"Australians decisively support same-sex marriage"

[leibowde84]

"After months of voting and discussion, the results of the same-sex marriage survey have finally landed: we said yes! Curious to see exactly how many people voted Yes and how many voted No? Below are the numbers as we heard them during the official results announcement this morning.

How many people voted in total?
There were 12.6 million votes counted in total — just over half the population of Australia.

How many people voted Yes?
61.6 percent of the Australian population, or 7,817,247 people voted yes.

How many people voted No?
38.4 percent of the Australian population, or 4,873,987 people voted no.

In Numbers: How Australia Voted in the Same-Sex Marriage Survey
So taking into consideration that there are 24,000,000 people in Australia and only 12,600,000 voted that means that almost half of Australia's population didn't even participate in the vote. Most of us were sick to death of hearing about it TBH.

I look at pictures like this and think.....what do they say at such weddings? "I now pronounce you husband and husband or wife and wife"?

This will never sit well with those who hold to the Bible's standards. Marriage is defined in scripture as between a man and a woman. They should call it something else instead of trying to dictate their own standards to what God has instituted. It will never have his approval despite what humans think.

Marriage is, in this context, a legally binding contract between two people. Religious marriage, legally, is referred to as "Holy Matrimony". So, legal marriage already uses a different term ... "marriage".

But, you do realize you are forcing your beliefs (not facts) on others. You are welcome to believe that God created marriage. But, others are just as welcome to believe that it is a man-made institution. So, attempting to dictate that others must adhere to your belief about marriage is unreasonable.

God didn't create the word marriage. The english word "marriage" derives from Middle English "mariage", which first appears in 1250 - 1300 CE. It is a man-made word, and, in this context, a strictly legal term. So, why would you demand that the rest of Australia adhere to your strict definition of the term and your belief that God created it? Unless you have verifiable evidence, don't you see how unreasonable it is to demand people accept this?

 

[leibowde84]

Gays have no right to override God's laws and to redefine his arrangement. So this issue will never be settled because freedom of religion is a guarantee under most constitutions. I have a conscience towards God and I have no will or need to violate his standards.

I have no hatred for gays or transsexuals or anyone else who is a victim of their genetic make-up.....we are all imperfect in our own way. What rattles me most is the demand to call their union a "marriage" when it violates all the laws of God pertaining to his arrangement. He has rules for his own institution....but its almost as if this issue is designed to humiliate God and to force acceptance from people to whom it will never be acceptable. I will personally never accept a gay marriage as valid no matter what the law states. But I will not lift a finger to prevent it either. I leave the future in the hands of my Creator.

I don't care what gays do in the privacy of their own homes, just don't make a mockery of marriage by using the word to describe what gays are doing. A civil union would give them all the legal rights they want. But the ramifications have already been felt in Canada, and I am waiting for the same thing to happen here. Most people have no idea where this will lead......time will confirm all our suspicions I believe. Do you understand the concerns that many people have?

But, freedom of religion does not give you or any other religious people the right to own legal terms like "marriage". If you expect, demand or assume people believe that marriage was God's creation and subject to God's law, you are violating other's freedom of (or from) religious beliefs and adherence.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the FACT that same-sex marriage doesn't necessarily violate God's law. It merely violates your personal opinion as to what God's law is. You cannot expect people to respect and live by your personal opinion about what marriage should be limited to unless you are able and willing to prove you are right (with verifiable evidence ... not merely additional claims like the Bible).

Now, otoh, if the government was forcing you, personally, to accept same-sex marriage, that would be a different story. But, they are only asking that they be given legal protection, not approval from you.

 

[Jainarayan]

I understand that it is personal to you all. It isn't to me and I wish everyone would just let it go. We will have it on our news for days or even weeks with gay weddings and pictures of gay people making what I believe is a mockery of marriage. That is my opinion.

If gays can be offensive to us and we can be offensive to gays....whose offense is more important?

Can't we just share the planet and stay out of each others faces? Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.

Then why start in with the "I will never accept it" and what-God-wants business, and then saying "let it go" if it's not important to you? There's more than a smattering of passive-aggressiveness, methinks.

 

[Jainarayan]

Genesis 2:24 ......."That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Then there is Jesus quoting these words.

Matthew 19:4-6...."In reply he [Jesus] said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

The last part of that scripture is often quoted in marriage vows. Don't let anyone tell you that marriage isn't God's arrangement. No human has the right to tamper with it IMV.

I love it when this one is trotted out. Yes, it refers to male-female marriage, but show me a verse that prohibits same sex marriage? And don't use Lev. 18:22, or any of Leviticus unless you're willing to give up peel 'n shrimp, bacon double cheeseburgers and cotton/linen blends.

