Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Did children overboard actually happen? No.
Did ships actually sail over the edge? No.
The point is, at the time of them of them happening, they were believed to be facts, and treated as such.

Unless you have personal, indisputable knowledge, you are taking someone else's word for the 'fact' concerned. What is accepted as fact today may be proven as fiction tomorrow.
 
The point is, at the time of them of them happening, they were believed to be facts, and treated as such.

Unless you have personal, indisputable knowledge, you are taking someone else's word for the 'fact' concerned. What is accepted as fact today may be proven as fiction tomorrow.

I would recommend you read this book:

xhow-to-think-about-weird-things.jpg.pagespeed.ic.0bI_S3E7C9.jpg
 
I would recommend you read this book:

xhow-to-think-about-weird-things.jpg.pagespeed.ic.0bI_S3E7C9.jpg
Cool. I will read it cause I'm interested in this stuff. As an administrative decision reviewer, I probably know what most of it says and (used to) apply it daily. Having said that, how I do business and how I live are entirely different.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jul 5, 2012
24,743
40,159
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
I disagree...

The Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old, and has not changed it's views on marriage very much in all that time. It is based upon a contract between a man and a woman for the specific purpose of raising children. Divorce is not sanctioned (see Henry VIII), although in recent years separation is. Polygamy has never been sanctioned.

The Jewish religion has been around even longer, and it's marriage tradition has not changed very much either. Neither divorce or polygamy are sanctioned.

Many other religions hold similar views and are even older. You will always get factions that break away and form their own church with rules that suit people and circumstances concerned. Polygamy gained sway due to war and the shortage of men. As women at that time were unable to vote or own property, it was polygamy or homelessness and starvation.

Tradition is a valid argument for a personal choice. And that's what this vote was. We were asked to express our views via a national vote and did so. Tradition is a valid argument in certain circumstances, and in view, this is one of those...

PS. If you were born in Australia after 1980 and were circumcised prior to leaving hospital, that was based on a tradition less than 100 years old, with no other reason than to look like your dad.
It’s not a question of whether or not tradition is a good argument for not changing something.
Unfortunately, we’re not even able to get to that point, because traditionalists’ definition of tradition always turns out to be conveniently flexible. They will often deny that change has already taken place in what they consider to be an immutable institution. Yet that argument is unsustainable.

e.g. rape in marriage was legal until a few decades ago.

Now (thankfully) it’s not.

Yet those pushing the tradition line will still insist that marriage, as they see it, has never changed.

What could be more fundamental to a question of human relationships than the issue of sexual consent? A change in how we view the legality of rape in marriage can only mean that “traditional” marriage actually HAS changed over time.
 
Jul 5, 2012
24,743
40,159
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
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.
If my (mostly white) daughter ends up marrying her Tamil boyfriend, businesses should be allowed to refuse her (or them) service based on nothing more than who they’ve married? Seriously?
 
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.
I just don't get this. You're fine with the definition being adapted to include straight couples who can't procreate, but aren't fine with it being adapted to include same-sex couples?

If it truly is ONLY about procreation, what is the difference? It seems that to you that tradition CAN be changed, but only if it suits your beliefs.
 
Cool. I will read it cause I'm interested in this stuff. As an administrative decision reviewer, I probably know what most of it says and (used to) apply it daily. Having said that, how I do business and how I live are entirely different.

It was not a comment about your personal or business life.

The book I suggested you read specifically addresses your comments about facts.
 
Aug 9, 2016
4,390
5,587
AFL Club
Sydney
I just don't get this. You're fine with the definition being adapted to include straight couples who can't procreate, but aren't fine with it being adapted to include same-sex couples?

If it truly is ONLY about procreation, what is the difference? It seems that to you that tradition CAN be changed, but only if it suits your beliefs.

Answered in detail on this thread several times. The concept was a hetetosexual incarnation and had included hetetosexual couples who can't procreate for centuries.

The tradition and definition has changed over the years but it's central theme is heterosexuals and procreation so the changes are on the edges.

If in some others eyes that means inconsistency or hypocrissy then that's ok it's my personal view and the only person I need justify it to is me and I have.

Can we move on? I think many here are getting bored with the repetition
 
Aug 25, 2008
12,343
7,443
Leeds/'Berra/Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Answered in detail on this thread several times. The concept was a hetetosexual incarnation and had included hetetosexual couples who can't procreate for centuries.

