Same sex marriage debate...

[Abraham]

Yes of course there is Evil….it's called the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles with the Souff Sydney Rabbitohs as it's twin...

touché

 

[earl]

Abraham - the topic is not about being thrown into jail if you have an opinion that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. How many people have be thrown into jail for having that opinion.

The question is should the state discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The answer has to be no because discrimination is wrong. In my opinion that is the only moral response.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .

\

The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line

It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory.

Most supporters of "Traditional Marriage" tend to skip over that it was once "traditional" to marry off young girls, it was once "traditional" to not allow "mixed marriages", all that has been changed and it hasn't affected anyone negatively has it? why? because the vast majority agreed marriage should be between consenting adults and that it was blatantly discriminatory to not allow people of different ethnicity's to marry, it was criminalized in some States in the US.

Should people be allowed to disriminate in this regards? What are the justifications of the discrimination given that "traditional marriage" has changed in the past before?

Exactly. One might call it evolution.

And what about arranged marriages. When you look at who has been allowed to marry in the past its laughable that the moralists only emerge when there is talk of SSM. Very weird.

And what about some of us old worn out old dags going to Asia and marrying girls young enough to be our grandchildren - this belongs to one foot in the grave thread. But in nursing homes gay couples can't co-habitat and feel greatly discriminated against.

 

[JD Tiger]

I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.

So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

I agree that incitement to violence should not be protected, but that should be the absolute extent of any speech laws.

I'm not saying this because i want people to be vile, simply that if you start to say you can't say 'X' or you can't say 'Y', then you start a really steep slippery slide where you rely on a single person who decides which people should go for jail for the terrible crime of talking.

Usually their decisions are reflections of their own political or ideological biases.

So if this is a good idea, **which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?**

Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.

This is way out of line and it is time the thread is closed. If you can't be respectful in your reply then it is obviously a reply not worth making.

How is that out of line and disrespectful? Seriously, I don't get how that could be considered out of line or disrespectful? However this survey finishes up, it is about the majority giving their opinion on allowing a minority to do something. Is it offensive to you to consider religion as a minority?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Yes of course there is Evil….it's called the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles with the Souff Sydney Rabbitohs as it's twin...

touché

If they're evil, Easts are sin incarnated and Nick Politis is Satan himself.

 

[Tigerdave]

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .

\

The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line

It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory.

Most supporters of "Traditional Marriage" tend to skip over that it was once "traditional" to marry off young girls, it was once "traditional" to not allow "mixed marriages", all that has been changed and it hasn't affected anyone negatively has it? why? because the vast majority agreed marriage should be between consenting adults and that it was blatantly discriminatory to not allow people of different ethnicity's to marry, it was criminalized in some States in the US.

Should people be allowed to disriminate in this regards? What are the justifications of the discrimination given that "traditional marriage" has changed in the past before?

Your conflating issues at a rapid pace.

There is a difference between social or cultural norms, which change over time, and the intrinsic purpose of marriage, which can not. If you understand the biological and societal purpose of marriage, you will understand my point (you may not agree, but at least you will understand).

This is no conflating of issues at all, the views of "traditional marriage" have changed in the past, you cannot deny that and these changes/views were only made last century.

If you are going to argue about the "intrinsic purpose" of marriage as you put it, which would be to have kids I assume, well that's a whole different arguement now. Gay people are not sterile and can still have kids or should straight people then be forced to make sure they can have kids before they are allowed to be married?

So for many, particularly those who adhear to specific cultures or faiths, they will never accept a variant understanding of marriage. And the important question to ask is, should they be forced to?

Again, I ask the question, should people be allowed to disriminate due to culture or faith as they have done in the past in regards to mixed marriages?

Is it acceptable to not allow Catholics and Protestants to marry each other?

I want to avoid getting into a religious argument about marriage because it is not relevant to this specific discussion, and focus on the important question at hand : should people be thrown in jail for having the opinion that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman?

If religion isn't relevant, why do you keep bringing it up? In any event, not every religious person is against SSM. So yeah, it is kinda irrevelant so there's no point in mentioning religion or faith at all in any discussion about SSM.

