Same sex marriage debate...

General Social Discussion
goldcoast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5461
Joined: Sat 12 Apr, 2014 5:42 pm
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 66 times

Re: Same sex marriage debate...

Unread post by goldcoast tiger » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:02 am

Geo. wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:00 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:28 am
marzie wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:29 am
Imagine being told it's against the law to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with

Hmmmm seems fair
Out of interest, can you please detail the birth of the first child born via anal sex, oral sex or use of a vibrator in a homosexual relationship?
There was a Woman who bore a Child without even having sex once..nor was she married.... they tell me ...so anything is possible

As I said earlier Paws, what has having or conceiving babies got to do with the word marriage , when more kids are probably conceived or born without a marriage even in sight.
That reason for a marriage is so old hat that it's got cobwebs on it. Sure a minority of people still think it's linked, but the vast majority couldn't care less.

The stigma about having kids outside a marriage isgone forever.
And good riddance.
Theres so many people getting out of marriages these days, that it's refreshing to see other people who value it, and want to get married. There's a hell of a lot of people who ARE married Who Don't!!!

The no camp seem to think that it's ok for a wife beater, murderer, rapist , child abusers, or psychopaths To get married, but not a homosexual.
And before I get hit with the old " I don't condone Any things those type of people do".
That doesn't mean anything.

The fact remains that they all can be married any time they like. As long as they aren't Gay,
And they are welcomed into the churches and into the state of marriage.

Even the most ardent NO voters should think that that situation is so out of balance , that it needs changing and letting people who value getting married actually get married.


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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:14 am

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:28 am
marzie wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:29 am
Imagine being told it's against the law to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with

Hmmmm seems fair
Out of interest, can you please detail the birth of the first child born via anal sex, oral sex or use of a vibrator in a homosexual relationship?
There's been plenty of anal births, I've met many pieces of crap in my travels.
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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:20 am

TrueTiger wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:50 am
Abraham wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:45 am
Yossarian wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:13 am
No doubt the same types who jump up and down about the rights of business owners to do whatever the hell they want will also say this is a terrible thing. FWIW I think the business owner over-reacted and everyone should be able to participate in political debates so long as they're not identifiable as staff members of a company.
I believe the employee has the right to espouse whatever view she likes.

I also believe the business owner can hire or fire whoever she likes, whenever she likes, for whatever reason she likes.

Its called freedom.
Abe,the small point of unfair dismissal comes to mind....
As I understand it the worker was a contractor not an employee, and was paid up before being told she'd no longer be engaged for her services. That is the nature of contract work. I believe that she (the employer,) may have felt that the contractor may have presented a threat to her business by espousing her views.

If I got on social media and said questionable things that could be linked back to my place of employment and cast them in a negative light I could be sacked as well.
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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:42 am

As an aside about the contractor being shafted over her religious beliefs, how do people feel about businesses being run by Plymouth Brethren that exclusively hire people from within the faith? If I were qualified and looked over merely for my atheism are we OK with that or is that wrong?
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
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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:55 am

Abraham wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:45 am
Yossarian wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:13 am
No doubt the same types who jump up and down about the rights of business owners to do whatever the hell they want will also say this is a terrible thing. FWIW I think the business owner over-reacted and everyone should be able to participate in political debates so long as they're not identifiable as staff members of a company.
I believe the employee has the right to espouse whatever view she likes.

I also believe the business owner can hire or fire whoever she likes, whenever she likes, for whatever reason she likes.

Its called freedom.
So you're saying the employee can have their say but the employer can sack them for doing so?


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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:59 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:42 am
As an aside about the contractor being shafted over her religious beliefs, how do people feel about businesses being run by Plymouth Brethren that exclusively hire people from within the faith? If I were qualified and looked over merely for my atheism are we OK with that or is that wrong?
Well for starters I personally wouldn't use a business run by that crowd. In your example I would argue they would need to prove a justification for not hiring an atheist.

