Same sex marriage debate...

General Social Discussion
User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18690
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 62 times
Been liked: 184 times

Re: Same sex marriage debate...

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 6:51 pm

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:05 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:56 pm
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:19 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:10 pm
I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.
So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

I agree that incitement to violence should not be protected, but that should be the absolute extent of any speech laws.

I'm not saying this because i want people to be vile, simply that if you start to say you can't say 'X' or you can't say 'Y', then you start a really steep slippery slide where you rely on a single person who decides which people should go for jail for the terrible crime of talking.

Usually their decisions are reflections of their own political or ideological biases.

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?
Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.
This is way out of line and it is time the thread is closed. If you can't be respectful in your reply then it is obviously a reply not worth making.
The respect goes both ways. Complaining that you can't discriminate against people is a bit out of line too. But the people on the receiving end of that get to told to suck it up because its considered freedom of speech.


User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16088
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 137 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 7:00 pm

Spartan117 wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 12:26 pm
This is not a debate.

This is not about love, equality, freedom or discrimination.
What is it about Master Chief?
I'm the least you could do, if only life was easy as you...

Fuerza en la adversidad.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16088
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 137 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 7:31 pm

For what it's worth, I'm married under the marriage act. My ceremony was completely secular, no mention of religion by my design. My marriage is not defined by any sort of religious connotation, and I want gays to be able to enjoy that. Marriage is a word applied to a practice that predates the application of the word.
I'm the least you could do, if only life was easy as you...

Fuerza en la adversidad.

User avatar
Tiger Come Lately
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 1675
Joined: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 8:52 am
Has liked: 30 times
Been liked: 39 times

Unread post by Tiger Come Lately » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 9:47 pm

I wonder if some certain sex crimes by people in positions of authority may have been avoided if being homosexual wasn't seen as as a crime back in its time?

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 42 times
Been liked: 48 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 10:41 pm

Tiger Come Lately wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 9:47 pm
I wonder if some certain sex crimes by people in positions of authority may have been avoided if being homosexual wasn't seen as as a crime back in its time?
Do you mean that the crimes were perpetuated upon minors? I am sure that religious people would not do those sorts of things.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)


goldcoast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5401
Joined: Sat 12 Apr, 2014 5:42 pm
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 57 times

Unread post by goldcoast tiger » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 12:22 am

Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 8:04 pm
Abraham wrote:
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 12:15 pm
Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 7:16 am
I can understand you not mentioning the Bible as it is very embarrassing, for example, not letting a witch to live, homosexuality is an abomination. So the Bible can form the background of people's thinking even if they don't quote it. The Bible is like the devil whispering evil things in your ear.
Your getting off topic with your bigotted rantings ... it was only a matter of time before you couldn't contain yourself any longer.

As you should know, being the Biblical expert you are, the Holy Bible is the literature that forms the cornerstone of Western Civilization, the most free and compassionate of civilisations to ever exist in all of humanity. So you're more than a little off in your analysis.

Its funny you mention evil, do you believe that evil exists? It seems you do, because you have mentioned it in your response.

I ask because good, evil and morality itself cannot exist in naturalist/atheist philosophy. Nearly all intellectual atheists admit this ... yet i can bet my last dollar that you cannot explain evil without putting God firmly in the paradigm.

Probably a good idea not to start intellectual fights that you have no chance in hell of winning.
The Bible was used to it's utmost to keep civilisation brutal and stupid. It was used to justify slavery, to justify killing witches, to impede science, to corrupt philosophy, to hoodwink the ignorant, to scorn homosexuality, to prevent women from obtaining equality etc. etc..

I was obviously using the evil word in an everyday sense and you are only creating a false philosophical position in an attempt to obfuscate.

You cannot mention intellectualism and the Bible in the same breath - there are the ultimate contradiction.
Got no problems with people who believe in religon, the bible,God, or whatever.
but my opinion of the bible is that its just a book that contains a whole lot of stories, put together and rewritten and retranslated over a hell of a long time, and like the koran, the stories have changed slightly each time that its been translated, until by now, the stories are probably far from what was originally intended.