No people shouldn't be thrown in jail for having an opinion, I think jail time for discimination is also too much, but should people be fined or some such for disrcimination? Is discrimination ok if it's under the guise of "culture" or "faith"?

 

[Abraham]

This is no conflating of issues at all, the views of "traditional marriage" have changed in the past, you cannot deny that and these changes/views were only made last century.

If you are going to argue about the "intrinsic purpose" of marriage as you put it, which would be to have kids I assume, well that's a whole different arguement now. Gay people are not sterile and can still have kids or should straight people then be forced to make sure they can have kids before they are allowed to be married?

Again, I ask the question, should people be allowed to disriminate due to culture or faith as they have done in the past in regards to mixed marriages?

Is it acceptable to not allow Catholics and Protestants to marry each other?

If religion isn't relevant, why do you keep bringing it up? In any event, not every religious person is against SSM. So yeah, it is kinda irrevelant so there's no point in mentioning religion or faith at all in any discussion about SSM.

No people shouldn't be thrown in jail for having an opinion, I think jail time for discimination is also too much, but should people be fined or some such for disrcimination? Is discrimination ok if it's under the guise of "culture" or "faith"?

I am concentrating on your last paragraphs, because the rest is another topic which we could spend equal time talking about, and has nothing to do with the point that i have been getting across.

By religion being irrelevant, i mean i am not quoting you passages from the Bible, because as an unbeliever that is not relevant to you or anybody else who is not a believer.

I am only bringing up religion in the sense that religious people will now be discriminated against for holding certain beliefs.

By your response to my question (and thank you for answering it) you are indicating that the Government should have a say in what people think and say. That is a dangerous precedent to set, and the compete anti-thesis of free speech.

So my follow up question is, and this is the important bit, who decides what is discrimination?

Which completely impartial, unbiased, intrinsically fair human being is going to be given the job of being our Thought Police?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

A lot of good examples being brought forward about the hypocricy of the moralists who are against this, but are not outspoken Child marriage, arranged marriage etc. Somehow SSM marriage is a bigger problem.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

This is no conflating of issues at all, the views of "traditional marriage" have changed in the past, you cannot deny that and these changes/views were only made last century.

If you are going to argue about the "intrinsic purpose" of marriage as you put it, which would be to have kids I assume, well that's a whole different arguement now. Gay people are not sterile and can still have kids or should straight people then be forced to make sure they can have kids before they are allowed to be married?

Again, I ask the question, should people be allowed to disriminate due to culture or faith as they have done in the past in regards to mixed marriages?

Is it acceptable to not allow Catholics and Protestants to marry each other?

If religion isn't relevant, why do you keep bringing it up? In any event, not every religious person is against SSM. So yeah, it is kinda irrevelant so there's no point in mentioning religion or faith at all in any discussion about SSM.

No people shouldn't be thrown in jail for having an opinion, I think jail time for discimination is also too much, but should people be fined or some such for disrcimination? Is discrimination ok if it's under the guise of "culture" or "faith"?

I am concentrating on your last paragraph, because the rest is another topic which we could spend equal time talking about, and has nothing to do with the point that i have been getting across.

By religion being irrelevant, i mean i am not quoting you passages from the Bible, because as an unbeliever that is not relevant to you or anybody else who is not a believer.

**I am only bringing up religion in the sense that religious people will now be discriminated against for holding certain beliefs.**

By your response to my question (and thank you for answering it) you are indicating that the Government should have a say in what people think and say. That is a dangerous precedent to set, and the compete anti-thesis of free speech.

So my follow up question is, and this is the important bit, who decides what is discrimination?

Which completely impartial, unbiased, intrinsically fair human being is going to be given the job of being our Thought Police?

As it stands people who want the same rights as everyone else are being discriminated against, but that doesn't seem to bother most who are on your side of the argument. You even pasted an article that stated discrimination against beliefs was being outlawed and you had an issue with it. The only reason you would have a problem with it is if you want to be able to criticise people then play the free speech card.

