Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[Taylor]

Got to hand it to the Muslims, and other non Christian denominations in this country for the way they've played this. I've no doubt good portions of them are also anti ssm but they've been smart enough to read the tea leaves, and have left it to the Lyle Sheltons of this world to make damned fools of themselves.

From what I've seen they have kept their campaigning all in house, there isn't really anything to gain from speaking out publicly for them although I would love to see the "Australian patriot groups" swing heavily into SSM because the Muslims are against it.

It would be good for the country and any men into big, chubby, bearded, biker types.

 

[WeetBixKid]

So you’re wanting “marriage” in this country to only be available to christians? Which form of Christianity should marriage belong to? They have pretty varying beliefs on it

I think it should mean something more than love & be placed within some kind of greater context. Exactly how that's done is down to the couple & their families/their institution to decide. It's not something the government needs to be involved in.

 

[DemonTim]

I think it should mean something more than love & be placed within some kind of greater context. Exactly how that's done is down to the couple & their families to decide. It's not something the government needs to be involved in.

But you want the government involved in all civil unions...which marriage would fall under. So marriage would be involved with government.

Unless you’re saying religious people would just get married and not civil unions and thus remain unrecognised.

The rest is just waffle. Just because some religious folk can’t maintain relationships without an external party being the reason they’re in it. Doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.

Is there any evidence to suggest Christian marriages are healthier? More sustainable?

 

[skilts]

Baby Jesus' feelings get hurt if gay people can wed, and also some people just don't ****ters.

As that Protestant minister asserted on Q & A, Jesus loved marriage and was a prime mover in establishing its holiness and validity. So much so, that he chose not to participate. Strange that all of his mates, bar one, were male. The exception was a prostitute. Make of that what you will.

 

[Admiral Byng]

As that Protestant minister asserted on Q & A, Jesus loved marriage and was a prime mover in establishing its holiness and validity. So much so, that he chose not to participate. Strange that all of his mates, bar one, were male. The exception was a prostitute. Make of that what you will.

I thought it was widely understood that Jesus was married to her, and that she was not a prostitute.

 

[Underarm]

I thought it was widely understood that Jesus was married to her, and that she was not a prostitute.

I thought it was widely understood to be a work of fiction and therefore niether?

 

[WeetBixKid]

But you want the government involved in all civil unions...which marriage would fall under. So marriage would be involved with government.

Unless you’re saying religious people would just get married and not civil unions and thus remain unrecognised.

The rest is just waffle. Just because some religious folk can’t maintain relationships without an external party being the reason they’re in it. Doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.

Is there any evidence to suggest Christian marriages are healthier? More sustainable?

No, they'd be separate. Civil Unions would be administrative (i.e for taxation, visas etc) whereas marriage would be spiritual. If you don't see any difference/need for separation there, nothing I say will change your mind, but for me there is a difference. And yes, deeply religious folk do get divorced significantly less. I think Mormons for example have one of the lowest rates.

 

[DemonTim]

No, they'd be separate. Civil Unions would be administrative (i.e for taxation, visas etc) whereas marriage would be spiritual. If you don't see any difference/need for separation there, nothing I say will change your mind, but for me there is a difference. And yes, deeply religious folk do get divorced significantly less. I think Mormons for example have one of the lowest rates.

Where did I say there wasn’t a difference? I asked you. Everyone would still be required to be under a government regulated “civil union”. You’d just then want a further distinction for religion as “marriage”. So everyone would still be regulated. Exactly the same as now.

Can you provide a source for that? Define deeply religious.
So you’re saying polygamy is the best option then

 

[Admiral Byng]

I thought it was widely understood to be a work of fiction and therefore niether?

Well yeah, perhaps think of it as in the original novel she was his wife, for the film version she was made into a prostitute.

 

[WeetBixKid]

Where did I say there wasn’t a difference? I asked you. Everyone would still be required to be under a government regulated “civil union”. You’d just then want a further distinction for religion as “marriage”. So everyone would still be regulated. Exactly the same as now.

Can you provide a source for that? Define deeply religious.
So you’re saying polygamy is the best option then

Yeah, the same as now. The whole debate is one of semantics rather than anything substantial. Which is why it's so strange seeing YES go on rants about bigotry & human rights violations. If it's the same, why can't we just leave marriage to religious folk?

