planetf1.com

No need to leave your comments if you don't like, I'm just curious as to how the poll will go. With the Australian federal election coming up, the current party in power has pledged a bill to legalise same-sex marriage within 100 days should they be re-elected. All over the internet there's differing opinions as to whether or not it's 'right' and I'm curious as to what kind of percentage we come up with on here.

I don't want a huge debate about the morality of it all, so leave any aggressive criticisms at the door. The request is simple: Would you vote for or against same-sex marriage if you were given the opportunity?

Use the poll to answer.

Before the issue blew up I probably wouldn't have bothered voting on the grounds it doesn't affect me and I don't really see the point in marriage. Having subsequently seen how farcical, offensive and bigoted the arguments against it tend to be, I'd now be first in line to vote for it (and most of the country would be lining up with me, if polls are to be believed).

Bit slow to the party again Australia.... were you waiting to see if NZ was consumed by hellfire first?

WiredKiwi wrote:Bit slow to the party again Australia.... were you waiting to see if NZ was consumed by hellfire first?

Oh, don't expect it to happen. The current Opposition Party is more than likely going to win the next election and has no intention whatsoever of allowing same-sex marriage. The party head has even previously stated that he's afraid of homosexuality and the idea of same-sex marriage.

Toby. wrote:

WiredKiwi wrote:Bit slow to the party again Australia.... were you waiting to see if NZ was consumed by hellfire first?

Oh, don't expect it to happen. The current Opposition Party is more than likely going to win the next election and has no intention whatsoever of allowing same-sex marriage. The party head has even previously stated that he's afraid of homosexuality and the idea of same-sex marriage.

Heh heh, just so long as the crazy One Nation or whoever they are don't get a look in! I'm sure they'd be anti F1 as well and that would be several bridges too far.

I've got no problem with same sex marriage. No major dramas here when it was legalised.

Although I still don't get what the difference between a Civil Union (which are for any couple) and marriage is. Legal standing for CU's and marriage is the same I think, so I really don't see the big deal, as the law may allow same sex marriage but the major religions are still mostly not performing the ceremonies.

For, in the sense that I'm not actually bothered. If gay people want to get married I don't see any problem with it.

I assume that all those opposed to it were virgins when they got married and have never been involved in a divorce or been born outside of wedlock. Otherwise they would be massive hypocrites.

Well, marriage is a tricky thing due to the nature of religion and state. However, since marriage is actually a state institution, it should be open to all. I have no issue with some dudes getting hitched.

mac_d wrote:Well, marriage is a tricky thing due to the nature of religion and state. However, since marriage is actually a state institution, it should be open to all. I have no issue with some dudes getting hitched.

The main arguments against that I've read about are usually regarding religion and that marriage is a religious thing. But religion is fast leaving the government of the state in the UK and although the main reason the UK laws were put on hold was due to religious reasons from the church and within the government (not sure about elsewhere).

In the UK, there was a clause in the law stating that no religious body would be forced to perform same sex marriage by law and could 'opt out' as such, bit nothing stopping any couples having a state marriage.

mac_d wrote:Well, marriage is a tricky thing due to the nature of religion and state. However, since marriage is actually a state institution, it should be open to all. I have no issue with some dudes getting hitched.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that marriage is a social convention / custom that pre-dates modern religions, and they therefore have no real right to lay claim to it.

Belgium seems to have the best system: it's illegal for a priest/minister to marry someone, unless they've already been though a civil marriage ceremony - there's a clear distinction between marriage in the religious sense, and the social / legal /civil convention, and it's always the civil marriage that takes precedence because it's the only legally recognised form of marriage.

I don't think religions/denominations (they're not all against) should be forced to marry people if it's against their beliefs, it would be a complete sham if they were, but at the same time they don't get to dictate what defines a marriage. It doesn't have to be a sacred promise before god, it can be just as meaningful if it's treated as a social contract (promise) between two people - or it could be both.

This is an option yes? It's not as if same sex marriage is going to be compulsory.
I can appreciate the religious arguments but if we are just talking about the state (separated from the church) then I think allowing the option is fine. If the religious organisation to which you may be affiliated is against it but you are not then something's got to give; your religious group bends to the will of its adherents, or you switch your affiliation (even to the point of creating a new organisation)

Totally and utterly against.

