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

[Goldenblue]

if you dont understand their context I can understand that point of view

I understand their context, but I also understand that they are medieval and have no consequences on society today.

 

[Showbags]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...y/news-story/23808028e7150ce7d1bb2e8e1eb148d0

"Straight Lives Matter" rally in Sydney to be held next to memorial for gay people killed in the holocaust.

This is by the same mob responsible for those posters linking SSM with child abuse.

More examples of the respectful debate we are having.

 

[Goldenblue]

and if the majority of Australia want this change I'll gladly accept the marriage of SS couples as legitimate. That will be the law of our land. I honestly have no ill feeling towards non-heterosexuals

Ok, so you have conceded SSM will not affect you at all? Even in any religious terms?

 

[Goldenblue]

Of course you don't, you're engaging in some fine mental gymnastics.

And people aren't criticising Marg for endorsing heterosexual marriage, they are criticising her for being an old bigot who said gays were the product of satan, invoked Nazis and suggested gay marriage would destroy Easter and Christmas.

The voice of reason here. Thanks Jack, most sensible post so far about MC in this thread. Truth.
Complete over the top religious nut job, her outdated views are not welcomed in our society, however still the GOAT in Aussie tennis.

 

[Crankyhawk]

They restrict the freedom of all people. Equally. That's the point. I can't marry more than one person, you can't, nobody can. Not discriminatory.

You admit you choose to take some of the bible contextually, and some without historical context. Ask yourself whether this is a reasonable stance. Particularly given that same-sex union is AT LEAST as historically contextualized in the bible as slavery. You might be interested to read some Graeco-Roman history to see just how accepted same-sex relationships were at the time the new testament was written.

Off the top of my head the only bible story I recall about homosexuality is in sodom where the men of sodom wanted Lot's visitors (who were angels described with a male pronoun) in order to have sex with them.

However in the same story Lot tries to offer his daughters to the men to preserve his visitors so I don't think it is a great guide to real modern world behaviour.

On another topic why doesn't any media respond to canavan rants about religious freedom with "why should we listen to someone who misrepresented their citizenship and may not even be a legal member of parliament?"

 

[Crankyhawk]

Can someone who supports the Yes case explain to me why it's not ok to marry my sister?

Current law is against it and no social desire to change. Personally I'd have no issue as long as yourself or your sister was infertile and decided to marry after spending some time (years) not living together to avoid coercion being a factor (because you would have been living with her while one or both were children)

 

[Nikita Blue]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...y/news-story/23808028e7150ce7d1bb2e8e1eb148d0

"Straight Lives Matter" rally in Sydney to be held next to memorial for gay people killed in the holocaust.

This is by the same mob responsible for those posters linking SSM with child abuse.

More examples of the respectful debate we are having.

Truly vile campaigners

 

[Crankyhawk]

This is the fundamental flaw in the focus on the No campaign. It underscores how they are either misrepresenting the issue or don't understand the reason why most people will vote Yes.

The battle over privacy and what someone does in their own home was settled long ago. Homosexuality is now a social norm.

This is a battle over the rights of those gay couples to publicly declare & commit to their relationships in the same way non-gay couples can.

Voting No isn't going to push gay people back into the privacy of their own homes.

The Orthodox Jew who spoke a couple of weeks ago on abc radio stated that in Judaism it was important to impose Jewish values on the non believers

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...y/news-story/23808028e7150ce7d1bb2e8e1eb148d0

"Straight Lives Matter" rally in Sydney to be held next to memorial for gay people killed in the holocaust.

This is by the same mob responsible for those posters linking SSM with child abuse.

More examples of the respectful debate we are having.

That mob pop up in the media from time to time. They like their stunts, although it falls to s**t when their leader has to try and put 2 words together. They hate gays, muslims, africans etc.

 

[raskolnikov]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...t/news-story/4ed027f47b5810e87036450054a8b6dd

I like how the no camp are now accusing the yes camp for the same behaviours they have subjected gay people to for years.

I've been fired for being gay. I've been harassed. I've been spat on.

But that's ok. It's only wrong if it happens to no voters.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Believe it or not Sicko that's actually a falsehood....Inter-family sex has demonstrated no increased hereditary damage.....It's a universal taboo in almost every culture around the world, but it's not for that reason.

Lol what?
Russian royal family and haemophilia not known to you?
And have seen several children with multiple birth defects with first cousin relationship

 

[mxett]

But that's ok. It's only wrong if it happens to no voters.

said no one ever, Treatment like that should be condemned no matter who the victim is

 

[Sainteric]

The Orthodox Jew who spoke a couple of weeks ago on abc radio stated that in Judaism it was important to impose Jewish values on the non believers

Not sure thats quite right, they have never been big on converts per se. Judaism is meant to help the rest of is whilst obviously being exclusive.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

A baker is not allowed to refuse service based on sexual orientation of the customer.

End of story.

Why the confusion?

So you support someone being forced to provide services to someone against their will. Interesting point of view. Very totalitarian of you. Just go to another baker, why would you want to pay someone to provide a service they don't want to?

