same sex marriage - what's the big deal???

[XU1]

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo


--> Did you know that in 1973 when our then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, got rid of our "White Australia" immigration policy that had existed since 1901 Federation, a policy that discriminated racially against immigrants from certain countries, that it was not even a decision supported by the majority of the Australian population? So according to your definition that what is "mainstream" is right, then Australia should have remained a country that had an immigration system based on racial discrimination, correct?

Deliberate discrimination that seeks to give anyone less rights than others is not acceptable in any form, end of story.

Flashdavo...

I migrated to Oz from Italy in 1971... And I'm fairly dark in complexion.
I know what the end of discriminating comments feel like from old aussies, Heck, my wife's (whos an aussie) father wouldnt acknowledge me for close to 2 years.

And I still get the racial vibes occasionaly, especially since 9/11 "cause I look lebanese or Pakistani"??

But I honestly cannot see the comparisons you make between the two issues, and their acceptance by society

Your rationale would have everything up for change just because some minority group wanted their way.

If that "way" is socialy acceptable then they would have no problems, but in this instance their "way" is not socially aceptable yet.
So theyl have an uphill work out .

Tony

[XU1]

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
So anything else that you believe is immoral should also be illegal?

yeah...like pedoaphelia, but I'm sure that theres a group of people who if allowed, would argue that they were discriminated against for not being able to practice it.

Any way I take my leave on this argument here, My views or opinions are still as strong as ever.....I have to say though...FK has a lot more hostility these days than it used to, the only members here who have shown the most reasonableness and balance WITHOUT any hostile intent are the two gay members. ...go figure??

Flashdavo....your logic isn't necessarily far away from mine, we just see it in different ways.....but please dont patronise me with ridicule....



Tony

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by XU1
yeah...like pedoaphelia, but I'm sure that theres a group of people who if allowed, would argue that they were discriminated against for not being able to practice it.

Any way I take my leave on this argument here, My views or opinions are still as strong as ever.....I have to say though...FK has a lot more hostility these days than it used to, the only members here who have shown the most reasonableness and balance WITHOUT any hostile intent are the two gay members. ...go figure??

Flashdavo....your logic isn't necessarily far away from mine, we just see it in different ways.....but please dont patronise me with ridicule....

Tony

So is pedoaphelia the only thing you think is immoral?
How about sodomy between a man and a woman?
How about sex before marriage?

How about most of what's in the kuma sutra? So would you seek to make all that illegal, since you believe it's immoral?

I don't patronise you, just don't particularly like your discrimination against a certain section of our society, who are consenting adults and have as much right to the same legal rights as do any of us.

A lot more hostility? No, I think maybe some of us have grown up a little more since first we came and are less likely to accept the distorted views of those who seek to discriminate.

At least, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it...


And as for my logic being close to yours? It's about as far away from your discriminitory position as it is possible to be. Anyone who wants to try to use pedoaphelia in an argument such as this has just sunk as low as they can get... If you can't see the connection between racial and sexual discrimination in the past with this current discrimination against gays then that's your problem and not mine. Unfortunately I wish you and others with your beliefs but in a position of power would not seek to asert those beliefs on others who believe otherwise.

Unfortunately both the current US and Australian governments have decided on a policy of division and hate in order to shore up their popularity. Create opposing sides in as many issues as possible, and stick with the one that is safest, which will appeal to those who see nothing but danger and fear with anything "different". So rather than looking at all of the complexities involved, and taking on board some basic principles such as human rights, it's all about what you believe rather than what is fair and equitable.

As much as things change so much remains the same...

You know, I had hoped that September 11 would result in a subtle change in our society, that people would really try to look at issues through the eyes of others in order to accept a differing belief system and point of view, in order to try to reach some kind of understanding of what extreme situation could have resulted in such a violent response. Instead what we have seen is politicians seeking to create a sense of even greater difference than before, a real "us" and "them" scenario, where the only thing that's "right" is what we belive in. Anyone else's beliefs are wrong, and we must show them the true path.

