Did you not read what I wrote? I never suggested otherwise. I was responding to a point that just because something becomes routine in your life, doesn't make it OK. Some children have not seen the abuse as anything wrong and therefore have not resisted when they were of age to do so. It became a consensual act through conditioning. (not in the majority of cases I hasten to add) We can all have our perceptions about things manipulated by others through appeals to emotion, as I believe we are seeing now with SSM.
Abuse becoming routine is a scenario where we can legitimately point to something that harms a person. It shouldn't have to take a PHD in Psychology to figure out how exactly a child, who is conditioned to comply and accept sexual abuse, is being harmed. Like come on mate, you're smarter than this.
With that in mind, if you would be so kind, please tell me who and how exactly someone is harmed if two dudes or two chicks, all adults and fully aware of what they are doing, get married.
I want cold hard facts that can be demonstratively proven.
Also being manipulated as a child to see abuse as okay is in no way shape or form related to being taught that two strangers who's lives do not affect you in the slightest should be allowed to live their lives . To even use the two in the same scenario is an emotional appeal. Even if you are not comparing the two. You brought one up in order to get the opposition to respond emotionally to your scenario and by putting them in a debate about homosexuality, you are trying to get the opponent to equate the two subconsciously. Therefore equate negativity with homosexuality. We know this tactic, no matter how you dress it up, we can spot it very easily nowadays.
If it were just about equality, then I can't see how the word "marriage" makes their relationship any more valid than when they were cohabiting without it. The word "marriage" has never prevented gays from shacking up as far as I know. Introducing your "partner" is common among the population...for the majority, who cares really?
Because the Government in all their (heh) wisdom has decreed that if a couple is (speaking of a secular context here) married they automatically receive additional benefits from said Government that couples who are not "married" do not receive. Also fun fact, defacto couples have all sorts of issues with inheritance laws that married couples do not have to face. Because
they are not the same thing.
As long as that is a thing the Government then has an obligation to apply that to all couples who fulfill the necessary requirements of getting married. If there is a clause that specifically states this can only apply to heterosexual couples, with no other discernible reason than they being heterosexual couples, it is in fact a discriminatory practice. Also separate but equal has never proven to be a reasonable thing. It is never equal if it is separate.
Now a heterosexual couple does have a choice not to label their relationship as anything or even forego a marriage because they are defacto. Again this can have serious legal red tape for their kids, but that is their choice. A gay couple does not have that choice and must contend with said legal red tape for their family or kids, making them by definition, unequal in the eyes of the law.
It's a very simple concept mate. If some couples get benefits by being married and other adult couples do not, this is an unequal practice. Giving them the option of getting legally married gives those couples equal standing in society. It is that simple.
To Christians though, sex without marriage is a sin. Not only can we not practice it ourselves but we cannot consent to the practice of it by anyone else, regardless of gender. It is not a strictly gay issue as much as it is a Biblical issue for us because the God of the Bible will never recognize it as valid. This is my message to fellow Christians....to those of other faiths, I understand that my views are meaningless.
Okay. And?
How will they feel if this unleashes other laws that take away the freedom of others to hold to their own beliefs and standards as sacrosanct? The poll conducted (link in a previous post) revealed that most gays would not welcome that outcome.
Appealing to some made up potential "consequences" that have no discernible proof they will even happen is not impressive. Again back to raising my Aussie BS detector.
Of course a lot of people do not want to take away religious freedoms, gay or otherwise. Because unlike some nosy ******** they do not want others to be restricted by the opinions of others.
Having said that however, no one is taking away religious freedoms. (SOME) Religious people are just throwing a temper tantrum like spoilt brats because now they are being asked to share their toys. Which has always baffled me. Why does anyone even need man's law to be the same as God's law in order to follow their religious beliefs? Aren't Christian supposed to lead lives of example? To make secular law line up with their specific beliefs is not leading by example, it's being a dictator. They are trying to stifle free will. Isn't that God's business not theirs? And if one needs man's law to line up with God's law, then their conviction is weak, imo.
I remain unmoved and unsympathetic to such idiotic, immature and insecure people. Regardless of their faith or indeed sexual orientation.
I mean geez, the Netherlands has had SSM since 2001. That's roughly 16 years. The law did not actually change any of their existing laws regarding religious institutions. Though it should be noted that Church and State already work differently there anyway since Churches are more or less sponsored by the Government.
Will there be a sense of victory for the vigilante gay lobby? (the ugly mob we see protesting, often violently)
Is it freedom to do as you please regardless of the cost to others? Time will tell, won't it?
I have practically grown up in the gay community since many of my close family friends happen to be gay.
I have some bad news. The "Gay Lobby" doesn't actually exist. There are advocates for equal rights, some even borderline extremist. But no gay lobby to speak of. Unless of course you conflate the two. In which case I'd rather the so called "Gay Lobby" than the Catholic Lobby. I know many nice Catholics, but geez their agenda is so often hate filled.
And you want to talk about violent protests?
Neither side has their hands clean in this debacle. Priest being spit on, Vote Yes signs being defaced by (the Nazi) Swastika. Teens online being verbally harassed and receiving death threats for their stances (both yes and no.) Yes voters pets being attacked. Vandalism on churches and homophobic slurs being graffiti on people's property. The AFL receiving tons of death threats for changing their logo to YES (although that probably wasn't a good move, at least they did something.) People being bashed in the street, with yes voters being called ugly slurs. No voters's signs being removed by yes voters. One sign read Burn Churches not Gays. (Though I don't think one should burn either.) Another sign read The only good queer is a dead one.
That is just from the top of my head. It's also the reason why I wasn't vocal on which side I was voting for. Because I literally feared for my safety and that of my family if I did so. I can only buy so much mace, you know?
This so called "debate" has brought out real life trolls. Low lives and extremists on both sides taking the opportunity to take things too far. Either out of a sense of bullying, for the thrill or simply because they are that extreme in their methods. So do not speak to me of violent protests. I have seen my fair share of them from both sides of this. Though I'd have to say I saw the most coming from the No camp. Just saying.
I was using it as an example of something being acceptable but still harmful. When abused children reach adulthood they then have choices about what is and what is not acceptable, yet often go on to become abusers themselves. If you have grown up with an incestuous parent or sibling, then those lines can be blurred by familiarity and misplaced loyalty. The flesh is weak and will justify anything to satisfy itself. That is what the Bible teaches.....and that is what I observe.
Firstly, pedophilia is never acceptable. So your premise fails from the start. Secondly, what does that have to do with gay people getting married? Off topic much?
Tell it to the judge.
