Same sex marriage debate...

[GNR4LIFE]

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*

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.

Good old religious persacution at its best. Where is the freedom of speech and expression for those who want to be equal?

 

[TrueTiger]

Ok how about a recount of how things are going in regards to this topic…

If there is a yes vote..how will this affect our everyday living and what dramatic changes will be seen within our families and/or community that will change our day to day norm..

If there is a no vote..how will this affect our day to day living...will it be a victory for the traditional man/woman marriage as our society exists at the moment or will it be a glorious religious victory as referenced by the bible..

As the previous posts have been very civil and you all should be congratulated on your conduct during this discussion,please keep going and answer the questions above...cheers..

 

[Abraham]

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.

Good old religious persacution at its best. Where is the freedom of speech and expression for those who want to be equal?

Religious persecution? Please point to the religious argument that I made?

Oh wait, there isn't one.

The second part of my explanation (the bit that you didn't highlight) explains what should happen so that no-one is discriminated against.

If you don't understand something, just ask for a clarification. Don't come in throwing childish and bigoted accusations around like you know what your talking about.

 

[gallagher]

This thread needs a poll. We havn't had one of those for a while.

 

[Tiger_Pete]

THE AUSTRALIAN

September 11, 2017.

Same-sex law should see exodus from marriage act
Same-sex marriage does not constitute an inherent attack on religious freedom. However, the Liberal Party’s draft same-sex marriage bill could empower a state-funded assault on religions across the nation.

Tomorrow, the postal ballots on marriage reform will be distributed. Despite being urged to modify the bill to provide stronger protection for the core freedoms of speech and religion, Liberal politicians who endorsed it have chosen not to act in the interim. Unless the Coalition presents a modified bill that properly protects core freedoms, marriage reform will produce an entrenched conflict between queer ideology and liberty.

For those of us who understand that homosexual and heterosexual relationships have equal worth, the question of same-sex marriage should be straightforward. Yet international precedent demonstrates that the legalisation of same-sex marriage can change the nature of marriage itself from a natural institution with social ends to an activist institution with political ends. It can herald a profound transformation of society by making the most pre-political institution a servant of the PC state.

Wherever the state has codified neo-Marxist minority politics in discrimination law, the institution of marriage is gradually subordinated to the dictates of political correctness. In the context of codified neo-Marxism, the legalisation of same-sex marriage is not what it seems. Instead of creating equal­ity, it can create inequality by empowering the persecution of dissenters from PC politics.

In the Western world, dozens of cases have been brought against private enterprises, religious organisations or individuals by same-sex marriage activists. Some are reasonable in a secular society. Others are anti-religious bigotry masquerading as equality. In the UK, for example, the Equality Commission funded activist Gareth Lee’s case against a Northern Irish baker who wouldn’t write the political slogan “support gay marriage” on a cake. In my view, that is state-funded prosecution of a political dissident.

The legalisation of same-sex marriage can give PC activists a new, taxpayer-funded power to prosecute those who disagree with them. While attacks on free speech may be an unintended consequence of same-sex marriage, they are so pervasive that Liberals should have prepared legislation accordingly. Yet many Yes campaigners deny the threat that marriage reform poses to freedom of speech and religion. Speaking to The Australian, Liberal Party president Nick Greiner said: “The necessary religious protections for ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, and use of church grounds and services, will be assured … Such freedoms are at the forefront of legislation drafted by senator Dean Smith and MPs Tim Wilson, Warren Entsch, Trent Zimmerman and Trevor Evans.”

Freedom of speech is not protected in the Liberals’ draft bill. If LGBTQI marriage is legalised without sufficient protections for freedom of speech and religion, it will establish an oppressive regime that will become more so under Labor.

Earlier this year, Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus foreshadowed the extension of PC censorship under notorious 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to sexual orientation.

We know that freedom of speech will be affected by marriage reform after the fact because it has been attacked before the fact. Greens candidate Martine Delaney lodged a complaint against Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous for a booklet supporting traditional marriage. Porteous ultimately won the case, but had to defend free speech on marriage to the satisfaction of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

Activists have attacked numerous individuals to censor free speech that dissents from the PC line on same-sex marriage. Last year, church leaders were prevented from meeting at the Mercure Hotel in Sydney after queer activists threatened hotel staff. In December, a man drove a van into the Australian Christian Lobby office. It has come to light that the accused, Jaden Duong, allegedly told police he disliked the ACL because of its “position on sexuality”.