But I guess my hopes were just pipe dreams it would seem...

[ashlaz]

Marriages are based on love.
Homes are built with love.
So if two people of the same sex love eachother, then who the hell the government is to stop them.
Homosexuality has to be made legal.
Its long overdue.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Oh, and just wanted to post this. It comes from the message board on the site dedicated to the very close friend of mine who died on Flight 93, Mark Bingham (see link in my footer below). As anyone with even an inkling of knowledge about those on Flight 93 would know, Mark was gay, and was also one of those who tackled the hijackers. Anyway, that's not the point, but what is is this post by a visitor who I would hazard a guess is gay. Apparantly not one of those "homosexuals" who thinks that what he is doing is wrong...

Anyway, I find his post very appropriate and quite moving...

------------------------------------

The decision of President Bush to actually attempt to rewrite our Constitution to ban gay marriage is incredibly sad and disappointing.

I don't want to make a political statement, just a simple point that seems to be at the core of so much pain and suffering in the world.

The thing that comes closest to bringing us together in the world is love. In every culture, in every corner of the world you will find mothers and fathers who love their children with every ounce of their being. You will find men and women who passionately love each other. You will find friends who would give their lives for their friends. Mark Bingham was one of these people. He lived and loved with passion.

The opposite of love is not hate. Hate is a by-product. The opposite of love is fear.

The President appears to be motivated by his particular religious beliefs, but I would argue his views are more grounded in fear than the life of Jesus. Jesus preached love and compassion and understanding. He never uttered one word about homosexuality. Anyone who truly understands what it is to love would not stand in the way of anyone else loving and being loved.

I have yet to hear anyone explain how gay men and women getting married will affect any one else's marriage.

Rosa Parks made history - personifying dignity and courage - by not getting up out of her seat. Mark made history - personifying character and bravery - by getting up out of his.

Fear has been behind denying any number of groups their rights. Let's stop making that mistake. Love is not the enemy. Love is not scary. Let's stop making decisions as a society based on fear.

------------------------------------

Let's stop making decisions as a society based on fear.

[gerbick]

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
You know, I had hoped that September 11 would result in a subtle change in our society...

stick to the subject. september 11th has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion despite how you might want to spin and weave it into this discussion.

[1stbite]

Originally posted by gerbick
stick to the subject. september 11th has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion despite how you might want to spin and weave it into this discussion.

good call


also IMO think this thread should be given a deadline and closed say in a week or so
as it is no longer leading to a good topical discussion more so to forcing self opinions onto each other,
so i think those who still have issues to raise should get last views in on the topic and have one of the mods close it...

but thats just my opinion before someone tries raming my words back down my throat

and for those who think its just a form of censorship, no its just that this thread is starting to turn into a circus then a interlectual discussion and will never end unless a deadline is given, if people then what to know your views on this topic they can search the thread like all the other threads once its been closed.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by gerbick
stick to the subject. september 11th has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion despite how you might want to spin and weave it into this discussion.

That is an opinion that could be debated with an election year upon us (in both our countries), but one I will note with due respect and apologise for raising the point if it offended.

[The_lone1]

I am not a christian, but did this so-called "god" not give humans the "freedom of choice" (if there is really such a thing)?

In my school most are above this kind of debate. we accept people for who they are, and we judge their contributions to the lessons and how they affect our individual learning, and not on how they choose to live their life.

However, (and this is one you will quote and start calling me a hypocrit for) if the way they choose to live their lives starts to affect my life, and how i live it, then i will change my judgement of them. If they do it deliberately, then my impression of them will change to one that holds less respect, and vice versa.

There are several people who have been permanantly excluded from our school because of various crimes (in some cases, very serious), but fortunately none of them have been excluded because of their sexuality, or their actions concerning anothers' sexuality.

What will it take for all this debating about "right" and "wrong" to end? I heard once that all problems of communication and so-called "personality defects" would be solved if the human race became a singular consciousness. But wouldn't that remove the one thing that makes us human? Our INDIVIDUALITY .