Has become a massive issue in the US and being highlighted here as a reason to vote no. Your approach is the typical autocratic approach to real issues that may doom this vote. No debate, no discussion and that is what is putting this survey at peril.

 

[Gough]

So you support someone being forced to provide services to someone against their will. Interesting point of view. Very totalitarian of you. Just go to another baker, why would you want to pay someone to provide a service they don't want to?

Has become a massive issue in the US and being highlighted here as a reason to vote no. Your approach is the typical autocratic approach to real issues that may doom this vote. No debate, no discussion and that is what is putting this survey at peril.

Would you support their right to refuse to serve black people as well? Or is it just homophobes that need institutional protection?

 

[Lebbo73]

So you support someone being forced to provide services to someone against their will. Interesting point of view. Very totalitarian of you. Just go to another baker, why would you want to pay someone to provide a service they don't want to?

Has become a massive issue in the US and being highlighted here as a reason to vote no. Your approach is the typical autocratic approach to real issues that may doom this vote. No debate, no discussion and that is what is putting this survey at peril.

I support Gough on this one. Why does a baker need protection from baking a cake for same sex couples? The baker is only costing himself money and goodwill from not baking a cake. If you take the religious angle, I'm pretty sure God didn't tell us to discriminate over who we sell cakes too. Anyway, if bakers don't want to bake a cake for same sex couples, say you're to busy or something. There's no need to make it obvious.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

So you support someone being forced to provide services to someone against their will. Interesting point of view. Very totalitarian of you.

Here's an example of a totalitarian enforcing her right to be served food.

Seriously, you guys are completely and utterly warped.

 

[raskolnikov]

said no one ever

I think you'll find a majority of no voters think this way.

 

[Gough]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...t/news-story/4ed027f47b5810e87036450054a8b6dd

I like how the no camp are now accusing the yes camp for the same behaviours they have subjected gay people to for years.

I've been fired for being gay. I've been harassed. I've been spat on.

But that's ok. It's only wrong if it happens to no voters.

I had some pikies use my ribs like a xylophone. We should get some muscle marys together and give these snowflakes something real to complain about.

 

[Farm Boy]

So you support someone being forced to provide services to someone against their will. Interesting point of view. Very totalitarian of you. Just go to another baker, why would you want to pay someone to provide a service they don't want to?

Has become a massive issue in the US and being highlighted here as a reason to vote no. Your approach is the typical autocratic approach to real issues that may doom this vote. No debate, no discussion and that is what is putting this survey at peril.

If I could bake a cake I wouldn't bake one for the LBGTIP either.

 

[madmug]

but its not based on fear or bigotry, its based on my view of marriage being central to family

So a 'defacto' relationship with children & a home is not a family?

Would SSM allow a loving couple, who may already have children, to be considered a family?

But you'll vote no to deny those couples to be 'a family' under the law? Or even be a legally recognised couple?

Will SSM affect your family? Please dont give an Eric Abetz answer to conflate totally unrelated issues such as freedom of speech & of religion.

So sure vote no.

I think this whole episode, contrived by the Abbott types, religious zealots & the usual hate lobbies, will further distance the bulk of the population from organised & domineering churches. Like with the Churches protection of its clergy over raped & abused children, the churches will be seen for what they really are.

Desperate, selfish, hateful.

They should read the bible.

 

[madmug]

To my mind, the only logical thing that speaks against related and consenting adults 'getting it on' is the risk of passing on genetic damage. It is considered an act of cruelty to condemn any potential children spawned by an incestual couple to a life of disability and congenital defects. While it's not guaranteed that such hypothetical children be born 'damaged' in this way, but the probability is far, far higher in genetically related couples than it is in unrelated couples.

In nature, once a species dwindles to only a few breeding pairs it forms a 'genetic bottleneck' and from then on that species is doomed. Lack of genetic variation means mutation and congenital defects means the end.

I'm just amazed that we have to explain this to people. What do kids learn at school today? What do parents teach kids? Why do people even ask such such obviously dumb questions? We have access to all sorts of good information on the the words biggest information resource, the internet.

Do you think maybe they went to religious schools & learned, ummm, ahhh, not a real lot about the actual realities of life????

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

If I could bake a cake I wouldn't bake one for the LBGTIP either.

I would, but I would not force you to. I value individual freedom over enforcing other people's views, left or right. Hurt feelings are just that, people need to stop being offended about everything. I can't join a Fernwood gym, I don't care, plenty of other options.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Here's an example of a totalitarian enforcing her right to be served food.

Seriously, you guys are completely and utterly warped.

So you equate individual freedoms to state imposed segregation? What you are proposing is actual the same as segregation ie forcing people to comply.

 

[Forward Press]

Think we are confusing a few things here - if it's a private business, as far as I'm concerned they can choose to serve whoever they wish, subject to the law. They should also be able to hire and fire who they wish, subject to the law. If they refuse to serve LGBTI people then LGBTI people can call them out on it and boycott them and take their money somewhere else. If the government legislates for a Sexuality Discrimination Act or something similar then it will be different.

For government and public organisations, though, they should practice inclusive policies as well as complying with the relevant laws.