Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Hawk Dork said:
serveimage
Click to expand...
I take that to be a 'yes'. Do you believe you should be forced, against your will, to purchase something from a person or business?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I would support any business’ right to trade with whoever they wish, and not trade with whoever they wish.
Click to expand...

That’s fine. Not what the vote was about though. The “No” campaign was extremely effective at making the vote seem like it was about other things.

Personally I’m of the view that anti-discrimination laws are important and I support them. I understand more libertarian views, even if I disagree with them, so long (and this is important) that they are applied absolutely fairly. So long as you are as happy being discriminated against as others being discriminated against, that’s ok... sort of. You can’t ignore the fact that it’s certainly easier for people who aren’t super prone to discrimination to operate in that sort of environment (which is why libertarians are so often straight white dudes), which is also why I disagree with it (despite also being a straight white dude), but I can at least recognise it’s intellectually honest.
 
Kummerspeck said:
So marriage evolved from something with procreation at its core to include those who can't procreate as long as they're not homosexual?
Click to expand...

Yes it did else you've been living under a rock and can't see what the definition of marriage was before the recent change to include same sex. Abssoluty it includes them but has NEVER included same sex and the reason is they aren't a combination of man with woman who can conceive. Back to my original argument gays just don't qualify.

What this is about is a quantum shift in definition. You say it creates equality because you love your partner just as much as any heterosexual couple (and have no doubt you do) and I say that may be the case but same sex will never be a man and woman who potentially procreate which is when where and why the tradition evolved.......to recognise that bond between a man and a woman the aim of which is procreation. So yeah to me the change to definition is a ridiculous proposition. I find it absurd that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can be married.......that's not just a small amount of tinkering around the edges of the definition that's throwing out the historical tradition entirely and starting afresh of a tradition and definition percolating along for centuries.

To discriminate requires that someone who has identical entitlement to participation is arbitrarily excluded. Is that happening? No of course not because there has NEVER been an 'identical entitlement' to participate because same sex are incompatible to the very pre existing definition. Understand? You don't qualify in my mind because you are same sex and origins of the marraige concept was never about same sex. It was always about procreation which can only happen between a man and woman.

Now if you had the courage to create your own tradition and leave the tradition and history of marriage alone then you have my unwavering support. You deserve to have same legal rights as any couple. Call it something different to a marriage. But gays don't want that. You want the all inclusive validation that goes with being 'married' when that term has never applied to same sex by definition and by relenting to change the definition is now obliterated entirely including its historical origins and traditions. It's trite to say it's inconsequential that this has occurred and it's in the interests of being progressive. I simply don't know what effects will unravel in it's wake. Hopefully positive. I've lived long enough to realise that quantum shift changes aren't always positive.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kummerspeck said:
So marriage evolved from something with procreation at its core to include those who can't procreate as long as they're not homosexual?
Click to expand...
Yeah pretty much nailed it there.

Genesis 2:23-24 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
 
BarneyBent said:
That’s fine. Not what the vote was about though. The “No” campaign was extremely effective at making the vote seem like it was about other things.

Personally I’m of the view that anti-discrimination laws are important and I support them. I understand more libertarian views, even if I disagree with them, so long (and this is important) that they are applied absolutely fairly. So long as you are as happy being discriminated against as others being discriminated against, that’s ok... sort of. You can’t ignore the fact that it’s certainly easier for people who aren’t super prone to discrimination to operate in that sort of environment (which is why libertarians are so often straight white dudes), which is also why I disagree with it (despite also being a straight white dude), but I can at least recognise it’s intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

Solid reasoning, I like this post, tend to agree. While I'm not ashamed to be a white middle aged heterosexual male and I'm not sorry for everything in the world always being my fault somehow, I can live with the regular chipping away at my demographic by every tom dick and harry over every issue, whatever it is we're the bad guys.
 
mtooler said:
Yeah pretty much nailed it there.

Genesis 2:23-24 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Click to expand...

Do you see how your religious conception of marriage might not be relevant to those who don’t hold to those same religious beliefs and consider marriage only from a legal perspective?

For what it’s worth, I don’t expect the Catholic Church (just as an example) to start holding gay weddings. This is about the secular conception of marriage, not the religious one. I happen to know a few religious people who voted yes despite not themselves recognising same sex marriage, because they kept their religious views and secular laws separate. They would have protested mightily had there been a law raised that required priests to marry same sex couples though, and that’s fine, I get it. Disagree with the ethics but I understand it.
 
BarneyBent said:
Do you see how your religious conception of marriage might not be relevant to those who don’t hold to those same religious beliefs and consider marriage only from a legal perspective?

