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

[Gough]

Thanks for proving my point.

You sound like that nutter who sacked a staffer because they were anti-gay marriage and called them a homophobe.

Returning a no response is an explicitly prejudicial act, regardless of motives behind it.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Labor had two mandates to sort out same sex marriage and Bill Shorten said no. That includes Penny Wong.

Personally marriage is a different animal now. Gay people can have kids. Gay people can have a civil union. Heterosexuals cant have a civil union. Then again, I don't see the point of marriage as people have kids out of wedlock now.

Personally, I don't see any reason gay people not get married in the watered down version it is. Gay people would however be naive if they thought there no politics in play here. They are being played by pro SSM parties who said no prior when they were in office.

Apart from a different piece of paper, what do SSM families gain out of the different piece of paper?

Labor are full of shit. Gillard opposed gay marriage for all the time she was in parliament. Rudd opposed gay marriage and supported a referendum on it. Wong opposed gay marriage. Shorten spoke in favour of a plebiscite and now makes claims about the cost and damage caused by a plebiscite.

The Libs went to an election proposing a plebiscite and are delivering on that. Democracy sucks.

Labor don't give a shit about the people they claim are impacted. They are just playing politics, as usual.

 

[sherb]

I get a laugh out of it.
"I was going to vote yes, but the way the yes side have conducted themselves mean I will vote no."
Proceeds to ignore everything the No vote has done.

I don't understand that. It's voting out of spite and ignoring the actual issue you are being asked to vote on.

 

[Belnakor]

What polling says 55/45?

What a load of rubbish in regards people being afraid to voice their NO opinion. Most polls are conducted anonymously.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-yes-vote-still-leads-guardian-essential-poll

almost all conversative polling has been understated recently (brexit, trump, UK election) precisely because of the kind of crap thats in this thread, where you get a small subset of extreme left wing views trying to push their world view onto people.

If the poll says 55/45 i'd have it at closer to 50/50.

If the Yes campaign had done nothing i think they'd be further in front.

 

[Fade to Gray]

I'll so no. I was always going to vote the way I have, but I respect others opinions. But my original view that many people on the 'yes' side are intolerant of any other view has been confirmed.

Do you support the re-introduction of slavery (for brown people) and if we had a postal survey would you vote Yes?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Or slavery for women only?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

Should we encourage the killing of sons for talking back to their parents?

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Exodus 21:7-11)

Or do you pick and chose which passages to follow and which ones not to follow? So your belief that "the gays" are not deserving of the same rights as every other member of society is not borne out of adherence to the bible but a conscious choice to follow some parts and ignore other parts.

If for example you supported slavery (I'm hoping that you don't). I would not accept an argument from you that you are justified in your decision to support slavery (but only for foreigners or women) and try to created some false moral equivalence that by my intolerance of not accepting peoples rights to support slavery, is somehow equal to people who support slavery.

The point is the bible was written thousands of years ago, with a general lack of primary sources, often far removed from the event itself. It has been translated by people through multiple languages and multiple times. Humans were responsible for adding certain passages and removing others. Society has evolved over time, hence while slavery was once acceptable it no longer is. Eating shellfish was once considered detestable, I consider Lobsters to be quite tasty.

The bible should not be taken literally, it is full of batshit insane passages, and society would be much worse if every passage was taken at face value. Use it as a general guide - treat people how you would like to be treated.

You are entitled to answer the survey however you want.

I am entitled to call you out for your double standards and think you are a homophobe who believes that gays are not worthy of the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. If you ever have a child that was gay, I would feel sorry for that child because you believe they are somehow a "lesser human", not deserving of the same rights as the rest of society.

 

[mxett]

Absolutely, im intolerant of stupid arguments and people trying to retain their religious definition of marriage in the Marriage Act.

you are intolerant of arguments you believe are stupid. At least I'm not arrogant enough to believe I have all the answers

 

[GreyWind]

I don't understand that. It's voting out of spite and ignoring the actual issue you are being asked to vote on.

Which is all the no vote has. It's why they are making this about freedom of speech, freedom of religion and safe schools. Throw enough shit and see what sticks.

 

[JackOutback]

Thanks for proving my point.

You sound like that nutter who sacked a staffer because they were anti-gay marriage and called them a homophobe.

And the Catholic Church that said it would sack any gay employees that got married? Fine and dandy? One is an individual, one is a nationwide organisation.

The fact you are more outraged by the individual than the organisation is what makes people sceptical you were ever going to vote anything but no.

