Same sex marriage debate...

[Abraham]

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

The existing laws/protections don't exist even today. Our Anti-Discrimination Laws are so ridiculous that the Tasmanian Bishop had to recently front the Anti-Discrimination Commission for saying Marriage is between a man and a women.

The current laws basically say that if someone's feeling are hurt, they can have you appear before the Commission. Its pathetic.

The Private Member's bill proposed by a couple of Liberal MPs said that protections would apply to Ministers and Celebrants, but not to other private citizens, in the even that SSM was legalised. Assuming this is the basis for the much talked about but so far absent Coalition protections that would accompany any SSM legislation, then this basically implies it is open season on people who publicly don't bow the knee to the SSM lobby.

 

[Abraham]

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.

I know because people much more educated than you advised that this was the cultural norm at that time.

Same reason we know that Columbus discovered America. Were you there? How do you know he discovered America? Or did someone write it down hundreds of years ago and leave it for you to find?

This is the whole basis of historical scholarship, and how we know anything about anything that happened before our time.

You really need to figure out better arguments than that.

 

[Yossarian]

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

The existing laws/protections don't exist even today. Our Anti-Discrimination Laws are so ridiculous that the Tasmanian Bishop had to recently front the Anti-Discrimination Commission for saying Marriage is between a man and a women.

The current laws basically say that if someone's feeling are hurt, they can have you appear before the Commission. Its pathetic.

The Private Member's bill proposed by a couple of Liberal MPs said that protections would apply to Ministers and Celebrants, but not to other private citizens, in the even that SSM was legalised. Assuming this is the basis for the much talked about but so far absent Coalition protections that would accompany any SSM legislation, then this basically implies it is open season on people who publicly don't bow the knee to the SSM lobby.

That matter was conducted under Tasmanian legislation. And the Bishop won. It's hardly reflective of common practice. I've seen and heard far worse without any action taken.

Vulnerable groups need protection. That's my belief. Free speech cannot be absolute.

 

[Yossarian]

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.

I know because people much more educated than you advised that this was the cultural norm at that time.

Same reason we know that Columbus discovered America. Were you there? How do you know he discovered America? Or did someone write it down hundreds of years ago and leave it for you to find?

This is the whole basis of historical scholarship, and how we know anything about anything that happened before our time.

You really need to figure out better arguments than that.

You're seriously comparing the level of proof of Columbus "discovering America" (actually he never reached the mainland) with Noah and his ark?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Is this the same generation of people who also believed the earth was flat?

 

[JD Tiger]

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.

I find this statement incredible. You can think what you want, that's what freedom of speech is meant to be about (ignoring that freedom of speech is an American concept), but you can't hurt others. You can think someone is less than human, less deserving, shouldn't be allowed to whatever, et cetera, but you cannot act upon that and treat people different, discriminating against them. Whether you think you should be allowed to or not is irrelevant.

Hatecrimes, have you heard of them? And you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable? You are stating that you should be able to think what you want, and sure of course, no argument there from anyone, but people can't do what they want to others. That's discrimination. That's illegal.

 

[Tigerdave]

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.

Yeah I had actually covered that as well prior, when I quoted your first post.

So, I then stated "It doesn't actually affect anyone unless you choose to be disriminatory. "

So I take it then that people should be allowed to act on and discriminate against whomever they like with no repercusions?

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.

There's thinking about it, there's saying something and then there's acting upon it. If a man does not hire a woman in a business, he could be held liable for discrimination. He can think women are inferior, can't do the job, whatever, but it's the acting on it, there's a difference.

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.

or between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and so on so forth, so as long as it's between 2 different sexes, regardless of circumstance, that fits your definition?

Not sure there's a big difference between one form of bigotry (not allowing interacial marriage) and this. It's not like they choose to be gay.

Just as an aside, curious, what about civil union's for gay people?

 

[Tigerdave]

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?

Genesis 9:29, 950 years. That's in the King James to clarify, not sure if it's different in other versions

 

[colmcd]

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

The existing laws/protections don't exist even today. Our Anti-Discrimination Laws are so ridiculous that the Tasmanian Bishop had to recently front the Anti-Discrimination Commission for saying Marriage is between a man and a women.

The current laws basically say that if someone's feeling are hurt, they can have you appear before the Commission. Its pathetic.

The Private Member's bill proposed by a couple of Liberal MPs said that protections would apply to Ministers and Celebrants, but not to other private citizens, in the even that SSM was legalised. Assuming this is the basis for the much talked about but so far absent Coalition protections that would accompany any SSM legislation, then this basically implies it is open season on people who publicly don't bow the knee to the SSM lobby.

In short. Religious Liberty will be improved under SSM.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

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.

I know because people much more educated than you advised that this was the cultural norm at that time.

Same reason we know that Columbus discovered America. Were you there? How do you know he discovered America? Or did someone write it down hundreds of years ago and leave it for you to find?

This is the whole basis of historical scholarship, and how we know anything about anything that happened before our time.

You really need to figure out better arguments than that.

I think Noah is slightly older than Chris, the further we go back it usually is harder and harder to get anywhere near the truth. A lot of guesswork comes into it and supposition.
Even your historical Scholars can't all agree on the era that the bible covers.
Even old Captain Cooks story has its rubbery side. And that's nowhere as old as Noah.

In a lot of cases it's about what people think happened,or wants to think happened , not what actually DID happen, or, if it really happened at all
You have to admit that if JC , and /or Noah , came back tomorrow, and appeared before someone , and unloaded a lot of wisdom upon him, and that person told everyone that he knew , of the incident , the bloke would be sent to the nearest councillor . Or rehab centre.
Yet some people choose to believe stories that have probably changed a thousand times. Remember most people in those times couldn't read or write

And don't you think it's strange that most , if not all religions , have their own versions of so called biblical times and have fought war after war to protect their versions.
It's a bit like all the splinter groups that have split from mainstream religion in the last 10-20 years. Their main focus is making money, very little else.
A lot of people make a fortune out of keeping those stories rotating through centuries, it's an industry these days and there's so many people on the gravy train.

 

[Abraham]

That matter was conducted under Tasmanian legislation. And the Bishop won. It's hardly reflective of common practice. I've seen and heard far worse without any action taken.

Vulnerable groups need protection. That's my belief. Free speech cannot be absolute.

Its absurd he even had to go through the indignity of fronting a commission, because some activist with nothing better to do with his time decided to lodge a complaint.

Your entitles to your view about free speech, but i would then need to know who your candidate for Thought Police would be?

 

[Abraham]

You're seriously comparing the level of proof of Columbus "discovering America" (actually he never reached the mainland) with Noah and his ark?

No, im comparing how we know about Columbus to how we know that ancient Jews used age as a reflector of respect. That was the question put to me.

Historical scholarship answers both of those questions.

 

[Abraham]

I find this statement incredible. You can think what you want, that's what freedom of speech is meant to be about (ignoring that freedom of speech is an American concept), but you can't hurt others. You can think someone is less than human, less deserving, shouldn't be allowed to whatever, et cetera, but you cannot act upon that and treat people different, discriminating against them. Whether you think you should be allowed to or not is irrelevant.

Hatecrimes, have you heard of them? And you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable? You are stating that you should be able to think what you want, and sure of course, no argument there from anyone, but people can't do what they want to others. That's discrimination. That's illegal.

I never said people can do what they want.

We are talking about speech, not actions.

Take a few deep breaths.

 

[Yossarian]

That matter was conducted under Tasmanian legislation. And the Bishop won. It's hardly reflective of common practice. I've seen and heard far worse without any action taken.

Vulnerable groups need protection. That's my belief. Free speech cannot be absolute.

Its absurd he even had to go through the indignity of fronting a commission, because some activist with nothing better to do with his time decided to lodge a complaint.

Your entitles to your view about free speech, but i would then need to know who your candidate for Thought Police would be?

You could make the same claim about any process that allows people to lodge a complaint about another person or group. There are many. Maybe the process needs refinement but it's not unusual - make a complaint, settle the matter. From a very high level observation it was a bit overkill but that doesn't undermine the entire concept.

You keep bringing this up. Clearly courts decide on their finding on what is reasonable or unreasonable given the context. Like they do with offensive conduct or language. No system will be perfect but pretty much any system is better than none.

 

[Abraham]

You could make the same claim about any process that allows people to lodge a complaint about another person or group. There are many. Maybe the process needs refinement but it's not unusual - make a complaint, settle the matter. From a very high level observation it was a bit overkill but that doesn't undermine the entire concept.

You keep bringing this up. Clearly courts decide on their finding on what is reasonable or unreasonable given the context. Like they do with offensive conduct or language. No system will be perfect but pretty much any system is better than none.

I do keep bringing it up because its frivolous.

It shows an immature and insecure society when people can be forced to front court and defend their right to have an opinion that all of humanity held until 5 seconds ago.

In any case, you asked me about the legislation and i answered the question.

You can agree with it if you like, but obviously i don't.

 

[Yossarian]

You're seriously comparing the level of proof of Columbus "discovering America" (actually he never reached the mainland) with Noah and his ark?

No, im comparing how we know about Columbus to how we know that ancient Jews used age as a reflector of respect. That was the question put to me.

Historical scholarship answers both of those questions.

No they're not comparable. Columbus has numerous contemporaneous reports relating to him, his voyage and his his biography. Noah has, I would suggest, none of this. That's not to say it is untrue but clearly it relies on post event writings based on oral tradition. The Bible says he was centuries old - any deviation from that is conjecture. Maybe it's conjecture based on solid scholarship but it's hardly definitive.

 

[Abraham]

No they're not comparable. Columbus has numerous contemporaneous reports relating to him, his voyage and his his biography. Noah has, I would suggest, none of this. That's not to say it is untrue but clearly it relies on post event writings based on oral tradition. The Bible says he was centuries old - any deviation from that is conjecture. Maybe it's conjecture based on solid scholarship but it's hardly definitive.

Just so we are clear:

You are arguing that we don't know that Jews assigned age based on levels of respect?

 

[Yossarian]

You could make the same claim about any process that allows people to lodge a complaint about another person or group. There are many. Maybe the process needs refinement but it's not unusual - make a complaint, settle the matter. From a very high level observation it was a bit overkill but that doesn't undermine the entire concept.

You keep bringing this up. Clearly courts decide on their finding on what is reasonable or unreasonable given the context. Like they do with offensive conduct or language. No system will be perfect but pretty much any system is better than none.

I do keep bringing it up because its frivolous.

It shows an immature and insecure society when people can be forced to front court and defend their right to have an opinion that all of humanity held until 5 seconds ago.

In any case, you asked me about the legislation and i answered the question.

You can agree with it if you like, but obviously i don't.

I meant you bring up the who decides on free speech point. This is established I submit.

He wasn't brought before a court at all. That's incorrect. He went to conciliation, offered to make changes, the complainant at first refused but then withdrew the complaint. Tasmania has probably the strongest anti discrimination laws in the country. But it's state law and amending the Marriage Act will have zero impact on it.

 

[Yossarian]

No they're not comparable. Columbus has numerous contemporaneous reports relating to him, his voyage and his his biography. Noah has, I would suggest, none of this. That's not to say it is untrue but clearly it relies on post event writings based on oral tradition. The Bible says he was centuries old - any deviation from that is conjecture. Maybe it's conjecture based on solid scholarship but it's hardly definitive.

Just so we are clear:

You are arguing that we don't know that Jews assigned age based on levels of respect?

I'm saying there is no indisputable evidence that the Bible's reference to Noah's age is based on the custom you refer to.

 

[Abraham]

No they're not comparable. Columbus has numerous contemporaneous reports relating to him, his voyage and his his biography. Noah has, I would suggest, none of this. That's not to say it is untrue but clearly it relies on post event writings based on oral tradition. The Bible says he was centuries old - any deviation from that is conjecture. Maybe it's conjecture based on solid scholarship but it's hardly definitive.

Just so we are clear:

You are arguing that we don't know that Jews assigned age based on levels of respect?

I'm saying there is no indisputable evidence that the Bible's reference to Noah's age is based on the custom you refer to.

The scholars don't agree with you.

But not something i'm going to argue with you about.