The marriage equality thread

[Rowdy]

Excepted ?
would mean he's allowed to be excluded.

Perhaps expected, as you said .....

I will hold you to that.

 

[nearlyyellow]

Excepted ?
would mean he's allowed to be excluded.

Perhaps expected, as you said .....

No, I meant "he" will be excepted if he doesn't join in the angst of opponents of SSM if the expected decision goes against them as he has clearly stated that he will accept the will of the majority. Perhaps poorly worded but I hope that is a bit clearer.

BTW fruitbat, imo you indeed show a cowardly streak in using the "ignore" function in response to posters with whom you either disagree or regard what they are saying is not in agreement with your personal diatribes. Much as I think you are more of a wacky dingbat than a fruitbat, I don't put you in an ignore list, I treat you as if it were a real life conversation, and if after a quick perusal of any stuff you write I am not interested I ignore your post and move on. So, see you later dingbat.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

? (A la the revival of the Republican debate)

​

You know that even people in favour of a republic voted against that referendum, right? Because Howard cleverly engineered the vote to asking about an unpopular form of a republic?

In fact, that's probably also a perfect example of why a plebiscite would be pointless at best - it's too easy to structure a question a particular way to manipulate the response.

Yippee- a plebescite. THAT is the way to establish whether the majority of voters endorse homosexual marriage. Much better than a vote in parliament by members/parties who did not endorse SSM before the last election, or a conscience vote (do we really elect representatives based on what their conscience may dictate???) which would then be rubber stamped in a Senate of " unrepresentative swill" (as that working class hero Keating described them). If the majority are in favour, I am OK with that, but if the majority aren't can the SSM advocates accept this?

1) a Plebiscite is non-binding, so it's a pointless waste of money
2) Democracies are about more than votes. Protecting a minority from the tyranny of the masses is fundamental to a democracy. So, even if the majority would be opposed to marriage equality, that should be irrelevant.
3) Given how hard I imagine the anti-SSM mob would be fighting, this would only expose homosexuals to a LOT of hate speech, so would also be quite harmful.

I'm honestly yet to see a single, rational argument against SSM - the vast majority seem to encompass varying levels of hypocrisy, or are completely self-defeating in their ignorance. Or misinterpretations, lies and wild claims, as we've seen in this thread. Not a single rational argument.

 

[dibo]

Bump of an old thread, but everyone who wants to be included in the 'postal survey' should check their enrolment: https://check.aec.gov.au/

 

[Insertnamehere]

The crux of the problem seems to be religion, just as it is the crux of most of the worlds problems regardless of which brand you subscribe to.

 

[true believer]

vote yes

 

[Wombat]

People are entitled to their views, but there are limits on speech. If you agree that there should be a law against shouting fire in a crowded theatre, you agree that there ought to be limits on speech.

Further, if you agree that there ought to be laws against libel and slander, you agree that a speaker has a responsibility to not use their speech to damage another.

To put a finer point on it - I can't call you a terrorist without good cause. I can't call you mentally disordered without good cause.

It's not because you might be offended, it's because it damages you.

If I call Muslims terrorists, it's not wrong because it offends Muslims, it's wrong because it isn't true and it damages their standing within our society.



It's not a straw man at all. People actually say it. Jacqui Lambie and Cory Bernardi run around shouting about Halal and terrorism. It's a real problem because it's completely detached from reality.

It's not criticism of Islam, it's slander. They're vilifying an entire community. If they said the same about an individual they'd be looking at a very big defamation suit.



You're entitled to tell me you think I'm wrong. I'm perfectly happy to pick your argument apart.



Wouldn't bother me and it wouldn't be an issue. I have mates from both areas (several mates from uni went to Sefton High and my cricket club used to play its home games on Punchbowl Rd just near Lakemba station - one afternoon we finished early so the local Islamic Centre could do a big gathering for Eid al Fitr - it looked awesome).

I honestly think you're imagining a problem that isn't there. Have you actually been to either Bankstown or Lakemba?