And please dont start preaching to me about morals and religion and politics, because i don't care why people make choices, i just care how it affects me.
And this, I am glad to say, does not affect me. Thankyou for your time.

[XU1]

1st Bite I cant see what the problem is in discussing this issue.....and why this thread should be closed debates are debates and they sometimes tend to get a bit passionate.

FlashDavo....

Both you and Sundev have tried to equate this issue with racial discrimination, and the like, you have also suggested that I have take a biblical point of view on my position..the latter which I havent even mentioned.

Let me explain to you once and for all since you dont seem to want to understand the other point of view let alone respect it.

Racial discrimination was and is based on fear and hatred, mainly hatred, Black americans were discriminated because many white people back then thought that somehow black people were inferior, not fit to be equal or have equal rights, further more there was a lot of anymosity and hatred heaped uopn these people simply becasue they were black and yes to some extent fear of being overun or ruled or whatever by black people, this hatred was further incited by memebers of racial groups like Klu Klux Klan, white supremacist etc.

Gays,(since you have a problem with the word homosexual) Dont have this problem, they have ALL the civil rights of every other member of society.

What I dont think you are understanding or want to understand, is that I DONT incite hatred towards Gay people, I DONT see Gay people as inferior humans, I DONT fear them as yo may think, and I DONT have anymosity towards them as a group of people. Unlike the Racial days of past years.

My point is simple...listen carefully, "THEY DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR MARRIAGE" in today's society, the same as a Man and Woman.

Now if that is discriminatory, then so be it, they have been discriminated between the two because they dont fit the bill.

This happens in life everyday

But in saying this, can you please stop implying that some how I hate Gays.

Although I hold my view very strongly, I have never stopped speaking to, or refused to work with, or held back from helping out someone just because they were or are Gay.

Now before you answer me with your "youre no different to a bigot and racist" please read my post again...cause I dont really think you read my posts properly or carefully.

1:I dont hate or incite hatred towards Gay people

2: I dont accept that their sexuality is normal ( but I dont view them as inferior humans because of it...(yes keep this one in mind)

3:I dont accept that they should have the same marriage rights as a man and a woman do...that to me is the basic of the family unit, which should be the exlusive domain of the union between Man and Woman.

4:I think one some issues we have to draw the line and this one is it.

And I was wrong about your logic and my logic being similar, I happen to at least respect the other point of view, by not labeling people.

Tony

[PAlexC]

<slightly off topic>

What upsets me the most, having spent 4 years in the People's Republic of Ithaca, is that I hear on the radio that a 'small town in upstate NY' has jumped on the bandwagon, and it's New Paltz.

Ah Ithaca, always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

</slightly off topic>

[1stbite]

Originally posted by XU1
1st Bite I cant see what the problem is in discussing this issue.....and why this thread should be closed debates are debates and they sometimes tend to get a bit passionate.

I do not have an issue with the debate content, I have my view which I hope was understood by those who wished to read my comment, just that this debate in this forum has gone on for some time.
All debates need a timeframe otherwise they just end up going round in circle which ends up causing unnessaary bad vibes between people, I (personnally) think its about time the topic should be given a sensible finish time, let everyone have there final say (conclusion etc) and close it and get on with what most of us came here for...

Chilling out with friends

[XU1]

This was my quote on one post:

But I dont agree that somehow changing laws in this case to allow gay marriages is a step in the right direction. Why should changing the status quo always be viewed as an advancement??

This was your reply:and for the life of me I cant see why you cant see what I'm trying to say here but....

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

So they wouldn't be viewed as advancement???

Forget your beliefs, even your logic fails to make sense...

This is what I mean by patronising me with ridicule.Whiout giving any real thought to what I was trying to say....but....hey...if that makes you happy...


Tony

[dlowe93]

Originally posted by XU1
Gays,(since you have a problem with the word homosexual) Dont have this problem, they have ALL the civil rights of every other member of society.