 

[Belnakor]

I get a laugh out of it.
"I was going to vote yes, but the way the yes side have conducted themselves mean I will vote no."
Proceeds to ignore everything the No vote has done.

i've seen very little of the No vote abusing people / picketing etc.

If anything this whole debacle has shown us we should have done a proper referendum / plebiscite because the so called "mental anguish" that was the reasoning behind Labor blocking it seems to have been non existent.

Now we're going to get an unrepresentative sample with not everyone voting etc. Every other vote Austraila have had was compulsory voting but now we're essentially having a non compulsory vote. In terms of our democracy i don't like it.

IF the no vote gets up it won't solve anything anyway because the Yes vote will say it was not a full electorate poll.

FWIW i think Yes will win but never understate the huge differences that come into play on voting patterns for non-compulsory voting - we have basically no real comparison in Australia.

We've also seen from the US that the younger people tend to have a shit turn out (ie: if everyone who SAID they were voting for Hilary had actually voted for her, she would have romped it in)

 

[GreyWind]

i've seen very little of the No vote abusing people / picketing etc.

If anything this whole debacle has shown us we should have done a proper referendum / plebiscite because the so called "mental anguish" that was the reasoning behind Labor blocking it seems to have been non existent.

Now we're going to get an unrepresentative sample with not everyone voting etc. Every other vote Austraila have had was compulsory voting but now we're essentially having a non compulsory vote.

The No vote haven't been picketing, but they definitely have been abusing people.

The whole thing is a farce, it's not even a vote it's a ****ing survey with a non-binding result that allows pollies to vote however they want (providing the yes vote gets up) all the while being administered by an incompetent organisation.

 

[Belnakor]

And the Catholic Church that said it would sack any gay employees that got married? Fine and dandy? One is an individual, one is a nationwide organisation.

The fact you are more outraged by the individual than the organisation is what makes people sceptical you were ever going to vote anything but no.

I think there is a grey area for Churches but if they do change the definition of marriage etc then certainly a NORMAL business shouldn't be allowed to sack people on that basis.

Image if i sacked someone from my business now for Voting Yes? i'd probably be lynched in the street.

 

[Belnakor]

The whole thing is a farce, it's not even a vote it's a ******* survey with a non-binding result that allows pollies to vote however they want (providing the yes vote gets up) all the while being administered by an incompetent organisation.

If it had been a binding vote it would have made alot more sense. But saying we shouldn't have a vote at all because "having a election for non binding is a waste of time/money" was Howard and the Republic-esk. And frankly reeked of people afraid they might lose the popular vote.

 

[mxett]

Do you support the re-introduction of slavery (for brown people) and if we had a postal survey would you vote Yes?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Or slavery for women only?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

Should we encourage the killing of sons for talking back to their parents?

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Exodus 21:7-11)

Or do you pick and chose which passages to follow and which ones not to follow? So your belief that "the gays" are not deserving of the same rights as every other member of society is not borne out of adherence to the bible but a conscious choice to follow some parts and ignore other parts.

If for example you supported slavery (I'm hoping that you don't). I would not accept an argument from you that you are justified in your decision to support slavery (but only for foreigners or women) and try to created some false moral equivalence that by my intolerance of not accepting peoples rights to support slavery, is somehow equal to people who support slavery.

The point is the bible was written thousands of years ago, with a general lack of primary sources, often far removed from the event itself. It has been translated by people through multiple languages and multiple times. Humans were responsible for adding certain passages and removing others. Society has evolved over time, hence while slavery was once acceptable it no longer is. Eating shellfish was once considered detestable, I consider Lobsters to be quite tasty.

The bible should not be taken literally, it is full of batshit insane passages, and society would be much worse if every passage was taken at face value. Use it as a general guide - treat people how you would like to be treated.

You are entitled to answer the survey however you want.

I am entitled to call you out for your double standards and think you are a homophobe who believes that gays are not worthy of the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. If you ever have a child that was gay, I would feel sorry for that child because you believe they are somehow a "lesser human", not deserving of the same rights as the rest of society.

your quoted old testament verses, for christians, were superseded 2000 years ago. Christians didnt condone slavery, however it was part of the culture when christianity began. Of course I dont expect you to believe any of it, and that's fine with me. However, thats the basis of my beliefs and something I'm determined to remain faithful to.

 

[cannot]

Do you support the re-introduction of slavery (for brown people) and if we had a postal survey would you vote Yes?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Or slavery for women only?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

Should we encourage the killing of sons for talking back to their parents?

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Exodus 21:7-11)

Or do you pick and chose which passages to follow and which ones not to follow? So your belief that "the gays" are not deserving of the same rights as every other member of society is not borne out of adherence to the bible but a conscious choice to follow some parts and ignore other parts.

