Society/Culture Christians are not the victims in the marriage equality debate

[Procrastinator35]

Yeah, I know. Must be old age kicking in

Sexual preferences among consenting adults are hardly disorders as far as that goes, however. A human is worth far more than just the sum of their sexual activities.

No sex, no humans....Last I checked.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

No sex, no humans....Last I checked.

Yeah, but with our superior intellect we have created test tube babies, and now artificial wombs are at the animal-testing stage

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-...d-one-day-keep-premature-babies-alive/8472960

so we aren't too far off entirely 'tubing' our offspring.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Yeah, but with our superior intellect we have created test tube babies, and now artificial wombs are at the animal-testing stage

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-...d-one-day-keep-premature-babies-alive/8472960

so we aren't too far off entirely 'tubing' our offspring.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

No sex, no humans....Last I checked.

Unless you're god and Mary....

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

View attachment 368482View attachment 368483View attachment 368484

AAAAAH! POD PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

 

[kwikfix]

More than just the marriage equality debate, there are some good points here around the use of the term "victim".

The powerful recognising that by claiming victimisation they can gain even more power, or hold off attempts to make them share power.

The other tactic of those reluctant to part with power is to devalue the idea that "victims" actually exist. Hence the idea that there is some sort of industry of false victimhood. That the victims are actually very well treated and are trying to get more than their fair share.

We see it in the discussion of feminism ("no gender pay gap; lenient sentencing!"), refugees ("country shoppers!"), indigenous rights and assistance (Hanson's "they get too much money" before she switched to attacking Muslims and going for photo-ops in indigenous communities).



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/com...marriage-equality-debate-20170413-gvkf6e.html

some who wield power are beginning to seek ways to harvest this source of empowerment for themselves. They seek to proclaim themselves as victims or to label those who challenge them as perpetrators so that they can have access to the power that being a victim provides.

The bullying employee recognised this and sought to take the narrative of being bullied to herself. She wanted access to the power and protection that being the victim can provide.

For several months now, I have been observing this dynamic gathering steam within the marriage equality debate. Last week, Peter Dutton claimed that equality advocates had bullied businesses into supporting marriage equality and some Christians are claiming victim status. Most of these claims are light on when it comes to specifics and seem to reflect the fact that those against marriage equality are feeling vulnerable as they anticipate the certainty of marriage equality coming to Australia.

Not liking something doesn't make one a victim. Neither does another gaining equality with you. Loss of privilege and status and a changing world can make us feel vulnerable, but they do not make us victims. Genuine bullying needs to be called out in the marriage equality debate as in all aspects of our living. To claim the status of victim as a way to hold on to power diminishes the plight of those who are truly suffering and we need to call that out as well.​

More Marriage Myths from the Militants
May 18, 2017
Activists who push for things like homosexual “marriage” routinely rely on falsehoods, sloppy thinking, emotionalism, and the endless promotion of myths. And one of the most common myths perpetuated by the activists is that it is only religious folks who oppose their agendas, and they should not be allowed a say because we live in a secular nation.

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/05/18/marriage-myths-militants/

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Hey kwikfix, do you oppose the recognition of homosexual marriage yourself? If so, why?

 

[Gough]

Good piece on this topic from today's Graund.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ts-not-what-anti-equality-activists-say-it-is

 

[Seeds]

I still don't get why people care about marriage quality. After two years of living together any couple can get all the legal rights of a married couple that matter in Australia. People who have been living together less than two years shouldn't be married anyway.

You can also still have a wedding without having the government sanctify it. In fact government sanctified marriage seems to be nothing more than a voluntary tax that dupes stupid couples. I don't get why people care. Is it nothing but stupidity?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I still don't get why people care about marriage quality. After two years of living together any couple can get all the legal rights of a married couple that matter in Australia. People who have been living together less than two years shouldn't be married anyway.

You can also still have a wedding without having the government sanctify it. In fact government sanctified marriage seems to be nothing more than a voluntary tax that dupes stupid couples. I don't get why people care. Is it nothing but stupidity?

It's solely about being seen as the exact same as other marriages, even if it means being taxed the same. They're people. We're people. Everybody's people, getting together and doing people things. Trying to lessen the 'us' and 'them' divide, one thing at a time.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I still don't get why people care about marriage quality. After two years of living together any couple can get all the legal rights of a married couple that matter in Australia. People who have been living together less than two years shouldn't be married anyway.

You can also still have a wedding without having the government sanctify it. In fact government sanctified marriage seems to be nothing more than a voluntary tax that dupes stupid couples. I don't get why people care. Is it nothing but stupidity?

Well the concepts of belonging, recognition, socially sanctioned & normalization spring to mind for a start.

 

[Seeds]

It's solely about being seen as the exact same as other marriages, even if it means being taxed the same. They're people. We're people. Everybody's people, getting together and doing people things. Trying to lessen the 'us' and 'them' divide, one thing at a time.

Ah so it's nothing more than stupidity. Got it.

 

[kwikfix]

Hey kwikfix, do you oppose the recognition of homosexual marriage yourself? If so, why?

Same sex marriage is not about “marriage equality” it’s about the loopy left wanting to completely trash the marriage act, to s**t can the traditional family unit and replace it with gender neutral vows. Social engineering brought to you by the same sick Marxist bastards like Roz Ward.

 

[Seeds]

Well the concepts of belonging, recognition, socially sanctioned & normalization spring to mind for a start.

