Marriage equality

[notliondown]

I do see a pervading sense of "right" in the Yes campaign and to be honest it worries me. There is a real sense of righteousness across the left side of politics worldwide - we've seen it with Clinton for example where the sense of entitlement and a very condescending approach to differing voices or opinions disenfranchised the middle ground very quickly.

The same is almost happening here with this debate. And I just don't get the need for some on the Yes side to be so outraged all the time when all it's done is undermine their own argument. It's almost as if some have forgotten the issue and it's more become about dominating the debate.

The reality was that there was every indication that before the vote the Yes side was comfortably in front according to all the polls. Of course that would settle once the vote was called but by and large I think the country was ready for this.

Blind Freddie could see the course the No side would take - it's be repeated around the world. But the Yes vote need to be careful.

Having the moral high ground isn't justification for chest beating. Or lecturing. Or belittling or badgering. Trotting out actors and sport stars and musicians, while confirming what the Yes side already believe, does little to convince the middle ground. Trying to convince people to agree because someone famous does, or someone successful does or beautiful does is hollow, vacuous and condescending.

The Yes side need to stop preaching or it will backfire. Not every Yes vote needs a twitter photo. Or Facebook like.

Reach out to people. Talk to them not at them. Take them on your journey don't expect they already know it. Ask them to understand you don't expect them to believe you just because you said to. Regain the belief of the middle ground by inclusion not demands.

Maybe I'm just nervous about the result but it seems there hasn't been a lot of lessons for learned for some who should know better, despite some really recent glaring examples of what not to do.

 

[carnthemlions]

I'm a little confused as to what you're arguing with that statement. If it's about voting no makes you a homophobe and therefore more deserving of a punch then that's a pretty untrue argument to make. As I said earlier I have two gay friends voting no. I don't think they're homophobic they're openly and proudly gay. I don't think tony hates his sister either.

All I'm saying is no one deserves to be beaten over an opinion. Not one opinion over another makes you deserving of a coward hit on any side of any argument.

If you don't think Tony's a homophobe, I don't know what to tell you. You can focus on a couple of individuals all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that having a negative opinion of a group isn't mitigated by having a friend/relative who happens to be part of that group.

I do see a pervading sense of "right" in the Yes campaign and to be honest it worries me. There is a real sense of righteousness across the left side of politics worldwide - we've seen it with Clinton for example where the sense of entitlement and a very condescending approach to differing voices or opinions disenfranchised the middle ground very quickly.

The same is almost happening here with this debate. And I just don't get the need for some on the Yes side to be so outraged all the time when all it's done is undermine their own argument. It's almost as if some have forgotten the issue and it's more become about dominating the debate.

The reality was that there was every indication that before the vote the Yes side was comfortably in front according to all the polls. Of course that would settle once the vote was called but by and large I think the country was ready for this.

Blind Freddie could see the course the No side would take - it's be repeated around the world. But the Yes vote need to be careful.

Having the moral high ground isn't justification for chest beating. Or lecturing. Or belittling or badgering. Trotting out actors and sport stars and musicians, while confirming what the Yes side already believe, does little to convince the middle ground. Trying to convince people to agree because someone famous does, or someone successful does or beautiful does is hollow, vacuous and condescending.

The Yes side need to stop preaching or it will backfire. Not every Yes vote needs a twitter photo. Or Facebook like.

Reach out to people. Talk to them not at them. Take them on your journey don't expect they already know it. Ask them to understand you don't expect them to believe you just because you said to. Regain the belief of the middle ground by inclusion not demands.

Maybe I'm just nervous about the result but it seems there hasn't been a lot of lessons for learned for some who should know better, despite some really recent glaring examples of what not to do.

I can't agree with you here. The yes campaign's been quite inclusive and positive from what I've seen, so I struggle to see where this sort of perspective is coming from. It's not a left/right thing either (not that there's much of a 'left' in australian politics anyway), really- there are plenty of people in the liberal party who support ssm too. If more people than expected vote no, I wouldn't be looking at the yes campaign as the cause.

I know it's easy to see all political campaigns in the same light after things like brexit and trump, but I don't think this is really comparable. If ******* Ireland can do it, we surely can (even if it's a sham).

 

[Jivlain]

I grew up a very devout Christian, though I left the faith a few years back. Yet I remember what I believed back then.