Keep in mind these stories were mostlikely written and put together by (in most cases) people who had hardly been outside the village they were born in , and probably believed that the Earth was flat.
I cant see how anyone could put their confidence in what was written so long ago.when the world was an incredibly different place.
Even now, with the knowledge of current happenings in the world, if you started a story, and told one person to repeat it to another person, and for them to repeat it again to someone else, by the time it had gone through twenty people, the story would likely mean nothing like the original,

I've got a relation who I have had a heap of debates on religion with (friendly ones mostly ) over a wine or three , and whenever hes asked a difficult question , he ,like most bible followers, drops back on the old line "it's Gods will) or another one of the great escapes .

People can believe what they like, but id rather read something that unites people rather than bibles, korans and most other religious books that often cause more trouble than their worth,
My opinion( thats all it is) is that the Bible, or any other story book has no place in determining whether any two people who want to marry each other , can or cant do it.
Who knows, maybe some of the disciples may have batted for the other side , stranger things have happened , and they really loved that Boys club

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 42 times
Been liked: 48 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 12:34 am

I turned against the Bible when I was challenged to read it by a pastor in a public newspaper debate. Naturally I began reading it from the beginning - so much tommy rot. I could not force myself to read so much BS. Noah living to about 950 years in the shade and still having kids at 700 years old. When I query this I am told by Christians that there was no pollution in those days. Bible believers think that everyone are as a big an idiot as they are.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

User avatar
willow
Member
Member
Posts: 30376
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: Perth
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 66 times

Unread post by willow » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 3:22 am

Stick to the topic please.

User avatar
Tigerdave
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 10360
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:04 am
Location: Lismore
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Tigerdave » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 5:45 am

Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:48 pm

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .
The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line
It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory.

Most supporters of "Traditional Marriage" tend to skip over that it was once "traditional" to marry off young girls, it was once "traditional" to not allow "mixed marriages", all that has been changed and it hasn't affected anyone negatively has it? why? because the vast majority agreed marriage should be between consenting adults and that it was blatantly discriminatory to not allow people of different ethnicity's to marry, it was criminalized in some States in the US.

Should people be allowed to disriminate in this regards? What are the justifications of the discrimination given that "traditional marriage" has changed in the past before?

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18690
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 62 times
Been liked: 184 times

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 6:16 am

Tigerdave wrote:
Fri 15 Sep, 2017 5:45 am
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:48 pm

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .
The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line
It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory.

Most supporters of "Traditional Marriage" tend to skip over that it was once "traditional" to marry off young girls, it was once "traditional" to not allow "mixed marriages", all that has been changed and it hasn't affected anyone negatively has it? why? because the vast majority agreed marriage should be between consenting adults and that it was blatantly discriminatory to not allow people of different ethnicity's to marry, it was criminalized in some States in the US.

Should people be allowed to disriminate in this regards? What are the justifications of the discrimination given that "traditional marriage" has changed in the past before?
Exactly. One might call it evolution.

And what about arranged marriages. When you look at who has been allowed to marry in the past its laughable that the moralists only emerge when there is talk of SSM. Very weird.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Abraham » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 6:55 am

Tigerdave wrote:
Fri 15 Sep, 2017 5:45 am
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:48 pm

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .
The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line
It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory.

Most supporters of "Traditional Marriage" tend to skip over that it was once "traditional" to marry off young girls, it was once "traditional" to not allow "mixed marriages", all that has been changed and it hasn't affected anyone negatively has it? why? because the vast majority agreed marriage should be between consenting adults and that it was blatantly discriminatory to not allow people of different ethnicity's to marry, it was criminalized in some States in the US.

Should people be allowed to disriminate in this regards? What are the justifications of the discrimination given that "traditional marriage" has changed in the past before?
Your conflating issues at a rapid pace.

There is a difference between social or cultural norms, which change over time, and the intrinsic purpose of marriage, which can not. If you understand the biological and societal purpose of marriage, you will understand my point (you may not agree, but at least you will understand).

So for many, particularly those who adhear to specific cultures or faiths, they will never accept a variant understanding of marriage. And the important question to ask is, should they be forced to?

I want to avoid getting into a religious argument about marriage because it is not relevant to this specific discussion, and focus on the important question at hand : should people be thrown in jail for having the opinion that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman?

