Same sex marriage debate...

General Social Discussion
Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 15 times

Re: Same sex marriage debate...

Unread post by Abraham » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:17 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:09 pm
Because people are being denied the opportunity to be the couple married for 50 years and raising kids in a loving home in the eyes of a secular law, while others whom do not appreciate the institution abuse it.
No, gay relationships are already legally recognised as being on par with straight relationships, and nobody is preventing them form loving each other for 100 years or more if they like.
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:09 pm
I am aware some involved pederasty in Greece, I don't equate pederasty with same sex unions and marriage, that is different again. The Greeks were not the only example. The Romans also practiced it. I am sure it was Caligula (I could be wrong,) who was reported to have married to other men, and it was actually outlawed by the Christian emperors later on. The Abrahamic faiths would have opposed it to encourage procreation.

The argument I make is that it was present before organised modern religions came along, and the notion of marriage being a religious ritual is incorrect as it predates modern religions by a long margin. It was a social contract which allowed communities to prosper (we now have IVF, modern adoption laws and other avenues.)

And I never said that the Abrahamic religions were the first instance of opposition to SSM, they are the predominant opposition now though as many of the worlds population are adherents.
In a nut shell, at no time in any place anywhere in history was gay marriage recognized.

It was opposed by societies to different degrees, and accepted to other degrees, but never held on par with traditional marriage. The coming to power of the Christians in Rome may have stengthened this, but it by no means initialised it.

I have also not made any religious arguments for my point of view, since we are talking about a secular law in a secular country. My personal view is that the government has no role to play in marriage, and should not be legislating for or against gay marriage. Its simply not their business.


User avatar
stryker
Member
Member
Posts: 10777
Joined: Sun 19 Jul, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: Cairns
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 141 times

Unread post by stryker » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:18 pm

I hope it gets through for no other reason than im sick to death of hearing about it. What a boring topic it is.

Lets get onto a real juicy topic...like those scumbags ferals who want to change the date and/or refuse to acknowledge Australia Day for what it is.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 15 times

Unread post by Abraham » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:25 pm

colmcd wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:50 pm
Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:32 pm
colmcd wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:17 pm
If you vote "YES" now then Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals will be passing the motion. If you vote "No" then Lee Rhiannon, Penny wong and Greens/Labor will draft a future motion.
It doesn't matter what religious protections the coalition puts in place, because they will be reversed as soon as the next leftist government takes charge.
(culling cluttered comments as requested above).
Hold on. So if SSM is passed and the next parliament does not have to look into it, then the next government will reopen it all again and just remove religious freedom. Why?

Next government does not have to deal with SSM if the survey is passed, Labor can just LEAVE IT ALONE!
Yet if the bill is NOT passed, Labor will be writing the Legislation with the Greens. No idea why that is your preferred option or why you expect better religious freedoms.

I find your fear of Marxism interesting. The communist party of Australia regularly gets a vote of >1%. Federally, well you can make a case on Lee Rhiannon and that's about it. No one else Federally is a Marxist, the DLP is DEAD the 1950's commie's over the hills are in nursing homes now watching Daytime TV. Capitalism though is alive and well. Capitalism is breaking up families and forcing parents away from kids.

Your Strawman argument of Marxism is just not relevant.
I'll say it again. Even if the coalition put protections in place, they will be watered down by the next leftist government. Not sure why this is hard to understand??? It has happened everywhere else gay marriage has been legalised, why do you think Australia will be some special exemption to the rule?

And if you pay any attention whatsoever to politics, either locally or internationally, the first thing that smacks you in the face is that Marxism is no strawman argument.

It has become the central ideology of the hard Left.

So unless i am imagining the rise of identity politics, safe schools, same sex marriage, gender fluidity, subjective truth ideologies, cultural appropriation, safe spaces and the complete invasion of Universities and the Media by Leftist ideologues, then you might want to think twice before using big words like "strawman".

colmcd
Member
Member
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed 04 Jan, 2017 11:38 pm
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 32 times

Unread post by colmcd » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:40 pm

Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:06 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:44 pm
By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.
So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.
I can agree that a person should not be compelled to act against their moral judgements. However their is a nuance between that and discrimination. For instance I worked at a night club that would regularly refuse guests because they were Asian. There was no "Moral" judgement here just discrimination, I had a Moral judgement to not be involved with that side of the business as I found it disgusting.

That being said, "I deny you marriage because some people who might object to your marriage might be asked to provide services... Refuse and be sued" is a very poor argument. Ultimately who is hurt more, a cakemaker who has to write "Best wishes to Gary and Steve" or a couple not allowed to marry? One is icing, the other is a denial of a natural expression of love. Put another way, who matters more to you the LOVE OF YOUR LIFE or a customer?