I believed you should love your neighbour as yourself.
I believed you should be prepared to sacrifice to help others, even if you didn't know them well.
I believed you should neglect material riches in favour of thoughtfulness and charity.

Actually, I still believe all of that. I'm far from the best at it, but I do give it a go.

I have no idea where, in the last few years, this idea that the most important thing, the most vital, the most defining thing about being a Christian is enforcing on the entire population, this one particular rule from deep in the background material (though not the adjacent rules against mixed textiles or eating prawns, apparently) as opposed to literally anything that Jesus talked about.

 

[Billy Puller]

If you don't think Tony's a homophobe, I don't know what to tell you. You can focus on a couple of individuals all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that having a negative opinion of a group isn't mitigated by having a friend/relative who happens to be part of that group.

I can't agree with you here. The yes campaign's been quite inclusive and positive from what I've seen, so I struggle to see where this sort of perspective is coming from. It's not a left/right thing either (not that there's much of a 'left' in australian politics anyway), really- there are plenty of people in the liberal party who support ssm too. If more people than expected vote no, I wouldn't be looking at the yes campaign as the cause.

I know it's easy to see all political campaigns in the same light after things like brexit and trump, but I don't think this is really comparable. If ******* Ireland can do it, we surely can (even if it's a sham).

Okay then by definition tony fears and hates his sister. Completely untrue.

My two gay friends fear and hate other gays I see them often so frightened they seek shelter in the loving embrace of other men.

I have a negative opinion on Collingwood supporters does that make me racist? We all know they're a different breed.

It's a question about marriage. Not a question about fear or hatred. Don't cloud the isssue. Throwing the homophobic angle out there imo is so much more damaging to the argument. And to be quite honest not completely true. Obviously there would be cases where people vote no because they are homophobes. But to lump everyone in that same group is so far from the truth.

Back to the violence aspect if you honestly can say that tony is somehow more deserving of being hit then another person than I fear the message you teach those around you. Violence needs to be met with a 0 tolerance approach coward attacks are one of the biggest stains on Australian society. The damage they can cause is horrendous.

 

[3KZ is Football]

I'm surprised the head butting assailant could find Abbott's head, he usually has it up his arse for safekeeping.

 

[winged1]

I'm surprised the head butting assailant could find Abbott's head, he usually has it up his arse for safekeeping.

I put this in the same classification as the Bowers headbutt incident - probably deserved it.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Don't give two shits about the politics of it all, the campaigning, the headbutting, all that crap. For me that just clouds the issue and most likely the divisiveness nature of a Boolean approach to the issue was what was intended by those who pushed for it. I've read all the reasoning about why people would vote one way or another and for me it boils down to one question...

Do you think homosexuals are less than human?

Because a negative response to the context of that question is the only way I can see people would vote No.

It's an awful way to put it and I've held off from typing that question. It cuts deep for many, because they've grown up being told that. Because believing that homosexuality is sub-human would be the only reason to deny someone the same rights as other humans in a society.

I've heard it said that people voting No should own their reasoning for that. I agree with that and disagree. Whether it's fear, ignorance, or hatred (and those are all interrelated on this issue to varying degrees) that causes someone to hold that view, that view can always be changed. If not we wouldn't have arrived at a time in our society where this is being talked about.

I grew up in that very 1980s world of arse-bandits and NTTAWWTters, Eddie Murphy and Rodney Rude jokes. And I was in on those jokes even though in my teenage naivety I didn't really understand them beyond broad brushstrokes. I realise now it was because society as a whole was fixed on the sex angle - after all NTTAWWTs took it (and gave it) up the bum and that's not what you were supposed to do with your willy.

But I would encourage people who are considering to vote No to ask gay or lesbian acquaintances about what it was like growing up being told there was something wrong with them, that they weren't a part of "proper society". It's one And if you don't have anyone you can talk to about that, then it probably says a lot about why you hold those views.

This isn't about sexual intercourse. After all there's a lot of heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex. Should they be told they can't marry?

This isn't about children or families. There is no legal requirement on a married couple to have (or attempt to have) children any more than there is there a legal requirement to be married in order have children.

This isn't about Jesus, Jehovah or any other deity and/or prophet. As argued elsewhere, organised religion of any kind has no claim on the institution of marriage. People have been married for a long time in civil marriages without being smitten down. If the churches want to ban their ministers or whoever from performing same-sex marriages then, while I don't think that's cool, that's up to them. And no one is forcing anyone to belong to a church.

