Aussies to vote soon on whether to make gay marriage legal

[gottalovemoses]

Why should all of society follow what your religion believes on this issue, when not everyone is Catholic?

why should catholics vote Yes to gay marriage just to please the rest of society?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry I haven't processed this one in my head yet.

Point is, homosexuals appear to be the popular choice for 'We can't allow sin', whilst other sins are judged as sinful, but not legally prevented. Divorce is an example. Are Catholics protesting divorce? Well, no. Is that self-serving? It certainly appears so, but I'll not pretend to understand the arguments.

Part of me says I have to stay true to catholic Church teachings on Homosexuality. We must be compassionate to homosexuals but reject the "sin" of the homosexual act. Love the sinner hate the sin.

So do so. Refuse to marry anyone in a gay ceremony. That is your right.
For me, personally, I have decided I am not a fan of being in a gay marriage, and so won't be getting married. But gee, it's pretty simple to me. People have the right to make that decision for themselves. It's between them and God.

Marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism. A very holy one. its based on man and woman marrying and creating a family. Now immediately someone will attack me for saying this when they find out I have been in a childless marriage for 26 years. Hypocrisy. But we intended to have kids but it never worked out unfort.

We had difficulty having kids, so I feel for you on that one. We were lucky in that eventually we had 2 beautiful daughters.
I am not in favour of forcing religions to marry people in gay ceremonies. If a church doesn't want to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, I'm fine with that. But why should the state not marry them?
Perhaps you can explain to me why I am allowed to marry. I'm an atheist. So...?

I respect the hardline stance on this. Relativism is a real danger I feel. When we dilute the truth to "oh ok, whatever your opinion is the truth for you", this is where we are descending into lazy liberalism. I used to be a more radical liberal but I've woken up recently. You can see it happening in Anglicanism. They are losing their substance, its "loosey goosey". They don't stand for anything. I think there will always be a place for the absolute view. it keeps us balanced. But I will admit exceptions. Conscience is needed but we have to careful we aren't making too many exceptions. Very careful.

Nobody is asking you to do anything which runs contrary to your faith. We are merely asking that you allow each person within our country to make their own choice on marriage. This is about equality of rights, not rubber stamping the concept of homosexuality or gay marriage.
If that is not sufficient argument, then I'd ask you to consider why you're not trying to ban me (an atheist) from the holy sacrament of marriage, and why divorced Catholics are allowed to marry. And I'd hope that you would see it's a more compassionate choice to allow people to pursue their own lives, and that they will then be responsible to answer to God. Not petty lawmakers.

I'm voting No to gay marriage. because I think this "cool liberalism" who uses the word "homophobia" for anyone that disagrees with them is militant and intolerant. Someone called it the "tyranny of liberalism".

Funnily enough, conservatives are becoming quite the fad-chasers by attacking 'liberalism' in a very broad-brush manner.
I'm basically a centrist. I am a swinging voter, middle-aged, white, middle-class, married, 2 kids. I am in no way a 'cool liberal', and nor have I called you a homophobe.
I would suggest you should make your choice on this based on what you think is correct, and not due to reactionism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

why should catholics vote Yes to gay marriage just to please the rest of society?

Because they see value in separation of church and state, and are not wanting to live in a theocracy.

 

[SomeRandom]

so "strong" means "weak" now?
"definition" means "hungry"?
The truth can be diluted to whatever you want it to be. How convenient!

Yeah, did you know that the word "awful" used to mean to be full of awe? How often do you hear that word to mean that nowadays?
The word egregious originally meant something that was truly good or stood out from the flock in a positive way.
Nice used to mean silly.
Bachelor used to mean young knight.
Naughty meant you had nothing or "naught."
Clue used to refer to a ball of yarn.

Go back a couple hundred years and see how far your modern English words with their "definitions" gets you in a random casual conversation.

Definitions change. All. The. Time.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

why should catholics vote Yes to gay marriage just to please the rest of society?

I've voted yes on a lot of things I don't personally agree with, because I think it's not my place to dictate a 'no' to someone else. Voting is not about personal preference, I wouldn't vote to ban vanilla ice cream just because I think chocolate is superior, or McDonalds because I think it's too unhealthy.

 

[Revoltingest]

why should catholics vote Yes to gay marriage just to please the rest of society?

The same reason that many atheists support religious freedom,
ie, we extend rights we don't need to people who do need them.

 

[gottalovemoses]

Because they see value in separation of church and state, and are not wanting to live in a theocracy.

Then we are expected to have like a dual personality. One opinion for the state one for the Church.
I wont campaign for a No vote but if someone asks me what I think I will tell them my honest opinion.

 

[Nous]

This is an interesting question, and one I haven't heard discussed much as part of the lead-up to voting.
Quick background, states and territories are quite different legally, so it generally requires a separate legal challenge within a territory to drive a change. They commonly have different laws to states, and don't have the same constitutional protection which state laws have.

So, this is a bit of a guess, but...