For what it’s worth, I don’t expect the Catholic Church (just as an example) to start holding gay weddings. This is about the secular conception of marriage, not the religious one. I happen to know a few religious people who voted yes despite not themselves recognising same sex marriage, because they kept their religious views and secular laws separate. They would have protested mightily had there been a law raised that required priests to marry same sex couples though, and that’s fine, I get it. Disagree with the ethics but I understand it.
Click to expand...

Yeah totally and agree with that and I'm definitely aren't trying to convince others to change their view based upon my personal beliefs and values, I use mine to inform only my views which are that legally and and religiously they aren't separate concerning marriage as the notion of marriage derived from religion (in my mind, much of common law derived from religion).

As a result I use the same logic that you use when people tell me that marriage is not a religious issue just a legal issue. I just politely agree to disagree on that. :)
 
BarneyBent said:
That’s fine. Not what the vote was about though. The “No” campaign was extremely effective at making the vote seem like it was about other things.

Personally I’m of the view that anti-discrimination laws are important and I support them. I understand more libertarian views, even if I disagree with them, so long (and this is important) that they are applied absolutely fairly. So long as you are as happy being discriminated against as others being discriminated against, that’s ok... sort of. You can’t ignore the fact that it’s certainly easier for people who aren’t super prone to discrimination to operate in that sort of environment (which is why libertarians are so often straight white dudes), which is also why I disagree with it (despite also being a straight white dude), but I can at least recognise it’s intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

If the marriage equality vote wasn’t about legal sanction against “discriminators” then they’d not have needed to place exceptions in. It was entirely about sanctioning the discriminatory types.
 
you see, this thread is proof the pre-season is simple too long......
 
mtooler said:
Solid reasoning, I like this post, tend to agree. While I'm not ashamed to be a white middle aged heterosexual male and I'm not sorry for everything in the world always being my fault somehow, I can live with the regular chipping away at my demographic by every tom dick and harry over every issue, whatever it is we're the bad guys.
Click to expand...
It has to be your fault, you were born as a sinner.
 
mtooler said:
Yeah totally and agree with that and I'm definitely aren't trying to convince others to change their view based upon my personal beliefs and values, I use mine to inform only my views which are that legally and and religiously they aren't separate concerning marriage as the notion of marriage derived from religion (in my mind, much of common law derived from religion).

As a result I use the same logic that you use when people tell me that marriage is not a religious issue just a legal issue. I just politely agree to disagree on that. :)
Click to expand...
70% of marriages are civil unions without any religious affiliation.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kapanis said:
70% of marriages are civil unions without any religious affiliation.
Click to expand...

That may/may not be true, I don't know and doesn't really matter much to my persuasion. I can't substitute ones belief system for another just because people don't adhere to my belief system and I to theirs. If 100% of marriages we're conducted with religious connotations I would advocate for them not to be imposed upon others that don't follow it. Even if 0% of marriages had religious connotations it wouldn't magically rewrite the bible for someone of my persuasion.
 
mtooler said:
That may/may not be true, I don't know and doesn't really matter much to my persuasion. I can't substitute ones belief system for another just because people don't adhere to my belief system and I to theirs. If 100% of marriages we're conducted with religious connotations I would advocate for them not to be imposed upon others that don't follow it. Even if 0% of marriages had religious connotations it wouldn't magically rewrite the bible for someone of my persuasion.
Click to expand...
Facts are facts. You can't just pick and choose.
 
puke said:
Yes it did else you've been living under a rock and can't see what the definition of marriage was before the recent change to include same sex. Abssoluty it includes them but has NEVER included same sex and the reason is they aren't a combination of man with woman who can conceive. Back to my original argument gays just don't qualify.

What this is about is a quantum shift in definition. You say it creates equality because you love your partner just as much as any heterosexual couple (and have no doubt you do) and I say that may be the case but same sex will never be a man and woman who potentially procreate which is when where and why the tradition evolved.......to recognise that bond between a man and a woman the aim of which is procreation. So yeah to me the change to definition is a ridiculous proposition. I find it absurd that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can be married.......that's not just a small amount of tinkering around the edges of the definition that's throwing out the historical tradition entirely and starting afresh of a tradition and definition percolating along for centuries.

To discriminate requires that someone who has identical entitlement to participation is arbitrarily excluded. Is that happening? No of course not because there has NEVER been an 'identical entitlement' to participate because same sex are incompatible to the very pre existing definition. Understand? You don't qualify in my mind because you are same sex and origins of the marraige concept was never about same sex. It was always about procreation which can only happen between a man and woman.

