same sex couples are able to get married? Given what's happened in other areas where it IS legal I would strongly suggest not.
Er civil unions are totally permitted, depending what state you live in, and can be used to prove your defacto status which confers, as far as I am aware, nearly all the rights of a regular marriage.
You seem to support civil unions even though they are just a different name for a marriage, and your objections about legal definitions on sexual relationships would apply? Should we expand those to the other states?
Zapo if the religious aspect of Marriage was 'optional' Homosexual marriage wouldn't even be under discussion right now.
You *can* go to a registry and have some idiot celebrant talk about marriage anthropologically, rather than religiously, if you want, it's still dumb ("the ancient Egyptians did it" makes exactly as much sense to me as "God smiles on this relationship").
But the institution meaning the marriage act, has specifically Christian principles as part of its tenants, that is why we talk about this man and woman nonsense. Now over the years this has been messaged to be more inclusive I will give you that, but contrary to what moron Christians think, inclusivity categorically makes an institution stronger not weaker.
More people able to do it makes it harder to get rid of, and it should go.
Are you going to argue that Zeus isn't a religious figure or that leonidas or ceasar had a non religious marriage?
I'm saying that it's been around in all cultures since before recorded history. Calling it a religious act because various priests have claimed moral ownership of it doesn't make it religious, no more than they own charity or love, and no more than coming of age is religious just because the Jewish religion has built a ceremony around it.
Theologians, astrologers, and alchemists dominated the quest for knowledge in the pre-scientific era, but the seeking of knowledge did not become a pseudoscientific and superstitious activity, its universalness to human nature is just more well evidenced.
But if we play along with Nerf, a counter point to the irrelevant counter point is: Should we be ok with family members marrying each other too then? They were both eligible by that logic.
It's probably nobody else's business. There is an increased risk of inbreeding dangers if they had babies though, and I'd hope that they'd be warned about that. Nobody can realistically stop them from having sex if that's their goal though, married or no, and despite the danger that it poses to any potential children.
A statement of fact is not the same as support Hogfather.
I would support them in the sense that being a recent development would be much easier to reform than the Marriage Act.
I would totally support some rights that are confered by marriage for homosexual couples, for example I know in the US Marriages get preferential treatment regarding guardianship of Children. That is blatant discrimination and should go, though I don't know it applies here. Nominating the Guardian of your kid in the event of the worst is clearly something that is between the partners and no-one else.
I would also support immigration on the strength of a homosexual relationship, though I think it is still deeply unfair.
But this can all be done without expanding the Marriage Act.
I'm saying that it's been around in all cultures since before recorded history. Calling it a religious act because various priests have claimed moral ownership of it doesn't make it religious, no more than they own charity or love, and no more than coming of age is religious just because the Jewish religion has built a ceremony around it.
Theologians, astrologers, and alchemists usurped the quest for knowledge in the pre-scientific era, but the seeking of knowledge did not become a pseudoscientific and superstitious activity. Its universalness to human nature is just more well evidenced.
Dude seriously religion and its effect on society goes up as you go back in time not down. Just because Marriage predates Christianity doesn't make it non-religious. If universality is the test then clearly religion is not going to be far away is it?
What ever else the case maybe what is enshrined in the Marriage Act is very obviously the Judeo-Christian version of Marriage, with some caveats, hence 'pseudo-religious'.
Dude seriously religion and its effect on society goes up as you go back in time not down. Just because Marriage predates Christianity doesn't make it non-religious. If universality is the test then clearly religion is not going to be far away is it?What ever else the case maybe what is enshrined in the Marriage Act is very obviously the Judeo-Christian version of Marriage, with some caveats, hence 'pseudo-religious'.
So is charity religious, because the Christians claim it? Coming of age, because the Jewish use it? Cloth hats, because Sikhs and Muslims use them? Did astrophysics become religious because scientologists made mention of outer space? Is science religious because it emerged in religious-dominated Europe during the enlightenment?
Nobody owns marriage, nobody owns commitment to a sexual partner, they just also did it and were once the majority due to killing everybody else. It emerged everywhere, it's something that humans do. Religion just intertwined with it everywhere, like it did all those other things.