Btw, the line what God has yoked together, let no man put apart (or similar) is not used in civil marriage ceremonies.

 

[Deeje]

Why shouldn't they get married? More to the point, if civil partnerships are good enough, why not have them instead of marriage for straight people too? Why do you want exclusive rights to a word?

Civil partnerships have been the norm in my country for years. People have been living together without marriage for as long as I can remember. They have just increased in numbers as the stigma wore off. Cohabiting for 6 months or more was long enough to obtain legal rights over property etc. The institution of marriage as a religious celebration of the union of two believers has all but died. But that is hardly surprising or unexpected as the world becomes more secular.

"Exclusive rights to a word" is an American thing I believe. That is alien to us. The institution of marriage has nothing to do with the word...it is what "Marriage" actually means. And since marriage goes back to the garden of Eden, no one can claim that it isn't God's arrangement. It was supposed to produce children...something gay couples cannot do without a third party.

What God condemns is sexual immorality....he doesn't care whether its straight or gay.....its the immoral acts that will earn his displeasure. "Christians" who beg to differ are disobeying the God they claim to worship. They will answer to him, not me.

(Incidentally, civil partnerships don't actually have all the same rights as marriages, depending on where they are - for example, couples in a civil partnership in certain US states cannot jointly adopt a child and both be considered legal guardians and have to instead individually both register for adopting the child).

Planet America....I understand. Y'all are a bit different to the rest of the world in many ways. We also understand that you are the last to know that those ways are not always good.....look at your gun laws.

Equality?

The "equality" IMO is in the practice of sexual immorality. You can't make something 'immoral' into something 'moral' just because you want to indulge in it. Where do we get our standards of decency and morality? Aren't a lot of our laws based on Biblical morality?

What happens when people throw those standards out the window? Do we see people more happy or do we see fragmented families with kids who don't know what a father is? Now they will have genderless parents (up to 4 of them) and grow up in a world where no reference to gender will be be tolerated. No "Mr and Mrs"....no "mothers and fathers"...no "boys and girls".

Do we want to live in that world? I don't.

Your equivocation of these two terms demonstrates your prejudice.

The Bible is the basis for my opinion on all moral issues. If the Bible is prejudiced then I am happy to be too.

As I said, if we are all offended by the opinions of each other, then whose offense is more important? Seriously.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And since marriage goes back to the garden of Eden, no one can claim that it isn't God's arrangement.

Those are your beliefs. You have no right to force such a belief upon others.

Now they will have genderless parents (up to 4 of them) and grow up in a world where no reference to gender will be be tolerated. No "Mr and Mrs"....no "mothers and fathers"...no "boys and girls".

Where did that come from?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Australians decisively back gay marriage

Legal, secular marriage, to be clear.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Where did that come from?

Apocalyptic, baseless, slippery slope arguments are pretty much the all the "no" side has.

 

[Jainarayan]

Do we want to live in that world? I don't.

M’kay, bye Felicia. But you realize you have less and less choice, right?

 

[SomeRandom]

The "equality" IMO is in the practice of sexual immorality. You can't make something 'immoral' into something 'moral' just because you want to indulge in it. Where do we get our standards of decency and morality? Aren't a lot of our laws based on Biblical morality?

Secular state is secular. The Bible, the Vedas, the Quran, the Torah, the Lord of the Rings, all of them have the same amount of relevance to the Laws of the Land. Because they must apply equally to everyone even those you disagree with. Now I, for one, commend religious communities who stay the hell out of politics and didn't even vote on this. The legal definition must include, for lack of a better term, unconventional couples. That is equal treatment under the law, that is the job of a law. Are both consenting adults? Great. Do both follow the already existing laws of the land? Great. So go get married, not my business. Although I wouldn't say no to attending a ceremony for cake, because well cake.

What happens when people throw those standards out the window? Do we see people more happy or do we see fragmented families with kids who don't know what a father is? Now they will have genderless parents (up to 4 of them) and grow up in a world where no reference to gender will be be tolerated. No "Mr and Mrs"....no "mothers and fathers"...no "boys and girls".

The hell does that have to do with SSM?
And girl please, I know some very liberal minded parents, with very "modern" parenting techniques. I assure you, every single one of their kids knows what a father and a mother is. As for gender, lol, did you fall asleep in Biology class? Do you have any idea just how complicated sexual issues are with our species? I went to school in the late 90s and even my gen learned about the various genders outside of the binary. This is known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with basic science.
Hell my culture has acknowledged at least 3 genders now for about 6,000 years. We have yet to implode. Calm yourself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I went to school in the late 90s and even my gen learned about the various genders outside of the binary. This is known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with basic science.

