Should religious have a say in the same sex debate?

[appleandbee]

Yes, I think religious people should have a say and be free to have their opinions informed by their religious convictions. The issues with illiberal views on SSM and lgbtiq+ groups, should be attributed to organised/centralised religion, not religion itself. Theorganised nature of many religions (eg.having authoritative figures and institutions) gives power to those at the top of the hierarchy to assert their interpretations of the text and entrench patriarchal structures as well as those that excludes lgbtiq+ groups (although there are a few liberal churches which are inclusive of lgbtiq+ groups.

Also for all those that say that SSM is only symbolic or that it doesn't affect anybody, this article is pretty convincing. While marriage shouldn't be the only solution to this problem, because not marrying is a legitimate lifestyle choice, it's a step forward in helping the kids involved. Having known people that grew up with two mothers or two fathers, and having experienced the complex nature of family law myself, I can deeply empathise.

http://trinitynews.ie/what-growing-up-in-a-queer-family-means-to-me/

[elysepopplewell]

Yes, religious persons should be able to have a say in the decision about same-sex marriage. Wouldn't it make the vote even moooore silly if only atheists were allowed to vote?

What I dislike, is the talk of marriage as a Christian invention. Marriage has existed loooong before Christianity, however in different forms. Marriage has a fluid relationship with society throughout ages and places. For example, I recently read that Emperor Nero was married - to two men. I remember studying Deir El medina in Year 11 for Ancient History, (ancient history, AKA, before Christianity), and the role of women in marriages as an economic relationship as well as a love relationship. It is also not an uncommon narrative for there to be periods of time where polygamous relationships were the preferred marriage structure. In Africa, there have been female husbands" which is a situation where the husbands could not carry out the role of what we might refer to in modern western society as the "bread winner" so a woman is delegated that role. And so on, and so on, and so on.

The reason I say this is - it is incorrect to say "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" as a defence for that being the reason it should stay this way. Has it always been between a man and a woman within Christianity? Debatable - but I'm happy to settle on the mainstream experience of marriage in Christianity as being heterosexual.

I support religious institution's right to maintain marriage in a religious sense as being between a man and a woman. This is not the debate at hand Australia-wide, however. This is about the legal institution of marriage, not the religious institution.

I find it particularly distasteful and offensive when a religious marriage is seen as a "real marriage" in arguments. A "real marriage" as being heterosexual and monogamous is completely ignorant to the dynamic experience of relationships within our own country, and abroad. Frankly, the idealisation of a nuclear family is detrimental to the celebration of diversity we could be relishing in, very harmful to the REAL, human, experiences of members of our society, and pretty ignorant of reality.

My arguments has a bias skewed against the arguments I see presented by Christians - seeing as my own community is raising Christian arguments and they have the loudest political presence of the religious institutions in this debate at the present time.

[EEEEEEP]

Interjection =)

Okay, a lot of people have said... yes... cause freedom of speech (and Democratic systems) .

If religion should have no say in politics, why should they have  a say in this debate as SSM is kinda political and societal at the same time?

This is about a legal institution, so does that not rule religious organisations out of this?

[Calebark]

Interjection =)

Okay, a lot of people have said... yes... cause freedom of speech (and Democratic systems) .

If religion should have no say in politics, why should they have  a say in this debate as SSM is kinda political and societal at the same time?

This is about a legal institution, so does that not rule religious organisations out of this?

I think that religious organisations can give opinions on anything, no matter how political -- we just can't be expected to seriously consider any arguments that are not secular in nature (like more than 'because my holy book says so').

[zofromuxo]

I think everyone should have a say in this vote , we live in a democracy that allows for this. Yes, you may not like what people vote and that is okay. Have a reasonable, rational discussion about it.

What I don't like about this debate is the nit-picking, harassment and propaganda from both sides [Yes, both sides].

Just stick to the facts and at the end of the day, your vote is personal.
I was at the start against this vote because of the legality behind it, but have since changed my tone due to the high court's decision.
If religion plays a part on how you vote, then so be it. We all take influences from sources to help shape our decisions.

[achre]

Well yeah, any Australian on the electoral roll can return a response of either yes or no to the postal survey, so the relgious and the non-religious will have a say on same-sex marriage. But if the question is "should religious people have a platform in the public debate on same sex marriage", then the answer is no, if they're presenting a non-secular argument, because Australian marriage law has nothing to do with religion, except that some religious officials are also registered celebrants. It would be a waste of airtime and newspaper ink to give them their 5 minutes.

