Same sex marriage debate...

General Social Discussion
Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 23 times

Re: Same sex marriage debate...

Unread post by Abraham » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:26 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 11:39 am
Did I ever say that the religious couldn't have their say? I said I have no interest in them telling me what I can and can't do in a secular society, and despite that if they want to vote no I'm not going to carry on like a sook because people are exercising their democratic right. I am in strict agreement with you that I don't agree with gaoling any person who disagrees with my opinions, I go even as far to say the crusade against the doctor featuring in the no campaign ad is a ridiculous reaction and par for the course now from the new age leftist movement. I distance myself from that.

IMO, hierarchy of religious organisations petitioning against things is not the same as the individual voting in accordance with their beliefs. The individual pays tax and in that civic duty they have a civic right to have their say in accordance with their beliefs. The institution does not. A secular law IMO is supposed to consider and cover all individuals and exclude faith so as not to preference one over the others. I would call that the definition of religious freedom.
I thought i responded but somehow it looks like my post didnt make it through for some reason.

Basically, i am glad we agree that Freedom is paramount.

We have also spoken before about Church involvement in social issues. The Church is by its very definition a group of like minded people. To use secular terms, its no different than a Trade Union or Special Interest Group, in that it lobbies for the interests of its tax paying and voting members.
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 11:46 am
Do you believe that gay marriage devalues the institution of any more than a pair of ice addicts who have a family and neglect their kids, a marriage with domestic violence or hetero marriages that end in divorce?
Why use the lowest common denominator as the example?

Why not use the example of the couple married for 50 years, who raised their children in a loving home, and whose children are now in loving relationships and raising their own families in similar environments.

The starting point should be to emulate the desired situation, not the reverse.

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 11:46 am
N.B. The ancient Greeks had gay marriage. It predates the Abrahamic faiths.
This is actually incorrect.

The ancient greeks used different words to describe gay relaitonships to traditional marriages (gamos), and gay people were never married in Ancient Greece.

Its also worth noting that the majority of gay relationships involved pedophilia, with men being in relationships with boys who had hit puberty (they were literally called 'boy love'). And in the rare cases where two men entered into a public relationship, one of the guys would assume the female role and be ostracized from society.

So if the inference is that the Judeo-Christian religions are the cause of gay people not being able to marry, that is simply incorrect.


Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 23 times

Unread post by Abraham » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:32 pm

colmcd wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:17 pm
Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 10:08 am
Sorry Col, your spittting out 50 random thoughts on a matter per post... makes it very hard to respond to, or engage in any sort of serious debate.
Sure (our posts are of the same size), Why on earth would you vote "NO" now if you fear for religious freedom?

Labor has committed to a parliamentary vote in future. Do you think religious freedoms will be better protected under Lee Rhiannon, Penny Wong and Labor when they get into government?

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.
I already addressed this claim previously.

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.

They said the exact same thing about religious protection in every country that legalised SSM, and it took all of about 5 seconds before the state turned around and started demonising anybody who spoke out for traditional marriage and family values.

It also doesn't address the concerns of private citizens and business people who may not want to take part on a gay wedding, who will be literally thrown in jail if what happened in the USA is anything to go by (it is).

I said previously, there is a Marxist base to the SSM movement, and if your familiar with cultural Marxism, then you should know that this will not end well for a free society.

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3898
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 53 times
Been liked: 52 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:51 pm

Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:32 pm
..........................

I already addressed this claim previously.

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.

They said the exact same thing about religious protection in every country that legalised SSM, and it took all of about 5 seconds before the state turned around and started demonising anybody who spoke out for traditional marriage and family values.

It also doesn't address the concerns of private citizens and business people who may not want to take part on a gay wedding, who will be literally thrown in jail if what happened in the USA is anything to go by (it is).

I said previously, there is a Marxist base to the SSM movement, and if your familiar with cultural Marxism, then you should know that this will not end well for a free society.
The United States case was about a cake business refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Why can't a gay couple have the option of their favourite cake shop making their cake? Would be so difficult for a baker to accept that his customers have evolved differently? Even if an ape come from the jungle and ordered a cake it would not hurt him to supply as long as he got paid.