This is about marriage. The legal union between two people who wish to share their lives, assets and enjoy those benefits. You cannot sensibly seek to deny that for others. It's the essence of civil rights.

If you're voting No, you're either bigoted, prejudiced or just haven't though about it enough. (And if it's the latter, then you really shouldn't be voting at all.)

 

[Hollow Knight]

Its funny people on her are calling effectively for tokirence and respect for the gay community but movking and being intolirent if Christians

Intolerant of what, their desire to impose their particular religious dogma on people who don't subscribe to it?

We are either a secular country or we aren't.

I am absolutely tolerant and respectful of religion to the point where they insist that we have to be subject to its expectations as well, then we have a massive problem.

Your attempt to draw a comparison between Christians and the LGBTI falls over there.

They aren't forcing non-gay people to marry people of the same sex. They are simply fighting for their right to do so.

The religious groups who have decided to wade in aren't fighting for their personal choice. They are seemingly insisting on deciding for others. That is aggressive and an overreach and will naturally attract and equal and opposite reaction.

That they feign shock and claim victim status when it happens is ridiculous. That people actual buy into it shows the privileged position and influence the church still wields in today's society. They are far from a poor victim.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I grew up a very devout Christian, though I left the faith a few years back. Yet I remember what I believed back then.

I believed you should love your neighbour as yourself.
I believed you should be prepared to sacrifice to help others, even if you didn't know them well.
I believed you should neglect material riches in favour of thoughtfulness and charity.

Actually, I still believe all of that. I'm far from the best at it, but I do give it a go.

I have no idea where, in the last few years, this idea that the most important thing, the most vital, the most defining thing about being a Christian is enforcing on the entire population, this one particular rule from deep in the background material (though not the adjacent rules against mixed textiles or eating prawns, apparently) as opposed to literally anything that Jesus talked about.

Outstanding post. I hope more Christians like you express this sentiment, because I know there are plenty out there.

Infinite respect for the Christians who (in the midst of various powerful Christian leaders making unchallengeable proclamations based on their particular picking and choosing of obscure pieces of scripture) have the character, independent thought and judgement to simply strip it all back and reorient themselves on the core philosophy of Christianity... tolerance, love, standing up for the marginalised and powerless, and leaving the Judgement to God.

Kudos Sir!

 

[Skoob]

Bit of a tangent but related, and I've posted before that this is my issue with religions in general. In the world of Christianity, there are so many different teachings, but even within one church there are different beliefs. How then can you staunchly defend what is the belief of your church/religion.
On SSM alone, there have been clergy from Anglican, Uniting, Catholic churches who have come out in support of SSM. I imagine the easy answer from those using "belief" as a reason to vote no, is that those individual clergy are just wrong. But this is where it gets tricky. Those who follow a church or religious faith, mostly haven't formed their own ideas from scripture (ignoring that is written by a small few), but have been guided by individuals (mostly men) to an understanding of what THEY think their religion means.
The cop out then is to say "it is my belief". It is your belief, that you have been taught by someone who tells you what THEY believe. It fits your own ideas and you are comfortable with that. There are many Christians now who believe SSM is okay. How is it they can make it fit within their beliefs? I guess they have strayed and will be punished? I mean in some cases we are talking about leaders of your churches. If they are so wrong, should they not be expelled or whatever?
No, I think religion is a convenient 'get out of jail card' that not all religious devotees feel the need to use.

 

[Hollow Knight]

It's actually more than a little concerning how many people are blind to both ancient and modern history and therefore willing to write figurative blank cheques and wave through anything that is done in the name of organised religion (not talking about faithful individuals), as though there is an assumed altruism to it all. Like all large, powerful and influential bodies, it needs to be watched like a hawk. It's bad enough that they don't pay tax.

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”

- Hitchens

 

[spotthedog1]

I grew up a very devout Christian, though I left the faith a few years back. Yet I remember what I believed back then.

I believed you should love your neighbour as yourself.
I believed you should be prepared to sacrifice to help others, even if you didn't know them well.
I believed you should neglect material riches in favour of thoughtfulness and charity.

Actually, I still believe all of that. I'm far from the best at it, but I do give it a go.

I have no idea where, in the last few years, this idea that the most important thing, the most vital, the most defining thing about being a Christian is enforcing on the entire population, this one particular rule from deep in the background material (though not the adjacent rules against mixed textiles or eating prawns, apparently) as opposed to literally anything that Jesus talked about.

