Same sex marriage debate...

[Twodogs]

I love how people categorize the Far Left….. From many I have met in the "far left", they are the most diverse group of people. Some Anarchists (aka Libertarians) believe in Zero Government. Some Communists believe in Max government, Some Minimal, others believe in Marajuwana, others I slowly back away. The Far left are incredibly diverse and different and different from each other.

The far right on the otherhand I often find suffer from Groupthink. Many say that they are Libertarian, then after stating an almost identical theology to Anarchism don't admit that they are Anarchists.

Many on the left I know have followed their ideas to their conclusions. Many on the right too, but we see some nice Hypocricy from many, recently from Ted Cruz. Ted opposed Bailouts of Hurricane victims, under any circumstances. Guess who asks for bailouts for Hurricane victims of Texas?

I will be interested to see if Tony Abbott votes with the result of the Plebiscite as he promised to do. (he was asked what's the point in a Marriage plebiscite when many against SSM said that they would vote against regardless).

I disagree with some of those assertions, but a few items for clarity.

Libertarians cannot be anarchists (neither can communists, except perhaps to strategically create a power vacuum to fill). Simply because taking ones' life and liberty is strictly anti libertarian.

It is often said that the far left and far right ultimately meet at the edges. This maybe true, because they are both authoritarian collectivists, however "far right" is a misnomer when talking about nazis.

No government is indeed anarchy, however most right wingers believe in limited government as opposed to the massive bureaucracy we have currently.

I guess from the outside, opponents see opposition as suffering groupthink, however you obviously haven't been where I hang out online, where arguments are constant.

As for hypocrisy, it's a human thing. Hypocrites are everywhere in politics on all sides.

Here's a libertarian argument re SSM. I don't think marriage is any business of the state. My marriage is between me and my family, and perhaps God if he exists, and one's religion, if any. Legal differences should not exist, but of course,such differences have already been eliminated in Australia. As such, this whole debate seems moot and more to do with making the state, and hence its citizens, provide blessing to the relationships of complete strangers. I find that weird.

 

[earl]

I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.

So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

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

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

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

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?

All that drama over something that won't affect you at all. Does anyone have the moral authority to state that people who are homosexual shouldn't get married ?

 

[JD Tiger]

I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.

So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

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

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

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

So if this is a good idea, **which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?**

Mate, the government and the courts will decide that. Obviously. They already do.

Is it ideal? No. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a sh*t world where people are seen as lesser people because they are different. Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.

So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

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

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

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

So if this is a good idea, **which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?**

Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.

This is way out of line and it is time the thread is closed. If you can't be respectful in your reply then it is obviously a reply not worth making.

 

[Abraham]

So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

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

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

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

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?

All that drama over something that won't affect you at all. Does anyone have the moral authority to state that people who are homosexual shouldn't get married ?

My arguement is that the government should NOT be the moral authority to decide who can and can't get married. It should be at the liberty of the individual.

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .

 

[Abraham]

I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.

So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

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

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

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

So if this is a good idea, **which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?**

Mate, the government and the courts will decide that. Obviously. They already do.

Is it ideal? No. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a sh*t world where people are seen as lesser people because they are different. Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.

Your talking about the human rights commission?

That proves my point beyond any doubt.

 

[Abraham]

This is way out of line and it is time the thread is closed. If you can't be respectful in your reply then it is obviously a reply not worth making.

It might be out of line, but just beat him with a better arguement.

Censorship and shutting people down doesn't solve the issue or teach people why they are wrong for saying something.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.

So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

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

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

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

So if this is a good idea, **which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?**

Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.

This is way out of line and it is time the thread is closed. If you can't be respectful in your reply then it is obviously a reply not worth making.

The respect goes both ways. Complaining that you can't discriminate against people is a bit out of line too. But the people on the receiving end of that get to told to suck it up because its considered freedom of speech.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

This is not a debate.

This is not about love, equality, freedom or discrimination.

What is it about Master Chief?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

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

 

[TCL]

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

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

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

Do you mean that the crimes were perpetuated upon minors? I am sure that religious people would not do those sorts of things.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

I can understand you not mentioning the Bible as it is very embarrassing, for example, not letting a witch to live, homosexuality is an abomination. So the Bible can form the background of people's thinking even if they don't quote it. The Bible is like the devil whispering evil things in your ear.

Your getting off topic with your bigotted rantings … it was only a matter of time before you couldn't contain yourself any longer.

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

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

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

Probably a good idea not to start intellectual fights that you have no chance in hell of winning.

The Bible was used to it's utmost to keep civilisation brutal and stupid. It was used to justify slavery, to justify killing witches, to impede science, to corrupt philosophy, to hoodwink the ignorant, to scorn homosexuality, to prevent women from obtaining equality etc. etc..

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

You cannot mention intellectualism and the Bible in the same breath - there are the ultimate contradiction.

Got no problems with people who believe in religon, the bible,God, or whatever.
but my opinion of the bible is that its just a book that contains a whole lot of stories, put together and rewritten and retranslated over a hell of a long time, and like the koran, the stories have changed slightly each time that its been translated, until by now, the stories are probably far from what was originally intended.

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

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

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

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

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

 

[Guest]

Stick to the topic please.

 

[Tigerdave]

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .

\

The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line

It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory.

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

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

 

[GNR4LIFE]

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .

\

The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line

It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory.

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

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

Exactly. One might call it evolution.

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

 

[Abraham]

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .

\

The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line

It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory.

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

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

Your conflating issues at a rapid pace.

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

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

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

 

[Abraham]

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

lol

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

Your literally a walking encyclopedia of B.S.

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

 

[Geo]

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