Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[Brunswick Trap King]

Having never been there but just on my own observations , i wouldn't call the majority of yanks " liberal christians "
Seems more srs bsns there.

Like openly mocking a christian there is more likely to get you shot there than here !!!

But again , never been , it's all based off tv , internet etc

I phrased that badly, perhaps. I meant to say that of the Christian variations in the US, Catholics appear to be the most liberal of the lot. Ie Mormons and evangelicals seem to be much more conservative.

Catholics are only 25ish% of the Christian population there, it seems.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Showbags]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/3677537...-fire-employees-if-they-get-same-sex-married/

I wonder how much bleating would be done by some Christians if they were fired on the basis of their religion?

 

[cartwright]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/3677537...-fire-employees-if-they-get-same-sex-married/

I wonder how much bleating would be done by some Christians if they were fired on the basis of their religion?

Freedom of speech, hmm.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/3677537...-fire-employees-if-they-get-same-sex-married/

I wonder how much bleating would be done by some Christians if they were fired on the basis of their religion?

Please refer to this post that shows the majority of us are in favour of gay marriage.

Just because the hierarchy and politicians are anti-gay marriage, it doesn't mean the majority are.

To add to that, the majority of Catholics that are against gay marriage, are probably baby boomers and older. So that's partly generational, as well.

 

[Showbags]

Please refer to this post that shows the majority of us are in favour of gay marriage.

Just because the hierarchy and politicians are anti-gay marriage, it doesn't mean the majority are.

To add to that, the majority of Catholics that are against gay marriage, are probably baby boomers and older. So that's partly generational, as well.

Hence the use of the word "some" in my post.

 

[Maggie5]

To put this 'poll' in perspective-approx cost $122 Million.
Mathew Guy has just announced that if elected in Vic. will set aside $140 mill to train doctors in the area of pallitive care.
Just goes to show how our taxes could be put to much better use!

 

[BustedWing]

I'm not going to spend much time on this. The term 'exclusion of all others' in the amended Marriage Act 1961 does refer to adultery and reflects common law interpretations of Lord Penzance's definition. Bigamy was already covered by Section 94 subsection 1.

Will you EVER answer my question?????


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BustedWing]

I'm not going to spend much time on this. The term 'exclusion of all others' in the amended Marriage Act 1961 does refer to adultery and reflects common law interpretations of Lord Penzance's definition. Bigamy was already covered by Section 94 subsection 1.

This response makes no mention of procreation... the very point you were trying to make.

sorted - Adultery and bigamy has nothing to do with gay marriage. your comment also does NOTHING to prove your already thoroughly discredited assertion that marriage is a contract to have children.

Are you going to have an honest, earnest discussion, or are you going to troll?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sherb]

To put this 'poll' in perspective-approx cost $122 Million.
Mathew Guy has just announced that if elected in Vic. will set aside $140 mill to train doctors in the area of pallitive care.
Just goes to show how our taxes could be put to much better use!

It's a disgrace.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

It's a disgrace.

As an aside, I wonder how much legalising gay marriage will boost the economy in terms of weddings over the first few years and in perpetuity.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[cartwright]

As an aside, I wonder how much legalising gay marriage will boost the economy in terms of weddings over the first few years and in perpetuity.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

ANZ report of $500 million in first 12 months, mostly benefitting small businesses

http://www.news.com.au/news/anz-ban...y/news-story/2563cfa547700534fa57e5e0a172c237

 

[HairyO]

Isn't that the amendment that Howard put in without a plebiscite or referendum, in fact I don't recall being asked at all? Okay, then that must make it right.

Yep. And the Left howled at the Libs over pushing it through without a public test.

Oh the ironing.

 

[HairyO]

As an aside, I wonder how much legalising gay marriage will boost the economy in terms of weddings over the first few years and in perpetuity.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The only winners financially will be divorce lawyers.

 

[Gough]

Yep. And the Left howled at the Libs over pushing it through without a public test.

Oh the ironing.

Really? I don't remember much comment from anyone at the time. I'm sure you'll be able to show me otherwise.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

The only winners financially will be divorce lawyers.

Trickle down economics, brah. I look forward to my new car once that money comes down to me.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Sainteric]

Some massive issues with this, that I would like you to explain. Not that you will of course, you will just ignore this, like you have with my other questions...

