Same sex marriage debate...

[Pawsandclaws]

It's begun.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/ssm-canberra-kids-party-organiser-ditches-entertainer-who-said-its-ok-to-vote-no/ar-AAs9HGP?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartandhp

 

[Abraham]

Baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple celebrating <anything>then that is discrimination. You have refused to serve a person for who they are. (I can hear arguments on a baker painting a "happy gay wedding" sign on a cake, likewise if a Jewish baker painted a "happy Adolf Hitler day" on a cake. I won't hear arguments about service of a "generic" cake).</anything>

I will explain the position of the Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Muslim baker scenario you have not understood.

If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay person, they are homophobic.

If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, they are not homophobic.

I think you said you are a Christian, so you don't need me to explain that the Church says that the purpose of sex is an expression of married love with the open possibility of creating life. Homosexual sex does not fit this criteria, neither does extra-marital sex between straight couples. Therefore the baker does not want to promote what they believe is a sin.

Homosexual sex is not a person, it is an action. That is what the baker has a problem with. Not the person, the action. But as a Christian, you already know this.

Now you have the background, here is the concerning bit:

Australia is signatory to multiple international conventions enshrining freedom of religion as a human right. But these conventions appear not to be worth the paper they are written on, as overseas each time a baker has refused to participate in an event they see as against their faith, they are prosecuted by the state. So it seems that forcing a baker to bake a cake trumps the actual human right of freedom of religion. And you wonder why some of us who do pay attention to the world around us are up in arms about this?

 

[tig_prmz]

i dont think comparing it to the injustices of aboriginal or women is fair. The thing about being homosexuality is that it's not objective, the only research that has come out so far which i know of is that there is a smudgy left/right brain differentiation in those who claimed to be homosexual vs heterosexual (that was 5 years ago).

Do you choose to be attracted to whatever sex you're attracted to?

that's a blurry question, what we do know for a fact though is that you can't objectively say someone is gay. hence the women, indigenous arguements don't apply.

sorry if im coming out strong for a "no" vote, as i said previously i havent made up my mind coz idk the ramifications yet

 

[jirskyr]

I've intentionally avoided this thread, for risk of being frustrated by the comments of potential "no" voters. Now I've done my vote and had a look at this thread, but it's still pretty frustrating reading.

Basically I can't understand how anyone thinks their opinion matters when it comes to two consenting adults of any persuasion wanting to get married. I voted "yes" because I want all adult Australians to have the same rights as I do, that's it. Women, men, whites, Europeans, Asians, indigenous Australians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, immigrants, homosexuals, gender-ambiguous, AFL supporters, NRL supporters, Sydney, Melbourne, rich, poor - they are just different ways to group Australians, and all Australians should be completely equal in the eyes of the law.

My opinion on whether or not same-sex couples are "natural" or "right" or "agreeable" or any such term is irrelevant. It so happens that I have no issue with non-hetero lifestyles, but even if I did, I should have no right to deny them equality.

Nobody should have any input, not even the government, about whether two loving persons of consenting age should marry. We used to prevent women and aborigines from voting, or non-whites from immigrating and those are highly disappointing aspects of our history that we have since overcome. Same-sex marriage is just another step in overcoming prejudice.

When "no" voters get all precious about being criticised, they need to wake up to themselves. Every opinion is subject to criticism, especially those made public. This forum is the perfect example - we are all mad Tigers fans but we regularly do not agree on simple ideas, so if you post an opinion expect some people to agree with you, some people to ignore you and some to argue the point with you.

Don't get upset that someone criticises your opinion, because nobody is or can deny your right to an opinion, and what they say can't do you any harm, unless you have hangups about always being right and always having people agree with you.

That's the one thing "yes" voters have in this campaign - at least their opinion is attempting to bring marriage equality to all Australians. Some people think the "yes" campaign has been aggressive, but I have only had "no" leaflets in my mailbox and only the "no" campaign has used skywriting over my house.

"No" voters can say anything they like, but the bottom line is they wish to deny marriage equality, which itself is to deny equal rights to all Australians. So at least be honest about that, be honest that regardless of your concerns over religion, anti-discrimination laws, education, whatever… be honest that you are allowing your own concerns to try to deny some portion of Australians the full rights that you yourself have.

 

[Tim Sheens]

i dont think comparing it to the injustices of aboriginal or women is fair. The thing about being homosexuality is that it's not objective, the only research that has come out so far which i know of is that there is a smudgy left/right brain differentiation in those who claimed to be homosexual vs heterosexual (that was 5 years ago).

Do you choose to be attracted to whatever sex you're attracted to?

that's a blurry question, what we do know for a fact though is that you can't objectively say someone is gay. hence the women, indigenous arguements don't apply.

sorry if im coming out strong for a "no" vote, as i said previously i havent made up my mind coz idk the ramifications yet

There is no blurring, you either get sexually aroused by other men or not.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Did the 8 values political test the other day and was horrified to find out that I am considered a libertarian.