Are you proud of Bankstown and Lakemba? If you are then it must have been a flying visit.

 

[Wombat]

vote yes

Why?

I only know 2 gay people and neither could give a flying f**k about this debate. They think it's interesting but my mates partner is screaming from the roof tops how important it is. I'm bemused by the whole thing.

 

[Wombat]

This whole matter comes back to the point that in the eyes of the law I believe homosexual couples should be seen as equal to a heterosexual couples therefore the adoption of a child by a homosexual couple should be seen as no different to that of a child adopted by a heterosexual couple. If a child is aggrieved about this decision later on they are free to (as they have a right to be) but is it is the same as if a child was adopted into a heterosexual family who has a religion the child later disagreed with and was aggrieved about. Your argument says that being raised by a homosexual couple takes something away from the child and it simply does not. If you continue through your logic then religious beliefs of heterosexual couples may cause a child to be aggrieved later in life and that does not ban a couple from adopting so why should homosexual couples be banned from adopting?

Absolute twaddle.

 

[Wombat]

Anyway. Good luck to Captain and others regarding the vote. When is it?

I think it's a bit of a wank but if he makes people feel happy so be it.

My wife has told me she will be voting against stating the usual arguments but I'm on the fence. If I'm not bombarded with the usual PC bullshit I might even throw in a pink vote. I was asked by a customer today if we had any boy staff for a massage lol. It's about the 10th time in 3 years so the Pink vote might not be as powerful as the media would have you believe.

 

[pjennings]

The crux of the problem seems to be religion, just as it is the crux of most of the worlds problems regardless of which brand you subscribe to.

The point is it has nothing to do with religion. The simple question is should all Australians have equal rights. At the same time
we should be submitting an invoice to John Howard for $122million for the cost of the plebiscite which would not have been needed if he had not changed the Marriage Act in 2004.

I don't want to marry someone of the same sex. Equally though I would have resented anyone telling me that they should have a say in whether I got married to my wife in 1984. It is not a moral question, it is not a religious question, it is an equal rights question.

 

[midfielder]

Different groups attach greater or lesser importance on most issues. Depends often if you or someone you know is affected.

I fall into the almost disinterested category, TBH I don’t personally have any objections. But can understand some people and or groups who hold very strong views from both sides.

My hope is those who strongly differ with others let them have their say and don’t rant and rave at the person who holds a different value system to theirs.

On whether it should be a vote, on balance I think that’s the best way to go. It lets everyone get things off their chest, and IMO that’s important. I think it’s a question of balance do you say to a reasonably large group of people who hold religious beliefs, the value system you believe in and the country’s set up is based around is no longer important…. I guess counter this with rat bag TROLLS out to annoy and not debate but demean ….. It’s a tough call but on balance I don’t mind the vote…

As an aside, gotta give George Brandis [hope I spelt that right] a big well done, I read were he openly attacked Tony Abbott from trying to turn the debate into a debate about religious freedom… Don’t like George that much normally but when someone does something sensible you can also be kind…

 

[Big Al]

For me does it affect me if they get married? No

Am i sick of the politics? Yes

Be a real leader and just do it. It has distracted from real issues for to long.

As a PM they want to leave a legacy. He was handed this on a plate and is ignoring it. One he says he is for. He could have been remembered for ever (good or bad) in history.

The politicians forget they represent the peole, which should overrule the party lines but it doesn't.

It's going to happen one day, just do it. I'm sick of hearing about it.

As for religion i think they are out of touch on many issues. I get their ideas but some things need flexibility and to move with the times

 

[Wombat]

The point is it has nothing to do with religion. The simple question is should all Australians have equal rights. At the same time
we should be submitting an invoice to John Howard for $122million for the cost of the plebiscite which would not have been needed if he had not changed the Marriage Act in 2004.

I don't want to marry someone of the same sex. Equally though I would have resented anyone telling me that they should have a say in whether I got married to my wife in 1984. It is not a moral question, it is not a religious question, it is an equal rights question.