This year, activists called for a boycott of Coopers beer after a video featuring Liberal MPs drinking Coopers while discussing diverse views on same-sex marriage aired. Last week, GP Pansy Lai was attacked by activists who called for her deregistration after she went public to support traditional marriage.

There is little protection for traditional marriage supporters in the draft bill. The religious protections are limited to ministers or religious marriage celebrants and bodies that can prove their stance on marriage conforms to anti-discrimination law. The lack of protections leaves dissenters from LGBTQI marriage vulnerable to hate speech, harassment, boycotts and lawfare.

People who understand the capital importance of religious freedom to liberal democracy should consider their options in relation to voting on marriage reform. Some might simply vote No in the postal survey. A second option is to introduce a positive right to religious freedom along with the new right to LGBTQI marriage. A third option for legal exemptions was prepared by the Wilberforce Foundation in its submission to the government committee on the exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill. However, it was excluded from the Liberals’ same-sex marriage bill.

There is a sound proposal which is largely absent from the current debate. In my view, it is the only approach that will protect religious liberty and freedom of speech in the spirit of secularism. The Presbyterian church has resolved to withdraw from the Marriage Act if forced by legislation to conduct same-sex marriage. The proposal reflects realism. The current Marriage Act is secular, consistent with our secular state. It does not represent the view that marriage is the sanctified union of a man and woman under God. The withdrawal of religions from the Marriage Act would strengthen the vital distinction between state authority and church authority.

If the Yes vote wins public support, politicians should respect it by passing legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. However, understand that the draft bill could broaden the scope of state regulation of the family, private enterprise, private property and core freedoms. If passed in its current form, the same-sex marriage bill could empower taxpayer-funded activism against freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Consequently, I believe that legalisation of same-sex marriage should give rise to the withdrawal of churches, temples and mosques from the Australian Marriage Act.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/jennifer-oriel/samesex-law-should-see-exodus-from-marriage-act/news-story/81d160c0f4b85ba4fe92a86b1aa9f2ee

So, although 760 million people now live in a country where same-sex marriage is legal, the best example of injustice the author of that article can come up with is a baker in Northern Ireland was fined 500 quid for discrimination.

And, because of this great injustice you'd vote to prevent thousands of LGBTI people in Australia from having the same rights as everyone else? You'd vote to make them feel like they aren't an equal part of society?

No to mention that the laws pertaining to freedom of speech or religious freedom aren't changing at all.

Classic scaremongering from the Australian…

 

[Go_You_Good_Things]

Tiger Dave,
By "fabric of marriage" I meant a man and a woman. Probably a poor term to use.
And for your "slippery slope" tangent, ironically you were probably typing your answer when Abraham posted a well thought out and independent viewpoint on that particular topic. Have a little read. In the article they refer to those that will protest because they have some new-found PC adherent law on their side as " same-sex marriage activists". I called them "lesbians with crew cuts". Same same.
I didn't watch the video. It looked . . . in the words my 20 yr old son would use . . . gay.
I love how others are ripping into the Catholic church for it's stance hundreds of years ago. Reasonable thought suggests that the church hasn't stoned a homo couple lately.
Witches, and those that utter the name Jehovah are also rumoured to be quite chuffed at the new-found tolerance of the church.
Byron bay fan, God might have created everything and everyone. It follows that He created all of our body parts. Where you choose to insert any particular body part is unfortunately beyond even His control.
Perhaps He didn't "want homosexuals to exist" as you say . . . he created man and woman with penises and vaginas as the natural means of reproducing. He created bumholes as the sole natural means of disposing of solid body waste. Let's not get too involved in who didn't read the instructions properly, huh ?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I did see this pointed out elsewhere it seems that safe schools also seems to being brought up quite frequently as part of the no campaign. It is already here, as is other concerns raised by the anti-SSM campaigners such as welfare of children (which gays can already legally raise and adopt children,) and the like.

There seems to be some sort of tenuous assertion that the not-yet-legislated SSM is causative of these already present issues. I am unsure of the logic there, and I am unsure as how SSM being (or not being,) legalised will change those issues.

I don't believe that religious organisations should be forced at all to marry gay couples. It is a change to a secular law and as such exclusive religious organisations should not be compelled to marry gay couples if it doesn't align with their doctrines.

 

[Abraham]

THE AUSTRALIAN

September 11, 2017.

Same-sex law should see exodus from marriage act
Same-sex marriage does not constitute an inherent attack on religious freedom. However, the Liberal Party’s draft same-sex marriage bill could empower a state-funded assault on religions across the nation.