The tradition and definition has changed over the years but it's central theme is heterosexuals and procreation so the changes are on the edges.

If in some others eyes that means inconsistency or hypocrissy then that's ok it's my personal view and the only person I need justify it to is me and I have.

Can we move on? I think many here are getting bored with the repetition

Ah, so you admit you’re unwilling to change marriage because it’s been that way for ages - NOT that it’s about procreation itself, but that it’s about tradition.

Cool. Still discriminatory. You’ve moved away from a functional argument to a definitional one. Not wanting to change something to make it inclusive purely because “that’s how it’s always been” is textbook discrimination.

It used to be ok to rape your wife, who was considered your property. We changed that because it was shitty.

Women and black people couldn’t vote. We changed that because it was shitty.

Gay acts were illegal. We changed that because it was shitty.

Opposing any of those changes was discriminatory. Opposing changing marriage to be less shitty is no different. As you’ve admitted, there have been couples unable to procreate who’ve gotten married for a long, long time. There’s no functional difference - just a definitional one.
 

Kummerspeck

Cancelled
Pokemon is Life
Sep 12, 2013
5,219
5,356
AFL Club
Sydney
All these noble functions of marriage that exclude homosexuals. Much more palatable than lords securing more land, consolidating power, or gaining negotiating power by selling off their daughters
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Aug 9, 2016
4,390
5,587
AFL Club
Sydney
Ah, so you admit you’re unwilling to change marriage because it’s been that way for ages - NOT that it’s about procreation itself, but that it’s about tradition.

Cool. Still discriminatory. You’ve moved away from a functional argument to a definitional one. Not wanting to change something to make it inclusive purely because “that’s how it’s always been” is textbook discrimination.

It used to be ok to rape your wife, who was considered your property. We changed that because it was shitty.

Women and black people couldn’t vote. We changed that because it was shitty.

Gay acts were illegal. We changed that because it was shitty.

Opposing any of those changes was discriminatory. Opposing changing marriage to be less shitty is no different. As you’ve admitted, there have been couples unable to procreate who’ve gotten married for a long, long time. There’s no functional difference - just a definitional one.

I'm tied to the concept and tradition of marraige which only included heterosexuals and that's because it was about procreation......you know the act that perpetuates human existence and which same sex will never achieve. In fact by definition it never could. So you think I simply must change the definition to include something that was completely opposite of the definition else I'm discrimatory? What a sound argument lmao.......not. And given how patently ridiculous that argument is the disturbing thing is that many are prepared to cite it as discriminatory........but only on the internet. Internet cowards. Open invitation for anyone to say it to my face.

Look enough of this it's been done to death. If you don't like my view then I'll say what my GF always says when I disagree with her on an issue with forlorn hopes of change

Suck it up buttercup.
 
Last edited:
I'm tied to the concept and tradition of marraige which only included heterosexuals and that's because it was about procreation......you know the act that perpetuates human existence and which same sex will never achieve. In fact by definition it never could. So you think I simply must change the definition to include something that was completely opposite of the definition else I'm discrimatory? What a sound argument lmao.......not. And given how patently ridiculous that argument is the disturbing thing is that many are prepared to cite it as discriminatory........but only on the internet. Internet cowards. Open invitation for anyone to say it to my face.

Look enough of this it's been done to death. If you don't like my view then I'll say what my GF always says when I disagree with her on an issue with forlorn hopes of change

Suck it up buttercup.

I wouldn't be so convinced about the perpetuation of human existence as an argument, given what we know about people like the Mayans and many North African tribes where marriage between first cousins was common. Inbreeding isn't much good for the perpetuation of human existence.
 

Kummerspeck

Cancelled
Pokemon is Life
Sep 12, 2013
5,219
5,356
AFL Club
Sydney
I'm tied to the concept and tradition of marraige which only included heterosexuals and that's because it was about procreation......you know the act that perpetuates human existence and which same sex will never achieve. In fact by definition it never could. So you think I simply must change the definition to include something that was completely opposite of the definition else I'm discrimatory?
What? Plan your writing. What definition are you talking about? Marriage or homosexuality?

Internet cowards. Open invitation for anyone to say it to my face.
Lol.
 
Aug 9, 2016
4,390
5,587
AFL Club
Sydney
Ah, so you admit you’re unwilling to change marriage because it’s been that way for ages - NOT that it’s about procreation itself, but that it’s about tradition.