& why would I say think that? Does polygamy have the lowest divorce rate? Obviously that's not the *only* criteria. There's a happy medium somewhere in there which we're trying to find that reflects western values & still allows for freedom of expression/religion. I think the best way of getting there is to leave the government out of marriage & let them worry about what kind of relationships should be legal/should be entitled to certain rights & which aren't. Simple.

 

[DemonTim]

Yeah, the same as now. The whole debate is one of semantics rather than anything substantial. Which is why it's so strange seeing YES go on rants about bigotry & human rights violations. If it's the same, why can't we just leave marriage to religious folk?

& why would I say think that? Does polygamy have the lowest divorce rate? Obviously that's not the *only* criteria. There's a happy medium somewhere in there which we're trying to find that reflects western values & still allows for freedom of expression/religion. I think the best way of getting there is to leave the government out of marriage & let them worry about what kind of relationships should be legal/should be entitled to certain rights & which aren't. Simple.

How is it semantics? You’re now saying you’d rather take marriage away from everyone (from a government perspective) than to amend a small section of the act.

Sorry. Maybe your source got lost in here. The only source that I can find on divorces and religion is American, and it suggests atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rates
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

So why is it a happy medium? Aren’t you advocating for religion owning marriage because it is stronger that way? Wouldn’t by your own reasoning mean that mormons have marriage right?

 

[bourbons]

Maybe the medical course like marriage is just difficult.
The male and female union is not a frivolous construct it's a biological necessity - foundational - there in all of nature.

These bonds are the core impetus of our better nature - the affection we have and the civilizing qualities
have grow from this connection.

What child doesn't ask where it comes from? What child is not formed by their birth and upbringing?

A marriage places a male and female in contention to form a union with opposing qualities. This process of accommodation is civilizing and is the essence of the sanctity of marriage.

Gay people are born in same system but by nature are not driven towards a fertile union where these opposing qualities require resolution.

Does this damn gay people or bless them? I don't know. Maybe it's a blessing. All species in all Nature include a small number exceptions.

SSM attempts to deny the exception it's validity and finding it's unique purpose - as if nature is itself an error to be corrected with legislation.

If you want to talk biological necessity and nature, monogamous marriage is as unnatural as it gets.

The coupling of a male and female in a monogamous relationship has evolved from biology - that precedes and becomes marriage.

The construct is merely the ceremony and laws which reflect a biological imperative.

Simple really

Monogamous? Maybe in select species. The biological imperative is to 'sow your oats' far and wide.

 

[BEaston]

I thought Yes vote suffered some big body blows on Q&A last night.

Haha!

 

[WeetBixKid]

How is it semantics? You’re now saying you’d rather take marriage away from everyone (from a government perspective) than to amend a small section of the act.

Sorry. Maybe your source got lost in here. The only source that I can find on divorces and religion is American, and it suggests atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rates
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

So why is it a happy medium? Aren’t you advocating for religion owning marriage because it is stronger that way? Wouldn’t by your own reasoning mean that mormons have marriage right?

That's not a real source.

It's semantics because re: anything tangible (like tax) the end game is the same. It's a happy medium because it allows for equal rights while still leaving marriage itself to the dominant religion(s) in the country.

Re: better outcomes, to be honest I was surprised how tricky it was to find something that showed spiritual folk get divorced less & have happier marriages. In all my personal experience this has been the case, but a lot of articles claimed that the rates between atheists and others were similar. Then I realized that they were looking at people who were just nominally religious. People who scribbled down Christian in the census but hadn't actually stepped inside a church outside of their wedding day. But if you start comparing folk who actually regularly attend services, it's a different story. Here's a real source btw.

Frequency of divorce and separation among 15,714 adults from the British Social Attitudes data set for 1985–2005 peaked at around 50 years of age, and increased significantly over the period of study. Ratios of marital breakdown were compared between those of no religious affiliation and Christian affiliates with different levels of church attendance. Frequent Christian attendees were 1.5 times less likely to suffer marital breakdown than nonaffiliates, but there was no difference between nonattending Christian affiliates and those of no religion. Infrequent Christian attendees were 1.3 times less likely to suffer marital breakdown compared to nonaffiliates, suggesting that even infrequent church attendance might have some significance for predicting the persistence of marital solidarity

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-14687-001

 

[yebiga]

If you want to talk biological necessity and nature, monogamous marriage is as unnatural as it gets.



