Coopers bogged down in bible backlash?

[Parks]

Is it the term marriage that predates the christian belief or the concept of a lawful partnership? Meaning that, does the word marriage show up in any literature pre bible?

The term marriage didn't surface until the 1400-1550s and came from french. Not sure what the actual, original biblical term was.

 

[Mattress]

Not unsurprising is the blatant mocking of someone and their belief system, and the support of such mocking......from those who cry foul at the first sign of disregard for anyone else's rights or beliefs. Quality work.

I know right. You tell the gays that they aren't entitled to the same rights that you have, and are therefore lesser human beings than you, and they get all uppity! Who would have thought.

 

[SBOB]

I do see what you're saying, there has been far too much twisting and misrepresenting and specific manipulation of Scripture so as to completely misrepresent Christ's teachings. And to alienate people. I do believe that there is an underlying agenda to try and force churches into performing ceremonies between people who identify by sexual persuasion though.

The inclusion of same *** couples into the existing marriage act, would in no way enable the 'forcing' of churches into performing ceremonies which do not adhere to their beliefs anymore than an existing Christian couple could force a Synagogue to perform their wedding

Religious objections should not be a valid 'argument' with regards to equality of peoples rights, unless you are arguing for the inclusion of those people.

Considering up until somewhat recent history it was frowned upon to
- Marry between different religions
- Marry between different race

Both of these had the same 'religious' objections at that point in history.

The easy way to tell if your argument regarding marriage equality doesn't make sense with relation to a simple equality argument is replace the phrase 'same ***' with some other minority group. If you sound like a biggot/racist/etc, then your argument doesnt stand up

 

[mtb]

Marriage is, in today's society, considered a religious union. So why is it the default method of "tying the knot"? Why does it matter that homosexuals aren't permitted to marry under a religion they choose not to follow?
(I'm not factoring in those who do follow a religion that forbids their sexuality.. not even sure how they should handle that..)

I thought this was the exact reason Civil Unions were created; as marriage without the religion. Happy for someone to correct my ignorance.

 

[earle]

Marriage is, in today's society, considered a religious union.

I would disagree. It's a legal union, some would argue that its a spiritual union.

You can be married without the religion by a non-religious celebrant. It's still a marriage.

 

[Parks]

According to the ABS 75% of marriages are performed by a civil celebrant.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0

 

[mtb]

The point I'm trying to make is that the line is clearly blurred. The easiest way to clarify that line is let the religious have their word, what's the big deal?
Marriage is religious, Civil Union is non-religious. It gets pretty easy after that.

 

[earle]

Err yes, the whites can sit in the front of the bus and the blacks in the back. A two-tier system. We can all see how well that worked out.

 

[mtb]

Never said either would be disadvantaged in any way. If marriage was brought in by the French in 1400 then hasn't it predominantly been a religious term for six hundred years? How many gay marriages were there before the new millennium?

Again, my point is, religion got to the word "marriage" long before same *** marriage came about. I don't agree with the prejudice, but I can understand why people believe it is religion specific. I think it's simply easier to define a new type of union instead of modifying the existing one.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Marriage has never been defined in Australian law as a religious institution. Even in 1961 when the marriage act was enacted into legislation, (then senator) John Gorton said:
"I am inclined to think that the reason why marriage has not been defined previously in legislation of this kind is because it is rather difficult to do so. Marriage, of course, can mean a number of things. For instance, it can mean a religious ceremony; it can mean a civil ceremony; and it can mean a form of living together. There are several meanings covered by the word ‘marriage’, which are quite different one from the other."

 

[mtb]

And if you ask a priest? Would he say the same?

No, he'd say that it is a religious union. And it's not worth the fight to make him, nor the entire community devoted to his teachings, change that definition

 

[earle]

The concept of marriage wasn't brought in by the french, that specific word for the concept was.

I do understand why some people both religious and non-religious would think of it as a religious concept but would argue that the concept of marriage has been around for much longer than current religion. As Liam pointed out earlier in the thread same-*** unions were documented well before current religion decided to try to define and shape it to their version.

The problem with a second parallel concept or name is that it will be corrupted by those who see their version as superior. It has far more potential to create division than equality.

 

[manticle]

It isn't worth the fight to you but to an enormous number of other people it is.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

And if you ask a priest? Would he say the same?

No, he'd say that it is a religious union. And it's not worth the fight to make him, nor the entire community devoted to his teachings, change that definition

what does a priest have to do with the law in this regard?

 

[SBOB]

I don't agree with the prejudice, but I can understand why people believe it is religion specific. I think it's simply easier to define a new type of union instead of modifying the existing one.

which means those who which to have a 'religious' based marriage can continue to do so, and no one else's 'non-religious' marriage should lessen or infer anything on their current union... Why don't they rename theirs to be a 'religious marriage' and everyone else can just have a plain old vanilla one. The majority of weddings these days (in this country at least) are not religious, so the majority can just keep the name..

 

[SBOB]

It isn't worth the fight to you but to an enormous number of other people it is.

indeed
arguing against the wishes for equality of a minority from a position of privilege and majority. Seems fair right?

 

[mtb]

what does a priest have to do with the law in this regard?

Nothing - but those on the religious side of this debate would listen to their priest first. That was my point - they aren't all to happy with the law intervening.

It isn't worth the fight to you but to an enormous number of other people it is.

Poor wording here on my part. It is worth a great deal of effort, but I don't see it as a winnable battle.. Christianity is too influential.

 

[mtb]

which means those who which to have a 'religious' based marriage can continue to do so, and no one else's 'non-religious' marriage should lessen or infer anything on their current union... Why don't they rename theirs to be a 'religious marriage' and everyone else can just have a plain old vanilla one. The majority of weddings these days (in this country at least) are not religious, so the majority can just keep the name..

That's a fantastic idea.

 

[earle]

they aren't all to happy with the law intervening.

Agreed, as evidenced by recent and ongoing royal commissions. Doesn't make it right though.

 

[bradsbrew]

De facto

In regards to legal terms, are gay couples that live together treated the same as hetro couples living together under a de facto relationship.

Being, if a gay couple are on centrelink and live together do the get the couples payment or singles?
If they split after whatever timeframe it is, are they legally bound to split possesion etc?