I have no problem whatsoever with two gay people being together or having a civil partnership, but marriage should be a man and a woman. (And no, I'm not religious in the slightest, quite the opposite)

Tyrrellforever wrote: but marriage should be a man and a woman

Why?

For, no problems with it, its hard to believe same sex marriage is a revolutionary thing in this day and age. Should have been in place decades ago IMO.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote: but marriage should be a man and a woman

Why?

I'd ask the same question, why?

The only plausible response I can think of myself is that marriage should be about 2 people procreating. But if that is the case, what happens when 2 people get married and make the choice not to have children?

If Tyrellfroever can give any other reasons, I'd love to hear them.

simple to answer - all people must have equal rights. nothing else to add.

EDIT: forgot to mention - anyone who thinks differently must be shot

People have a right to live how they want.

For.

A big tick to same-sex marriage from me, I normally find that people who are against it claim that they are not bigots/homophobic but then come out with some insane reasons as to why it shouldn't be allowed.

Just realised, I didn't say in my posts - For

Tyrrellforever wrote:Totally and utterly against.

I have no problem whatsoever with two gay people being together or having a civil partnership, but marriage should be a man and a woman. (And no, I'm not religious in the slightest, quite the opposite)

I'll be the third to ask, why?

Marriage shouldn't be a solely religious thing in this day and age. All it is is a union of two people declaring their love for one another for life.

I can actually understand why religious people would be against same sex marriage because it goes against their beliefs but I don't agree with them. At least they have a valid reason for perhaps being against such a thing. If you are not religious then I can only think of one reason one would be against same sex marriage, and that is someone who simply doesn't like gay people because it scares them.

I still can't believe in 2013 the world is still telling people who they can and can't fall in love with. It's sad. Fall in love with who you want if they make you happy. We should all just want people to be happy, who gives a flying f*** about tradition or 'keeping it straight'. It isn't about procreating either, gay couples can have a family as much as a straight couple can if the right people are willing to help.

Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

Why did the one God create animals which have also demonstrated homosexual behaviour?

How would you feel about a marriage which wasn't based on religion.

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

That's a fair enough view for yourself (you are a muslim if I remember) from a religious point of view. But what about those who do not share your beliefs, should they be forced to adhere to something because a religion they do not believe in/are not a member of says so?

If 2 people love each other and believe in marriage they should be allowed to get married. It shouldn't matter if it's man and woman, man and man, woman and woman or Sutil and dolphin.. Actually that last part should probably be forbidden.

^^ Let's not get into a bestiality debate here, Mr-E!

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

which one of them?

Toby. wrote:^^ Let's not get into a bestiality debate here, Mr-E!

On the issue of bestiality -because it's one counterargument often brought up by people politically opposed, "what's next? Marrying a dog?" - animals cannot give consent or sign a legal document. As far as I am concerned, consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever agreement that all parties involved consent to (and doesn't affect others) - and the "if gays get married it will affect the moral fabric of society" is not what 'affecting others' means. It's not the business of of people to tell others what relationships they are entitled to have.

And before people bring up marrying children as an argument against gay marriage, children cannot give legal consent either.

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

So are homosexuals not human or not acting upon their nature? If it's human nature for a man and a woman to be together you must be saying one or the other.

Whichever god you believe in, what about the majority who believe in a different god, or no god at all? Do they just have to live by your guess at what one of the many god's might have wanted? Why?

What do you mean by 'that is how we're created'? Why should the fact we were 'created' as men and women preclude homosexuals having the same rights as straight people?

Would love to see some answers.

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

Why does homosexuality exist then, if it was not intended by God?

For! I'm happy for them it's allowed here.
We are living in the 21st Century not in the Middle Ages any more. The arguments against it are usually religion based and often sound like pure hate. Yes gay/lesbian cannot procreate on their own but there are quite some hetero couples needing extra help too. Adoption seems to be harder for same sex couples too again because of the usual prejudices, that parents need a mum and a dad. But there are enough examples of single parenting (majority women I think) too and people don't really start arguments and debates about that.