It won't directly change with a national marriage-equality law, but it would make a challenge to existing law almost certain to win. In a practical sense, it would have almost no impact, since people living in WA (surrogacy) or NT (adoption) can move state easily enough if they want to have different access options. It could be a bogey used by conservatives though. I could see some people concerned about 'gay people having kids' or whatever, even though that obviously already happens, and this would have basically no measureable impact on that.

Thank you for this. I do understand a little better now.

I get the impression that the US is (or has been) fairly unique on the matters of surrogacy, assisted reproduction, and even adoption compared to mostother developed nations. There's never been any government control of who may get IVF or other forms of assisted reproduction, or of who may become surrogate parents (unless it involved adoption and the adopting parents didn't pass the home study). In lots of states, lesbians and gay men have been able to adopt for more than a couple of decades now.

 

[gottalovemoses]

I've voted yes on a lot of things I don't personally agree with, because I think it's not my place to dictate a 'no' to someone else. Voting is not about personal preference, I wouldn't vote to ban vanilla ice cream just because I think chocolate is superior, or McDonalds because I think it's too unhealthy.

not sure I like that analogy

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

so gays are actually wanting marriage for very pragmatic reasons? Not the tearful "oh but we just wanna express our love for each other"

Would that be so awful? Like everyone else, we express our love in ways that are private and unique to us.

Why would it distress you that gay people would like some of the same pragmatic protections available to everyone else?

As it happens, my "life partner" of decades, is presently in hospital. I go there twice every day from work to feed him, since he's paralyzed (Guillaine-Barre Syndrome). The hospital where he is treats me exactly like any other spouse, doing exactly the same thing -- and so they should. Or would you disagree?

You spoke earlier about being "uncomfortable?" What about, really?

 

[Nous]

Yeah, a postal vote. It's become (finally!) a big issue, so it won't be too easy to skate around, and the results are binding.

Is this a special case of a postal vote? Are all postal votes binding?

The reason I asked about skating around the vote was because I read somewhere that the vote wasn't binding.[/QUOTE]

 

[ADigitalArtist]

not sure I like that analogy

Be that as it may, I think it's apt. To explore it a little deeper I really do not like McDonalds. I don't like how they source their food (animal welfare issues), I don't like how much they pander to children when it's so very unhealthy to them, or how they treat their employees. I have real moral and ethical objections to McDonalds as a business and as a cultural archetype. But I would never vote to ban them, because other people's dietary choices are not mine to make, because my preferences are not enough to dictate policy. I would vote yes to protect the same business rights any other restaurant has.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then we are expected to have like a dual personality. One opinion for the state one for the Church.
I wont campaign for a No vote but if someone asks me what I think I will tell them my honest opinion.

If you're not calling for divorce, contraception, abortion (even when life is endangered), IVF, porn, cohabitation, etc. to be illegal, then you pretty much already have a dual mind about how to approach society since those things are all mortal sins, too.

 

[gottalovemoses]

Its cool to vote yes for gay marriage and show how "broad-minded and liberal" you are. Dinosaurs like me will lose. Catholics who value tradition, Christians who love and obey scripture will be mocked. Sliding further and further away from the truth. The future looks grim for conservatives.

 

[gottalovemoses]

But I would never vote to ban them

I would. They are an icon for rampant capitalism and don't give two hoots about the poor in society.

 

[Nous]

The future looks grim for conservatives.

It always has. The future always looks grim to regressives.

 

[SomeRandom]

Its cool to vote yes for gay marriage and show how "broad-minded and liberal" you are. Dinosaurs like me will lose. Catholics who value tradition, Christians who love and obey scripture will be mocked. Sliding further and further away from the truth. The future looks grim for conservatives.

No, it's cool to allow freedom of choice in a country that boasts that it is a free country. Apparently conservatism is totalitarianism though, because that's essentially what you said. You want society to literally bend it's will to your beliefs, but that's not society. That's you acting like big brother. There are lots of things I disagree with on a personal and even spiritual level that I would never make illegal for others.
Because my conviction doesn't need laws just for me to keep it. No offence my brother, but if yours does then it's not particularly strong in my view.

 

[columbus]

Marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism. A very holy one.

One thing I point out is this. Nobody is messing with sacraments or church services. The vote is about legal standing with the state and only the state. It's two completely different things, even if normal people don't bother to pay attention usually.

I also wanted to say something about gay adoptive parents. Believe me, not every couple who make a baby are in any way fit to be parents. Sometimes they're just too irresponsible and selfcentered to use easily available birth control. Adoptive parents are statistically much better parents. Not because they're inherently better people. But because they have to really want a child and the responsibilities AND they are screened and counseled and monitored by agencies devoted to the children's well-being. That would go double for gay adoptive parents I am sure.
Tom

 

[gottalovemoses]

My chief dislike in all this are the hangers on, not the gays themselves. The ones who boast about having "gay friends" and being so "modern". It is partly a young generation versus older generation issue. Young people like to distance themselves from people like me who adhere to traditional values. That's fine actually because I don't pine to be close to them either.

 

[gottalovemoses]

Apparently conservatism is totalitarianism though, because that's essentially what you said.

go ahead, feel free to puts words in my mouth