* This case you reference took place in England, over 150 years ago. Explain its relevance as it pertains to AUSTRALIAN law in 2017? From wikipedia - bolded my emphasis:

Facts of the case
John Hyde, an English Mormon who had been ordained to the priesthood of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church),[2] brought an action of divorce against his wife, Lavinia,[3] for adultery. He had left the LDS Church and began to write and publish anti-Mormon material,[4] a move that caused him to be excommunicated from the LDS Church.[5] His wife left him,[6] and subsequently remarried in Utah Territory, which was the basis for his suit.

Judgement
Citing Warrender v. Warrender,[7] Lord Penzance found that institutions in foreign countries (including marriage) cannot be considered as valid under English law, unless they resemble the equivalent English institution. With respect to marriage, English law could therefore not recognize either polygamy or concubinage as marriage. Similarly, he found that cultural traditions of which the court had no knowledge could not form the basis for a court decision.[8] The court dismissed John Hyde's claim.


* How does this case, and the subsequent court finding, support your position?

The statement made by Lord Penzance:

The case established the common law definition of marriage. Lord Penzance pronounced, "I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others".[9]


Again - no mention AT ALL with regards to sexual relations.

There are, of course well cited criticisms with using this case as evidence for your side:

Criticism[edit]
The heavy reliance on Lord Penzance's definition of marriage has been criticised on two distinct grounds. First, the original statement was an obiter dictum, meaning it did not establish a binding precedent. Second, this dictum was a defence of marriage and not a definition of it.[15

Then of course, is the fact that this is in reference to a christian definition of marriage which has NO RELEVANCE in a secular society like Australia's.

You are embarrassing yourself.

A Christian definition are the basis of most Australian Laws to say it has no relevance is ridiculous. Poligamy is not specifically outlawed in Australia, but Bigamy under the marriage act may get you 5 years. Sexual relations is implied, and before no case divorces in 1975 adultery was a legal concept which wasn't really repealed till 1994, as was the no gay sex laws last one in Tasmania iirc only recently repealed.

 

[roscreasl98]

To put this 'poll' in perspective-approx cost $122 Million.
Mathew Guy has just announced that if elected in Vic. will set aside $140 mill to train doctors in the area of pallitive care.
Just goes to show how our taxes could be put to much better use!

Oh, and a political party has never, ever promised Millions of dollars to get votes, then not delivered.
Never ever happened....

 

[BustedWing]

A Christian definition are the basis of most Australian Laws to say it has no relevance is ridiculous. Poligamy is not specifically outlawed in Australia, but Bigamy under the marriage act may get you 5 years. Sexual relations is implied, and before no case divorces in 1975 adultery was a legal concept which wasn't really repealed till 1994, as was the no gay sex laws last one in Tasmania iirc only recently repealed.

The Christian definition has many influences in many aspects of Australian life, but, and here is the important bit: IT IS NOT LAW.

In fact, the idea that Australian law must be disctinctly agnostic and not have any religious persuasion is very clear.

We are a secular society. Your religion will have no basis in deciding how the laws of the land are drawn up.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[cartwright]

OneNation voters mostly against How surprising.

 

[HairyO]

Really? I don't remember much comment from anyone at the time. I'm sure you'll be able to show me otherwise.

So you were okay with it?

 

[Gough]

So you were okay with it?

My opinion is neither here nor there, you're the one trying to rewrite history here.

 

[Forward Press]

Yep. And the Left howled at the Libs over pushing it through without a public test.

Oh the ironing.

Meanwhile the Right is patting itself on the back thinking it saved money back in 2004 with a simple Parliamentary vote to change the Marriage Act but the $122m this year is a required expense for democratic purposes.

Oh the ironing.

 

[HairyO]

Meanwhile the Right is patting itself on the back thinking it saved money back in 2004 with a simple Parliamentary vote to change the Marriage Act but the $122m this year is a required expense for democratic purposes.

Oh the ironing.

Yes. All sides playing politics. How very unusual.

 

[Maggie5]

Oh, and a political party has never, ever promised Millions of dollars to get votes, then not delivered.
Never ever happened....

You mean like made election promises and not delivered? Good point so why a poll?

 

[roscreasl98]

You mean like made election promises and not delivered? Good point so why a poll?

You stick with Matthew, he's your Guy.....