Next thing your going to tell me you are a born-again Christian.

Haha, no I'm not. Raised a Catholic, long time atheist.


 

[Cultured_Bogan]

i dont think comparing it to the injustices of aboriginal or women is fair. The thing about being homosexuality is that it's not objective, the only research that has come out so far which i know of is that there is a smudgy left/right brain differentiation in those who claimed to be homosexual vs heterosexual (that was 5 years ago).

Do you choose to be attracted to whatever sex you're attracted to?

that's a blurry question, what we do know for a fact though is that you can't objectively say someone is gay. hence the women, indigenous arguements don't apply.

sorry if im coming out strong for a "no" vote, as i said previously i havent made up my mind coz idk the ramifications yet

It's not blurry. You're attracted to either men or women, or both.

I'm not criticising whether you'll vote no or not, that's your prerogative.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It's begun.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/ssm-canberra-kids-party-organiser-ditches-entertainer-who-said-its-ok-to-vote-no/ar-AAs9HGP?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartandhp

Do you support a religious baker's right to refuse service to supply a cake for a gay wedding?

 

[tig_prmz]

Basically I can't understand how anyone thinks their opinion matters when it comes to two consenting adults of any persuasion wanting to get married.

just because two people consent to something doesn't mean you are denying their right to do something. In many counties, prostitution is illegal even though it's "two consenting" adults. im not comparing SSM to prostitution just giving an example that just because it's between two people doesnt mean it's irrelevant to others.

and as i said previously, why can't we legalise polygamy as well. We need to figure out the legal ramifications of changing laws. What Abraham said about religious freedom is suppressed is a social ramificatoin which can happen as well.

Right now, ramifications are unknown and once you change it, it's done and irreversible. there need to be strict laws in regards to this. For e.g. idk how true it is but abortion agencies in USA are already favouring homosexual couples to show how liberal they are instead of heterosexual.

 

[tig_prmz]

i dont think comparing it to the injustices of aboriginal or women is fair. The thing about being homosexuality is that it's not objective, the only research that has come out so far which i know of is that there is a smudgy left/right brain differentiation in those who claimed to be homosexual vs heterosexual (that was 5 years ago).

Do you choose to be attracted to whatever sex you're attracted to?

that's a blurry question, what we do know for a fact though is that you can't objectively say someone is gay. hence the women, indigenous arguements don't apply.

sorry if im coming out strong for a "no" vote, as i said previously i havent made up my mind coz idk the ramifications yet

It's not blurry. You're attracted to either men or women, or both.

I'm not criticising whether you'll vote no or not, that's your prerogative.

you can be attracted to anyone that's not the issue. It's PROVING objectively whether you are or not.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Do you choose to be attracted to whatever sex you're attracted to?

that's a blurry question, what we do know for a fact though is that you can't objectively say someone is gay. hence the women, indigenous arguements don't apply.

sorry if im coming out strong for a "no" vote, as i said previously i havent made up my mind coz idk the ramifications yet

It's not blurry. You're attracted to either men or women, or both.

I'm not criticising whether you'll vote no or not, that's your prerogative.

you can be attracted to anyone that's not the issue. It's PROVING objectively whether you are or not.

If a bloke is attracted to men, and isn't women, it's reasonable proof to suggest he's gay.

 

[jirskyr]

Baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple celebrating <anything>then that is discrimination. You have refused to serve a person for who they are. (I can hear arguments on a baker painting a "happy gay wedding" sign on a cake, likewise if a Jewish baker painted a "happy Adolf Hitler day" on a cake. I won't hear arguments about service of a "generic" cake).</anything>

Homosexual sex is not a person, it is an action. That is what the baker has a problem with. Not the person, the action. But as a Christian, you already know this.

Now you have the background, here is the concerning bit:

Australia is signatory to multiple international conventions enshrining freedom of religion as a human right. But these conventions appear not to be worth the paper they are written on, as overseas each time a baker has refused to participate in an event they see as against their faith, they are prosecuted by the state. So it seems that forcing a baker to bake a cake trumps the actual human right of freedom of religion. And you wonder why some of us who do pay attention to the world around us are up in arms about this?

Oh this argument: "I don't dislike you, I dislike your sins." I suppose the baker also doesn't have an issue with murderers, just the act of murder? "I don't dislike Hindus, I dislike the fact that they worship false gods. I don't dislike Nazis, I dislike the fact that they conducted the Holocaust. I don't dislike Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon, I dislike his egomania and ridiculous policies."