Cheers mate. A good post.

If you've read a few of my past posts on religious belief and LGBTQI issues, you'd know that I agree with most of what you're saying, and sadly it does get lost in this issue. There are two separate issues here though - one is the treatment of the people, and the other is the issue of marriage.

Any LGBTQI people here, I want to make it known that above all else, I love you and value you as a person. There is no question in my mind that all people hold equal value, regardless of their religious beliefs, sexual preferences, race, or any other issue. I denounce, absolutely, any person issuing hate speech against gay and lesbian people. That groups like Westboro Baptist Church describe themselves as a 'church' makes me sick. I have in the past, and would not hesitate in the future, to defend gay people against attack.

I completely agree with you that the commandment to love your neighbour is far more important than commandments against specific behaviours. Religious attitudes towards all people should always be an attitude of love. I try to practice this daily. I don't always succeed, but I try. In my discussions with gay and lesbian people in the day-to-day, it is absolutely important that they are included in that love. They are people, made in God's image, and are completely loved by Him.

I'll also agree that churches and Christian groups have talked about the issue far too much. It's understandable in the present debate, with all that is going on, but over the last 50 years, it has been something focused on too much. Thankfully, many churches now have far more going on. My church has divorce-support groups, assists with counselling for victims of sexual trauma, and talks far more about third world poverty than we do about same sex marriage. I'm sure most here would agree that this is the way it should be. In my experience, most modern day churches operate along these lines, though understandably, the controversial issues are always the ones that get the most publicity in media, etc.

That said, I do, as does Jesus, draw a distinction between loving a person and loving specific actions. Your reference to 'mixing textiles' is obviously a reference to the Levitical law. It's worth noting that this is a Jewish law, and under the covenant of Abraham, still applies to modern day Jews. For Christians though, the Levitical laws were completely fulfilled through Jesus, and we now operate under the covenant of Jesus, which focus on grace. This is why prohibitions against textiles, different meats, etc, no longer apply. The idea that God designed men and women to fit together though, and designed one for the other, which is backed up through various other verses, still applies. Reading through any of the four gospels, you'll note that Jesus was completely for loving people, and supporting the downtrodden, but did not shy away from condemning wrong action (note the difference: love the person, but don't approve of behaviours or actions).

This is something that many Christians separate out, but that many same-sex marriage supporters can't seem to grasp. Reading through this thread, I can see many occasions where people have suggested that it's impossible to love gay people, but be against same-sex marriage. Or even that voting no makes someone a homophobe (which I find ridiculous - I've met several gay people voting no, as have others in this thread by the sounds of it). I know that some will see it as a fine distinction, but I see it as an excellent idea for daily living, regardless of a person's beliefs. Two people can disagree on one issue without actually disliking each other. People are far more complex than any one issue. Hating a person for one attribute, thought, or opinion is a ridiculous idea. Much better for you, and for them, to love them and support them, even if you disagree with one position they hold.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Spotthedog I appreciate that on your side that you feel you are giving the gay community love and respect.

But since we are talking about what each side doesn't "understand" then we have to look at the other side of the coin.

Love and respect aren't just the purview of the giver but also the receiver. They are things that are felt or not felt.

So I think you have to understand that as much as Christians preface their arguments with "I unreservedly love and respect gay people and have defended them in the past, I don't judge them as people etc", the fact that you believe that there is something inherent and inalienable about gay people (or thaw things they do) that precludes them from having access to a social custom/right/instutution is going to FEEL to a lot of people in the LGBTI community that they aren't being respected or loved.

To many, the actions are more important than the words.

In short, there are many Christians who genuinely believe they love and respect the gay community. But the gay community isn't feeling it.

Something is getting lost in translation.

 

[spotthedog1]

There are many Christians now who believe SSM is okay. How is it they can make it fit within their beliefs? I guess they have strayed and will be punished? I mean in some cases we are talking about leaders of your churches. If they are so wrong, should they not be expelled or whatever?

Ignoring the rest of your post, but I can answer this very simply.

There are various verses that apply to certain situation because of a cultural understanding. A prime example was that women in the old testament were told to have their heads covered. This was because, in that day and age, not covering your head was considered immodest, and many who did this were actually prostitutes. When a verse tells a woman to cover her head, it wasn't about actually covering their head - culturally, it was understood to mean "dress yourself modestly and wholesomely".