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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:10 am

Yossarian wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:59 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:42 am
As an aside about the contractor being shafted over her religious beliefs, how do people feel about businesses being run by Plymouth Brethren that exclusively hire people from within the faith? If I were qualified and looked over merely for my atheism are we OK with that or is that wrong?
Well for starters I personally wouldn't use a business run by that crowd. In your example I would argue they would need to prove a justification for not hiring an atheist.
That's my view (well the second sentence, I actually deal with a supplier whom are Brethren,) but I am interested to hear whether the religious beliefs of the owners are of more importance than the lack of beliefs of the purported employee. It is not as though conflict of systems of belief, or lack thereof, brings the business into disrepute with their customers.
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
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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:19 am

Abraham wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:32 am
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 8:50 pm
Abraham wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 5:56 pm
I've mentioned them already a few times and don't intend on doing it each time someone new asks me the question. No offence intended to you specifically.

If by fear mongering you mean raising awareness of what is going to happen based on factual events that have happened elsewhere, then guilty as charged. I thought that was patently obvious.

Funny how we are nearly 30 pages into this thread and nobody has been able outright refute the claim that the freedoms i have discussed have been stomped on overseas once SSM was legalised. Hilarious in fact.
I just hope you realise the tremendous irony that you are apparently tired of presenting your examples, but then you go on to say it's hilarious how nobody has refuted you.

I offer to refute you, please restate your clear and irrefutable examples. It would take 5 mins of your time max, then 5 mins to read my response.
Really?? How can you offer to refute something, when you apparently don't know what it is yet?

Unless you are more concerned with winning a debating point, than actually engaging in factual discussion.

Usually if you join a thread 25 pages in, it is incumbent in you to get up to speed with the discussion. Not on me to repeat myself every-time someone new joins in. But because i am a really really really nice guy, i will spell it out for you again ... because i am a really nice guy.

I have said overseas, that:

- School curriculums have changed, forcing religious schools to teach LGBT issues.
- Churches have been either pressured or forced to marry same sex couples.
- Business Owners criminally charged for refusing to participate in gay weddings.
- Public Servants jailed for not personally signing off on gay weddings.
- People fired from government jobs for believing in traditional marriage.
- Christian couples banned from adopting children for believing in traditional marriage.

I could obviously go on and on ... there are other examples i also raised.

Now I am not interested in whether you personally think the above discrimination should or shouldn't be allowed, that is not the point of me raising them. The point is that freedoms have been curtailed in direct response to gay marriage being legalised in these countries, and it is reasonable to expect the same situations would apply in Australia if we legalised gay marriage also.

Now you said you were going to refute these examples, so please go ahead and explain how none of these are real and how i made the whole thing up.
Okay well let's deal with the public servants. Nobody is going to be fired from the APS for "believing in traditional marriage". That's a non-starter.

If a public servant refused to perform some action due to personal beliefs in Australia they'd most likely be transferred but at the end of the day being asked to process a lawful act is a reasonable direction. If you can't separate your job from your personal beliefs you probably shouldn't be in the APS as a general rule.

It's been established in this thread that churches can marry whoever they want so long as it is permitted under law. Amending the Marriage Act won't change that. You may think the change is a vanguard for more change but there's nothing to support that.

School curriculums are the responsibility of individual states. Changes to how LGBTI issues are presented in court have been underway for some time and reflect broader social trends and beliefs. The amendment to the Marriage Act is a part of this trend, not the cause of it.

The amendment to the Marriage Act will not change how businesses need to operate in terms of how they discriminate against people based on personal beliefs. If you have legal opinion in Australia that this is not the case, by all means share it. Personally I think if businesses are stupid enough to ignore a significant sector of the economy they deserve to go bankrupt.