Tomorrow, the postal ballots on marriage reform will be distributed. Despite being urged to modify the bill to provide stronger protection for the core freedoms of speech and religion, Liberal politicians who endorsed it have chosen not to act in the interim. Unless the Coalition presents a modified bill that properly protects core freedoms, marriage reform will produce an entrenched conflict between queer ideology and liberty.

For those of us who understand that homosexual and heterosexual relationships have equal worth, the question of same-sex marriage should be straightforward. Yet international precedent demonstrates that the legalisation of same-sex marriage can change the nature of marriage itself from a natural institution with social ends to an activist institution with political ends. It can herald a profound transformation of society by making the most pre-political institution a servant of the PC state.

Wherever the state has codified neo-Marxist minority politics in discrimination law, the institution of marriage is gradually subordinated to the dictates of political correctness. In the context of codified neo-Marxism, the legalisation of same-sex marriage is not what it seems. Instead of creating equal­ity, it can create inequality by empowering the persecution of dissenters from PC politics.

In the Western world, dozens of cases have been brought against private enterprises, religious organisations or individuals by same-sex marriage activists. Some are reasonable in a secular society. Others are anti-religious bigotry masquerading as equality. In the UK, for example, the Equality Commission funded activist Gareth Lee’s case against a Northern Irish baker who wouldn’t write the political slogan “support gay marriage” on a cake. In my view, that is state-funded prosecution of a political dissident.

The legalisation of same-sex marriage can give PC activists a new, taxpayer-funded power to prosecute those who disagree with them. While attacks on free speech may be an unintended consequence of same-sex marriage, they are so pervasive that Liberals should have prepared legislation accordingly. Yet many Yes campaigners deny the threat that marriage reform poses to freedom of speech and religion. Speaking to The Australian, Liberal Party president Nick Greiner said: “The necessary religious protections for ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, and use of church grounds and services, will be assured … Such freedoms are at the forefront of legislation drafted by senator Dean Smith and MPs Tim Wilson, Warren Entsch, Trent Zimmerman and Trevor Evans.”

Freedom of speech is not protected in the Liberals’ draft bill. If LGBTQI marriage is legalised without sufficient protections for freedom of speech and religion, it will establish an oppressive regime that will become more so under Labor.

Earlier this year, Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus foreshadowed the extension of PC censorship under notorious 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to sexual orientation.

We know that freedom of speech will be affected by marriage reform after the fact because it has been attacked before the fact. Greens candidate Martine Delaney lodged a complaint against Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous for a booklet supporting traditional marriage. Porteous ultimately won the case, but had to defend free speech on marriage to the satisfaction of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

Activists have attacked numerous individuals to censor free speech that dissents from the PC line on same-sex marriage. Last year, church leaders were prevented from meeting at the Mercure Hotel in Sydney after queer activists threatened hotel staff. In December, a man drove a van into the Australian Christian Lobby office. It has come to light that the accused, Jaden Duong, allegedly told police he disliked the ACL because of its “position on sexuality”.

This year, activists called for a boycott of Coopers beer after a video featuring Liberal MPs drinking Coopers while discussing diverse views on same-sex marriage aired. Last week, GP Pansy Lai was attacked by activists who called for her deregistration after she went public to support traditional marriage.

There is little protection for traditional marriage supporters in the draft bill. The religious protections are limited to ministers or religious marriage celebrants and bodies that can prove their stance on marriage conforms to anti-discrimination law. The lack of protections leaves dissenters from LGBTQI marriage vulnerable to hate speech, harassment, boycotts and lawfare.

People who understand the capital importance of religious freedom to liberal democracy should consider their options in relation to voting on marriage reform. Some might simply vote No in the postal survey. A second option is to introduce a positive right to religious freedom along with the new right to LGBTQI marriage. A third option for legal exemptions was prepared by the Wilberforce Foundation in its submission to the government committee on the exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill. However, it was excluded from the Liberals’ same-sex marriage bill.

There is a sound proposal which is largely absent from the current debate. In my view, it is the only approach that will protect religious liberty and freedom of speech in the spirit of secularism. The Presbyterian church has resolved to withdraw from the Marriage Act if forced by legislation to conduct same-sex marriage. The proposal reflects realism. The current Marriage Act is secular, consistent with our secular state. It does not represent the view that marriage is the sanctified union of a man and woman under God. The withdrawal of religions from the Marriage Act would strengthen the vital distinction between state authority and church authority.

