Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Kummerspeck said:
Three posters have asked you directly about an inconsistency in your beliefs which you've chosen to ignore in place of ranting on about the gay lobby and how you're being attacked.
Click to expand...

Inconsistency in my beliefs? Inconsistent with what? Your views as you would want me to think? I can decide my beliefs for whatever arbitrary reason I choose. In this case for me it has meaning around procreation avd is anything but arbitrary. My beliefs make perfect sense to me. You build a scotoma to anything other than what you want.

The word 'marriage' evolves from many sources but the very first source was the French word related to 'mother'. Enough said then. It is a heterosexual tradition evolving around procreation. Indeed the definitions up to mid 20th century specifically cites procreation as it's central theme. Enough of history but even if that wasn't the case it's certainly so that it is my belief avd how the tradition is important to me. It's a purely heterosexual concept and because same sex can't conceive then for me that's unfortunate.
 
puke said:
Inconsistency in my beliefs? Inconsistent with what? Your views as you would want me to think? I can decide my beliefs for whatever arbitrary reason I choose. In this case for me it has meaning around procreation avd is anything but arbitrary. My beliefs make perfect sense to me. You build a scotoma to anything other than what you want.

The word 'marriage' evolves from many sources but the very first source was the French word related to 'mother'. Enough said then. It is a heterosexual tradition evolving around procreation. Indeed the definitions up to mid 20th century specifically cites procreation as it's central theme. Enough of history but even if that wasn't the case it's certainly so that it is my belief avd how the tradition is important to me. It's a purely heterosexual concept and because same sex can't conceive then for me that's unfortunate.
Click to expand...
Again not addressing heterosexuals who can't or don't conceive, but going on an attacking rant.
 
GotTheGoodes said:
I know you meant no harm Kirksy but my breathing is fine thanks. :p

Yep, opinions abound & each to their own. My opinion is that I cannot see how the ability to procreate or not should be the basis of an argument determining if you can marry or not? Further, if this were the case, why do we let those who cannot procreate however are of different genders still marry while those of the same sex (in the exact same position) cannot?

Thus, the "procreation" argument, to me, is a load of s**t.

Btw, I don't mean to offend anyone & respect we all have our views. puke, nothing personal mate.
Click to expand...
Calling someone's opinion 'a load of s**t' and then saying nothing personal, is an oxymoron. An opinion, is by definition, personal.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

puke said:
Inconsistency in my beliefs? Inconsistent with what? Your views as you would want me to think? I can decide my beliefs for whatever arbitrary reason I choose. In this case for me it has meaning around procreation avd is anything but arbitrary. My beliefs make perfect sense to me. You build a scotoma to anything other than what you want.

The word 'marriage' evolves from many sources but the very first source was the French word related to 'mother'. Enough said then. It is a heterosexual tradition evolving around procreation. Indeed the definitions up to mid 20th century specifically cites procreation as it's central theme. Enough of history but even if that wasn't the case it's certainly so that it is my belief avd how the tradition is important to me. It's a purely heterosexual concept and because same sex can't conceive then for me that's unfortunate.
Click to expand...

The inconsistency is that you include people who can’t conceive in your definition of marriage, and exclude those who can (through surrogacy) or who can adopt, based solely on their sexual orientation. That is an inconsistency you have yet to explain.
 
Kummerspeck said:
Again not addressing heterosexuals who can't or don't conceive, but going on an attacking rant.
Click to expand...


So your argument is that because I believe it to be a heterosexual tradition evolved around procreation that I somehow need to shape my beliefs that only those capable of procreating in actuality may or should be able to marry? I need to be exclusionary to non procreating heterosexuals? I'm not going to shape my beliefs to something you want. Sorry.

Heterosexuals of all varieties avail marraige and that's perfectly fine by me because they are heterosexuals who are genetically designed to procreate even if they now can't. The original concept has evolved to include those. At one stage not that long ago many heterosexual couples who couldn't conceive would say there is no necessity to marry because there will be no offspring. Common they just cohabited. As is often the case things change so now some heterosexuals who can't..... still marry. That represents no inconsistency whatsoever because they remain a man and woman being the basis of the original incarnation.

Entirely different with same sex for very obvious reasons. It doesn't involve a man and woman for whom the tradition was conceived.

There are numerous articles written posing these identical issues that I've outlined with the change in definition. So clearly I'm not alone in these beliefs and concerns.
 
In my opinion:

All you people who are attacking those who have stated that they voted no, and/or do not believe the float is relevant, need to stop, cease and desist!! Who are you to attack their beliefs? Why should they need to explain anything about them to you or defend them to your critiquing. You are doing more harm than good to your stance.