In my opinion, therein lies the crux of the debate. One side says that homosexuals enjoy all the civil rights of our society, except for marriage. The other side argues that by excluding them from the right to marry, they do not enjoy all of the civil rights the rest of us do.

Regardless of the history or origin of marriage, at least here in the United States it is a civil ceremony, governed by civil laws. Not biblical, not moral, not even of the status quo, but civil. What's more, the prevailing law of the land guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. Although it hasn't always been practiced as such, it is very clear: equal protection under law.

Still think that homosexuals enjoy equal protection under law? Consider this: we have two friends, both women, who have a young child, let's call him "Sam". Now if something happened to Sam's natural mother, his other mother would have no legal right to Sam. The parent he has known since day one, the only other person on this planet who cares for him would have absolutely no say or recourse if the state or some other agency decided to take him away from her.

That's like the state saying that it could come in and take away my son because 53% of the population finds my lifestyle immoral. Now tell me that they have the same rights as i do.

You're wrong.

Period.

And (while you have me riled up) this same couple got married last week. They were one of the first couples to get married here, and now are named in a class action lawsuit buy a local conservative Christian organization, that is attempting to nullify their vows and stop the county from issuing any further marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A class-action lawsuit certianly sounds like the good Christian thing to me. What would Jesus do indeed.

d.

[jide]

Ok, here's why many Christians don't want to allow gay marriages to be recognized: they don't want to encourage people to be gay. The city of Sodom was burnt down because it was full of homosexuals, it's clearly against our (Christian) religion. If we said that gay marriages were allowed, then we're basically saying that gay sex is ok. And in our religion, it's not. Why impose our beliefs on you? Because we don't want you to go to hell. I DO NOT hate gays. Actually, I love them, as I love all of God's children. Most Christians, including myself don't want to see these people go to hell.

I think we made a mistake by legalizing homosexuality, but what's done is done. A sexual relationship is very important, and it's the basis of the family unit. This is why I think homosexual unions should be recognized by law. Let's face it, all a marriage is under the law is 2 people who plan on having sex with each other for a while. Marriage is just a word, and when applied in the legal sense it doesn't mean anything spiritual and has nothing to do with love or morals.

I'm not going to force gays to have faith in God, because I can't. If they/you want to be saved, do so, if not there's nothing more I can do for you than pray.

[PAlexC]

Originally posted by jide
I'm not going to force gays to have faith in God, because I can't. If they/you want to be saved, do so, if not there's nothing more I can do for you than pray.

There's plenty of gay folks who belive in God and are thoroughly religious. Most of the ones that don't practice religion, are because they feel excluded and unwanted by it, or are told they're going to hell for who they are. Truly, the spirit of Jesus exemplified.

In fact, many preists decades ago were that 'weird' son no one knew what to do with. We all know how well that turned out.

So what's better, tell someone to surpress their feelings, that they're evil, and persecute them, or let them live and accept them for who they are since they're not hurting anyone?

And how would you feel if there were a bunch of people running around telling you you're going to hell for who you are?

Considering homosexuality isn't anything new, and the history of how the Bible and modern Christianity came about, I'd have a hard time beliving God's going to send people to hell automatically for being gay. If that's the overriding characterisitc your life is judged on, then we've all been had by one slick omnipotent being. Considering God is also omnibenevolent, that would be impossible. So instead of going up to some gay person and saying "I'm going to pray for you", why not just ask them how they feel when people come up to them and say "I'm going to pray for you." Or, better yet, just drop it and treat them like any other person.

Sheesh. Whatever happend to "Do unto others...?"

[gerbick]

Originally posted by jide
Ok, here's why many Christians don't want to allow gay marriages to be recognized: they don't want to encourage people to be gay.

Mind you... I'm merely playing devil's advocate in this branch of this forked conversation.

However, if the church is against encouraging people to gay, then what say you about these priests (I know, Catholic mostly) that sodomize the children. Also, the way you put it... it sounds like the church is not against telling people to lie, go against their own nature, and act the way they're supposed to based on a weird mish-mash of societal and biblical rules.