How is it different to refusing to serve a black man 50 years ago?
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)

Pawsandclaws
Member
Member
Posts: 2415
Joined: Sat 20 Jun, 2015 5:53 pm
Been liked: 59 times

Unread post by Pawsandclaws » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:59 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 12:42 pm
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 12:04 pm
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 11:46 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 11:23 am
It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.
Do you believe that gay marriage devalues the institution of any more than a pair of ice addicts who have a family and neglect their kids, a marriage with domestic violence or hetero marriages that end in divorce?

N.B. The ancient Greeks had gay marriage. It predates the Abrahamic faiths.

Marriage was a way for women and their children not to starve to death when agriculture was perfected 10,000 years ago and it wasn't always strictly monogamous. It was borne out of survival instinct and bears little if at all resemblance to what marriage is now.
There is no such institution as "gay marriage".
No, you're right. It was just marriage, and it wasn't just limited to heterosexuals. I'm sorry if that is inconvenient development contrary to your world view.
It is interesting you felt the need to preface marriage with gay. This is my issue that with all the goodwill in the world, a marriage and same sex relationship are fundamentally different.

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9136
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 115 times

Unread post by Yossarian » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:12 pm

Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:51 pm
Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:32 pm
..........................

I already addressed this claim previously.

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.

They said the exact same thing about religious protection in every country that legalised SSM, and it took all of about 5 seconds before the state turned around and started demonising anybody who spoke out for traditional marriage and family values.

It also doesn't address the concerns of private citizens and business people who may not want to take part on a gay wedding, who will be literally thrown in jail if what happened in the USA is anything to go by (it is).

I said previously, there is a Marxist base to the SSM movement, and if your familiar with cultural Marxism, then you should know that this will not end well for a free society.
The United States case was about a cake business refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Why can't a gay couple have the option of their favourite cake shop making their cake? Would be so difficult for a baker to accept that his customers have evolved differently? Even if an ape come from the jungle and ordered a cake it would not hurt him to supply as long as he got paid.

How is it different to refusing to serve a black man 50 years ago?
Mate can you stop posting things I agree with? It's doing my head in!


Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 23 times

Unread post by Abraham » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:23 pm

Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:51 pm
The United States case was about a cake business refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Why can't a gay couple have the option of their favourite cake shop making their cake? Would be so difficult for a baker to accept that his customers have evolved differently? Even if an ape come from the jungle and ordered a cake it would not hurt him to supply as long as he got paid.

How is it different to refusing to serve a black man 50 years ago?
Thanks scoop.

The cake shop did not refuse service to the person for being gay, they refused to partake in a gay marriage ceremony (i.e. an event) that they did not want to be associated with. They even gave them the contact details of a shop down the road who would help them out instead.

So out goes your black man analogy.

Free people in a free society cannot be compelled to offer their services against their will. Particularly when they are making the decision based on their own moral grounds.

An interesting side note is that the customers in many of these cases actively sought out these businesses, knowing they were operated by devout Christians who would not want to be part of these ceremonies, so they could make an example of them.

A normal person would take their money and their business elsewhere. These were not normal people, they were activists with a nasty agenda they are still pursuing.

... because love and tolerance celebrating differences. Remember.

User avatar
hammertime
Member
Member
Posts: 2303
Joined: Sat 26 Sep, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Rozelle, NSW
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 30 times

Unread post by hammertime » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:24 pm

stryker wrote:
Sun 10 Sep, 2017 10:45 pm
Meh...i couldnt give a toss like the majority of the country. I know 2 lesbo couples and they are embarrassed by the attention its bringing. One of the couples have been together 35 years. We had a party recently for them and the cake was an enormous set of saggy breasts.