Now if you had the courage to create your own tradition and leave the tradition and history of marriage alone then you have my unwavering support. You deserve to have same legal rights as any couple. Call it something different to a marriage. But gays don't want that. You want the all inclusive validation that goes with being 'married' when that term has never applied to same sex by definition and by relenting to change the definition is now obliterated entirely including its historical origins and traditions. It's trite to say it's inconsequential that this has occurred and it's in the interests of being progressive. I simply don't know what effects will unravel in it's wake. Hopefully positive. I've lived long enough to realise that quantum shift changes aren't always positive.
Click to expand...

The Marriage Act (1961) DID NOT define marriage.

In 2004 Howard amended the Marriage Act to include a definition of marriage:
"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
"Certain unions are not marriages.
"A union solemnised in a foreign country between: a man and another man; or a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."


Before 2004 the Marriage Act DID NOT exclude SSM.
 
mtooler said:
That may/may not be true, I don't know and doesn't really matter much to my persuasion. I can't substitute ones belief system for another just because people don't adhere to my belief system and I to theirs. If 100% of marriages we're conducted with religious connotations I would advocate for them not to be imposed upon others that don't follow it. Even if 0% of marriages had religious connotations it wouldn't magically rewrite the bible for someone of my persuasion.
Click to expand...
Look, I find it remarkable that a person who can debate such things with intellect, then live a mantra based on a book that was written in large, important passages by illiterate fisherman, handed down to someone who could actually write sort of, somehow gathered together through centuries, translated from language to language, rewritten by various ruling elites/royals/emperors, bits changed to for so many reasons over hundreds, indeed thousands of years and, at this stage in time it is taken as "gospel", ie how to live your life then I simply don't understand. That's not even talking about the Old Testament. I married my wife because I loved her and wanted to spend my life with her, religion had no basis for that decision at all.
 
puke said:
Ok let's be courageous and enlightened and give them the right to marry.....even knowing they can plug away forever and never procreate and just get dirt on the tip. It's cool because they're in oxytocin addicted like us all...er ah in love. BUT I better not find out this is all an ulterior plan so I can be compelled to 'kiss the bride'. Won't be happy Jan. Omg I hope no one gets bent over on the float.....

Ok now I've for that out of my system.....of course homophobia is dead
Click to expand...
Obviously alive and well.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Number37 said:
The Marriage Act (1961) DID NOT define marriage.

In 2004 Howard amended the Marriage Act to include a definition of marriage:
"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
"Certain unions are not marriages.
"A union solemnised in a foreign country between: a man and another man; or a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."


Before 2004 the Marriage Act DID NOT exclude SSM.
Click to expand...

Precisely. So why didn’t the legislation simply remove those passages?
 
Kapanis said:
Facts are facts. You can't just pick and choose.
Click to expand...
But those facts don't matter about anything. Because others have different beliefs and practices am I to abandon mine? I don't quite get what you're trying to imply. That its some kind of marriage competition and the winner of what constitutes marriage is who has more types of weddings?
 
Number37 said:
The Marriage Act (1961) DID NOT define marriage.

In 2004 Howard amended the Marriage Act to include a definition of marriage:
"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
"Certain unions are not marriages.
"A union solemnised in a foreign country between: a man and another man; or a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."


Before 2004 the Marriage Act DID NOT exclude SSM.
Click to expand...

Interesting statement, but you're applying a modern social construct to a 1960s society. In 1960s marriage participants as being same sex was not even on the radar in common vernacular. So you are right in technicality but not in practice if that makes sense.
 
Kapanis said:
Look, I find it remarkable that a person who can debate such things with intellect, then live a mantra based on a book that was written in large, important passages by illiterate fisherman, handed down to someone who could actually write sort of, somehow gathered together through centuries, translated from language to language, rewritten by various ruling elites/royals/emperors, bits changed to for so many reasons over hundreds, indeed thousands of years and, at this stage in time it is taken as "gospel", ie how to live your life then I simply don't understand. That's not even talking about the Old Testament. I married my wife because I loved her and wanted to spend my life with her, religion had no basis for that decision at all.
Click to expand...

Some of that is true ;) Paul was about as academic as one could be in his day and Luke was a doctor. There's plenty of the Bible that if a document was to be fabricated you wouldnt want in there if you were trying to convince others of its authenticity. Without getting into apologetics too much trying to triangulate whether Jesus was a real person or not is a helpful starting place. if that can be ruled out then the rest has to be a total fairytale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top