Cool. Still discriminatory. You’ve moved away from a functional argument to a definitional one. Not wanting to change something to make it inclusive purely because “that’s how it’s always been” is textbook discrimination.

It used to be ok to rape your wife, who was considered your property. We changed that because it was shitty.

Women and black people couldn’t vote. We changed that because it was shitty.

Gay acts were illegal. We changed that because it was shitty.

Opposing any of those changes was discriminatory. Opposing changing marriage to be less shitty is no different. As you’ve admitted, there have been couples unable to procreate who’ve gotten married for a long, long time. There’s no functional difference - just a definitional one.

Raping anyone is a physical act wreaked on a person without consent and is wrong because it is.

Changing voting rights for blacks or women is discrimination because all people are capable of voting.

Same sex don't fit the definition. and purpose of the marriage tradition and therefore excluding them is not discriminatory. We all have to deal with our genetic hand we are dealt. In this case same sex aren't man and woman for whom the marriage tradition arose. Suck it up and deal with it I say

You say it's shitty they are excluded. I say it's shitty throwing away a centuries old tradition on an irrational premise
 
Aug 25, 2008
12,343
7,443
Leeds/'Berra/Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I'm tied to the concept and tradition of marraige which only included heterosexuals and that's because it was about procreation......you know the act that perpetuates human existence and which same sex will never achieve. In fact by definition it never could. So you think I simply must change the definition to include something that was completely opposite of the definition else I'm discrimatory? What a sound argument lmao.......not. And given how patently ridiculous that argument is the disturbing thing is that many are prepared to cite it as discriminatory........but only on the internet. Internet cowards. Open invitation for anyone to say it to my face.

Look enough of this it's been done to death. If you don't like my view then I'll say what my GF always says when I disagree with her on an issue with forlorn hopes of change

Suck it up buttercup.

Will happily say it to your face, and have done so to others’ faces a number of times. Half my family is Catholic and a number of them voted no, and we’ve discussed it at length.

If you haven’t noticed, I’ve also had respectful conversations with mtooler and Bruce despite disagreements (if anything, I might disagree with mtooler’s position more depending on the extent of his beliefs).

Marriage today is about love, legal rights, and family. There is no reason gay couples cant have all three of those. Therfore, including them doesn’t change what marriage is now, any more than giving black people, women and the less educated the vote changed what voting was (specifically, what it had become since its days of giving land-owning noble men a say in government).

In short: there is no reason to resist changing the definition of marriage to include gay people unless you think that the change will be bad. If you think that change will be bad, then you better have a good argument. All you’ve offered is “that wasn’t what marriage was originally about” - which isn’t an argument because it doesn’t say why the change is bad.

You can say that the only person you have to convince is yourself (which you clearly have), but your views negatively impact a large number of people and such views need to be questioned. Otherwise I could say “I don’t support interracial marriage and voted against it, I have my reasons, you don’t think they’re good enough but I only have to convince myself”.
 
Aug 9, 2016
4,390
5,587
AFL Club
Sydney
I wouldn't be so convinced about the perpetuation of human existence as an argument, given what we know about people like the Mayans and many North African tribes where marriage between first cousins was common. Inbreeding isn't much good for the perpetuation of human existence.

I'm confused. Surely you're not suggesting that 'inbreeding' occurs when you limit marriage to only a man and a woman? Think there are enough billions of men avd women heterosexuals to ensure genetic diversity
 
I'm confused. Surely you're not suggesting that 'inbreeding' occurs when you limit marriage to only a man and a woman? Think there are enough billions of men avd women heterosexuals to ensure genetic diversity

Nope.

You were claiming that marriage was traditionally about procreation and procreation is about perpetuating human existence.
I was pointing out that in some civilizations marriage was with first cousins. Inbreeding isn't going to perpetuate human existence.

At best, you might be able to argue that procreation is ONE OF many reasons people have TRADITIONALLY married. Procreation is certainly not, and NEVER has been, the ONLY reason for marriage.
But it seems to be a convenient excuse to argue against SSM & totally ignores the many other reasons people have married over the millennia.
 
Aug 9, 2016
4,390
5,587
AFL Club
Sydney
Will happily say it to your face, and have done so to others’ faces a number of times. Half my family is Catholic and a number of them voted no, and we’ve discussed it at length.