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Abraham » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 7:04 am

Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Fri 15 Sep, 2017 12:34 am
I turned against the Bible when I was challenged to read it by a pastor in a public newspaper debate. Naturally I began reading it from the beginning - so much tommy rot. I could not force myself to read so much BS. Noah living to about 950 years in the shade and still having kids at 700 years old. When I query this I am told by Christians that there was no pollution in those days. Bible believers think that everyone are as a big an idiot as they are.
lol

Noah wasnt 950 years old. Age was a sign of respect in that culture, so to be attributed an age of 950 years is just a way of saying he was highly respected.

Your literally a walking encyclopedia of B.S.

You havnt answered my question by the way...is there such thing as evil?

User avatar
Geo.
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 24956
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW.
Has liked: 221 times
Been liked: 334 times

Unread post by Geo. » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 7:15 am

Yes of course there is Evil....it's called the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles with the Souff Sydney Rabbitohs as it's twin...
Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..
Tiger Watto wrote:
Fri 03 Nov, 2017 8:07 am
Geo nailed it...

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Abraham » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 7:17 am

Geo. wrote:
Fri 15 Sep, 2017 7:15 am
Yes of course there is Evil....it's called the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles with the Souff Sydney Rabbitohs as it's twin...
touché

Earl
Member
Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sat 18 Feb, 2017 9:21 am
Has liked: 115 times
Been liked: 83 times

Unread post by Earl » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 7:34 am

Abraham - the topic is not about being thrown into jail if you have an opinion that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. How many people have be thrown into jail for having that opinion.

The question is should the state discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The answer has to be no because discrimination is wrong. In my opinion that is the only moral response.

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 42 times
Been liked: 48 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 7:44 am

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Fri 15 Sep, 2017 6:16 am
Tigerdave wrote:
Fri 15 Sep, 2017 5:45 am
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:48 pm

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .
The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line
It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory.

Most supporters of "Traditional Marriage" tend to skip over that it was once "traditional" to marry off young girls, it was once "traditional" to not allow "mixed marriages", all that has been changed and it hasn't affected anyone negatively has it? why? because the vast majority agreed marriage should be between consenting adults and that it was blatantly discriminatory to not allow people of different ethnicity's to marry, it was criminalized in some States in the US.

Should people be allowed to disriminate in this regards? What are the justifications of the discrimination given that "traditional marriage" has changed in the past before?
Exactly. One might call it evolution.

And what about arranged marriages. When you look at who has been allowed to marry in the past its laughable that the moralists only emerge when there is talk of SSM. Very weird.
And what about some of us old worn out old dags going to Asia and marrying girls young enough to be our grandchildren - this belongs to one foot in the grave thread. But in nursing homes gay couples can't co-habitat and feel greatly discriminated against.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

TigerTiger
Member
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue 13 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 38 times

Unread post by TigerTiger » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 8:03 am

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:05 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:56 pm
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:19 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:10 pm
I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.
So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

I agree that incitement to violence should not be protected, but that should be the absolute extent of any speech laws.

I'm not saying this because i want people to be vile, simply that if you start to say you can't say 'X' or you can't say 'Y', then you start a really steep slippery slide where you rely on a single person who decides which people should go for jail for the terrible crime of talking.

Usually their decisions are reflections of their own political or ideological biases.

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?
Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.
This is way out of line and it is time the thread is closed. If you can't be respectful in your reply then it is obviously a reply not worth making.
How is that out of line and disrespectful? Seriously, I don't get how that could be considered out of line or disrespectful? However this survey finishes up, it is about the majority giving their opinion on allowing a minority to do something. Is it offensive to you to consider religion as a minority?
Last edited by TigerTiger on Fri 15 Sep, 2017 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16088
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 137 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Fri 15 Sep, 2017 8:08 am

Abraham wrote:
Fri 15 Sep, 2017 7:17 am
Geo. wrote:
Fri 15 Sep, 2017 7:15 am
Yes of course there is Evil....it's called the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles with the Souff Sydney Rabbitohs as it's twin...
touché
If they're evil, Easts are sin incarnated and Nick Politis is Satan himself.
I'm the least you could do, if only life was easy as you...

Fuerza en la adversidad.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”