Same sex marriage debate...

@ said:
Finally, vote as you want but respect that everyone else's opinion is just as valid as yours - whether you agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

If there's no logic or some semblance of factual evidence, then no, not all opinions are equal
 
@ said:
I skimmed through these posts so I might not be giving the best response to what I've read.

Personally though I'm sick of hearing about how bad the left is and how people who are denying people the same rights under law are just perfect little citizens.

I'll vote yes because everyone should have the same rights. To me it's a human rights issue. I won't though be doing any campaigning for this in any way shape or form.

I also think that there is no reason to vote on this and the money should be spent on other things. Australia in my opinion is way too conservative. The US which in my opinion is way too conservative allows gay marriage and marijuana is decriminalised. These should both be legalised in Australia with no debate because to me they are clear cut human rights issues.
Click to expand...

Haven't had a puff for seven or eight years, so let's get together and discuss these important issues :slight_smile:
 
@ said:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...

I wish to protest against this extremely rude comment about same sex marriage. Has Spud also posted the same comment about heterosexual marriage? NO so my protest should be upheld. Make him wash peel spuds for a week.
 
Imagine if there was only one printer in a small town or an especially cheap printer. You take your SSM invites to have them printed but it is refused due to their opposition to SSM. this is when a person's discrimination can not only bite socially but economically.
 
If you go back only a few hundred years the Roman Catholic Church would have male and female homosexuals sawn in half beginning at the genitals where the sin begins from. And if you go back further they had the penis on ancient Greek statues smashed as not to upset their sensitive eyes.

What I don't get is that according to their religion their God created everything and knew everything in advance, if this is the case then God must have wanted homosexuals to exist and to be discriminated against to the point of committing suicide. Suffer little gays to come unto me.
 
It doesn't affect me personally. I really don't care about it. The thing with me is, who am I to stop people from being happy. Its a yes from me.
 
@ said:
@ said:
Guess im not crazy after all …

Fanatic is a fair description though, as you are like a poorly fed dog with a bone on the topics of religion and capitalism.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

For such an emotive topic, there was not one insult in this entire thread … until you came along.

Your a sad person.
 
@ said:
If you go back only a few hundred years the Roman Catholic Church would have male and female homosexuals sawn in half beginning at the genitals where the sin begins from. And if you go back further they had the penis on ancient Greek statues smashed as not to upset their sensitive eyes.

What I don't get is that according to their religion their God created everything and knew everything in advance, if this is the case then God must have wanted homosexuals to exist and to be discriminated against to the point of committing suicide. Suffer little gays to come unto me.
Click to expand...

Don't blame God for the discrimination Byron, it's people. We were created with a free will, that's what sets us apart from the animals (supposedly) - it's our choice whether we discriminate or not. Same as religion, set up by mankind and founded upon their own prejudices and ideologies. It has nothing too do with God, though the religious zealots will say that they do what they do 'in his name'.
 
@ said:
@ said:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I wish to protest against this extremely rude comment about same sex marriage. Has Spud also posted the same comment about heterosexual marriage? NO so my protest should be upheld. Make him wash peel spuds for a week.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I was just tired, honestly and reading page after page of comments put me to sleep :mrgreen:
 
@ said:
For so many years, the homosexual community kicked and screamed about wanting their differences recognised and accepted. They wanted society to respect them for being different.
Now, they are kicking and screaming to be recognised the same as mainstream society.
They demand tolerance from us, yet do not tolerate differing opinions to theirs.
They demand acceptance, yet do not accept any outcome other than their wishes.
**They demand the same rights in marriage as man and woman, yet defy the only precursor to marriage . . . being a man and a woman**. Let them have some sort of union legally recognised, but don't let them change the fabric of marriage as it has been for hundreds of years.
The most important reason for a NO vote is " where will this end ?". If they get their way, how long will it be before some militant lesbian with a crewcut demands to be married in a Catholic / Anglican / Muslim church, because it is legal ? And if the priest/minister of mufti refuses to marry them, she will go to some government funded lesbian rights help centre and take the church to some government funded tribunal to force them to marry them, or to force the church to change it's 2000 year old theological viewpoints to suit the current climate of political correctness and pandering to the minorities.
So for me it's a clear NO. Let them live together, let them have some sort of union recognised. But if they live their life in total contrast to the atypical man/woman union . . . . why demand that the meaning of traditional marriage is altered when they don't want to live as man/woman ?
So they want us to tolerate and accept them as they are . . . and not to try and change them. But their demands are that they don't tolerate marriage as a man/woman thing. They don't accept that marriage . . . by it's traditional definition doesn't include homosexuals . . . and so they want to change that.
Click to expand...

This has only been the issue for a decade when Howard changed the Marriage Act to explicitly say that.
 
Actually quite impressed at how civil discussion has been on this, thought it was going to be a complete shambles but most seem to have got their point across with a good degree of civility.
 