Really? Your biology curriculum must be way ahead of America's.

 

[SomeRandom]

Really? Your biology curriculum must be way ahead of America's.

I wouldn't go that far. It was still just the basics back then. The difference between sex and gender, the concept of gender fluidity, chromosome disorders, intersex as it was called then, a bit about the various known (then) "oddities" that could occur with sex and gender etc. Just stuff like that.
Mind you I'm including up until the mid 2000s. I tend to lump those eras together, my bad. But we dabbled a bit about gender in Primary school sex ed. Just a smidge.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't get what all the fuss is about over this particular topic. Like it or not, gay human animals are still human and are entitled to the same rights as "gay challenged" individuals. In the no camp I'm detecting the smelly underbelly of self-righteous morality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Civil partnerships have been the norm in my country for years. People have been living together without marriage for as long as I can remember. They have just increased in numbers as the stigma wore off. Cohabiting for 6 months or more was long enough to obtain legal rights over property etc. The institution of marriage as a religious celebration of the union of two believers has all but died. But that is hardly surprising or unexpected as the world becomes more secular.

"Exclusive rights to a word" is an American thing I believe. That is alien to us. The institution of marriage has nothing to do with the word...it is what "Marriage" actually means. And since marriage goes back to the garden of Eden, no one can claim that it isn't God's arrangement. It was supposed to produce children...something gay couples cannot do without a third party.

So you believe that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

Planet America....I understand. Y'all are a bit different to the rest of the world in many ways. We also understand that you are the last to know that those ways are not always good.....look at your gun laws.

I'm British.

The "equality" IMO is in the practice of sexual immorality. You can't make something 'immoral' into something 'moral' just because you want to indulge in it. Where do we get our standards of decency and morality? Aren't a lot of our laws based on Biblical morality?

What are you talking about? Do you not understand that not everyone agrees with your notion that gay sex is immoral, and that even more people believe that homosexuals deserve equality?

What happens when people throw those standards out the window? Do we see people more happy or do we see fragmented families with kids who don't know what a father is? Now they will have genderless parents (up to 4 of them) and grow up in a world where no reference to gender will be be tolerated. No "Mr and Mrs"....no "mothers and fathers"...no "boys and girls".

Do we want to live in that world? I don't.

You have no idea what will happen, because you've clearly made no effort to understand the beliefs of people who don't already agree with you.

The Bible is the basis for my opinion on all moral issues. If the Bible is prejudiced then I am happy to be too.

The Bible can also be wrong, so you must be happy to be wrong.

As I said, if we are all offended by the opinions of each other, then whose offense is more important? Seriously.

It's not about offence, it's about rights and equality - an issue you entirely sidestep.

Do you believe you have the right to decide which groups of people are entitled to express their love openly, and which groups are entitled to a legally recognized union?

 

[Altfish]

The Bible is the basis for my opinion on all moral issues. If the Bible is prejudiced then I am happy to be too.

That is fine, you take your morals from the Bible (btw How are your slaves doing?)
BUT don't try to make others who do not believe live by your moral compass.
Atheists are quite capable of working out their own moral code and I would argue that 50% of it is better than anything in the Bible (The rest is just as good as).
Compare the 10 Commandments to The Satanic Temple's 7 Tenants - I know which I think is far better and it is not the 10 Commandments.

 

[Deeje]

But you realize you have less and less choice, right?

For now perhaps....but not forever. It will never be my choice to condone any of it....no matter what laws are enacted.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

For now perhaps....but not forever. It will never be my choice to condone any of it....no matter what laws are enacted.

No one said you have to.

I don't condone lots of things people do. That's not grounds for making them illegal.

 

[SomeRandom]

For now perhaps....but not forever. It will never be my choice to condone any of it....no matter what laws are enacted.

If you do not try to alter the laws, then I say, your conviction is stronger than some religious people I know.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Mind you I'm including up until the mid 2000s. I tend to lump those eras together, my bad. But we dabbled a bit about gender in Primary school sex ed. Just a smidge.

We were in the same frame. But our text books here didn't have anything yours mentioned. As far as sex goes, there was male and female and it went no further than that, not even a mention of gender, or chromosomal abnormalities.

 

[SomeRandom]

We were in the same frame. But our text books here didn't have anything yours mentioned. As far as sex goes, there was male and female and it went no further than that, not even a mention of gender, or chromosomal abnormalities.

Really? Not even in High School Biology class? Sex ed? Health class? (We had a lot of courses dealing with health.) Surely you learnt about hermaphrodites and the like?
Also, we used text books, sure, but it was mostly lecture and class discussion orientated in all honesty. School nurse and Bio teach combo and all that. (And awful quality vids lol.)