Same sex marriage debate...

[Abraham]

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.

 

[hammertime]

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.

 

[JD Tiger]

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.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

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]

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.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

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.

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.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

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.

 

[PD77]

I'd advise everyone against marriage. Problem solved.

 

[Geo]

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

 

[rex2ce]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Abraham]

Because people are being denied the opportunity to be the couple married for 50 years and raising kids in a loving home in the eyes of a secular law, while others whom do not appreciate the institution abuse it.

No, gay relationships are already legally recognised as being on par with straight relationships, and nobody is preventing them form loving each other for 100 years or more if they like.

I am aware some involved pederasty in Greece, I don't equate pederasty with same sex unions and marriage, that is different again. The Greeks were not the only example. The Romans also practiced it. I am sure it was Caligula (I could be wrong,) who was reported to have married to other men, and it was actually outlawed by the Christian emperors later on. The Abrahamic faiths would have opposed it to encourage procreation.

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

And I never said that the Abrahamic religions were the first instance of opposition to SSM, they are the predominant opposition now though as many of the worlds population are adherents.

In a nut shell, at no time in any place anywhere in history was gay marriage recognized.

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

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

 

[stryker]

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

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

 

[Abraham]

If you vote "YES" now then Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals will be passing the motion. If you vote "No" then Lee Rhiannon, Penny wong and Greens/Labor will draft a future motion.

It doesn't matter what religious protections the coalition puts in place, because they will be reversed as soon as the next leftist government takes charge.

(culling cluttered comments as requested above).
Hold on. So if SSM is passed and the next parliament does not have to look into it, then the next government will reopen it all again and just remove religious freedom. Why?

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

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

Your Strawman argument of Marxism is just not relevant.

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

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

It has become the central ideology of the hard Left.

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

 

[colmcd]

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

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

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

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

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

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

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

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

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

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

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

 

[Tiger_Pete]

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

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

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

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

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

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

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

At least try and understand what we're debating here. LGBT anti-discrimination laws already exist in Australia. The fact that you haven't noticed them probably means they are not the end of the world like you're suggesting. This plebiscite is to decide marriage equality – nothing else.

 

[Swordy]

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

Im neither.

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

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

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

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

 

[JD Tiger]

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

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

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

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

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

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

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

I bolded a line that I wrote earlier. Isn't there some legislation saying people can't be discriminated against for their sexual preference, gender, race etc? Your examples don't come close to those categories.