@ said:
@ said:
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.

Your conflating issues. Removing perceived discrimination against gay people under the marriage act and replacing it with real discrimination against people who support traditional marriage is the action of a warped society.

I have mentioned my personal libertarian view on gay marriage numerous times previously. Its not the government's business to be involved in marriage in any capacity.

If you want to marry according to cultural or religious traditions, go to your church or synagogue or temple and get married. For everyone else, apply for a certificate of civil union from the state. That way there is one rule that applies equally to everyone, and no one can argue
discrimination.

I am a massive beleiver in keeping the government at bay. And the government passing legislation to refefine a 5,000 year old word to mean something that no one even considered to be a thing 5 minutes ago, is massive government overreach that will have far reaching consequences .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Wow, you are riddled with Contradiction in and out.
Here is the Libertarian view on gay marriage. David L. Paul Rand, etc all back gay marriage because they are Libertarians.
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/03/11/leyonhjelm-moves-to-include-gay-marriage-bill.html
Libertarianism is the OPPOSITE to what you say. Yes Opposite, 100% opposite. This is a "Know what you are talking about" moment.

Now why a person with religious views would be libertarian I have no idea. But hey divorce a ok, family breakup OK. No community, no society nice myth of Friedman economics and whatever modern anti family structures like Sunday trading, etc you should be A OK with as a Libertarian.
\
\
As I said before. If a church, be it Anglican, Baptist, whatever wants to marry two men. You would stop and violate their religious freedoms. Paul Rand, David "I am a Nutcase" L. totally disagree with you and correctly believe that Libertarians would let this happen and not give a stuff.

If you are Libertarian, you should be out there campaigning for the "yes" vote like a good Libertarian should. *headpalm*
 
@ said:
Fellow Libertarians, may force be with you
Click to expand...

So you are with David L and Paul Rand on this one?
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/03/11/leyonhjelm-moves-to-include-gay-marriage-bill.html
 
@ said:
Actually quite impressed at how civil discussion has been on this, thought it was going to be a complete shambles but most seem to have got their point across with a good degree of civility.
Click to expand...

Completely agree CB,it just goes to show how well people on the forum can conduct themselves when discussing sometimes sensitive issues….( just don't mention Farah,JT or the big 3).... :roll
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
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.

Your conflating issues. Removing perceived discrimination against gay people under the marriage act and replacing it with real discrimination against people who support traditional marriage is the action of a warped society.

I have mentioned my personal libertarian view on gay marriage numerous times previously. Its not the government's business to be involved in marriage in any capacity.

If you want to marry according to cultural or religious traditions, go to your church or synagogue or temple and get married. For everyone else, apply for a certificate of civil union from the state. That way there is one rule that applies equally to everyone, and no one can argue
discrimination.

I am a massive beleiver in keeping the government at bay. And the government passing legislation to refefine a 5,000 year old word to mean something that no one even considered to be a thing 5 minutes ago, is massive government overreach that will have far reaching consequences .

Wow, you are riddled with Contradiction in and out.
Here is the Libertarian view on gay marriage. David L. Paul Rand, etc all back gay marriage because they are Libertarians.
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/03/11/leyonhjelm-moves-to-include-gay-marriage-bill.html
Libertarianism is the OPPOSITE to what you say. Yes Opposite, 100% opposite. This is a "Know what you are talking about" moment.

Now why a person with religious views would be libertarian I have no idea. But hey divorce a ok, family breakup OK. No community, no society nice myth of Friedman economics and whatever modern anti family structures like Sunday trading, etc you should be A OK with as a Libertarian.
\
\
As I said before. If a church, be it Anglican, Baptist, whatever wants to marry two men. You would stop and violate their religious freedoms. Paul Rand, David "I am a Nutcase" L. totally disagree with you and correctly believe that Libertarians would let this happen and not give a stuff.

If you are Libertarian, you should be out there campaigning for the "yes" vote like a good Libertarian should. *headpalm*
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

8 pages in and you still don't understand my point of view.

Maybe you should save the *handpalms until you do.

I'll dumb it down for you:

1\. My view on the proposed legislation is that a 'Yes' vote will lead to restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression by those opposed to same sex marriage. Read the article i posted from The Australian if you are in any doubt of this.

2\. My personal view on SSM is that the Government has no role to play here, it is a personal issue that people should undertake either with their religious institutions or through a civil institutions. The government should keep out of it.

The fact you would question why a Christian would have Libertarian views gives me a fairly strong hint that you don't understand the first thing about Christianity, and that the notion of personal freedoms and free will is founded directly from the Bible. You seem to have got your ideas of Christianity from old episodes of My Three Sons.

Why you even brought religion into it is puzzling, as i haven't mounted a religious argument at all.

I'll leave that for you to ponder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 227 (members: 9, guests: 218)
Back
Top