Now... which is it? Church is encouraging a lie, or allowing liars to continue their sodomy?

</devil's advocate>

[XU1]

Originally posted by dlowe93


Still think that homosexuals enjoy equal protection under law? Consider this: we have two friends, both women, who have a young child, let's call him "Sam". Now if something happened to Sam's natural mother, his other mother would have no legal right to Sam. The parent he has known since day one, the only other person on this planet who cares for him would have absolutely no say or recourse if the state or some other agency decided to take him away from her.

That's like the state saying that it could come in and take away my son because 53% of the population finds my lifestyle immoral. Now tell me that they have the same rights as i do.

You're wrong.

Period.

And (while you have me riled up) this same couple got married last week. They were one of the first couples to get married here, and now are named in a class action lawsuit buy a local conservative Christian organization, that is attempting to nullify their vows and stop the county from issuing any further marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A class-action lawsuit certianly sounds like the good Christian thing to me. What would Jesus do indeed.

d.

I dont speak for anyone but myself when I say its immoral, it is my opinion and mine only, I havent heard the Government us this argument.

Their position is clear, that the Judiciary should not decide on matters of morality, and according to the general view the family unit and marriage arrangement between a Man and Woman, has a strong Moral bond as a natural and common occurence between to people of the opposite sex, in this union children are normaly conceived and reared, putting aside the breakdown of divorce and such.

This is NOT the case with homosexuals (Gays)they may fall in love if thats what they feel but they cant go any further than that. They just want thesame rights, to be able to marry, and have the same privilidges as traditional man woman married couples do.

But as I keep on repeating, They do NOT fit the criteria of the definition of a family in todays society. I couldnt care at all if they want to live together and do whatever they want.

As for the Analogy you use about "Sam" this case would be no different to a defacto relationship between a man and a woman, once the Natural parent Dies or is incapacitated somehow, the "other" person can use the legal system to put his/her case forward as to why the child should stay with him/her and then adopt, or act as carer...give me a break please.

As for the Class Law Suit from a Christian group I'm only going on the assumptions that it is still techicaly illegal to issue marriage licennce so I could be wrong here thats their business...but what I do find typical of people who feel that they are above the law, is that if "they" feel that they have a moral right to break the law, its OK by them and individuals like yourself.

But its not OK for groups like That Christian one to bring a class action, to have them head the laws, because they find it is not Moral.

Who is breaking the law here????its not the Chrisitan groups.

Tony

[yasunobu13]

XU1: I've dropped out of this thread a while ago when it seemed to turn into an attack on you. I think that we should both go out of our way from now on to not be a part of this. It seems to be a quarter of an inch away from bitter name-calling.

jide: Religion isn't the issue here. Although that is your main driving force for your stance, it is not your job to condemn anyone to hell. As a Christian we should spread the knowledge that Jesus left us. That knowledge being to love others and let them be as they please. The Bible says that Sodom was a sinful place. There is no mention that it was "full of homosexuals." The final act of sin that is mentioned from Sodom is a townsperson demanding that Lot give up the Angels to them. Lot instead offered his daughters. I suggest that you do not use the story of Sodom as a means to spread hate or a reason to change someone elses life. It is very unchristian.

The rest of you: This conversation has gone nowhere in the last few pages. I had viewed this thread as a meaningful debate. There are multiple sides to this issue, and I wanted to know the sides that I am not for. My questions to XU1 were never meant as an attack or to belittle his point of view. This thread has since turned into an argument. No one should be here to try and change another's point of view, only to learn and understand how others think.

I leave you with a quote:
"The question can never be resolved, every resolution ends in tragedy."

That seems to be the way this thread had turned out.

[XU1]

Originally posted by yasunobu13


I leave you with a quote:
"The question can never be resolved, every resolution ends in tragedy."

That seems to be the way this thread had turned out.

yasunobu13...I thank you for bringing me to my senses...I should have known better....and stayed out of it when I said so waaaaayyyy back....Thanks man, you are so right...

Tony