Are you going to argue that the Australian Marriage Act is based on something other than the Judeo-Christian model?It is a 'pseudo-religious' document because it based on more than one religion and partially secularized. Moving on with your life.
I don't understand what you're asking. First you say that marriage is religious, which it's not. Now you're asking whether a recent Australian legal document relating to marriage had Christian discrimination written in, which is an entirely different topic? From what I can see, government-sanctioned marriage has had all sorts of discrimination throughout its history, which have all had to have been addressed by non-shit human beings.
This a Human Rights issue.
The fact that some of you want to use some kind of Religious view is really only a 'defense' in your head. Gays vote, pay Taxes, have legal sex with consenting partner who they love and want that union recognised as being exactly the same union as a heterosexual married couple has.
Those of you against Gay Marriage are saying Gay relationships are something less than Heterosexual relationships.
How would you feel if someone told you that you and your partner was a 2nd class couple ?
Human Rights issue not a Religious issue.
Church is fine for some people but no Church is above the Law.
In fact its about time Churches started paying taxes.
how about Churches allow Gay Marriage or start paying taxes ?
Rest assured Gay Marriage would happen overnight.
It's probably nobody else's business. There is an increased risk of inbreeding dangers if they had babies though, and I'd hope that they'd be warned about that. Nobody can realistically stop them from having sex if that's their goal though, married or no, and despite the danger that it poses to any potential children.
Agreed, except it's still better to disallow them and then explain the dangers when asked.
This a Human Rights issue.
Seems more like a RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE issue to be honest, slow news day (as mentioned above).
How would you feel if someone told you that you and your partner was a 2nd class couple ?
I couldn't care less what people say about my relationships. Maybe you and your boyfriend need to focus on one another rather than what others say about you.
In fact its about time Churches started paying taxes.
Governments love to control every aspect of our lives. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming into legalising gay marriage (while we allow them to regulate and monitor our internet). Irony much.
Those of you against Gay Marriage are saying Gay relationships are something less than Heterosexual relationships. How would you feel if someone told you that you and your partner was a 2nd class couple ?
Ask Penny Wong perhaps. Gay people can't marry because the thought of the gay folks bringing up kids and teaching them all that gay stuff makes Joe Hockey feel icky inside.
yeh whether marriage is or isn't religious is beside the point - it's something that a lot of people are allowed to do in this day and age for whatever reason they like with as little religious involvement as they like
so attempting to sidetrack the real issue of simple equality and fairness by introducing the idea that there are religious reasons why homosexuals shouldn't be married or want to be married, isn't reasonable
and trying to extrapolate same-sex marriage as a comparison to having sex with animals or siblings is outright idiotic
Zakson, this issue goes much further than than the actual act of being married, it's about being treated equally by our government and in the eyes of the law. While there is still discrimination and difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples in the eyes of the law then regardless of what anyone says it creates a stigma or negativity around homosexuality.
When there are gay young people struggling to come to terms with their sexuality and committing suicide at a much higher rate than heterosexuals, this is something that could potentially shift the balance. We could finally say - in the eyes of the government, and in the eyes of the law you are a normal person who is recognised and welcome in our society. Let me tell you, that would actually make a fucking difference.
Personally, when I was growing up I had no intention of getting married, I suspect there's few guys that probably did - but I've met the right person and I want to get married. I find it so frustrating that it makes me furious sometimes (Hog can vouch for Zapo rage) that I can't get married to the person I love for, what I consider illogical reasons based around fear, prejudice and hate.
Actions speak louder than words, and regardless of what anyone says the words at the moment are "Homosexuals are welcome in Australia and an important part of our society" but the ACTIONS say "We want to tax you the same, but you're still different, you're second class citizens"
Didn't answer my question - more or less civil unions Pete?
I would say more with the caveat that financial reward be removed and the understanding that all marriages be redefined as civil unions.
Ultimately I feel it is hypocrisy to say sure homosexual marriage when ultimately I feel no marriage at all. It's giving with one hand while taking with the other.
I don't understand what you're asking. First you say that marriage is religious, which it's not. Now you're asking whether a recent Australian legal document relating to marriage had Christian discrimination written in, which is an entirely different topic? From what I can see, government-sanctioned marriage has had all sorts of discrimination throughout its history, which have all had to have been addressed by non-shit human beings.
