Psyber wrote:I'm still with the principle of allowing gay marriage for those who are foolish enough to want to marry, but I think it would be a different matter to try to force religious institutions to perform the marriage ceremonies if they conflict with their beliefs.
The problem seems to be that religious institutions hold an historical mortgage on the term "Marriage" which the state goes along with by referring to non-religious ceremonies as "Civil Union". .
most weddings performed nowadays are civil unions anyway. something like 70% are outside of the church as far as i know (cant remember exactly). they are still called marriages even though they are performed by civil ceremony with a celebrant. so i dont see this as an issue at all to allow gay people this right.
there would be at least some ministers that would welcome gay members of their congregation a chance to marry in their church too, and that should also be allowed.
I agree with you. However, the term "marriage" seems to evoke more resistance than "civil union" does, and some militants do seem to want to force the churches to comply.
Psyber wrote:I'm still with the principle of allowing gay marriage for those who are foolish enough to want to marry, but I think it would be a different matter to try to force religious institutions to perform the marriage ceremonies if they conflict with their beliefs.
The problem seems to be that religious institutions hold an historical mortgage on the term "Marriage" which the state goes along with by referring to non-religious ceremonies as "Civil Union". .
most weddings performed nowadays are civil unions anyway. something like 70% are outside of the church as far as i know (cant remember exactly). they are still called marriages even though they are performed by civil ceremony with a celebrant. so i dont see this as an issue at all to allow gay people this right.
there would be at least some ministers that would welcome gay members of their congregation a chance to marry in their church too, and that should also be allowed.
I agree with you. However, the term "marriage" seems to evoke more resistance than "civil union" does, and some militants do seem to want to force the churches to comply.
I think it's ridiculous to force churches to comply. Hindi, Jewish, Muslim marriages are all legal in Australia and none of them are performed in a Christian church, and not should they be
Yes, but, heck, there was a lot of damage done during the time it was allowed. All sorts of terrible things happened - Mandela died, Holden's closure announced, Broad and Johnson damaged the spirit of cricket. I know where the blame falls.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
My missus brought up a good point last night. She said as a country, we are told we have to tolerate different cultures, races, etc. It is actually illegal to discriminate against all of those things, but the Federal Government is actively discriminating against a group of people based on the fact that a 69 now involves 2 bj's. How can anyone take them seriously when they talk about equility now?
I think people that are disgusted by homosexuality are the ones with the problem, not the actual homosexuals.