If the Yes vote wins public support, politicians should respect it by passing legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. However, understand that the draft bill could broaden the scope of state regulation of the family, private enterprise, private property and core freedoms. If passed in its current form, the same-sex marriage bill could empower taxpayer-funded activism against freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Consequently, I believe that legalisation of same-sex marriage should give rise to the withdrawal of churches, temples and mosques from the Australian Marriage Act.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/jennifer-oriel/samesex-law-should-see-exodus-from-marriage-act/news-story/81d160c0f4b85ba4fe92a86b1aa9f2ee

So, although 760 million people now live in a country where same-sex marriage is legal, the best example of injustice the author of that article can come up with is a baker in Northern Ireland was fined 500 quid for discrimination.

And, because of this great injustice you'd vote to prevent thousands of LGBTI people in Australia from having the same rights as everyone else? You'd vote to make them feel like they aren't an equal part of society?

No to mention that the laws pertaining to freedom of speech or religious freedom aren't changing at all.

Classic scaremongering from the Australian…

Getting a bit tired of people pivoting from this issue or trying to downplay it. Not sure if it is ignorance or an attempt to be deceptive.

It is not one baker.

Charities have been shut down, schools threatened with closure, people thrown in jail, lobbying for churches to be closed down, business owners made bankrupt. This affects ALL of society.

So if you sit back and let this happen because you don't care about the people specifically affected by this issue, then what happens when the newly self-appointed thought police come after something you care about?

 

[TrueTiger]

I was always taught to address my friends parents as Mr and Mrs…

It would be hard to go to someone's place and address them as Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs...

Just saying....let confusion abound...

 

[sheer64]

All I know is if they make it compulsory I am out of here!

 

[Tiger_Pete]

THE AUSTRALIAN

September 11, 2017.

Same-sex law should see exodus from marriage act
Same-sex marriage does not constitute an inherent attack on religious freedom. However, the Liberal Party’s draft same-sex marriage bill could empower a state-funded assault on religions across the nation.

Tomorrow, the postal ballots on marriage reform will be distributed. Despite being urged to modify the bill to provide stronger protection for the core freedoms of speech and religion, Liberal politicians who endorsed it have chosen not to act in the interim. Unless the Coalition presents a modified bill that properly protects core freedoms, marriage reform will produce an entrenched conflict between queer ideology and liberty.

For those of us who understand that homosexual and heterosexual relationships have equal worth, the question of same-sex marriage should be straightforward. Yet international precedent demonstrates that the legalisation of same-sex marriage can change the nature of marriage itself from a natural institution with social ends to an activist institution with political ends. It can herald a profound transformation of society by making the most pre-political institution a servant of the PC state.

Wherever the state has codified neo-Marxist minority politics in discrimination law, the institution of marriage is gradually subordinated to the dictates of political correctness. In the context of codified neo-Marxism, the legalisation of same-sex marriage is not what it seems. Instead of creating equal­ity, it can create inequality by empowering the persecution of dissenters from PC politics.

In the Western world, dozens of cases have been brought against private enterprises, religious organisations or individuals by same-sex marriage activists. Some are reasonable in a secular society. Others are anti-religious bigotry masquerading as equality. In the UK, for example, the Equality Commission funded activist Gareth Lee’s case against a Northern Irish baker who wouldn’t write the political slogan “support gay marriage” on a cake. In my view, that is state-funded prosecution of a political dissident.

The legalisation of same-sex marriage can give PC activists a new, taxpayer-funded power to prosecute those who disagree with them. While attacks on free speech may be an unintended consequence of same-sex marriage, they are so pervasive that Liberals should have prepared legislation accordingly. Yet many Yes campaigners deny the threat that marriage reform poses to freedom of speech and religion. Speaking to The Australian, Liberal Party president Nick Greiner said: “The necessary religious protections for ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, and use of church grounds and services, will be assured … Such freedoms are at the forefront of legislation drafted by senator Dean Smith and MPs Tim Wilson, Warren Entsch, Trent Zimmerman and Trevor Evans.”

Freedom of speech is not protected in the Liberals’ draft bill. If LGBTQI marriage is legalised without sufficient protections for freedom of speech and religion, it will establish an oppressive regime that will become more so under Labor.

Earlier this year, Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus foreshadowed the extension of PC censorship under notorious 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to sexual orientation.