If for example you supported slavery (I'm hoping that you don't). I would not accept an argument from you that you are justified in your decision to support slavery (but only for foreigners or women) and try to created some false moral equivalence that by my intolerance of not accepting peoples rights to support slavery, is somehow equal to people who support slavery.

The point is the bible was written thousands of years ago, with a general lack of primary sources, often far removed from the event itself. It has been translated by people through multiple languages and multiple times. Humans were responsible for adding certain passages and removing others. Society has evolved over time, hence while slavery was once acceptable it no longer is. Eating shellfish was once considered detestable, I consider Lobsters to be quite tasty.

The bible should not be taken literally, it is full of batshit insane passages, and society would be much worse if every passage was taken at face value. Use it as a general guide - treat people how you would like to be treated.

You are entitled to answer the survey however you want.

I am entitled to call you out for your double standards and think you are a homophobe who believes that gays are not worthy of the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. If you ever have a child that was gay, I would feel sorry for that child because you believe they are somehow a "lesser human", not deserving of the same rights as the rest of society.

new testament / stuff jesus said

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26-27 KJV

 

[GreyWind]

If it had been a binding vote it would have made alot more sense. But saying we shouldn't have a vote at all because "having a election for non binding is a waste of time/money" was Howard and the Republic-esk. And frankly reeked of people afraid they might lose the popular vote.

We've had 3 plebiscites in the history of Australia. 2 for Military service (1916 and 1917) and one for the national song which was in 1977. Why do we all of a sudden need a plebiscite on SSM? Why not on everything?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Thanks for proving my point.

You sound like that nutter who sacked a staffer because they were anti-gay marriage and called them a homophobe.

If you deny people rights others have because they are homosexual, what are they other than bigoted and homophobic?

 

[cannot]

We've had 3 plebiscites in the history of Australia. 2 for Military service (1916 and 1917) and one for the national song which was in 1977. Why do we all of a sudden need a plebiscite on SSM? Why not on everything?

by and large because its misdirection as to not focus on important things.

If you deny people rights others have because they are homosexual, what are they other than bigoted and homophobic?

isnt marriage a religious thing?

you have no rights to religious things. they can pick and choose as they please like flying spaghetti monsters

GreyWind unlike if you want )

 

[mxett]

If you deny people rights others have because they are homosexual, what are they other than bigoted and homophobic?

If I believe marriage is the foundation of family, and is best made up of a biological father and mother, how does that make me frightened of homosexuals?

 

[Dan Baker]

And the Catholic Church that said it would sack any gay employees that got married? Fine and dandy? One is an individual, one is a nationwide organisation.

The fact you are more outraged by the individual than the organisation is what makes people sceptical you were ever going to vote anything but no.

Have you a source for this please? I know many Australian Catholics that are pro SSM. Much of the global message against SSM comes from he Vatican in Italy. Very different to many Australian Catholics.

I've heard plenty of anti christian sentiment propaganda from the SSM crowd which infers a political trojan horse.

 

[Dan Baker]

If you deny people rights others have because they are homosexual, what are they other than bigoted and homophobic?

They are not denied rights. Hetros are not permitted a civil union. There is disparity in nature. Such as SSM cannot conceive children.

 

[cannot]

If I believe marriage is the foundation of family, and is best made up of a biological father and mother, how does that make me frightened of homosexuals?

i also thought the word phobic was defined as being fearful to something. but apparently not anymore

maybe the gays got Orwellian and changed that too?

like how the definition of terrorism has changed a hell of a lot

 

[cannot]

Have you a source for this please? I know many Australian Catholics that are pro SSM. Much of the global message against SSM comes from he Vatican in Italy. Very different to many Australian Catholics.

I've heard plenty of anti christian sentiment propaganda from the SSM crowd which infers a political trojan horse.

Jesuits...

 

[Belnakor]

If you deny people rights others have because they are homosexual, what are they other than bigoted and homophobic?

getting married isn't a right, its a religious ceremony.

 

[GreyWind]

Have you a source for this please? I know many Australian Catholics that are pro SSM. Much of the global message against SSM comes from he Vatican in Italy. Very different to many Australian Catholics.

Well there was this
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...who-wed-samesex-partners-20170817-gxy4ds.html

And then this
http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au...ok-post-supporting-same-sex-marriage/?cs=2452

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

If I believe marriage is the foundation of family, and is best made up of a biological father and mother, how does that make me frightened of homosexuals?

Who mentioned fathers and mothers?