Marriage is religious, you offer Zeus as someone who predates christian marriage, well done. The other two guys you said also consulted oracles.
You can't argue that marriage isn't religious on the grounds that all societies have done it, when all societies have also developed religions. Your book that shows that homosexual marriage used to be ok does nothing more than show that other ancient religions had different prejudices, not that they weren't involved in marriage.
Religion is a principle source of law in all societies, and the further you go back the only source. So having some sort of formally recognized relationship, in all of those ancient societies would have entailed formal recognition by the dominant religion of the time.
Pete, I think your argument is actually detracting from the whole debate here – which is "Should we allow same sex couples to marry in Australia". The debate isn't about arguing the origins of marriage or even the validity of marriage in our society.
You fundamentally want to redefine / remove marriage although (at least I think you do) - I think that's a separate conversation to allowing same sex marriage.
If I've misinterpreted what you're saying then feel free to clarify it.
He's saying that marriage inequality is fine because he doesn't like marriage because Zeus.
Its an absurd position to take, especially given that he - grudgingly - concedes that civil unions are OK. Permitting sexual discrimination in this context is a much, much greater evil.
I would say more with the caveat that financial reward be removed
Marriage is a social structure designed to benefit society. Even if you name it civil unions it still holds the same purpose otherwise why care about it at all, from either a religious or governmental point of view?
Stable relationships leads to all kinds of benefits for society and in turn, a government, so why shouldn't it be encouraged with some kind of benefits? Pretty sure even de-facto relationships can get the same treatment as married couples tax wise.
I'm also single, I also think marriage is a stupid concept (a binding contract doesn't sound very romantic to me) but I understand that I live in a society and not everyone within that society has the same views or needs the same amount of support.
I'm pro Homosexual-polygamous marriages because people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want.
If anything Gay Marriage in Churches would prolly bring more money to Churches.
Tolerating Gays would bring more parishioners.
Its completly daft for a group that is struggling to attract newcomers to decide that they are going to refuse new members because of who they have legal consensual sex with.
Testament 3.0: Now contains 23% more Messiah! They could take the opportunity to increase the number of communion wafer flavours as well, the current selection is pretty bad.
Testament 3.0: Now contains 23% more Messiah!They could take the opportunity to increase the number of communion wafer flavours as well, the current selection is pretty bad.
Zapo to Clarify that last post is addressing two separate points in two lines of argument.
Your second sentence is the money. I firmly believe that marriage should be done away with, and to be extra super clear hogfather Civil Unions are ok because they don't come with the baggage that marriage does. It would be a much simpler deal to reform the Civil Union act, but ultimately they should not exist at all.
Interpersonal relationships should be none of the governments business, and certainly shouldn't confer rights within a society.
Stable relationships maybe of some use to society but you don't need government intervention for them to happen as homosexual couples are clearly proving.
Civil Unions are ok because they don't come with the baggage that marriage does. It would be a much simpler deal to reform the Civil Union act, but ultimately they should not exist at all.
What's the difference between a civil union and a secular marriage?
Interpersonal relationships should be none of the governments business
Nor Religions business ?
on a related note, ACA had a story on the latest Scientology crisis.
Head Stonecutter Miscarriage (or w/e his name is) his niece has written a tell all autobio' on her life growing up as a servant in the Church. They made kids work 5 hours a day building Centres and doing work for the Church.
They are covered under different acts, and there is no federal civil union act. Therefore it is still in a state that lends itself to reform with out all the prejudicial baggage that comes with marriage secular or otherwise.
You could think of homosexual civil unions as early adopters, of a system that fairly and sensibly deals with everyone.
No, that would saying to Gays, you cant have a traditional Marriage.
Your Marriage will be this new version that includes people who couldnt get married under a Normal Marriage.
How is it going to effect you if two gays get married PP ?
For me i would think that my country has moved a tiny step closer towards Freedom for the Individual, the smallest minority of all.
No, that would saying to Gays, you cant have a traditional Marriage. Your Marriage will be this new version that includes people who couldnt get married under a Normal Marriage.
That is self defeating, if you have to modify the current marriage act to fit them in they clearly can't have a "traditional marriage"
All I am saying is getting rid of marriage as an institution would be the way forward so I simply see expanding marriage as moving in the wrong direction.