We know that freedom of speech will be affected by marriage reform after the fact because it has been attacked before the fact. Greens candidate Martine Delaney lodged a complaint against Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous for a booklet supporting traditional marriage. Porteous ultimately won the case, but had to defend free speech on marriage to the satisfaction of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

Activists have attacked numerous individuals to censor free speech that dissents from the PC line on same-sex marriage. Last year, church leaders were prevented from meeting at the Mercure Hotel in Sydney after queer activists threatened hotel staff. In December, a man drove a van into the Australian Christian Lobby office. It has come to light that the accused, Jaden Duong, allegedly told police he disliked the ACL because of its “position on sexuality”.

This year, activists called for a boycott of Coopers beer after a video featuring Liberal MPs drinking Coopers while discussing diverse views on same-sex marriage aired. Last week, GP Pansy Lai was attacked by activists who called for her deregistration after she went public to support traditional marriage.

There is little protection for traditional marriage supporters in the draft bill. The religious protections are limited to ministers or religious marriage celebrants and bodies that can prove their stance on marriage conforms to anti-discrimination law. The lack of protections leaves dissenters from LGBTQI marriage vulnerable to hate speech, harassment, boycotts and lawfare.

People who understand the capital importance of religious freedom to liberal democracy should consider their options in relation to voting on marriage reform. Some might simply vote No in the postal survey. A second option is to introduce a positive right to religious freedom along with the new right to LGBTQI marriage. A third option for legal exemptions was prepared by the Wilberforce Foundation in its submission to the government committee on the exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill. However, it was excluded from the Liberals’ same-sex marriage bill.

There is a sound proposal which is largely absent from the current debate. In my view, it is the only approach that will protect religious liberty and freedom of speech in the spirit of secularism. The Presbyterian church has resolved to withdraw from the Marriage Act if forced by legislation to conduct same-sex marriage. The proposal reflects realism. The current Marriage Act is secular, consistent with our secular state. It does not represent the view that marriage is the sanctified union of a man and woman under God. The withdrawal of religions from the Marriage Act would strengthen the vital distinction between state authority and church authority.

If the Yes vote wins public support, politicians should respect it by passing legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. However, understand that the draft bill could broaden the scope of state regulation of the family, private enterprise, private property and core freedoms. If passed in its current form, the same-sex marriage bill could empower taxpayer-funded activism against freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Consequently, I believe that legalisation of same-sex marriage should give rise to the withdrawal of churches, temples and mosques from the Australian Marriage Act.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/jennifer-oriel/samesex-law-should-see-exodus-from-marriage-act/news-story/81d160c0f4b85ba4fe92a86b1aa9f2ee

So, although 760 million people now live in a country where same-sex marriage is legal, the best example of injustice the author of that article can come up with is a baker in Northern Ireland was fined 500 quid for discrimination.

And, because of this great injustice you'd vote to prevent thousands of LGBTI people in Australia from having the same rights as everyone else? You'd vote to make them feel like they aren't an equal part of society?

No to mention that the laws pertaining to freedom of speech or religious freedom aren't changing at all.

Classic scaremongering from the Australian…

Getting a bit tired of people pivoting from this issue or trying to downplay it. Not sure if it is ignorance or an attempt to be deceptive.

It is not one baker.

Charities have been shut down, schools threatened with closure, people thrown in jail, lobbying for churches to be closed down, business owners made bankrupt. This affects ALL of society.

So if you sit back and let this happen because you don't care about the people specifically affected by this issue, then what happens when the newly self-appointed thought police come after something you care about?

OK, so how many people have been thrown in jail then? How many business made bankrupt? How many charities shut down?

Please inform the ignorant among us.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

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.

Good old religious persacution at its best. Where is the freedom of speech and expression for those who want to be equal?

Religious persecution? Please point to the religious argument that I made?

Oh wait, there isn't one.

The second part of my explanation (the bit that you didn't highlight) explains what should happen so that no-one is discriminated against.

If you don't understand something, just ask for a clarification. Don't come in throwing childish and bigoted accusations around like you know what your talking about.

No insults pal. So the part i highlighted isn't based on religious grounds? Who are you trying to fool.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

…...........
Getting a bit tired of people pivoting from this issue or trying to downplay it. Not sure if it is ignorance or an attempt to be deceptive.

It is not one baker.

Charities have been shut down, schools threatened with closure, people thrown in jail, lobbying for churches to be closed down, business owners made bankrupt. This affects ALL of society.

So if you sit back and let this happen because you don't care about the people specifically affected by this issue, then what happens when the newly self-appointed thought police come after something you care about?