I think this could be a protest vote result. People are sick of being screamed at for having an opinion by trendy 20 somethings who are far less tolerant than the 'bigots' they oppose. That will be a damn shame for people like those i mentioned.
I agree Stryker. While I will be voting yes, it does my head in with these lefties screaming for tollerance of others, while not being tolerant of others.

TigerTiger
Member
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue 13 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm
Has liked: 61 times
Been liked: 43 times

Unread post by TigerTiger » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:44 pm

Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:23 pm
Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:51 pm
The United States case was about a cake business refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Why can't a gay couple have the option of their favourite cake shop making their cake? Would be so difficult for a baker to accept that his customers have evolved differently? Even if an ape come from the jungle and ordered a cake it would not hurt him to supply as long as he got paid.

How is it different to refusing to serve a black man 50 years ago?
Thanks scoop.

The cake shop did not refuse service to the person for being gay, they refused to partake in a gay marriage ceremony (i.e. an event) that they did not want to be associated with. They even gave them the contact details of a shop down the road who would help them out instead.

So out goes your black man analogy.

Free people in a free society cannot be compelled to offer their services against their will. Particularly when they are making the decision based on their own moral grounds.

An interesting side note is that the customers in many of these cases actively sought out these businesses, knowing they were operated by devout Christians who would not want to be part of these ceremonies, so they could make an example of them.

A normal person would take their money and their business elsewhere. These were not normal people, they were activists with a nasty agenda they are still pursuing.

... because love and tolerance celebrating differences. Remember.
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.

User avatar
Tiger Steve
Member
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed 29 Mar, 2017 5:30 pm
Location: Chatswood West
Has liked: 178 times
Been liked: 78 times

Unread post by Tiger Steve » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 2:49 pm

stryker wrote:
Sun 10 Sep, 2017 10:45 pm
Meh...i couldnt give a toss like the majority of the country. I know 2 lesbo couples and they are embarrassed by the attention its bringing. One of the couples have been together 35 years. We had a party recently for them and the cake was an enormous set of saggy breasts.

I think this could be a protest vote result. People are sick of being screamed at for having an opinion by trendy 20 somethings who are far less tolerant than the 'bigots' they oppose. That will be a damn shame for people like those i mentioned.
I think your 2nd paragraph nails it totally

Balmain Boy
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2700
Joined: Sun 27 Sep, 2009 7:22 pm
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 29 times

Unread post by Balmain Boy » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:07 pm

Lol, it's laughable to say that anyone that stands up for traditional marriage will be demonised. If they believe that traditional marriage is the one and only form of marriage then yes, they will be rightly criticised for their discriminatory behaviour.

What right do other people have to choose who someone can and cannot marry? What does ethicity, race, religion or sexuality have to do with it? Nothing in most cases. Sure a buddhist and a catholic won't walk into a synagogue and expect to get married. Denying one person the right to marry the person they love is a basic denial of human rights.

I'm not one marching down the street with rainbow flags, or attaching rainbows to all my social media accounts, but to me it just comes down to a simple issue of human decency and that's why i'll vote yes.

Legalising gay marriage will have practically no impact on anyone who isn't gay. Perhaps some businesses related to the wedding industry may be impacted but what right do company's have to discriminant against customers of a particular race, gender or sexuality? They can't, plain and simple.

People are allowed to have differing opinions. Of course they are. But they're not allowed to discriminate. There are far more important issues concerning our society and all this time and money would definitely be spent elsewhere. It is a shame that other more pertinent issues don't receive the same widespread public support but this is the path our gutless government have decided to take so this is the item currently at the top of the public agenda.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16241
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 78 times
Been liked: 158 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:09 pm

Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:26 pm

Why use the lowest common denominator as the example?

Why not use the example of the couple married for 50 years, who raised their children in a loving home, and whose children are now in loving relationships and raising their own families in similar environments.

The starting point should be to emulate the desired situation, not the reverse.
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.

It is no different to the position that some extreme anti-SSM views take in that they think that it will open the gates for people to push for pederasty, bestiality and other quite frankly nonsensical rhetoric to be made legal.
Abraham wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:26 pm

This is actually incorrect.