Let the religious nutbags have marriage if they want to make oaths to gods great, none of the states affair.
let's keep battling it out on the forums hey Pete, meanwhile newly wed gays are getting freaky on their honeymoons all over the shop and guess what? two fucks are not given.. teehee.
Marriage is Marriage as it stands today. I don't give a flying fuck what marriage was, or where it came from, I only care about what it is today in front of the law.
I am arguing that the current marriage act needs needs to change to allow same sex couples to be married. Like oh so many other pieces of legislation this needs to evolve with the times too.
And I think you are a short sighted cunt. But whatever.
You support a discriminatory situation in order to hold out for some extreme redefinition of marriage that will never, ever happen. You're saying that its better for the Government to be discriminatory to gay people than it is for marriage to equally apply to them.
The very notion that the lesser evil is institutional Government-led discrimination against gay relationships is distinctly warped and cruel.
I don't think its that extreme a redefinition, given that there is already acts covering it in several states and you don't need to be homosexual to have a civil union.
Nor do I think you could achieve equality by amending the marriage act. When they tried last time they also had to include a bill giving religious types the right of refusal to wed, specifically on the grounds that your marriage doesn't fit their definition.
Strikes me that counts as a reform which would fail to undo government led discrimination.
To me it seems utterly shambolic and a clean slate is the way to go.
I don't believe that religion should cave in to allow gay marriage if it's against their belief of a magic user who created the world universe and life, but fucked up humans and refused responsibility by allegedly punishing them for a few thousand years..
I don't believe that gays should be refused the right to marry.
Luckily these two things aren't mutually exclusive.
But it seems unlikely marriage will be removed altogether, so I will support gay marriage in the meantime.
Why would you even say that, a prejudice against marriage is still prejudice. Even as weak willed as yours. I see straight people chose to not get married and raise mostly healthy families (i say mostly, not because they're worse than other families but rather what family can even be counted as healthy in every way?).
But that's as much choice as it is their decision to worship a god who allegedly flooded the earth but gave the chance for a single human to save only his family and two of every kind of creature, plant and probably 1 of each kind which don't need something else to reproduce.
As far as law goes, why are we defining a different title for those who are married by a church compared to those married by law? Are they legally treated differently?
It's really up to the couple if they want a ceremony to be one blessed by their god through a priest/whatever, versus one blessed by their peers and anointed by the state or perhaps they don't want either and just want to do the official sign off to the papers and then keep the whole thing under the radar. Which ever way a person achieves this status, it shouldn't be written differently no matter what gender the two adult humans are that decide to copulate.
Still given a choice, i'd rather the ceremony which doesn't invite the god who kills his own son as he enters his prime just because he's a bit of a hippy.
We arent adding something new to Marriage, we are recognising rights that currently arent being recognised because previously Gay Sex was a criminal offense. Its not anymore so there is no impediment to Gay Marriage being exactly the same as Heterosexual Marriage.
If there's a religion that desperately needs a New Testament its that freaky mulim thing.
I don't think that can happen. Any new prophet would be ignored or killed, depending on what country he was in. From my understanding, it is set in stone. Fixah might be able to elaborate.
This goes for most religions though. To me it seems illogical to not allow new prophets in the major religions, essentially barring any modern communication with God.
All these evidence-free claims mutate/evolve into new religions when new "prophets" come along, where a divide forms on where people accept and some reject the latest "totally legit message from the magic world". (see: the old Jewish religion becoming the modern Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions, which became Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Protestantism, Pentecostalism, Mormonism, Sunnis, Shiites, and so on). Given that the Muslim religion has already broken into two separate evolving parts, I imagine that it could always mutate again, it's just far less easy now with the interconnectedness of the world (like language and biology not changing dramatically without people being isolated from each other).
That being said, I think that the mutation which has the infection viciously defending itself by having followers kill those who leave the religion is probably going to out-compete any more more peaceful mutation. I can too easily see a future of pentacostalism and islam making the world shit.
I think PornoPete has a fair point, though I would defuse any unfounded accusations ala HogFather, by saying that I think that unless the government butts out of marraige then I fully support gay marriage as the next best option....
PM
WWW