Yet, hey you can go for both. Go ring your MP, lobby them and get a clause that allows service providers to object to providing a service if they have a real and strong objection. My question is if you gets this clause would you then support Gay Marriage being legalised? If not then it is not your key argument.

Wise Judgement is needed, I don't think you can make a blanket rule in cases of a person refusing service.

User avatar
Tiger_Pete
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu 21 Jul, 2016 5:39 pm
Has liked: 42 times
Been liked: 6 times

Unread post by Tiger_Pete » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:41 pm

Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:06 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:44 pm
By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.
So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.
At least try and understand what we're debating here. LGBT anti-discrimination laws already exist in Australia. The fact that you haven't noticed them probably means they are not the end of the world like you're suggesting. This plebiscite is to decide marriage equality – nothing else.


User avatar
Swordy
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 1653
Joined: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 9:34 pm
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 39 times

Unread post by Swordy » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:54 pm

I think what irks me most is that if you choose to vote no or suggest that you are against same sex marriage, then you are a homophobe or a bigot.

Im neither.

Although i am 115kgs, 6ft2in tall. By any stretch i am not little or petite. But if i suddenly want to be described as 'petite', i should get that right as a member of society? Unfortunately the word 'petite' describes something i am not. Do we then change the meaning of the word to include my description? No. Accept what i am and accept what i am not and move on.

Now i am 100% supportive of same sex couples having the same legal rights in EVERY way to a male and female married couple. Superannuation, money, rights whatever. But why do we have to change the meaning of a word for that reason?

Notwithstanding all of the above, this is not the most important issue in our country. Get on with running the country! For those whinging about the current government not allowing same sex marriage because of religion or tony abbott or whatever, why didnt the Labor opposition allow same sex marriage only 5 years ago when they were in power?

The answer is that this is a BS beat up by politicians to take the focus off the real issue of running the country for all of us.
Sunshine Coast resident.
Tigers fan since birth in 1969.
Fond memories of Leichhardt Oval every home game as a kid with my Dad!

TigerTiger
Member
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue 13 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm
Has liked: 43 times
Been liked: 31 times

Unread post by TigerTiger » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:56 pm

Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:06 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:44 pm
By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.
So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.
I bolded a line that I wrote earlier. Isn't there some legislation saying people can't be discriminated against for their sexual preference, gender, race etc? Your examples don't come close to those categories.

User avatar
Tiger_Pete
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu 21 Jul, 2016 5:39 pm
Has liked: 42 times
Been liked: 6 times

Unread post by Tiger_Pete » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:00 pm

Swordy wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:54 pm
I think what irks me most is that if you choose to vote no or suggest that you are against same sex marriage, then you are a homophobe or a bigot.

Im neither.

Although i am 115kgs, 6ft2in tall. By any stretch i am not little or petite. But if i suddenly want to be described as 'petite', i should get that right as a member of society? Unfortunately the word 'petite' describes something i am not. Do we then change the meaning of the word to include my description? No. Accept what i am and accept what i am not and move on.

Now i am 100% supportive of same sex couples having the same legal rights in EVERY way to a male and female married couple. Superannuation, money, rights whatever. But why do we have to change the meaning of a word for that reason?

Notwithstanding all of the above, this is not the most important issue in our country. Get on with running the country! For those whinging about the current government not allowing same sex marriage because of religion or tony abbott or whatever, why didnt the Labor opposition allow same sex marriage only 5 years ago when they were in power?

The answer is that this is a BS beat up by politicians to take the focus off the real issue of running the country for all of us.
We change the definition of words all the time.

Are you specifically against changing the meaning of any words or just this one?

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 15 times

Unread post by Abraham » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:25 pm

Tiger_Pete wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:41 pm
Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:06 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:44 pm
By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.
So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.
At least try and understand what we're debating here. LGBT anti-discrimination laws already exist in Australia. The fact that you haven't noticed them probably means they are not the end of the world like you're suggesting. This plebiscite is to decide marriage equality – nothing else.

I understand Pete, ever thought its you who doesn't understand?

A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for somebody because they are gay. That's discrimination.

Buy why should that same baker be compelled to bake a cake for an event (not a person, but an event) that they don't agree with?

What are your positions on the examples i gave?

And if your short sighted enough to believe that this is about gay marriage and nothing else, then i would suggest with all sincerity that you open your eyes to the world around you.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 15 times

Unread post by Abraham » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:26 pm

TigerTiger wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:56 pm
Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:06 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:44 pm
By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.
So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.
I bolded a line that I wrote earlier. Isn't there some legislation saying people can't be discriminated against for their sexual preference, gender, race etc? Your examples don't come close to those categories.
See my above reply to Pete.