Context is very important. Some people argue that contextually, homosexuality was wrong back then, but under a modern context, it is more normal and more reasonable. They argue that, back then, homosexuality was culturally considered abnormal and immoral, so those verses applied, but now is considered normal and fine, and as such, it doesn't apply in this culture.

I disagree with this interpretation, as it seems to me that it's more about how God designed the two genders to be complementary. Also because in Biblical regions where it was considered normal practice, it was still warned against.

Regardless, no, I haven't met any Christians who think that those who disagree on same sex marriage should be cast out. Gay people are always welcome in my church (as with any other church I've ever visited), and from experience, are treated exactly the same as any other person - as it should be. I'm also certain that several people from my church will vote yes. I don't know of any person who will give any of them a hard time for that. Our church regularly debates various issues of Biblical or cultural importance, and this is generally well-received and supported. Genuine debate, on the issues, generally results in greater understanding.

 

[spotthedog1]

Spotthedog I appreciate that on your side that you feel you are giving the gay community love and respect.

But since we are talking about what each side doesn't "understand" then we have to look at the other side of the coin.

Love and respect aren't just the purview of the giver but also the receiver. They are things that are felt or not felt.

So I think you have to understand that as much as Christians preface their arguments with "I unreservedly love and respect gay people and have defended them in the past, I don't judge them as people etc", the fact that you believe that there is something inherent and inalienable about gay people (or thaw things they do) that precludes them from having access to a social custom/right/instutution is going to FEEL to a lot of people in the LGBTI community that they aren't being respected or loved.

To many, the actions are more important than the words.

In short, there are many Christians who genuinely believe they love and respect the gay community. But the gay community isn't feeling it.

Something is getting lost in translation.

Can't say I disagree with any of this. It's important that the gay community does feel loved and respected, and I have no doubt that the majority of them don't feel that from the church, which I feel is a terrible shame. As I've said though, this issue tends to receive far more attention simply because it's contentious, and the various things that the church do well tend not to, including on LGBTQI issues.

I'd also likely disagree with you on what this means though. You'd suggest that if the church aren't clearly enough showing that love, that they should drop their opposition to SSM. I'd say that we have to work a lot harder on ways to display that love, while not condoning that which we view is wrong. It's a challenge, no doubt, but i completely agree that the church in general aren't doing great at making LGBTQI people feel loved and accepted.

I'd put plenty of blame on the church for that, not to mention several politicians (*cough* bernardi *cough*) who seem to love the controversy and are highly divisive. That said, when Christians have tried to show that love, it hasn't always been accepted. Particularly not in the media, as News Corp, etc, have clearly chosen their side, and we haven't seen a lot of balanced journalism on this issue. It's also very difficult to do in mass media. We've seen attempts at it with groups like the Bible Society trying to make an ad where a gay person and a Christian sit down for a beer - agreeing to disagree, but still displaying tolerance and love towards each other. Sadly this wasn't well received despite it being very tame and uncontroversial, and what I understand to have been the start of a campaign pushing both sides to display tolerance and love was cut short before it even started.

I don't know what the answer is. Mass media is a very tricky medium, and we can't (and shouldn't) tell the news what to print. It's far easier face-to-face, and I'm glad that my gay friends know that I love them unequivocally. I know that this isn't true of all LGBTQI people though, and it's something that the church really does have to work at to improve.

 

[Skoob]

Ignoring the rest of your post, but I can answer this very simply.

There are various verses that apply to certain situation because of a cultural understanding. A prime example was that women in the old testament were told to have their heads covered. This was because, in that day and age, not covering your head was considered immodest, and many who did this were actually prostitutes. When a verse tells a woman to cover her head, it wasn't about actually covering their head - culturally, it was understood to mean "dress yourself modestly and wholesomely".

Context is very important. Some people argue that contextually, homosexuality was wrong back then, but under a modern context, it is more normal and more reasonable. They argue that, back then, homosexuality was culturally considered abnormal and immoral, so those verses applied, but now is considered normal and fine, and as such, it doesn't apply in this culture.

I disagree with this interpretation, as it seems to me that it's more about how God designed the two genders to be complementary. Also because in Biblical regions where it was considered normal practice, it was still warned against.