What I really find idiotic is people coming on the streets protesting same sex-marriage with banners, crusading against something that really doesn't disadvantage them. Makes me wonder, gee do something useful and protest against hunger in Africa or something

And the because God said so argument is really getting old you know. It's like the last straw when you run out of useful arguments. Don't get me because the BIble says... The Bible wasn't written by God and changed numerous times, there are numerous other versions than just the 4 best knowns too.

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

I'm guessing you're a christian, so you will doubtless know:

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.
The bible never mentions gay marriage.
The bible never mentions homosexual women.

So there's nothing in the bible to say homosexuals shouldn't marry, or that homosexuality amongst women is even wrong. It just states that men shouldn't engage in homosexual behaviour with each other, which is obviously a quite different issue.

So, even if you think bronze age mythology should govern whether or not homosexuals should have equal rights, it offers no opinion on it. You have interpreted the opinion yourself, could it therefore perhaps be more a reflection of your own views than those of your god?

May I ask if you take god's actual rules, as laid out in the bible, at least as seriously as those that aren't even mentioned? Presumably you've never eaten pig or rabbit, or worn clothes of more than one fabric? These are things god actually has opinions on... unlike gay marriage. Or is the mixing of cotton and nylon not such an affront to your own morality?

Absolutely for it. It's nice to see the barriers of intolerance slowly eroding.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Toby. wrote:^^ Let's not get into a bestiality debate here, Mr-E!

On the issue of bestiality -because it's one counterargument often brought up by people politically opposed, "what's next? Marrying a dog?" - animals cannot give consent or sign a legal document. As far as I am concerned, consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever agreement that all parties involved consent to (and doesn't affect others) - and the "if gays get married it will affect the moral fabric of society" is not what 'affecting others' means. It's not the business of of people to tell others what relationships they are entitled to have.

And before people bring up marrying children as an argument against gay marriage, children cannot give legal consent either.

That's one I have heard from those being against it too. I have been reading on forums where he parents went ballistic when they found out that there were plans to make Spiderwoman a lesbian. They were so worried about their children seeing Spiderwoman making out with another women. Funny since in cartoons you don't get to see such things anyway. Tells a lot about their own intelligence immediately relating homosexuality to something completely sex driven only.

Another funny thing is when parents don't mind it when their kids watch violence and gore but are going crazy with the sight of the slightest bit of bare breasts. Those would be the types that say porn is disgusting but behind the curtains do the most perverted things in bed.

I think it's not about what the majority does but what the majority thinks. Most couples are heterosexual not all by free choice though (some cultures still have the arranged marriages) but I think in the modern societies most are not against same-sex marriages. I think that beats the religion driven and procreation argument easily. If 2 people of same sex marry because they love each other what harm do they do to someone else or society? None at all IMO.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Toby. wrote:^^ Let's not get into a bestiality debate here, Mr-E!

On the issue of bestiality -because it's one counterargument often brought up by people politically opposed, "what's next? Marrying a dog?" - animals cannot give consent or sign a legal document. As far as I am concerned, consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever agreement that all parties involved consent to (and doesn't affect others) - and the "if gays get married it will affect the moral fabric of society" is not what 'affecting others' means. It's not the business of of people to tell others what relationships they are entitled to have.

And before people bring up marrying children as an argument against gay marriage, children cannot give legal consent either.

Your thoughts on arranged (sometimes forced) marriages?

Balibari wrote:

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

I'm guessing you're a christian, ...

A Muslim, with a tendency to desert threads when asked difficult questions.

bbobeckyj wrote:

Balibari wrote:

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

I'm guessing you're a christian, ...

A Muslim, with a tendency to desert threads when asked difficult questions.

Thanks, my mistake. Of course the qu'ran only places reasonable and noble limitations on its disciples! I know the text far less well but I believe it mirrors the King James in not mentioning gay marriage or female homosexuality at all (?), instead just defining sex between two men as being wrong.

As ever, I suspect that curious phenomenon whereby the beliefs of one's god(s) miraculously resemble one's own beliefs.

bbobeckyj wrote:

Balibari wrote:

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

I'm guessing you're a christian, ...

