Its exactly the same. Slavery was deeply entrenched with religion and tradition.

Once again, I'm correct.

A civil union is a non religious marriage.

My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage.

More than 60pc of Australians have a civil celebrant in their marriage. If religions want to continue to teach some outdated idea that a homosexual relationship is inferior, and refuse to marry gay people, that's their problem. But they should not be able to dictate who gets a secular marriage. If me and my gf can have a secular marriage, a gay couple should be able to have one too.

I reject this whole idea that there is something embarrassing or wrong about being a gay football (or sports) fan. Football is for everyone - people of all different identities are welcome. The fact some people still feel uncomfortable about this is shameful.

I don't want to tar all Wanderers fans with the same brush, because some of their fans are open minded and supportive. However, most gay kids can't wait to get out of Western Sydney from all the shit that they cop from bigoted people.

Sydney FC represent the part of Sydney where many gay Australians run to - because around here, nobody gives a shit who you are. It's completely appropriate for Sydney FC players, fan groups and the club to reach out to that community, just as the Wanderers reach out to ethnic communities. I'm glad I support a club that is so enlightened.

Yep, and the point I was trying to make. Marriage like it or not is not a religious institution alone. If it was how do atheist marry? How do agnostics? I can't start my own religion and declare dogs and cats are married, they must be recognised by the state. Therefore marriage is a state institution not a religious one.

You can declare God says man and women etc, and that is fine, the state isn't forcing you to marry someone you don't want to. But your God might be different to my God who might not exist as far as the other person thinks. Therefore your religious laws do not govern me. And that is the point. The state does religion doesn't.

I think I need to add, this reply is not directly to u4486662, as we are saying the same thing, the reply is in general to the topic, I just want to make that clear


Edited by post_hoc: 8/3/2015 10:53:57 AM

Edited by post_hoc: 8/3/2015 10:54:35 AM

I hear ya, and I agree.

It seems pretty obvious you know nothing about the difference between Christian religions. Roman Catholics don't represent the whole Christian faith, so when you talk about the Roman Catholic church hiding paedophilia that has absolutely nothing to do with the Orthodox church for example who is also Christian and has nothing to do with the Vatican.
Your theory is so fucked up that you could easily say out of all the paedophile priests being charged they are always of anglo background. Does this make all anglos paedophiles?
Do your research before you attack a religion and as for religion being the cause of war all I can do is shake my head. You actually fall for that shit the media puts through your head when in fact nearly every single war is ONLY because of MONEY and LAND and they use religion to trick people like you and many others into believing religion is a bad thing.

This is probably the worst post I've seen of the 6 years I've been visiting this site. Disgrace

Sadly agree.

Are the mods even around? This thread should be locked and OP warned for bringing politics and opposition divides into a seemingly positive news article.

Tries to bait people to be homophobic so he can call people homophobic. Pretty sad.

Surely this thread deserves a lock by now

So why should a church honour a marriage if they disagree. My point was and still is if you disagree with homosexuality it doesnt make you a morally bad person as OP tried to assert and should be banned for vilification.

Whats the church got to do with this. And there are lots of marriages that would not be recognized by Christian Churches. They include Muslim marriages, Budist, non denominational/celebrant only.

Should we ban these marriages because they don't fit with your religion/church?

This is getting out of hand, give it a lock

I dont have a church or religion :)

Mods won't lock it until a WSW fan screams vilification and seeing as the Cove is the main focus of this thread, it won't be happening anytime soon.

This.

Disagreeing which is a completely personal choice/issue and actively campaigning for the rights of a group of people are two very different things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

"In their Encyclopedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod attempt a comprehensive listing of wars in history. They document 1763 wars overall. [3] Of which, some have identified and listed that only 123 (7%) were primarily religiously motivated.[4][5][6] The Encyclopedia of Wars identifies 420 as being religious in nature (a quarter), and of those religious wars, Christianity and Islam both feature in well over half.[page needed] Between them, Christianity and Islam have been involved in over 85% of the religious wars.[page needed] Analysis of the wars documented in the encyclopedia, reveals that since the Christian era, there have only been 440 years without a religious war; and the last year without a religious war was 1080.[page needed]"

Love how its ok to insult the gays or a club for saying they wont tolerate hate but to insult a religion is criminal for stating the obvious. *sigh*

Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman?

As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation).

If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society.

Interracial marriage used to be illegal too.

Are you incapable of recognising sarcasm?

Til death do us part also was part of marriage until heterosexuals decided to change the definition of marriage for their own benefit and divorces became a thing. surely a far bigger blight on the 'constitution of marriage' than letting two loving people actually commit to a marriage.

Also this really should be in ET.

Holy fuck this is some facepalm worthy shit. You could use the same logic for female circumcision or the murder of gay people in the middle east and Africa and say it's all good. The fact is that you apparently have the inability to objectively reason about anything and wouldn't use the same argument in those cases, because guess, what - you're probably personally against them even though they don't personally affect you. All you're doing is showing that you are a bigot.

Fucking facepalm.

Edited by Draupnir: 8/3/2015 04:43:03 PM

Definitely belongs in AF

Mate your stats don't mean shit. Most wars are caused because of money and land, I don't need Wikipedia to tell me otherwise.
And it's clear you avoided the main point about saying churches are basically all there to cover up for child molesters and basically putting the whole Christian religion under the Roman catholic umbrella when in fact there are other Christian religions which existed long before then.
Buy it's okay keep being ignorant and keep telling yourself churches are for molesters.
As for your last line I think it's pretty fricken obvious it's the people crying out calling others homophobic the ones who are doing all the whinging to begin with.

A religious institution can have its views on marriage. You can share those views. But if two people of the same sex are in love and in a partnership and want to be wife and wife or husband or husband, who the fuck are you to say no to them? How the hell is Australia behind American States and African countries on this in supporting marriage equality? As a heterosexual male who was born lives out west and supports the wsw, thumbs up to sydney FC. We don't need to get into a big church slag off match here either for that matter.

The church of scientology, is clearly, the correct church.

They talk about aliens and shit.

No shit, because if minorities don't have a voice because people like you disregard everything they say, other people are going to stand up and say it for them. You know, just like the black rights movement?

Fucking clueless.