 

[supercoach]

Page 19…looks like there is more to the topic than a Ford vrs Holden!!

 

[JD Tiger]

There are things in this world which I believe to be absolutely true. And they are absolutely true, for me. They are not necessarily true for anyone else. There may possibly be a universal truth, an absolute truth above all else, but it is arrogance for a person to believe that they know it whilst everyone else is wrong. That is bigotry.

To me, in this discussion, what a person believes should not be the focus. It is bursting through in most sentences, but it is not really relevant. I believe something, you believe something else, so what? My beliefs should not be imposed upon you, and neither should yours be on me.

Whether we believe SSM should be allowed or not, it's pretty damned poor that other people's beliefs are being imposed upon others and preventing them from doing something which has no impact upon others. You may believe that it does impact others, I don't agree, but I am certainly not the absolute authority, maybe it does impact you, who am I to say.

And if you believe everything I just wrote to be wrong, it very possibly is. That is exactly the point.

 

[Tigerdave]

This is no conflating of issues at all, the views of "traditional marriage" have changed in the past, you cannot deny that and these changes/views were only made last century.

If you are going to argue about the "intrinsic purpose" of marriage as you put it, which would be to have kids I assume, well that's a whole different arguement now. Gay people are not sterile and can still have kids or should straight people then be forced to make sure they can have kids before they are allowed to be married?

Again, I ask the question, should people be allowed to disriminate due to culture or faith as they have done in the past in regards to mixed marriages?

Is it acceptable to not allow Catholics and Protestants to marry each other?

If religion isn't relevant, why do you keep bringing it up? In any event, not every religious person is against SSM. So yeah, it is kinda irrevelant so there's no point in mentioning religion or faith at all in any discussion about SSM.

No people shouldn't be thrown in jail for having an opinion, I think jail time for discimination is also too much, but should people be fined or some such for disrcimination? Is discrimination ok if it's under the guise of "culture" or "faith"?

I am concentrating on your last paragraphs, because the rest is another topic which we could spend equal time talking about, and has nothing to do with the point that i have been getting across.

By religion being irrelevant, i mean i am not quoting you passages from the Bible, because as an unbeliever that is not relevant to you or anybody else who is not a believer.

I am only bringing up religion in the sense that religious people will now be discriminated against for holding certain beliefs.

By your response to my question (and thank you for answering it) you are indicating that the Government should have a say in what people think and say. That is a dangerous precedent to set, and the compete anti-thesis of free speech.

So my follow up question is, and this is the important bit, who decides what is discrimination?

Which completely impartial, unbiased, intrinsically fair human being is going to be given the job of being our Thought Police?

how will religious people be discriminated against? again, not every religious person disagrees with SSM.
So far, you're only concerned with discrimination against religious people and no one else.

I don't believe I stated anywhere agreeing with the Government having a say in what people think and say, I actually asked you questions about what should be done with people who discriminate. So if you can answer those please.

Also, are you conceding that marriage has changed in the past?

 

[Yossarian]

I see in this morning's SMH a couple being denied a wedding at a Presbyterian Church in Vic because the bride expressed support for SSM. I doubt the minister will be prosecuted. It's clear to me that churches have a current right to marry or not marry who they want and I see no evidence this situation will be different if the Marriage Act is amended as proposed.

 

[supercoach]

A friend of mine was refused by a Anglican minster the opportunity to marry in his church as she was previously divorced. The reason she was divorced was her husband ran off with another man. Weeks or months latter the Anglican church married Elton John in their church at Darling Point in a marriage that everyone knew was basically a publicity stunt. Granted it was a long time ago but from where I sit most religions and religious organisations are chocker block full of double standards.

As for the debate on SSM I say religion should not even come into it and it is all about your basic rights and equality

 

[Abraham]

how will religious people be discriminated against? again, not every religious person disagrees with SSM.
So far, you're only concerned with discrimination against religious people and no one else.

I don't believe I stated anywhere agreeing with the Government having a say in what people think and say, I actually asked you questions about what should be done with people who discriminate. So if you can answer those please.