I think you will find it is a moral question for many people. The Church (i believe) views Homosexuality as a sin, no better than Pedophilia or Beasteality. That is the sticking point I presume.

 

[pjennings]

I think you will find it is a moral question for many people. The Church (i believe) views Homosexuality as a sin, no better than Pedophilia or Beasteality. That is the sticking point I presume.

I have no problem with people having and following their own faith or following their personal moral compass and making their own choices - in fact that is what I am advocating. However, when organised religion isn't involved in paedophilia I might start listening to their institutional advice.

I know many people of many faiths that will be voting on both sides of the question - as individuals we should be encouraged by the freedom of religion or indeed to have a religion and the freedom of choice that we have. As for what is a sin why does the Church single out homosexuality when the Bible only singles out one sin.

“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.”

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse but the Bible is also against divorce, insists on women covering their heads in Church (and that's the New Testament). I haven't seen the Church recently advocating that people should not work on the seventh day or calling for death penalty for those that do.(Old Testament.

 

[Wombat]

Why are menstruating women not allowed in a Buddhist temple?

I've never understood that one.....unless the monks are smarter than us and fear the "monthly anger".

All faiths have some strange laws and interpretations.

 

[Insertnamehere]

Why are menstruating women not allowed in a Buddhist temple?

I've never understood that one.....unless the monks are smarter than us and fear the "monthly anger".

All faiths have some strange laws and interpretations.

Monks have heightened senses so they can smell the menstruation much like bears

 

[dibo]

I have no problem with people having and following their own faith or following their personal moral compass and making their own choices - in fact that is what I am advocating. However, when organised religion isn't involved in paedophilia I might start listening to their institutional advice.

I know many people of many faiths that will be voting on both sides of the question - as individuals we should be encouraged by the freedom of religion or indeed to have a religion and the freedom of choice that we have. As for what is a sin why does the Church single out homosexuality when the Bible only singles out one sin.

“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.”

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse but the Bible is also against divorce, insists on women covering their heads in Church (and that's the New Testament). I haven't seen the Church recently advocating that people should not work on the seventh day or calling for death penalty for those that do.(Old Testament.

The bible is full of the crazy. Fun stuff from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_actions_prohibited_by_the_Bible

OLD TESTAMENT
Sexual acts

• Having homosexual intercourse between men (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13).
• Committing adultery between a man and a woman (Leviticus 20:10–12, Deuteronomy 22:22).
• Lying about virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20–21).
• Being one of the majority of women who don’t bleed when losing their virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20–21).
• Being the daughter of a priest and practicing prostitution (Leviticus 21:9).
• Raping an engaged female virgin (Deuteronomy 22:25).
• If an engaged female virgin, being raped in a city (Deuteronomy 22:23–27).
• Being male and practicing bestiality (Leviticus 20:15).
• Being female and practicing bestiality (Leviticus 20:16).
• Having sex with your father’s wife (Leviticus 20:20).
• Having sex with your daughter-in-law (Leviticus 20:30).
• Having incestual sex (Leviticus 20:17).
• Marrying a woman and her daughter (Leviticus 20:14).
• Having sex with a woman who is menstruating (Leviticus 20:18).

Food and drink

• Consuming blood (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10).
• Eating a cheeseburger or anything that mixes meat and dairy (Exodus 23:19).
• Sacrificing anything with yeast or honey (Leviticus 2:11).
• Eating leavened bread (bread with yeast) during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:15).
• Eating fat (Leviticus 3:17).
• Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7–8).
• Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices (Leviticus 19:5–8).
• Eating aquatic creatures lacking fins or scales (Deuteronomy 14:9–10).
• Eating any meat not killed according to the Kosher practice (Deuteronomy 12:21).
• Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean (Leviticus 7:20).