If you haven’t noticed, I’ve also had respectful conversations with mtooler and Bruce despite disagreements (if anything, I might disagree with mtooler’s position more depending on the extent of his beliefs).

Marriage today is about love, legal rights, and family. There is no reason gay couples cant have all three of those. Therfore, including them doesn’t change what marriage is now, any more than giving black people, women and the less educated the vote changed what voting was (specifically, what it had become since its days of giving land-owning noble men a say in government).

In short: there is no reason to resist changing the definition of marriage to include gay people unless you think that the change will be bad. If you think that change will be bad, then you better have a good argument. All you’ve offered is “that wasn’t what marriage was originally about” - which isn’t an argument because it doesn’t say why the change is bad.

You can say that the only person you have to convince is yourself (which you clearly have), but your views negatively impact a large number of people and such views need to be questioned. Otherwise I could say “I don’t support interracial marriage and voted against it, I have my reasons, you don’t think they’re good enough but I only have to convince myself”.

Your definition is that marriage is about love, legal rights and family. Certainly gay people can and do have all three. Interestlngly they've already had all three and outside the definition of marriage. So they must be getting more and something valuable too? Unspoken but that 'more' would be validation. But validation isn't a valid argument to change something for which they don't qualify (a tradition) and that's because validation arises from insecurity. if instead persecution were eroded or defeated then there would be no need for validation because there would be no sense of being made to feel inferior by that persecution

I have qualm calling it a marraige which is a heterosexual concept conceived and evolved for entirely different reasons.

If legal rights like social welfare, estate bequests Etc etc are at stake for gays then create them without obliterating a heterosexual tradition......because when you obliterate a tradition and reverse entirely the underlying ethos something valuable is lost- everything which had historically tied us to that tradition......values, beliefs, romantic notions.

I don't mean to be rude but this debate is pointless I'm afraid. I'm not going to spend my life seeking for people to understand my point of view when it's been explained a dozen times or more.

Gays aren't bad. I'm not excluding gays because I think they are
rather because they never qualified. I would like to preserve a tradition unchanged because value systems and ideals are lost when a tradition is thrown away.......my connection to that tradition is lost because it's central theme cannot survive post change definition. You think that's nothing .........I think values ideals and traditions are critically important it's the social connect underlying life and living

It's time to move on. I'm tired of the pointless repetition. No more for me I'm afraid
 
Your definition is that marriage is about love, legal rights and family. Certainly gay people can and do have all three. Interestlngly they've already had all three and outside the definition of marriage. So they must be getting more and something valuable too? Unspoken but that 'more' would be validation. But validation isn't a valid argument to change something for which they don't qualify (a tradition) and that's because validation arises from insecurity. if instead persecution were eroded or defeated then there would be no need for validation because there would be no sense of being made to feel inferior by that persecution

I have qualm calling it a marraige which is a heterosexual concept conceived and evolved for entirely different reasons.

If legal rights like social welfare, estate bequests Etc etc are at stake for gays then create them without obliterating a heterosexual tradition......because when you obliterate a tradition and reverse entirely the underlying ethos something valuable is lost- everything which had historically tied us to that tradition......values, beliefs, romantic notions.

I don't mean to be rude but this debate is pointless I'm afraid. I'm not going to spend my life seeking for people to understand my point of view when it's been explained a dozen times or more.

Gays aren't bad. I'm not excluding gays because I think they are
rather because they never qualified. I would like to preserve a tradition unchanged because value systems and ideals are lost when a tradition is thrown away.......my connection to that tradition is lost because it's central theme cannot survive post change definition. You think that's nothing .........I think values ideals and traditions are critically important it's the social connect underlying life and living

It's time to move on. I'm tired of the pointless repetition. No more for me I'm afraid

Marriage Act 1961 = no mention of man + woman
2004 amendment to Marriage Act 1961 = man + woman

Tradition for 13 years?
Yeah, nah.
 

Kapanis

Cancelled
Sydney Swans - Gary Rohan Player Sponsor 2018 Sydney Swans - George Hewett Player Sponsor 2017
Jul 26, 2015
3,758
4,830
AFL Club
Sydney
Marriage Act 1961 = no mention of man + woman
2004 amendment to Marriage Act 1961 = man + woman

Tradition for 13 years?
Yeah, nah.
How was marriage defined before 1961 out of interest? Nothing sinister in asking, I just don't know and you seem up on this.
 
Back