Discriminating against a person because of their characteristics is not the same as not wanting to take part in an event.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 15 times

Unread post by Abraham » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:30 pm

colmcd wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:40 pm
Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:06 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:44 pm
By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.
So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.
I can agree that a person should not be compelled to act against their moral judgements. However their is a nuance between that and discrimination. For instance I worked at a night club that would regularly refuse guests because they were Asian. There was no "Moral" judgement here just discrimination, I had a Moral judgement to not be involved with that side of the business as I found it disgusting.

That being said, "I deny you marriage because some people who might object to your marriage might be asked to provide services... Refuse and be sued" is a very poor argument. Ultimately who is hurt more, a cakemaker who has to write "Best wishes to Gary and Steve" or a couple not allowed to marry? One is icing, the other is a denial of a natural expression of love. Put another way, who matters more to you the LOVE OF YOUR LIFE or a customer?

Yet, hey you can go for both. Go ring your MP, lobby them and get a clause that allows service providers to object to providing a service if they have a real and strong objection. My question is if you gets this clause would you then support Gay Marriage being legalised? If not then it is not your key argument.

Wise Judgement is needed, I don't think you can make a blanket rule in cases of a person refusing service.
Your conflating issues. Removing perceived discrimination against gay people under the marriage act and replacing it with real discrimination against people who support traditional marriage is the action of a warped society.

I have mentioned my personal libertarian view on gay marriage numerous times previously. Its not the government's business to be involved in marriage in any capacity.

If you want to marry according to cultural or religious traditions, go to your church or synagogue or temple and get married. For everyone else, apply for a certificate of civil union from the state. That way there is one rule that applies equally to everyone, and no one can argue
discrimination.

I am a massive beleiver in keeping the government at bay. And the government passing legislation to refefine a 5,000 year old word to mean something that no one even considered to be a thing 5 minutes ago, is massive government overreach that will have far reaching consequences .
Last edited by Abraham on Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Swordy
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 1653
Joined: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 9:34 pm
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 39 times

Unread post by Swordy » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:40 pm

Tiger_Pete wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:00 pm
Swordy wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:54 pm
I think what irks me most is that if you choose to vote no or suggest that you are against same sex marriage, then you are a homophobe or a bigot.

Im neither.

Although i am 115kgs, 6ft2in tall. By any stretch i am not little or petite. But if i suddenly want to be described as 'petite', i should get that right as a member of society? Unfortunately the word 'petite' describes something i am not. Do we then change the meaning of the word to include my description? No. Accept what i am and accept what i am not and move on.

Now i am 100% supportive of same sex couples having the same legal rights in EVERY way to a male and female married couple. Superannuation, money, rights whatever. But why do we have to change the meaning of a word for that reason?

Notwithstanding all of the above, this is not the most important issue in our country. Get on with running the country! For those whinging about the current government not allowing same sex marriage because of religion or tony abbott or whatever, why didnt the Labor opposition allow same sex marriage only 5 years ago when they were in power?

The answer is that this is a BS beat up by politicians to take the focus off the real issue of running the country for all of us.
We change the definition of words all the time.

Are you specifically against changing the meaning of any words or just this one?
Does it matter? I think I was pretty clear with what I wrote.
Sunshine Coast resident.
Tigers fan since birth in 1969.
Fond memories of Leichhardt Oval every home game as a kid with my Dad!

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2960
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 106 times
Been liked: 32 times

Unread post by formerguest » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:59 pm

stryker wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:18 pm
I hope it gets through for no other reason than im sick to death of hearing about it. What a boring topic it is.

Lets get onto a real juicy topic...like those scumbags ferals who want to change the date and/or refuse to acknowledge Australia Day for what it is.

I think you described those on both sides of the debate topic of your ultimate paragraph. Agree on the first one as it should have already been voted upon in Parliament.

User avatar
hammertime
Member
Member
Posts: 2208
Joined: Sat 26 Sep, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Rozelle, NSW
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 5 times

Unread post by hammertime » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 6:01 pm

For a large majority of the no vote, I think it's fair to say we are probably talking about people's older parents or grandparents who grew up in a very different time. Society adapts and grows. The people left behind grew up in a different world and usually are just fearful of change.

To be honest, the vitriol and hatred from the left is more sickening to me than an older person just wanting to be comfortable with keeping things how they were when they were young.