Monogamous? Maybe in select species. The biological imperative is to 'sow your oats' far and wide.

The instinct to protect your creation is not strong? Is there anything else we would readily give up our life to defend?

 

[DemonTim]

That's not a real source.

It's semantics because re: anything tangible (like tax) the end game is the same. It's a happy medium because it allows for equal rights while still leaving marriage itself to the dominant religion(s) in the country.

Re: better outcomes, to be honest I was surprised how tricky it was to find something that showed spiritual folk get divorced less & have happier marriages. In all my personal experience this has been the case, but a lot of articles claimed that the rates between atheists and others were similar. Then I realized that they were looking at people who were just nominally religious. People who scribbled down Christian in the census but hadn't actually stepped inside a church outside of their wedding day. But if you start comparing folk who actually regularly attend services, it's a different story. Here's a real source btw.



http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-14687-001

I used a link that paraphrased...

You do realise that it was statistics from the Barna Research Group they conducted the survey

So now you’re arguing something different. Seems marriage should only belong to those who are devout in their religion otherwise religion literally has no impact on marriage.

74% of marriages are outside of the church. The dominant religion in marriage is none.

If Muslims continue to grow in number in Australia are you okay with marriage being Muslim only?

 

[DemonTim]

The instinct to protect your creation is not strong? Is there anything else we would readily give up our life to defend?

So men should horde women then.

 

[yebiga]

So men should horde women then.

I'm sure that comment must make some sense to you - none for me.

 

[WeetBixKid]

I used a link that paraphrased...

You do realise that it was statistics from the Barna Research Group they conducted the survey

So now you’re arguing something different. Seems marriage should only belong to those who are devout in their religion otherwise religion literally has no impact on marriage.

74% of marriages are outside of the church. The dominant religion in marriage is none.

If Muslims continue to grow in number in Australia are you okay with marriage being Muslim only?

Yeah I'll take the peer reviewed journal article using a 20 year data set over your link any day

And now you're just strawmanning me, I've never said that marriage should be *exclusively* for the devoutly religious & none of my arguments lead there- I always maintained that while I think this is the *ideal* form marriage & believe it should be left alone by the government, privately people can decide for themselves to define it however they'd like. Go practice your deadlift.

 

[DemonTim]

I'm sure that comment must make some sense to you - none for me.

It’s how animals protect offspring in nature.

Yeah I'll take the peer reviewed journal article using a 20 year data set over your link any day

And now you're just strawmanning me, I've never said that marriage should be *exclusively* for the devoutly religious & none of my arguments lead there- I always maintained that while I think this is the *ideal* form marriage & believe it should be left alone by the government, privately people can decide for themselves to define it however they'd like. Go practice your deadlift.

The 20 year data set that used the same methodology...that you admit you had to search for because other data didn’t support you.

And yes I’m aware you didn’t say that. But isn’t your whole point that religion makes marriage strong, well it doesn’t, unless the person is devout (although correlation and causation aren’t the same thing)

So people can define marriage how they like, but you want rules to state marriage is religious only? Doesn’t sound like you want people to define it how they like at all, seems you want the minority of marriage to define it for all (kinda funny considering marriage was co-opted by religion, not created by)

Why would I “practice my deadlift”? What does that even have to do with the topic?

 

[JackOutback]

So men should horde women then.

That's my plan; wife disagrees though.

 

[bourbons]

Haha!

Just caught up on Monday nights Q&A.

How anyone could think that Yes came out of that worse after watching Okotel throw up all over herself on the children thing is perplexing to say the least.

 

[bourbons]

The instinct to protect your creation is not strong? Is there anything else we would readily give up our life to defend?

It is. As is the instinct to procreate with multiple partners.

Both instincts have the same biological goal - survival and propagation of your genetic material.

Extrapolating monogamous marriage as some kind of absolute from the basis of nature.. please.

 

[BEaston]

Just caught up on Monday nights Q&A.

How anyone could think that Yes came out of that worse after watching Okotel throw up all over herself on the children thing is perplexing to say the least.

Agreed. Quite laughable.

 

[Montezuma]

Agreed. Quite laughable.

It was quite awkward.