A Muslim, with a tendency to desert threads when asked difficult questions.

It's the silly thing with the religious argument anyway, people within religion can't agree with each other either. I could be mistaken (please correct me if I am) but f1madman is also a Muslim, but is fine with others being allowed to marry if the same sex and they want to.

On a more public scale, the past and current archbishops of Canterbury cant agree on the issue (amongst other things).

The thing I don't get with the religious argument is if they are against same sex marriage because homosexuality is not allowed in their religion and marriage is a religious institution, then surely they should also be against state (or non-religious) marriage as well.

minchy wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:

Balibari wrote:

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

I'm guessing you're a christian, ...

A Muslim, with a tendency to desert threads when asked difficult questions.

It's the silly thing with the religious argument anyway, people within religion can't agree with each other either. I could be mistaken (please correct me if I am) but f1madman is also a Muslim, but is fine with others being allowed to marry if the same sex and they want to.

On a more public scale, the past and current archbishops of Canterbury cant agree on the issue (amongst other things).

The thing I don't get with the religious argument is if they are against same sex marriage because homosexuality is not allowed in their religion and marriage is a religious institution, then surely they should also be against state (or non-religious) marriage as well.

All the holy texts of the Abrahamic faiths are full of contradictions and hypocrisy. So fans are forced to navigate a path through them by cherry-picking, inevitably many will cherry-pick the values they find most appealing. As such you have gay christians and muslims who interpret the relevant passages in different ways to homophobic ones. Or they may simply accept the anachronistic nature of such texts makes them impossible to take literally, and instead choose to adhere to some perceived general message (though how Christ's message tallies with treating homosexuals like second class citizens is beyond me). Others will gleefully jump on passages that appear to support their own inherent bigotry, that's the key.

The bible clearly states one must not dress in clothes made of more than one type of fabric. It say's nothing about gay marriage. Homosexuality in general is mentioned less often than recipes for cakes to offer god, and in contradictory terms. How many evangelical christians have you heard preaching the importance of omni-fabric dress codes? How many have you heard railing against gay marriage? There are few people with inherently bigoted views on fabric. There are many with inherently bigoted views on homosexuality. Coincidence?

I have no problem with consenting same-sex adults being allowed to 'marry' - as it is their personal decision. Don't want to set off an argument here, but I'm not generically in favour of same sex couples adopting though - because, for example, that immediately affects someone else (i.e. the adopted child!)

I voted for. I can't remember who it was (someone famous) who said something like "why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer". It made me laugh but Google hasn't helped me find out who it was. The religious argument doesn't do it for me especially as I was brought up by a very religious mother. I have found that being a rebellious child I spent most of my younger life questioning her beliefs & what the Bible actually said, which I had read twice. I was forever saying "show me where it says in the Bible that you can't drink alcohol" or "show me where in the Bible it says that you can't dance". Yes, I was brought up as a Baptist. In fact, my favourite joke is "Why do Baptists not have sex standing up?" "Because it may lead to dancing".

When I was at High School I had two teachers who were gay, which considering the times especially in a small country town, was out there. One of the teachers was engaged to a local girl from a prominent family & broke off the engagement to then live with the other gay teacher, which was scandalous, to say the least. The fact they were gay didn't worry me then, doesn't worry me now. Regardless of my background, somehow I always understood that it wasn't just a lifestyle choice they made as so many religious people seem to infer

Toby. wrote:

WiredKiwi wrote:Bit slow to the party again Australia.... were you waiting to see if NZ was consumed by hellfire first?

Oh, don't expect it to happen. The current Opposition Party is more than likely going to win the next election and has no intention whatsoever of allowing same-sex marriage. The party head has even previously stated that he's afraid of homosexuality and the idea of same-sex marriage.

Actually, Toby, I will pick you up on that one. Tony Abbott, who you are referring to, has a sister who is a lesbian & is in a same sex partnership & she has said that he has always given her full support etc. She recently became a member of local government & Tony was out there campaigning & supporting her beforehand. As a Catholic he doesn't believe in same sex marriage & that is his right as his sister has acknowledged