@ said:
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.
The writer shares my concern based on the same tangible evidence that i have been talking about, namely a tsunami of court cases in countries where people and organizations who espouse a preference for the traditional view of marriage have been hit by law suits and criminal charges … simply for having an opinion and sharing it.
I think its disingenuous that people pretend that they don't have access to this information already, when five minutes in google-land can confirm all of this beyond a shadow of any doubt.
@ said:
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.
So your arguing that swapping one group who claims discrimination, for another group to be discriminated against instead, is OK?
So on what basis do we determine who should be discriminated against and who shouldn't? Is there a point system, or a ranking that can be applied to different groups on how badly they deserve to be discriminated against ?
And who is the great moral emperor who determines those it will be ok to discriminate against?
Can you see what your setting yourself up for if you go for this? Today its traditional marriage, tomorrow it might be belief in God, and the day after that it could be something which you hold dear. History is littered with people who stood by and let those around them be attacked, and didn't lift a finger until it was too late.
So while Canberra is thinking of tinkering with the Marriage Act, it would be best for them to scrap it altogether and leave these decisions up to the individual. It would also be prudent to draw up a Bill of Rights style document which makes it abundantly clear that a person's right to freedom of speech cannot be impinged upon by the state.
@ said:
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.
Exactly why i said the federal government should F right off and not have any say in whether two people can or can't call themselves husband and wife, or wife and wife, or husband and husband.
Its an individual choice and it does not require input from a Government who has no business infringing on this matter.
@ said:
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.
When someone claims my faith precludes me from holding a certain view, which ironically is based totally on that faith, i think i have the right to point that out.