I am a woman. We menstruate, and we have to pay taxes on the relevant sanitary items used each month. However no-one pays taxes on toilet paper as it is considered a necessary item. Two bodily functions treated differently. In a multitude of ways, women have been discriminated against my whole life. There a million discriminatory actions and/or statements every day against various people for a variety of reasons.

Being aggressive, derogatory, demeaning, insulting, passive-aggressive, rude and just downright mean is not a good way to deal with it.
 
Kirkswan said:
I am a woman. We menstruate, and we have to pay taxes on the relevant sanitary items used each month. However no-one pays taxes on toilet paper as it is considered a necessary item. Two bodily functions treated differently. In a multitude of ways, women have been discriminated against my whole life. There a million discriminatory actions and/or statements every day against various people for a variety of reasons.

Being aggressive, derogatory, demeaning, insulting, passive-aggressive, rude and just downright mean is not a good way to deal with it.
Click to expand...
Toilet paper attracts GST. At the exact same rate.
 
swansfan51 said:
Toilet paper attracts GST. At the exact same rate.
Click to expand...
My apologies. It appears that it does, but not in all states and territories (???), and here I thought GST was Federal...

Will look into it and get back to you... the rest of the argument stands.
 
Kummerspeck said:
Again not addressing heterosexuals who can't or don't conceive, but going on an attacking rant.
Click to expand...

It's not just about conception - homosexual couples simply can't consummate their relationship in the same way that heterosexual couples can. It's just how they were created. Do I need to spell it out lol.

I don't have an issue with same sex couples being allowed to marry as that is what a majority of Australians wanted, but puke is correct in saying that marriage was intended to be a covenant between a man and a woman with procreation as one of its aims. The definition of marriage just changed. Life goes on...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BarneyBent said:
1) This bill had nothing to do with legal sanctions against failure to recognise same sex marriages. That is a different, anti-discrimination law, and a different debate. You can be entirely pro-marriage equality and believe private businesses have the right to discriminate on philosophical (e.g. libertarian) grounds. Though a somewhat uncommon position, they are not inherently incompatible.

2) There is a difference between “not recognising” a marriage and not providing services in support of that marriage. Even if you are compelled, legally, under anti-discrimination law, to not refuse service to a gay couple, you can still privately hold that the marriage isn’t real. Doesn’t affect you, doesn’t affect them. So long as you aren’t impinging on their legal rights and protections, recognise or fail to recognise whatever you like.

3) On the anti-discrimination legislation, would you support a business’s right to refuse service to an interracial couple? A Muslim couple? A Christian couple? An atheist couple? A disabled couple? There may be a Christian who only views marriages performed under their denomination to be “real” marriages. They can believe whatever they want, but they can’t refuse service based on it.
Click to expand...

I would support any business’ right to trade with whoever they wish, and not trade with whoever they wish.
 
Kummerspeck said:
You literally just said you'd be fine with a business refusing to deal with an interracial couple. What is that in your mind?
Click to expand...

No. I said I was fine with a business being able to refuse to do business. I didn’t say I was fine with them doing it.

I can give you a list of 100 things I consider contemptible that aren’t for governments to make unlawful.

1. Cheating on one’s spouse.
2. Choosing to not do business with a party based on race.
3. Choosing not to do business based on sexuality.
4. Refusing to allow a motor vehicle to merge.
5. Refusing to thank a motorist that has created space for you to merge.

Shall I go on?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I live in this world of grown ups who don’t need a government to tell me I’m not allowed to do something for me to know not to do it.
Click to expand...
So you're not fine with racial / sexual discrimination but believe that people should be allowed to be discriminated against on those grounds?

I'm genuinely asking, you just said you're fine then not fine with something in the space of ten words, I'm struggling to see your view here
 
Kummerspeck said:
So you're not fine with racial / sexual discrimination but believe that people should be allowed to be discriminated against on those grounds?

I'm genuinely asking, you just said you're fine then not fine with something in the space of ten words, I'm struggling to see your view here
Click to expand...

No I didn’t. I don’t want to be condescending here, really I don’t. But there’s a world of difference between what I’m ok with and what I’m not ok with.
 
Kummerspeck said:
You're fine with a business being able to refuse to do business, but you're not fine with them doing it. What?
Click to expand...
Do you believe a business or individual should be forced, against their will, to provide a service to someone? That seems to violate a fairly fundamental principle of consent.
 
swansfan51 said:
Do you believe a business or individual should be forced, against their will, to provide a service to someone? That seems to violate a fairly fundamental principle of consent.
Click to expand...
serveimage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top