In regards to religious freedom, you are mistaking the practice of worship and the acts of a religious person. Worship is unencumbered: you can exercise any religion you choose, but you cannot contravene law in the act of pursuing your faith. Jihadists are free to practice Islam but they are not free to carry out jihad in the name of Allah. A radical Christian can worship in their own manner, but they cannot assault people who visit abortion clinics. Religious freedom does not overcome basic human rights.

If your religion causes you to be discriminatory, then you should be held accountable - "I don't dislike you personally, I dislike your discriminatory sin." Religions don't get to make up federal or state laws.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Basically I can't understand how anyone thinks their opinion matters when it comes to two consenting adults of any persuasion wanting to get married.

just because two people consent to something doesn't mean you are denying their right to do something. In many counties, prostitution is illegal even though it's "two consenting" adults. im not comparing SSM to prostitution just giving an example that just because it's between two people doesnt mean it's irrelevant to others.

and as i said previously, why can't we legalise polygamy as well. We need to figure out the legal ramifications of changing laws. What Abraham said about religious freedom is suppressed is a social ramificatoin which can happen as well.

Right now, ramifications are unknown and once you change it, it's done and irreversible. there need to be strict laws in regards to this. For e.g. idk how true it is but abortion agencies in USA are already favouring homosexual couples to show how liberal they are instead of heterosexual.

I couldn't care less if we legalised polygamy. Not my cup of tea, one wife is enough but if others enjoy that lifestyle, good luck to them. It doesn't impinge on my freedoms.

Might even correct the housing bubble!

 

[jirskyr]

Basically I can't understand how anyone thinks their opinion matters when it comes to two consenting adults of any persuasion wanting to get married.

just because two people consent to something doesn't mean you are denying their right to do something. In many counties, prostitution is illegal even though it's "two consenting" adults. im not comparing SSM to prostitution just giving an example that just because it's between two people doesnt mean it's irrelevant to others.

and as i said previously, why can't we legalise polygamy as well. We need to figure out the legal ramifications of changing laws. What Abraham said about religious freedom is suppressed is a social ramificatoin which can happen as well.

Right now, ramifications are unknown and once you change it, it's done and irreversible. there need to be strict laws in regards to this. For e.g. idk how true it is but abortion agencies in USA are already favouring homosexual couples to show how liberal they are instead of heterosexual.

I really don't know what you are talking about. Marriage is a public institution controlled by the government - you can't do it without permission, it is non-binding. So if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are opposing the ability for two consenting same-sex adults to become a married couple.

It's not the same as prostitution, which is not an institution of the state and can be conducted in private, legally or illegally, without government involvement.

And no, there do not need to be strict laws in regards to the ramifications of legalising same-sex marriage. That's part of the mistake so many "no" voters are making - "I don't want to make this allowance for fear of future repercussions."

Future outcomes of law changes are not predictable and arguably infinite; it's not realistic to expect all possible outcomes of one change to be managed and handled at the time of the first change.

For example, what were the ramifications of allowing women to vote? Was every outcome assessed and planned for? Or did they just give women equal rights in elections and deal with each other issue as they came up? Has Australia suffered for giving women the right to vote?

If other issues come up as a result of legalising same-sex marriage, deal with them at the time. The government does not have to hurry. Otherwise you would never change public policy or law, for fear of consequences.

 

[Abraham]

"Why would i care if nobody else would be affected."

Bingo. So you are happy (or Ambivalent) about two people of the same sex getting a state marriage.

I have said this all along.

Although i am a religious person, i do not get to project my morals onto anybody else, and i do not get to tell someone else how to live their life. As long as they don't get to tell me how to live my life in return.

So if the proposition was: here is the legislation to let gay couples marry, and here are the protections that mean nobody else will be affected, then i would say fine lets go for it.

But its patently obvious that this is not the case.

The actual proposition is: let us know your opinion on phantom legislation that we have not come up with yet, and in return you can expect the same discrimination that is happening today in Europe and north America if the vote is a Yes.

The only thing this leaves me to ponder is what colour pen i will be using to vote No.

 

[Abraham]

Baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple celebrating <anything>then that is discrimination. You have refused to serve a person for who they are. (I can hear arguments on a baker painting a "happy gay wedding" sign on a cake, likewise if a Jewish baker painted a "happy Adolf Hitler day" on a cake. I won't hear arguments about service of a "generic" cake).</anything>

Homosexual sex is not a person, it is an action. That is what the baker has a problem with. Not the person, the action. But as a Christian, you already know this.

Now you have the background, here is the concerning bit:

Australia is signatory to multiple international conventions enshrining freedom of religion as a human right. But these conventions appear not to be worth the paper they are written on, as overseas each time a baker has refused to participate in an event they see as against their faith, they are prosecuted by the state. So it seems that forcing a baker to bake a cake trumps the actual human right of freedom of religion. And you wonder why some of us who do pay attention to the world around us are up in arms about this?