[exit]

Well yeah, any Australian on the electoral roll can return a response of either yes or no to the postal survey, so the relgious and the non-religious will have a say on same-sex marriage. But if the question is "should religious people have a platform in the public debate on same sex marriage", then the answer is no, if they're presenting a non-secular argument, because Australian marriage law has nothing to do with religion, except that some religious officials are also registered celebrants. It would be a waste of airtime and newspaper ink to give them their 5 minutes.

That's not really a valid argument. They're allowed their opinion as much as you are, even if you might not agree with it. But yeah, if they are presenting a nonsecular argument, it would be easy to break down since what they say would not apply to everyone so noone would do that. So either way, they should be allowed to give their say

[vox nihili]

Interjection =)

Okay, a lot of people have said... yes... cause freedom of speech (and Democratic systems) .

If religion should have no say in politics, why should they have  a say in this debate as SSM is kinda political and societal at the same time?

This is about a legal institution, so does that not rule religious organisations out of this?

I believe politicians should leave religion out of their decision making because they're elected to represent more than 100K people, the majority of whom will belong to a different religion.
Religious institutions should be more than able to express their views in public though, nor should they aspire not to.

[achre]

That's not really a valid argument. They're allowed their opinion as much as you are, even if you might not agree with it. But yeah, if they are presenting a nonsecular argument, it would be easy to break down since what they say would not apply to everyone so noone would do that. So either way, they should be allowed to give their say

They're allowed their opinion, and they can even express that opinion on their ballot. They shouldn't be allowed to clog the public debate with irrelevant points from their personal doctrine, we don't have unlimited platforms. Our news media recognises that, it's why Lyle Shelton is scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find secular points to dissuade the "yes" vote, because he knows if he got on ABC radio and told the truth about why he doesn't want a yes win, he'd be laughed off air.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard. Nobody owes you an audience.

[elysepopplewell]

Actually I'll add something here I should've mentioned earlier -

Should everyone have a right to have their say in this? Not really. Because what this is, is giving the nation, millions of strangers, the ability to voice an opinion on the validity of another person's relationship or family relationship. A person, or people, they know nothing about, will know nothing about, and will likely never be affected by. The nation is being given a platform to validate or invalidate a very real, human, experience, in the eyes of a law that we don't have the direct ability to make.

So to me, the whole thing is bullcrap, but this is where we are and we will make the most of it. So talking specifically about the vote as it stands, yes every person is equal in having their share and say. Talking about the issue outside of the issue of eligibility to vote - I feel very upset that legitimate relationships and family units are being put up on the stage for loud bids to be screamed at them, like their human experiences are a spectacle of our society and we, collectively, have an obligation to pass judgement.

Live and let live! Let's make the most of this postal vote in the hopes of positive change so this harmful rhetoric is simmered down.

[sudodds]

They're allowed their opinion, and they can even express that opinion on their ballot. They shouldn't be allowed to clog the public debate with irrelevant points from their personal doctrine, we don't have unlimited platforms. Our news media recognises that, it's why Lyle Shelton is scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find secular points to dissuade the "yes" vote, because he knows if he got on ABC radio and told the truth about why he doesn't want a yes win, he'd be laughed off air.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard. Nobody owes you an audience.

This reminds me a lot of a uni reading that we once had to do, titled "No, you’re not entitled to your opinion" that honestly made me rethink my outlook on the concept of "freedom of speech" quite a lot! Here is the article if anyone is interested. Essentially, it makes the point that yes, everyone can have an opinion, but not every opinion deserves to be shared, or to be given a platform. Many news networks, in an effort to seem unbiased, will try to present both sides of a debate, even if one sides argument is factually/scientifically baseless, as equals. The SSM debate is an example of this, but also climate change, vaccinations, etc. Like they'll give equal platform to a climate change denier, and an accredited scientist and call that "unbiased", which in the authors (and tbh, my) opinion is just silly, and often harmful. It keeps debates on things that really shouldn't be up for debate still going, which promotes more skepticism, and the spread of misinformation.

I do think there are some problems with this mentality, in the sense that were do we draw the line or distinguish between a "baseless opinion" and just an unpopular one, however when it comes to SSM, there really isn't any valid argument as to why it shouldn't be passed. To a certain extent even, I question whether anyone deserves a say in it being passed, purely because I don't believe this should be a matter of opinion. Why should I get a say in whether or not someone else can get married/have the same rights as me? Like, a vote on whether or not, say, to become a republic is something that affects everyone, so a vote on that makes sense - but passing SSM literally only affects those who will get married to the same sex... that has nothing to do with me, so why should I get a say? Like of course I have an opinion on whether or not I believe SS couples should be able to get married, and that opinion is a resounding YES, but do I believe that should even matter? I'm not really sure. (EDIT - pretty much what elyse said aha)

But yeah, there's definitely some flaws in the articles logic, but overall, pretty interesting stuff

[strawberries]

I question whether anyone deserves a say in it being passed, purely because I don't believe this should be a matter of opinion

this x1000

slightly offtopic

this survey is stupid, pointless and a waste of money

[zofromuxo]

this x1000

slightly offtopic

this survey is stupid, pointless and a waste of money

Your spoiler isn't offtopic at all, in fact a lot of people at the very start of the announcement felt this way and still do in a way.
But if I recall from an article I read with Penny Wong, the spearhead behind the survey. She said this was the only way in parliament she could get same-sex marriage to get through as a law.