Regardless, no, I haven't met any Christians who think that those who disagree on same sex marriage should be cast out. Gay people are always welcome in my church (as with any other church I've ever visited), and from experience, are treated exactly the same as any other person - as it should be. I'm also certain that several people from my church will vote yes. I don't know of any person who will give any of them a hard time for that. Our church regularly debates various issues of Biblical or cultural importance, and this is generally well-received and supported. Genuine debate, on the issues, generally results in greater understanding.

In short then, your's is a personal belief (as is the belief of anyone), not a religious one. You are not making a religious argument, but what YOU personally believe. You may acknowledge that, but at the same time use it as an excuse; "I respect... but my religious belief is". Maybe stop prefacing your beliefs as religious or your faith. They are just your belief. Adding "religion" to your statement does not add validation, because others share your religion, but not your beliefs.

When a verse tells a woman to cover her head, it wasn't about actually covering their head

They argue that, back then, homosexuality was culturally considered abnormal and immoral, so those verses applied, but now is considered normal and fine, and as such, it doesn't apply in this culture.

I disagree with this interpretation,

Surely you see the irony, and exactly my point, when one verse is no longer literal, but another you choose to still stand (or there abouts).

I did also want to briefly go back to your longer post and address one snippet that sums it for me;

There are two separate issues here though - one is the treatment of the people, and the other is the issue of marriage.

They are the same issue. Maybe not for you, but if not most, then many.
When you speak of "design" and that is the view of many Christians, physical design becomes a poor argument against marriage. If you accept people to be homosexual, then the behaviours exist without marriage. Marriage isn't about sex, or procreation, as these already exist. So to accept those already participating in these functions, there remains no logic to deny their legal union.

 

[spotthedog1]

In short then, your's is a personal belief (as is the belief of anyone), not a religious one. You are not making a religious argument, but what YOU personally believe. You may acknowledge that, but at the same time use it as an excuse; "I respect... but my religious belief is". Maybe stop prefacing your beliefs as religious or your faith. They are just your belief. Adding "religion" to your statement does not add validation, because others share your religion, but not your beliefs.


Surely you see the irony, and exactly my point, when one verse is no longer literal, but another you choose to still stand (or there abouts).

I did also want to briefly go back to your longer post and address one snippet that sums it for me;

They are the same issue. Maybe not for you, but if not most, then many.
When you speak of "design" and that is the view of many Christians, physical design becomes a poor argument against marriage. If you accept people to be homosexual, then the behaviours exist without marriage. Marriage isn't about sex, or procreation, as these already exist. So to accept those already participating in these functions, there remains no logic to deny their legal union.

Yes, it's my belief. I don't claim to speak for every person who claims to be Christian. I don't see what you're arguing there. I'm not hiding behind anything - I've been quite vocal and adamant about what I believe.

No, I see absolutely no irony there. One can quite easily take any religious text out of context. Hell, one can quite easily take any book out of context. Putting things in to context does not make any other section wrong. I have given you what I believe to be the contextual meaning of two different sections. About 90% of Christians and Biblical scholars agree with me. Some people disagree with me. Funnily enough, there are some who disagree with me on the homosexuality part, and there are also some who disagree with me on the head-covering part. But despite your suggestion that religious people just believe whatever they're taught, many of us have done significant research, reading from various scholars, and then make up our own minds. This is encouraged in the church.

And for your last section, I'm really struggling to follow your logic. I can't seem to figure out what you think marriage is about except that it's about legal implications, which is the most bizarre definition of marriage I've ever heard. Most SSM advocates at least say that it's about commitment or something similar. Besides, your argument that marriage is about legal recognition falls over at the fact that legal recognition already exists through the states, most of which already register civil unions, and there has been incredibly low uptake among the gay community, which indicates to me that it's got nothing to do with legal standing.

 

[carnthemlions]

Okay then by definition tony fears and hates his sister. Completely untrue.

My two gay friends fear and hate other gays I see them often so frightened they seek shelter in the loving embrace of other men.

I have a negative opinion on Collingwood supporters does that make me racist? We all know they're a different breed.

It's a question about marriage. Not a question about fear or hatred. Don't cloud the isssue. Throwing the homophobic angle out there imo is so much more damaging to the argument. And to be quite honest not completely true. Obviously there would be cases where people vote no because they are homophobes. But to lump everyone in that same group is so far from the truth.

Back to the violence aspect if you honestly can say that tony is somehow more deserving of being hit then another person than I fear the message you teach those around you. Violence needs to be met with a 0 tolerance approach coward attacks are one of the biggest stains on Australian society. The damage they can cause is horrendous.