Christian couples being banned from adopting because they believe in traditional marriage? Where and when did this happen? Without knowing the circumstances it's impossible to comment. I'd be stunned if Australian adoption laws and practices permitted that to happen. I'd like to know if any Australian couple has been prevented from adopting because they hold traditional views on anything. Has that happened?

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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:21 am

As another aside (I don't mean to steer the topic away too much,) I have a bit of a Byronesque anecdote (less demonic tiki heads and former Rugby League players though,) in that one of our major customers was due to build on a patch of land close to where my last home was that I built. They'd already had a presence in the area and they purchased the land to build a second premises. A local petition was sent around to protest the monopoly they would hold in the area to which I begrudgingly refused to sign as I didn't want it to be found that I supported the stand against them which may have negatively effected my employer at the time. Luckily, the council reviewed the development proposal and rejected it and they put the land up for sale.

Point being your opinions and actions have ramifications. You're entitled to them but they won't always have positive outcomes, so sometimes you need to keep them to yourself.
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
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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:22 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:10 am
Yossarian wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:59 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:42 am
As an aside about the contractor being shafted over her religious beliefs, how do people feel about businesses being run by Plymouth Brethren that exclusively hire people from within the faith? If I were qualified and looked over merely for my atheism are we OK with that or is that wrong?
Well for starters I personally wouldn't use a business run by that crowd. In your example I would argue they would need to prove a justification for not hiring an atheist.
That's my view (well the second sentence, I actually deal with a supplier whom are Brethren,) but I am interested to hear whether the religious beliefs of the owners are of more importance than the lack of beliefs of the purported employee. It is not as though conflict of systems of belief, or lack thereof, brings the business into disrepute with their customers.
Not operating my own business I can be more selective. I appreciate someone in your position may not have that choice.

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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:28 am

Yossarian wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:22 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:10 am
Yossarian wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:59 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:42 am
As an aside about the contractor being shafted over her religious beliefs, how do people feel about businesses being run by Plymouth Brethren that exclusively hire people from within the faith? If I were qualified and looked over merely for my atheism are we OK with that or is that wrong?
Well for starters I personally wouldn't use a business run by that crowd. In your example I would argue they would need to prove a justification for not hiring an atheist.
That's my view (well the second sentence, I actually deal with a supplier whom are Brethren,) but I am interested to hear whether the religious beliefs of the owners are of more importance than the lack of beliefs of the purported employee. It is not as though conflict of systems of belief, or lack thereof, brings the business into disrepute with their customers.
Not operating my own business I can be more selective. I appreciate someone in your position may not have that choice.
We deal with them because they have a superior product, they stand by it and to be frank they are very pleasant people to deal with. Even if they did employ from outside the faith, I'd never apply to work with them purely because my demeanour is probably not compatible with theirs (they don't know the difference as I consider my audience when dealing with them, but in a work environment it would be a tough ask!)

It was more of a hypothetical in that would people who see the contractor being sacked for apparent punishment on her religious views (which I understand more to be about possibly representing a threat to the business owners dealings with certain clients,) the same as an internalised discrimination based on religious beliefs which have no significant effect in a company's dealings with clients?
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.

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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:44 am

hobbo wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:00 am
Geo. wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:00 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:28 am
marzie wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:29 am
Imagine being told it's against the law to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with

Hmmmm seems fair
Out of interest, can you please detail the birth of the first child born via anal sex, oral sex or use of a vibrator in a homosexual relationship?
There was a Woman who bore a Child without even having sex once..nor was she married.... they tell me ...so anything is possible
I was that child ... Just ask my old man , he denies everything :lol:
Were you floating down the bullrushes as well?
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
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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:46 am

hobbo wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:00 am
Geo. wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:00 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:28 am
marzie wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:29 am
Imagine being told it's against the law to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with

Hmmmm seems fair
Out of interest, can you please detail the birth of the first child born via anal sex, oral sex or use of a vibrator in a homosexual relationship?
There was a Woman who bore a Child without even having sex once..nor was she married.... they tell me ...so anything is possible
I was that child ... Just ask my old man , he denies everything :lol:
You're Jarryd Hayne?
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.