Also, are you conceding that marriage has changed in the past?

Not to be dismissive of your post, but we are covering old ground now.

I have pointed out a couple of times already the situations which will lead to (and have happened in huge numbers overseas where SSM has been legalised) people and organsiations who hold a contrary opinions being criminally charged, jailed, threatened, bankrupted, and forcibly closed down. This isn't make believe, so before you ask me for proof, jump on google and see for yourself. Its all in black and white.

You're asking if people should be punished who discriminate? Hell No! I think i have said this about 50+ times in this thread. Punishing a person for holding an opinion, no matter how vile you personally think that opinion is, is at its core fascistic. There is no person who should be given the power of 'Thought Police' in a modern, western, democratic nation.

Also to answer your second question, the social implications of marriage have changed over the past 5,000 years, but not the basis i.e. between a man and a women. That has never changed until recently. That's just a simple fact.

 

[Abraham]

I see in this morning's SMH a couple being denied a wedding at a Presbyterian Church in Vic because the bride expressed support for SSM. I doubt the minister will be prosecuted. It's clear to me that churches have a current right to marry or not marry who they want and I see no evidence this situation will be different if the Marriage Act is amended as proposed.

The Government has said that Churches and Wedding Celebrants will be protected, but private citizens and organizations will not be.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

…......................
Not to be dismissive of your post, but we are covering old ground now.

I have pointed out a couple of times already the situations which will lead to (and have happened in huge numbers overseas where SSM has been legalised) people and organsiations who hold a contrary opinions being criminally charged, jailed, threatened, bankrupted, and forcibly closed down. This isn't make believe, so before you ask me for proof, jump on google and see for yourself. Its all in black and white.

You're asking if people should be punished who discriminate? Hell No! I think i have said this about 50+ times in this thread. Punishing a person for holding an opinion, no matter how vile you personally think that opinion is, is at its core fascistic. There is no person who should be given the power of 'Thought Police' in a modern, western, democratic nation.

Also to answer your second question, the social implications of marriage have changed over the past 5,000 years, but not the basis i.e. between a man and a women. That has never changed until recently. That's just a simple fact.

The economic and social relations of slavery also did not change for about 4,850 years then something terrible in America etc.. So does 5,000 years history of a practise determine that it should occur for another 5,000 years?

 

[Yossarian]

I see in this morning's SMH a couple being denied a wedding at a Presbyterian Church in Vic because the bride expressed support for SSM. I doubt the minister will be prosecuted. It's clear to me that churches have a current right to marry or not marry who they want and I see no evidence this situation will be different if the Marriage Act is amended as proposed.

The Government has said that Churches and Wedding Celebrants will be protected, but private citizens and organizations will not be.

And has the government said existing obligations/protections for private citizens and organisations would change if the Marriage Act is amended?

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

I turned against the Bible when I was challenged to read it by a pastor in a public newspaper debate. Naturally I began reading it from the beginning - so much tommy rot. I could not force myself to read so much BS. Noah living to about 950 years in the shade and still having kids at 700 years old. When I query this I am told by Christians that there was no pollution in those days. Bible believers think that everyone are as a big an idiot as they are.

lol

Noah wasnt 950 years old. Age was a sign of respect in that culture, so to be attributed an age of 950 years is just a way of saying he was highly respected.

Your literally a walking encyclopedia of B.S.

You havnt answered my question by the way…is there such thing as evil?

Oh, so you know how old he was or wasn't do you, did he tell you , or did someone at least 2000 yrs ago write it down somewhere and leave it for you to find, no offence, but you have no idea how Noah is/ was. It's a story passed down , then written at undisclosed times, and who knows what really happened. No One. Even if it really did occur, which has a twinge of fantasy about it.
On quite a different point, did Noah have to get a permit to move all those animals.

 

[Yossarian]

I'd hate to wander off topic but isn't Genesis (the book not the band) pretty prescriptive in stating his age? Is there a dispute on the translation or is this an interpretation of the verse?