Like I said, if you don't think Tony's a homophobe I can't help you. His stance is very well established. By the way, based on some of the s**t he's said it seems like he thinks his sister is somehow a lesser mother because she's gay or something like that.

I'm not the one clouding the issue here m8. You've always got a lot to say but I don't think you really spend a lot of time trying to understand what others are saying. What I said was that someone having a go at Tony because he hates gay people is NOT the same as attacking someone because they're gay. Both bad, both different. Geddit?

By the way, the cops had to contact Tony before he filed a complaint. He was more interested in talking to the media first, and one of his staffers said the guy didn't say anything about marriage either. Tony now says the only safe thing to do is vote no.
Make of that what you will.

 

[mikey127]

Intolerant of what, their desire to impose their particular religious dogma on people who don't subscribe to it?

We are either a secular country or we aren't.

I am absolutely tolerant and respectful of religion to the point where they insist that we have to be subject to its expectations as well, then we have a massive problem.

Your attempt to draw a comparison between Christians and the LGBTI falls over there.

They aren't forcing non-gay people to marry people of the same sex. They are simply fighting for their right to do so.

The religious groups who have decided to wade in aren't fighting for their personal choice. They are seemingly insisting on deciding for others. That is aggressive and an overreach and will naturally attract and equal and opposite reaction.

That they feign shock and claim victim status when it happens is ridiculous. That people actual buy into it shows the privileged position and influence the church still wields in today's society. They are far from a poor victim.

Browndog I respect you as a great contributor on here but if you think its only religious people that impose there beliefs have a listen to Dawkins who encourages atheist to mock and ridicule religious people.

I am being asked should the marriage act be changed and I am simply answering that question admittedly based on my beliefs. Whilst I know you don't believe the Bible for those who believe its true it shapes our beliefs and if it is true maybe society has a fews things wrong.

 

[mikey127]

I put this in the same classification as the Bowers headbutt incident - probably deserved it.

Meanwhile if you said a woman deserved it we'd be outraged. So violence is ok unless its against women? Is that what you think?

 

[notting18]

I am being asked should the marriage act be changed and I am simply answering that question admittedly based on my beliefs. Whilst I know you don't believe the Bible for those who believe its true it shapes our beliefs and if it is true maybe society has a fews things wrong.

If your view on marriage is based on your belief, why would the law being changed affect you? You will believe that marriage should be between a man and woman irrespective of whether the law says it is limited in that way or it isn't.

If it doesn't affect you, why do you care?

 

[winged1]

Meanwhile if you said a woman deserved it we'd be outraged. So violence is ok unless its against women? Is that what you think?

I think the only people who deserve to be f@#$ed up are people who get all indignant on a bit of levity.

 

[spotthedog1]

I think the only people who deserve to be f@#$ed up are people who get all indignant on a bit of levity.

Genuine question - if an anti-SSM campaigner had made a joke about headbutting gay people, would it have been acceptable to write it off as a bit of levity?

 

[winged1]

Genuine question - if an anti-SSM campaigner had made a joke about headbutting gay people, would it have been acceptable to write it off as a bit of levity?

Well going back to the original post I think Abbott is an arse hole, I also think Bowers is an arse hole. So independent of which side of the debate they are on, if I thought they were an arse hole and got headbutted, by being somewhere they probably shouldn't be, it wouldn't really matter.

I am finding it rather amusing the righteous few getting shredded in general discussion. So please continue with this little piece of misdirection.

 

[Caiphus]

I'm a little confused as to what you're arguing with that statement. If it's about voting no makes you a homophobe and therefore more deserving of a punch then that's a pretty untrue argument to make. As I said earlier I have two gay friends voting no. I don't think they're homophobic they're openly and proudly gay. I don't think tony hates his sister either.

All I'm saying is no one deserves to be beaten over an opinion. Not one opinion over another makes you deserving of a coward hit on any side of any argument.

Just because someone is gay doesn't disqualify them from being homophobic. I mean you can be a woman and a misogynist. Hell, I'm straight and I've had consensual sex with scores of women that I have both hated and feared. Anyone is entitled to be a campaigner regardless of sexual preference and coming out as gay doesn't magically wash away all the problematic and bigoted thinking you have absorbed over the years that may have kept you in the closet. That coming out at all is still such a difficult and stressful event just goes to show how easy it is to internalise homophobia.