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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:46 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:14 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:28 am
marzie wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:29 am
Imagine being told it's against the law to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with

Hmmmm seems fair
Out of interest, can you please detail the birth of the first child born via anal sex, oral sex or use of a vibrator in a homosexual relationship?
There's been plenty of anal births, I've met many pieces of crap in my travels.
Imagine this debate taking place in The Kennel - no wonder religion and politics are banned there.
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)

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 » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:48 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:42 am
As an aside about the contractor being shafted over her religious beliefs, how do people feel about businesses being run by Plymouth Brethren that exclusively hire people from within the faith? If I were qualified and looked over merely for my atheism are we OK with that or is that wrong?
When Summerland Timbers were operating here if you did not join the Jehovah Witnesses you were hassled out of the job. The owner was literally and figuratively one eyed and he operated a fork lift.
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)

hobbo
Member
Member
Posts: 7002
Joined: Mon 10 Mar, 2014 5:03 pm
Has liked: 129 times
Been liked: 97 times

Unread post by hobbo » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 11:01 am

Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 10:44 am
hobbo wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:00 am
Geo. wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:00 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:28 am


Out of interest, can you please detail the birth of the first child born via anal sex, oral sex or use of a vibrator in a homosexual relationship?
There was a Woman who bore a Child without even having sex once..nor was she married.... they tell me ...so anything is possible
I was that child ... Just ask my old man , he denies everything :lol:
Were you floating down the bullrushes as well?
Nah mate.... More like up 'S' creek :lol:
EPL 2014/15 Predict 6
Competition ...CHAMPION !
Winner of the 2016 $$$$
Work tipping comp !

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

Unread post by Pawsandclaws » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 11:28 am

goldcoast tiger wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:02 am
Geo. wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 8:00 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:28 am
marzie wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:29 am
Imagine being told it's against the law to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with

Hmmmm seems fair
Out of interest, can you please detail the birth of the first child born via anal sex, oral sex or use of a vibrator in a homosexual relationship?
There was a Woman who bore a Child without even having sex once..nor was she married.... they tell me ...so anything is possible

As I said earlier Paws, what has having or conceiving babies got to do with the word marriage , when more kids are probably conceived or born without a marriage even in sight.
That reason for a marriage is so old hat that it's got cobwebs on it. Sure a minority of people still think it's linked, but the vast majority couldn't care less.

The stigma about having kids outside a marriage isgone forever.
And good riddance.
Theres so many people getting out of marriages these days, that it's refreshing to see other people who value it, and want to get married. There's a hell of a lot of people who ARE married Who Don't!!!

The no camp seem to think that it's ok for a wife beater, murderer, rapist , child abusers, or psychopaths To get married, but not a homosexual.
And before I get hit with the old " I don't condone Any things those type of people do".
That doesn't mean anything.

The fact remains that they all can be married any time they like. As long as they aren't Gay,
And they are welcomed into the churches and into the state of marriage.

Even the most ardent NO voters should think that that situation is so out of balance , that it needs changing and letting people who value getting married actually get married.
I think it pretty poor form to link the No campaign with criminals.

User avatar
stryker
Member
Member
Posts: 10791
Joined: Sun 19 Jul, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: Cairns
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 142 times

Unread post by stryker » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:15 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 9:42 am
As an aside about the contractor being shafted over her religious beliefs, how do people feel about businesses being run by Plymouth Brethren that exclusively hire people from within the faith? If I were qualified and looked over merely for my atheism are we OK with that or is that wrong?
Its not a good analogy as employers are far smarter than to openly discriminate like that. Id simply tell you that the position was filled by someone more suited to it and if you persisted to ask why Id blame your personality. Theres heaps of ways to legaly discriminate. Everyone does it. Its a dog eat dog world.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”