User avatar
Tiger_Pete
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu 21 Jul, 2016 5:39 pm
Has liked: 42 times
Been liked: 6 times

Unread post by Tiger_Pete » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 6:05 pm

Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:25 pm
Tiger_Pete wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:41 pm
Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:06 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:44 pm
By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.
So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.
At least try and understand what we're debating here. LGBT anti-discrimination laws already exist in Australia. The fact that you haven't noticed them probably means they are not the end of the world like you're suggesting. This plebiscite is to decide marriage equality – nothing else.

I understand Pete, ever thought its you who doesn't understand?

A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for somebody because they are gay. That's discrimination.

Buy why should that same baker be compelled to bake a cake for an event (not a person, but an event) that they don't agree with?

What are your positions on the examples i gave?

And if your short sighted enough to believe that this is about gay marriage and nothing else, then i would suggest with all sincerity that you open your eyes to the world around you.
Well, if you can tell me whether it discrimination for a baker to refuse to make a kid's Bar Mitzvah cake because it's for an event they don't believe in, then I can answer your hypothetical question.

Because, as I said, nothing is changing in the anti-discrimination laws.

But, the reason I'm not worried, is because this is already the law and I haven't seen anyone forced to do horrible things against their will.

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 8984
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 86 times

Unread post by Yossarian » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 6:10 pm

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the "cake argument". Whatever laws are in place now regarding a baker's rights or otherwise to sell cakes they find morally or religiously objectionable would still be in place if SSM is legalised. It's a red herring to a simple legislative change concerning the marriage law.

Earl
Member
Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat 18 Feb, 2017 9:21 am
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 70 times

Unread post by Earl » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 6:13 pm

I skimmed through these posts so I might not be giving the best response to what I've read.

Personally though I'm sick of hearing about how bad the left is and how people who are denying people the same rights under law are just perfect little citizens.

I'll vote yes because everyone should have the same rights. To me it's a human rights issue. I won't though be doing any campaigning for this in any way shape or form.

I also think that there is no reason to vote on this and the money should be spent on other things. Australia in my opinion is way too conservative. The US which in my opinion is way too conservative allows gay marriage and marijuana is decriminalised. These should both be legalised in Australia with no debate because to me they are clear cut human rights issues.

InBenjiWeTrust
Member
Member
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 2:59 pm
Been liked: 4 times

Unread post by InBenjiWeTrust » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 6:37 pm

Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 5:30 pm
colmcd wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:40 pm
Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 4:06 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:44 pm
By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.
So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.
I can agree that a person should not be compelled to act against their moral judgements. However their is a nuance between that and discrimination. For instance I worked at a night club that would regularly refuse guests because they were Asian. There was no "Moral" judgement here just discrimination, I had a Moral judgement to not be involved with that side of the business as I found it disgusting.

That being said, "I deny you marriage because some people who might object to your marriage might be asked to provide services... Refuse and be sued" is a very poor argument. Ultimately who is hurt more, a cakemaker who has to write "Best wishes to Gary and Steve" or a couple not allowed to marry? One is icing, the other is a denial of a natural expression of love. Put another way, who matters more to you the LOVE OF YOUR LIFE or a customer?

Yet, hey you can go for both. Go ring your MP, lobby them and get a clause that allows service providers to object to providing a service if they have a real and strong objection. My question is if you gets this clause would you then support Gay Marriage being legalised? If not then it is not your key argument.

Wise Judgement is needed, I don't think you can make a blanket rule in cases of a person refusing service.
Your conflating issues. Removing perceived discrimination against gay people under the marriage act and replacing it with real discrimination against people who support traditional marriage is the action of a warped society.

I have mentioned my personal libertarian view on gay marriage numerous times previously. Its not the government's business to be involved in marriage in any capacity.

If you want to marry according to cultural or religious traditions, go to your church or synagogue or temple and get married. For everyone else, apply for a certificate of civil union from the state. That way there is one rule that applies equally to everyone, and no one can argue
discrimination.

I am a massive beleiver in keeping the government at bay. And the government passing legislation to refefine a 5,000 year old word to mean something that no one even considered to be a thing 5 minutes ago, is massive government overreach that will have far reaching consequences .
There are at least a few interesting points that have to be answered/explained:

- many people want to recognise Aboriginal culture, but when it comes to SSM, their culture and practice is not taken into account - my understanding is that Aboriginal culture is strongly against SSM and even homosexuals. It is hypocritical on one hand to scream "recognise Aboriginal culture" and 'bring the statues down" and than legalise the law that goes against their culture. Similar argument applies to Islamic culture.
- bullying from both sides has to stop.
- the 'free speech' has to be protected, regarding that, an interesting discussion/experience from Ireland and UK: https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/wh ... -marriage/

The 'safe school' and other assorted BS has to be clearly kept away from decision arising from this issue.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”