Well the gays are also God's creatures and who are these mere humans to refuse to give full recognition to God's creatures - they are anti-christs!

 

[JD Tiger]

Like someone else suggested, could someone who knows how please make a poll. I'm curious as to what the ratios are because it seems to me that here we have a pretty even spread of opinion here.

Just Yes or No please, no middle ground in the poll.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

There are many atheists and Labor voting members of the community who do not agree with what is proposed. It is interesting that many of the Yes voters on this forum are singling out the respective religions (most notably Christians) for criticism.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

If libertarians are against state and world government dominated by man then why would they tolerate a universal government dominated by a god - seems greatly contradictory.

The god concept is exactly contradictory to the libertarian concept because God sets itself up as the ultimate dictator. If god had created creatures with equal powers as itself then it could be considered a libertarian god.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

There are many atheists and Labor voting members of the community who do not agree with what is proposed. It is interesting that many of the Yes voters on this forum are singling out the respective religions (most notably Christians) for criticism.

Maybe because it is some religions that are amongst those leading the charge against the proposal. I have not heard of Labor or any atheist groups opposing the proposal. Their individual members may oppose but they are not doing so in the name of their organisations.

 

[colmcd]

There are many atheists and Labor voting members of the community who do not agree with what is proposed. It is interesting that many of the Yes voters on this forum are singling out the respective religions (most notably Christians) for criticism.

Hmm, I don't think people have been criticising "Christianity". I have been criticising fellow Christians for not acting Christian, i.e. for being Hypocritical. Ultimately Christians should be concerned for the fellow Christians and if that concern is not present, then they are not following Christ as well as they could be.

So far we have only heard the "No" case from I believe Christians/Muslims OR Atheists who don't like gays. Lets try the other No cases (I will try to present their case, Not my view).

Neo-feminist Marxists:
We reject marriage as a concept and reject religious society forcing it on our gay relationship. This is the Bourgeois (rich) forcing the view of Marriage (slavery) on the worker (women) to continue capitalist oppression. This is followed by a 50 page rant linking many Marxist philosophies and an annotated 150 pages of references.

Anarchists: The state should not get involved in Marriage. There should be no laws, get the torches, revolution!

Some gay people: we want to just do whomever we want too. We don't need marriage. Hey we love Hedonism and just doing what we want too.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

There are many atheists and Labor voting members of the community who do not agree with what is proposed. It is interesting that many of the Yes voters on this forum are singling out the respective religions (most notably Christians) for criticism.

Hmm, I don't think people have been criticising "Christianity". I have been criticising fellow Christians for not acting Christian, i.e. for being Hypocritical. Ultimately Christians should be concerned for the fellow Christians and if that concern is not present, then they are not following Christ as well as they could be.

So far we have only heard the "No" case from I believe Christians/Muslims OR Atheists who don't like gays. Lets try the other No cases (I will try to present their case, Not my view).

Neo-feminist Marxists:
We reject marriage as a concept and reject religious society forcing it on our gay relationship. This is the Bourgeois (rich) forcing the view of Marriage (slavery) on the worker (women) to continue capitalist oppression. This is followed by a 50 page rant linking many Marxist philosophies and an annotated 150 pages of references.

Anarchists: The state should not get involved in Marriage. There should be no laws, get the torches, revolution!

Some gay people: we want to just do whomever we want too. We don't need marriage. Hey we love Hedonism and just doing what we want too.

What has "not liking gays" got to do with opposing this proposal? Are we back to the homophobic slurs against those who don't agree?

 

[Yossarian]

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.

Okay. Firstly an "article" in the Oz (it looked like an oped piece to me) isn't definitive proof your view is correct. It simply means someone else shares your concern.

Whether the freedom to be bigoted, homophobic etc is worth protecting is a side argument. The change to the Marriage Act would not change this. Hypotheticals on future legislation are just that - hypothetical. Stopping a segment of the population doing something on the basis it might make people uncomfortable doing their day jobs is, I would suggest, a poor reason not to do something. I'm sure some people don't like renting to Indigenous people.

On point 2 it was the government who chose to play a role by defining what a marriage was. If it wasn't for the that the states would probably have passed their own legislation by now.

I'll leave the last bit alone. I'm not sure anyone can claim a superior insight into what Christianity means. These are personal journeys and reflections. I would simply say that the concerns of churches and religious bodies shouldn't have traction in the legislative process of a secular society where it does not directly affect them.