Oh this argument: "I don't dislike you, I dislike your sins." I suppose the baker also doesn't have an issue with murderers, just the act of murder? "I don't dislike Hindus, I dislike the fact that they worship false gods. I don't dislike Nazis, I dislike the fact that they conducted the Holocaust. I don't dislike Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon, I dislike his egomania and ridiculous policies."

In regards to religious freedom, you are mistaking the practice of worship and the acts of a religious person. Worship is unencumbered: you can exercise any religion you choose, but you cannot contravene law in the act of pursuing your faith. Jihadists are free to practice Islam but they are not free to carry out jihad in the name of Allah. A radical Christian can worship in their own manner, but they cannot assault people who visit abortion clinics. Religious freedom does not overcome basic human rights.

If your religion causes you to be discriminatory, then you should be held accountable - "I don't dislike you personally, I dislike your discriminatory sin." Religions don't get to make up federal or state laws.

You probably haven't read the previous twenty-something pages, and i'm not bothered repeating it again.

All this boils down to one question:

Do you think you have the right to tell people how to live their life, and what moral choices they can and can't make?

 

[jirskyr]

All this boils down to one question:

Do you think you have the right to tell people how to live their life, and what moral choices they can and can't make?

Well depends what you mean by "tell". If you mean "advise" or "declare" then sure, then yes, you absolutely have the right to give your opinion on what people should and shouldn't do; freedom of speech. You just don't have the right to compel them to adhere to that opinion.

You also should not have the right to deny someone a civil right because they are different to you. That is what the SSM question is, "should THEY be allowed to marry?". Doesn't matter why someone might say "no", the act of saying no is a wish to deny equal rights. Same-sex couples have the same rights as all other Australians except marriage, and that last part should be changed. It's none of anyone's business if gay people marry, just let them do it same as the hetero couples.

 

[colmcd]

If anyone has read this thread from start to finish and wants more:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/godforbid/same-sex-marriage/8949418

It is actually really good and funny.

Guests:
Monica Doumit, Co-ordinator, Catholic Talk/Spokeswoman, Coalition for Marriage

Liam Webb, member, Leichhardt Uniting Church/ Australian representative, The Reformation Project, a bible-oriented US based group supporting LGBT Christians, and a pro-Gay understanding of the scriptures

 

[Pawsandclaws]

We are having a survey on the definition of marriage. Nothing defines marriage more than procreation. Procreation is between a heterosexual couple.

Both forms of relationship are equal, but they are different. This survey is not about rights but the definition of marriage.

Actually, there are several competing views of what the definition of marriage is.

Some argue it is for procreation, others believe it was for collection of rights, others as a right to sexual access and others as a relationship recognised by custom and/or law.

**You** define marriage by procreation, it doesn't mean to say that everyone else does.

The existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. It is between a man and a woman.
Procreation is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there is no getting around this fact.

It has only been specific for about a decade, although some are carrying on that it's been that way since the inception of the Marriage Act, and we didn't need a postal survey or a plebiscite to change it, a former PM went rogue on it. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there's no getting around that fact.

And if you want to argue specifics, although it is obviously most common, you do not require a "relationship" any more to procreate (sperm donors, IVF etc,) nor does a heterosexual relationship always result in procreation. Some couples cannot conceive, even with the aid of science, nor do they choose to have children. Should deny those people marriage as well since they cannot/will not procreate.

Homosexual relationships are different to heterosexual relationships. No amount of muddying the waters about IVF, sperm donors, fertility treatments etc will get around this irrefutable fact. This difference is recognised via marriage.

 

[Abraham]

All this boils down to one question:

Do you think you have the right to tell people how to live their life, and what moral choices they can and can't make?

Well depends what you mean by "tell". If you mean "advise" or "declare" then sure, then yes, you absolutely have the right to give your opinion on what people should and shouldn't do; freedom of speech. You just don't have the right to compel them to adhere to that opinion.

You also should not have the right to deny someone a civil right because they are different to you. That is what the SSM question is, "should THEY be allowed to marry?". Doesn't matter why someone might say "no", the act of saying no is a wish to deny equal rights. Same-sex couples have the same rights as all other Australians except marriage, and that last part should be changed. It's none of anyone's business if gay people marry, just let them do it same as the hetero couples.

We are going back to square one with these questions you are raising. Your simplifying things to the point that they don't represent the reality we are weighing up.

My belief is that free speech is absolute.

If allowing gay people to marry means nobody else is effected, then fine.

If allowing gay people to marry means other people's rights are trodden on and freedoms are curtailed for a large section of society, for the benefit of literally a minuscule portion of the population, then absolutely no. That's not how freedom works.

The government needs to do this properly, not piece-meal, not play lets hide the legislation, and not allow people's freedom of conscious and freedom of speech to be impeded. They need to get it right, and they haven't got it right.