The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'We think it's time' - church gay marriage moves gather pace > Comments

'We think it's time' - church gay marriage moves gather pace : Comments

By Alan Austin, published 28/8/2012

For every Christian leader who opposes gay marriage there are many more who support it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Noelreg

You make a valid point – official marriage doesn’t confer much benefit nowadays.

But …

If my local golf course chose to ban left-handed people I’d be offended even though I have no intention of joining. Discrimination without justification is unjust, and sends a a signal to the one discriminated against. Not allowing gays to marry implies there is something inferior about gay relationships.

I endorse your sentiment, “Live any way you like folks”. Surely than includes being married, tf that’s what gay folks like?
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 28 August 2012 7:57:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good question, Noelreg: Is there “an advantage financially, or in any other way, for people of the same gender to be officially regarded as married? “

There seem to be answers to this on a number of levels.

The Baptist minister quoted in the article here sees it “in terms of justice, of compassion, of equality for all people”.

Once we understand that homosexual orientation is an innate, natural, normal and healthy state, and in almost every way a concept equivalent to heterosexual orientation, then the arguments for treating all relationships equally seem to strengthen.

Others look at the health issues. Did you see the recent pieces here on LOL about health outcomes associated with acceptance of same-sex marriage, Noelreg?

According to Rob Cover “Most recently, Amanda Villis and Danielle Hewitt from Doctors for Marriage Equality argued in On Line Opinion that there were indeed health benefits from legislating for same-sex marriage for GLBTIQ adults. Rightly, they pointed out that there is no evidence same-sex marriage is harmful to heterosexual marriages, and that accepting marriage as a right for all persons has significant benefits.”

He continues: “Villis and Hewitt rightly refer to evidence that in several US states with same-sex marriage legislation (and other GLBT-friendly programmes), there have been known population health improvements among non-heterosexual persons indicating a correlation, although a correlation does not necessarily indicate a cause-and-effect chain.”

Cover’s piece is here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14017

Financial advantages? No, not in Australia since the reforms recognising same-sex unions in 2009. But if a same-sex couple moves to another country, their financial situation may be affected.
Posted by Alan Austin, Tuesday, 28 August 2012 8:43:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Whether or not same sex marriage is legal religious groups can limit marriage to those they wish to marry. I don't see why any religious bodies should have the right to control marriage under civil law.<<

Of course they shouldn't be, but there is an even uglier side to this.

The Catholic church, for instance, no more permits the marriage of two non-Catholics than it does two of the same sex.

So, when you hear the Church or any of its little toadies who frequent fora such as this try to claim their opposition to same-sex marriage has got anything to do with their religion, then you know they're lying (probably even to themselves) because they don't display any interest in trying to have similarly "non-Catholic" marriages kept illegal as well, on the same basis.

I'm sure the real reason they hone in on homosexuality is that they just personally find the thought of gay sex either icky, or attractive, or a guilty combination of both. In my book, that's bigotry.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Tuesday, 28 August 2012 10:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>The Catholic church, for instance, no more permits the marriage of two non-Catholics than it does two of the same sex.<<

In which country does the Church have the power to not PERMIT a civil marriage of two non-Catholics? [There is obviously no point in non-Catholics expecting to receive the Catholic sacrament of marriage since that would be like somebody who has never been a citizen or resident of Australia claiming Australian social benefits from Centrelink.]
Posted by George, Wednesday, 29 August 2012 1:11:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmy Jones

Talking about 'normal people ' is not a good idea when you accept that certain designed body parts are put in places obviously designed to get rid of waste. And you are questioning my views as ' normal'. Abnormal is the new normal these days.

btw At least you are honest enough to admit you don't know where we come from instead of using idiotic theories like those be sprouted by pseudo scienctist.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 29 August 2012 9:01:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My paternal great-grandmother had 17 children and the other side were also rather fecund. This has produced a very large family many of whom have had, or are in, relationships which are not marriages by the dictionary definition; they usually refer to their partners by first name and perhaps as "my partner". I can't find a dictionary which doesn't define "marriage" as specifically between a man and a woman.
Perhaps we could forget the sex aspect and value companionship higher.
"Partner" seems a good alternative to "husband/ wife" and would save having to alter a lot of dictionaries.
Posted by Noelreg, Wednesday, 29 August 2012 11:07:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy