Same sex marriage debate...

[colmcd]

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?

Anyone can sue anyone… If a lawsuit is frivolous it *may* be thrown out early but occasionally idiots like <people i="" should="" not="" name="" for="" fear="" of="" being="" sued="">who have too much money and time do this...

This is not a problem with the SSM debate.</people>

 

[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.

The scholars don't agree with you.

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

The scholars as you put it are not a unified voice on the matter. On the contrary many if not most Christian scholars say he was 950 when he died. Josephus for one says he was 950.

I'm all ears on your view on this. I find it interesting and I'm not stating that it is baseless. But I suggest it's a minority viewpoint in the Christian world.

 

[Geo]

Methuselah out lived them all…I always thought Cain and Able were pretty funky dudes...nothing suss there...

Anyway can we get off the swings and round-a-bouts ...and back on topic..

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

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.

Only to the so called moralists

 

[colmcd]

All that drama over something that won't affect you at all. Does anyone have the moral authority to state that people who are homosexual shouldn't get married ?

My arguement is that the government should NOT be the moral authority to decide who can and can't get married. It should be at the liberty of the individual.

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 .

Culling quotes as requested earlier.

Ok, DONE. We have a private members bill to allow the individual and another individual to get married.

Glad you agree. DONE. end, vote YES.

Oh you want a clause to make sure that religious institutions are exempt from any discrimination on the basis of their beliefs. Ok, done. Others, well if they have a pre-stated belief and are compelled to perform in a wedding that they don't agree with…. I think a limited and precise bill that allows people to opt out of providing services to bodies they ethically disagree with. DONE (I will use it with Aristocrat and the slot machines which actually ruin Marriages!)

Glad you agree. Now vote "yes" because that is what the survey proposes - those exemptions which John Howard and others in the "no" campaign have promised to raise in parliament (so far John Howard still to Lazy to actually send a submission to the SSM committee).

 

[Tim Sheens]

Methuselah out lived them all…I always thought Cain and Able were pretty funky dudes...nothing suss there...

Anyway can we get off the swings and round-a-bouts ...and back on topic..

But without religious reasoning there would probably be no debate and thus no topic.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

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

No this lot were way before that, the flatearthers were extremely enlightened compared to the Crew who contributed to some of the stories in the bible
Haven't you seen. The life of Brian?

 

[Abraham]

Culling quotes as requested earlier.

Ok, DONE. We have a private members bill to allow the individual and another individual to get married.

Glad you agree. DONE. end, vote YES.

Oh you want a clause to make sure that religious institutions are exempt from any discrimination on the basis of their beliefs. Ok, done. Others, well if they have a pre-stated belief and are compelled to perform in a wedding that they don't agree with…. I think a limited and precise bill that allows people to opt out of providing services to bodies they ethically disagree with. DONE (I will use it with Aristocrat and the slot machines which actually ruin Marriages!)

Glad you agree. Now vote "yes" because that is what the survey proposes - those exemptions which John Howard and others in the "no" campaign have promised to raise in parliament (so far John Howard still to Lazy to actually send a submission to the SSM committee).

Problem is that above isn't 'DONE'.

If it was, i couldn't care less if the Yes vote won.

 

[Tigerdave]

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

Would anyone be happy with the above?

 

[Tigerdave]

Problem is that above isn't 'DONE'.

If it was, i couldn't care less if the Yes vote won.

hang on wait, so if it was made clear that religious intitutions were exempt from discrimination you wouldn't care about the Yes vote?

 

[stryker]

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

Would anyone be happy with the above?

I would.

 

[Abraham]

Problem is that above isn't 'DONE'.

If it was, i couldn't care less if the Yes vote won.

hang on wait, so if it was made clear that religious intitutions were exempt from discrimination you wouldn't care about the Yes vote?

No, if all people and all institutions were exempted, then i wouldnt care.

Why would i care if nobody else would be affected.

 

[Abraham]

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

Would anyone be happy with the above?

Talking about speech here dave.

Not punching a guy because he is black.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Maybe I am missing something, and I know Abe won't reply to me, but maybe someone else can How does 2 people getting married discriminate against Religion?

 

[Tigerdave]

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

Would anyone be happy with the above?

Talking about speech here dave.

Not punching a guy because he is black.

Just trying to get some clarification because when I'm talking about discrimination, I don't mean speech, it has to go beyond that.

 

[Tigerdave]

Problem is that above isn't 'DONE'.

If it was, i couldn't care less if the Yes vote won.

hang on wait, so if it was made clear that religious intitutions were exempt from discrimination you wouldn't care about the Yes vote?

No, if all people and all institutions were exempted, then i wouldnt care.

Why would i care if nobody else would be affected.

ok, well that's some sort of progress here, not sure why there was a need to bring up "traditional marriage" or skirting the "they can't have kids" though if the above is the only sticking point.

So, people should be able to refuse dealing with others based on the ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, religion etc? Refuse goods/service type of thing and not have any sort of prosecution levelled at them? Is that essentially what you're concerned with?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Maybe I am missing something, and I know Abe won't reply to me, but maybe someone else can How does 2 people getting married discriminate against Religion?

Because god.

 

[Tigerdave]

Maybe I am missing something, and I know Abe won't reply to me, but maybe someone else can How does 2 people getting married discriminate against Religion?

it doesn't as such, his concern seems to be that religious people won't be able to refuse service/goods etc from others they deem to go against their religous beliefs.

I think it's fair to say that anyone that would do that would be in a minority certainly, so I doubt there would be a huge line up in the courts. There has been the odd case overseas, but I haven't found anything where it's as rampant as has been inferred.

Religious belief is dropping in Western countries, certainly the more fundamental/conservative versions are on a steep decline (barring Islam at the moment). Given that, I can't imagine there would be a slew of discrimination cases anyway.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

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

Would anyone be happy with the above?

I would.

Colour me surprised.

 

[Masterton]

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

Would anyone be happy with the above?

I would.

Ha ha. It's seriously hard hard not to picture you as Walter sometimes.