Which is sad to be honest since now the Liberal party is like "everyone vote yes" and I'm just counting all the money that just got lost because they don't say yes earlier.... But politics is politics, don't bother with agreeing with your opposition even if you feel that's right, just disagree because we can't have them be correct.

[12070]

Wow! First time I have seen a respectful discussion on this matter. This seems to be an anomaly which I'm quite disappointed about if I'm being honest.

To explicitly address your question; Yes.

Most people have already said 'freedom of speech' and hence, your motivation should not matter so I don't need to go over that. Although very much entitled to do so, I think  'no voters' shouldn't primarily use The Bible as their reason for voting no. I personally think there will be repercussions for Businesses, Schools, Churches etc. and this is where I think the argument of 'it won't affect you' is not entirely true. I don't know if anyone remembers the religious bakery that was issued a $135,000 fine for refusing to write 'support gay marriage' on a wedding cake and consequently had to close down. I don't feel as though this was discrimination, just a different political view. For example, if I went into a bakery and asked for a cake with the message 'Make America Great Again' and they refused, it isn't discriminatory against me as a person, it is a political view, thus I feel they are justified to refuse it. In Britain, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down and an orthodox Jewish school threatened with defunding. So the notion of 'it won't affect you' may be true for most but I believe that legalising gay-marriage will precipitate major ramifications for some religious people/groups.

I don't want to see this in Australia but I also want gay's to have the right to marry. Unfortunately, I believe the two are mutually exclusive and therefore I am glad I'm not 18 yet because it would be a difficult decision.

Just reiterating that this is all my opinion (even though AN has the most respectful community- quite literally) and I do want to become more educated on this topic so please feel free to contest anything I have said.

[Calebark]

Wow! First time I have seen a respectful discussion on this matter. This seems to be an anomaly which I'm quite disappointed about if I'm being honest.

To explicitly address your question; Yes.

Most people have already said 'freedom of speech' and hence, your motivation should not matter so I don't need to go over that. Although very much entitled to do so, I think  'no voters' shouldn't primarily use The Bible as their reason for voting no. I personally think there will be repercussions for Businesses, Schools, Churches etc. and this is where I think the argument of 'it won't affect you' is not entirely true. I don't know if anyone remembers the religious bakery that was issued a $135,000 fine for refusing to write 'support gay marriage' on a wedding cake and consequently had to close down. I don't feel as though this was discrimination, just a different political view. For example, if I went into a bakery and asked for a cake with the message 'Make America Great Again' and they refused, it isn't discriminatory against me as a person, it is a political view, thus I feel they are justified to refuse it. In Britain, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down and an orthodox Jewish school threatened with defunding. So the notion of 'it won't affect you' may be true for most but I believe that legalising gay-marriage will precipitate major ramifications for some religious people/groups.

I don't want to see this in Australia but I also want gay's to have the right to marry. Unfortunately, I believe the two are mutually exclusive and therefore I am glad I'm not 18 yet because it would be a difficult decision.

Just reiterating that this is all my opinion (even though AN has the most respectful community- quite literally) and I do want to become more educated on this topic so please feel free to contest anything I have said.

You're pretty damn polite, so I hope you appreciate yourself for being one of the reasons why we can have sensible debates like this

I'm personally conflicted on refusing service to people on the grounds of opinion (hate speech excluded). I feel it could lead to some dangerous circumstances. Say I wanted a cake with a picture of my hypothetical boyfriend and myself for our wedding, but all the cake shops in the area refuse. Shouldn't I have the freedom to acquire goods like anyone else? Freedom to serve v. be served, I suppose.

I don't really see how SSM would be related to funding of religious buildings. Even if SSM would cause minor detriment to religion, I don't see this as an issue. If the giving of equality means you suffer, this isn't their fault for wanting to be equal -- it's your fault for making it an 'us versus them' issue. I can't think of a conceivable scenario where SSM would result in any unfair treatment, but I can think of unfair treatment for the reverse.