And you can get all of that without a piece of government paper. In fact a piece of government paper provides none of that. I am 100 percent behind all consenting adult relationships being given equal legal rights whether they be straight, gay, threesomes, multi-racial or brother and sister. But government sanctified? Who cares. I would prefer a government didn't get to sanctify mine to be honest as it is nothing to do with them.

 

[Procrastinator35]

And you can get all of that without a piece of government paper. In fact a piece of government paper provides none of that. I am 100 percent behind all consenting adult relationships being given equal legal rights whether they be straight, gay, threesomes, multi-racial or brother and sister. But government sanctified? Who cares. I would prefer a government didn't get to sanctify mine to be honest as it is nothing to do with them.

Unfortunately, the legal constraints to do with the marriage act means it has everything to do with them.

I'm all for non-govt intervention & not giving a s**t about their sanction, but in this particular instance, the church/state bind is a constraint on freedoms.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Good piece on this topic from today's Graund.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ts-not-what-anti-equality-activists-say-it-is

The problematic collapse a pluralistic secular discourse by removing religious opinion from the common sphere of debate is a bigger problem than random heckling on the street by strangers. The former contributes to the later if anything.

Given how poor people are at assuming ones sexuality id take the anecdotal with a pinch of salt.

 

[cartwright]

I still don't get why people care about marriage quality. After two years of living together any couple can get all the legal rights of a married couple that matter in Australia. People who have been living together less than two years shouldn't be married anyway.

You can also still have a wedding without having the government sanctify it. In fact government sanctified marriage seems to be nothing more than a voluntary tax that dupes stupid couples. I don't get why people care. Is it nothing but stupidity?

The govt acknowledges them for tax purposes but can't bring themselves to issue a marriage license.

It's called discrimination. Just because you don't experience it, doesn't mean it's not important to those who are discriminated against.

Same sex marriage is not about “marriage equality” it’s about the loopy left wanting to completely trash the marriage act, to s**t can the traditional family unit and replace it with gender neutral vows. Social engineering brought to you by the same sick Marxist bastards like Roz Ward.

My friends who don't know who their fathers are, would like you to explain the traditional family unit.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Bud, they are not that dissimilar. I’ve met and know some religious nutters – and truly it does not matter what I say, do or think it isn’t going to convenience them that their faith isn’t real. It is almost as if, they really don’t have a choice. Call it a metal disorder. Not that dissimilar to homosexuality. Both deserve equal respect or "sympathy".

In our society of rugged individualism we mistakenly believe people have control over their own moral and ethical formation, but the consensus is that religion is socially inherited even if the drive for religion has some deeper explanation. On the flip side the pedagogical aspects of sexuality is more or less ignored because it's too complicated and muddies our neat reductionist solution.

Had homosexuality remained as a moral failure rather than being medicalised without justification then in all likelihood it would have remained socially unacceptable till this day. Once religiosity is defined as a deficiency then it can be medicated ineffectively, we'll have conversion therapy and a generation down the line they'll be accepted for who they are in light of our grotesque mistreatment of them. As it stands the facts are considerably different for these two groups.

Religious people deserve the same regard as others and as such their views are measurable and open to be judged.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Same sex marriage is not about “marriage equality” it’s about the loopy left wanting to completely trash the marriage act, to s**t can the traditional family unit and replace it with gender neutral vows. Social engineering brought to you by the same sick Marxist bastards like Roz Ward.

Marriage survived the early christian church fathers disapproval of the institution in apocalyptic times, I'm sure it will survive a move back towards a co-dependent economic relationship.

 

[kwikfix]

My friends who don't know who their fathers are, would like you to explain the traditional family unit.

Thats why there are so many ****ed up people in the world, some people should be sterilised.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Thats why there are so many ****** up people in the world, some people should be sterilised.

Oh dear....You just keep digging that grave ever deeper, don't you.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Same sex marriage is not about “marriage equality” it’s about the loopy left wanting to completely trash the marriage act, to s**t can the traditional family unit and replace it with gender neutral vows. Social engineering brought to you by the same sick Marxist bastards like Roz Ward.

Irrational bigoted opinions like this can't be banned, but they don't have to be taken seriously. Pretty soon, they can be ignored completely.

 

[kwikfix]

Irrational bigoted opinions like this can't be banned, but they don't have to be taken seriously. Pretty soon, they can be ignored completely.

I'm a bigot because??? Oh thats right, I don't agree with your marxist view of the world, and should be banned??? geez you must be pissed off that I don't bite when your circle jerk friends throw out the bait.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Same sex marriage is not about “marriage equality” it’s about the loopy left wanting to completely trash the marriage act, to s**t can the traditional family unit and replace it with gender neutral vows. Social engineering brought to you by the same sick Marxist bastards like Roz Ward.

Maybe I can't vouch for their overall agendas, but there are those of us who genuinely believe there should be equal opportunities across the board when it comes to the option to marry. The active wish of 'trashing the marriage act' doesn't even enter our minds. Family units, as far as I can tell, can't be affected. Kids are nothing if not adaptable - it's parents meeting at playgroup that might feel uncomfortable and squeamish.

Kids who were once born 'out of wedlock' and made pariahs in the community are now accepted. Foster kids and adopted kids and kids from divorced or 'broken' homes are now accepted in society. It will be so with children of same-sex parents.

Like from the above examples it's the kids who don't completely absorb their parents' hostility and just want to get on with the serious child-art of having fun that will inherit a more tolerant view and then carry this forward.

Cheers for your honesty, kwikfix. Can't say I agree but it's at least something to think on.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Ah so it's nothing more than stupidity. Got it.

Lessening the 'us' and 'them' divide is stupid then, is it? Righto, at least you're honest. Can you explain why you feel this way though?