The ancient greeks used different words to describe gay relaitonships to traditional marriages (gamos), and gay people were never married in Ancient Greece.

Its also worth noting that the majority of gay relationships involved pedophilia, with men being in relationships with boys who had hit puberty (they were literally called 'boy love'). And in the rare cases where two men entered into a public relationship, one of the guys would assume the female role and be ostracized from society.

So if the inference is that the Judeo-Christian religions are the cause of gay people not being able to marry, that is simply incorrect.
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.
I swing like hell but know full well that I won't win the fight, but big man I'm the beta male that's gonna ruin your night...

Fuerza en la adversidad.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16241
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 78 times
Been liked: 158 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:15 pm

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 1:59 pm
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 12:42 pm
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 12:04 pm
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 11 Sep, 2017 11:46 am


Do you believe that gay marriage devalues the institution of any more than a pair of ice addicts who have a family and neglect their kids, a marriage with domestic violence or hetero marriages that end in divorce?

N.B. The ancient Greeks had gay marriage. It predates the Abrahamic faiths.

Marriage was a way for women and their children not to starve to death when agriculture was perfected 10,000 years ago and it wasn't always strictly monogamous. It was borne out of survival instinct and bears little if at all resemblance to what marriage is now.
There is no such institution as "gay marriage".
No, you're right. It was just marriage, and it wasn't just limited to heterosexuals. I'm sorry if that is inconvenient development contrary to your world view.
It is interesting you felt the need to preface marriage with gay. This is my issue that with all the goodwill in the world, a marriage and same sex relationship are fundamentally different.
Is a "traditional marriage" where a man and woman cannot bear children not in fact a traditional marriage? Seeing as they cannot rear children as a SSM cannot due to biological incompatibility without the intervention of other means, does that make their marriage invalid? Same as a hetero couple that do not want children, do we run them out? I didn't get married in a Church as I am atheist, is my marriage invalid?

The way I see all of that is that it's all contrary to the traditional (i.e. the hijacked religious,) definition of marriage.
I swing like hell but know full well that I won't win the fight, but big man I'm the beta male that's gonna ruin your night...

Fuerza en la adversidad.

pdenny77
Member
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat 16 Feb, 2013 8:06 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 3 times

Unread post by pdenny77 » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:16 pm

I'd advise everyone against marriage. Problem solved.

User avatar
Geo.
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 25157
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW.
Has liked: 256 times
Been liked: 394 times

Unread post by Geo. » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:42 pm

Did someone say Cake...I vote Yes to that..
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...

rex2ce
Member
Member
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue 25 Mar, 2014 9:43 am
Location: Newcastle
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 4 times

Unread post by rex2ce » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:44 pm

I don't understand why gay and lesbian couples shun convention by choosing a same sex partner instead of opposite sex, yet want convention to approve their union, marriage by convention is between a man an a woman am I missing something

colmcd
Member
Member
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed 04 Jan, 2017 11:38 pm
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 58 times

Unread post by colmcd » 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.

colmcd
Member
Member
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed 04 Jan, 2017 11:38 pm
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 58 times

Unread post by colmcd » Mon 11 Sep, 2017 3:59 pm

I looked up "causes for Divorce" here is what I get:
Infidelity. Extra-marital affairs are responsible for the breakdown of most marriages that end in divorce.
Money. Money makes people funny, or so the saying goes, and it's true. ..
Lack of communication. ...
Constant arguing. ...
Weight gain. ...
Unrealistic expectations. ...
Lack of intimacy. ...
Lack of equality.

Where is gay Marriage? Maybe it is under Infidelity, but honestly if he is batting that way I don't think the marriage will be able to last.

No one is talking about MONEY splitting couples up. Yet I know that has ruined many marriages and is a struggle for my own. No one cares about Divorces caused by Money concerns. Gay Marriage, hasn't been an issue in my marriage at all. Yet everyone seems concerned about it.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 23 times

Unread post by Abraham » 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.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”