Religious

• Being a male who is not circumcised (Genesis 17:14).
• Trying to convert people to another religion (Deuteronomy 13:1–11, Deuteronomy 18:20).
• Worshiping idols (Exodus 22:20, Leviticus 20:1–5, Deuteronomy 17:2–7).
• Practicing magic (Exodus 22:18).
• Blaspheming (Leviticus 24:14–16, 23).
• Breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32–36).
• Consulting a psychic or spiritualist (Leviticus 19:31).
• Being a psychic, medium, or spiritualist (Leviticus 20:27).
• Being a town that believes in another, non-YHWH god (Deuteronomy 13:12–15).
• Giving one of your descendants to Molech (Leviticus 20:2).
• Not being a priest and going near the tabernacle when it is being moved (Numbers 1:51).
• Being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5, Deuteronomy 18:20, Zechariah 13:2–3).
• Performing any work on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10).
• Going to the temple in an unclean state (Numbers 19:13).
• Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple (Leviticus 17:1–9).
• Manufacturing anointing oil (Exodus 30:33).

Violent and legal crimes

• Murdering a slave (Exodus 21:26–27).
• Kidnapping and selling a man (Exodus 21:16).
• Perjuring yourself (in certain cases) (Deuteronomy 19:15–21).
• Ignoring the judgment of a judge or a priest (Deuteronomy 17:8–13).
• Not constraining a known dangerous bull, if the bull subsequently kills a man or a woman (Exodus 21:29).
• Striking your parents (Exodus 21:15).
• Cursing your parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9).
• Being a stubborn, rebellious, profligate, and drunkard son (Deuteronomy 21:18–21).

Daily life

• Planting more than one kind of seed in a field (Leviticus 19:19).
• Wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth (Leviticus 19:19).
• Cutting the hair on the sides of your head or clipping of the edges of your beard (Leviticus 19:27).
• Touching the dead carcass of a pig (Deuteronomy 14:8).
• Dressing across gender lines (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Things that don't go anywhere else

• Living in a city that failed to surrender to the Israelites (Deuteronomy 20:12–14).

NEW TESTAMENT
Slaves

• Disobedience (Ephesians 6:5).

Women

• Speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34–35).
• Homosexual intercourse between women (Romans 1:26).

Men

• Homosexual intercourse between men (Romans 1:27).

There's a lot in there that makes sense, and in any time we'd agree that they're wrong. In large part, they're wrong because they harm others.

But others are quite obviously not needed or are forbidding things that are nobody else's business, or worse punish someone for something they can do nothing about or even a victim of a crime!

Anything from having a cheeseburger to having fish fingers is out, eating crackling (or the rest of the roast pork) is out, having a foreskin is out, a woman whose hymen breaks riding a horse our using a tampon is out, being raped while an engaged virgin used to be punishable by death!

If your clothes are woven from two different cloths, if you plant two different types of flowers in your garden, if you cut your hair and shave you're toast.

So we already apply modern standards of morality. We already pick and choose, according to moral codes for ourselves.

There are things that we can deem to be absolutely wrong, and forbid them - murder, rape, lying, theft, etc.

But for many other things, we make a value judgement, weighing up whether there's a victim and weighing up whether there's a social cost.

We bring to bear what we know - this is what knocks off a lot of the food things, because it's no longer hard to ensure that pork or shellfish (for example) is safe to eat, because we can prepare and store it safely so people don't get sick.

There's no law against individuals choosing to abide by the majority of these principles insofar as it doesn't affect anybody else.

If you don't think people should eat pork for religious reasons, don't eat pork, but it really doesn't affect you if others do.

If you don't think people should cut their beard for religious reasons, don't cut your beard, but it really doesn't affect you if others do.

If you don't think gay couples should have sex (or get married), don't have gay sex or marry someone of the same sex, but it really doesn't affect you if others do.

 

[Insertnamehere]

Need to be careful turning the discussion into a religion bashing session. Being an agnostic at best and an atheist at worst I'd love a waffle about religions foibles but it's not the time.
It's about the pros and cons of gay marriage.

 

[Insertnamehere]

So pro.
Stronger relationships
Economic boost of the pink dollar and the divorce dollar

And personally I don't see any cons. That's me though

I would like this also be a broader discussion about marriage. I think it's far too easy to dissolve a marriage and too easy for it to turn vicious afterwards...