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

Status
Not open for further replies.

herculez09

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Posts
7,975
Likes
9,553
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
West Coast
Having never been there but just on my own observations , i wouldn't call the majority of yanks " liberal christians "
Seems more srs bsns there.

Like openly mocking a christian there is more likely to get you shot there than here !!!

But again , never been , it's all based off tv , internet etc
I phrased that badly, perhaps. I meant to say that of the Christian variations in the US, Catholics appear to be the most liberal of the lot. Ie Mormons and evangelicals seem to be much more conservative.

Catholics are only 25ish% of the Christian population there, it seems.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

herculez09

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Posts
7,975
Likes
9,553
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
West Coast
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/3677537...-fire-employees-if-they-get-same-sex-married/

I wonder how much bleating would be done by some Christians if they were fired on the basis of their religion?
Please refer to this post that shows the majority of us are in favour of gay marriage.

Just because the hierarchy and politicians are anti-gay marriage, it doesn't mean the majority are.

To add to that, the majority of Catholics that are against gay marriage, are probably baby boomers and older. So that's partly generational, as well.
 

Showbags

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Posts
5,365
Likes
5,528
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
West Ham Utd
Thread starter #4,880
Please refer to this post that shows the majority of us are in favour of gay marriage.

Just because the hierarchy and politicians are anti-gay marriage, it doesn't mean the majority are.

To add to that, the majority of Catholics that are against gay marriage, are probably baby boomers and older. So that's partly generational, as well.
Hence the use of the word "some" in my post.
 

BustedWing

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Posts
2,389
Likes
1,751
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm not going to spend much time on this. The term 'exclusion of all others' in the amended Marriage Act 1961 does refer to adultery and reflects common law interpretations of Lord Penzance's definition. Bigamy was already covered by Section 94 subsection 1.
Will you EVER answer my question?????


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

BustedWing

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Posts
2,389
Likes
1,751
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm not going to spend much time on this. The term 'exclusion of all others' in the amended Marriage Act 1961 does refer to adultery and reflects common law interpretations of Lord Penzance's definition. Bigamy was already covered by Section 94 subsection 1.
This response makes no mention of procreation... the very point you were trying to make.

sorted - Adultery and bigamy has nothing to do with gay marriage. your comment also does NOTHING to prove your already thoroughly discredited assertion that marriage is a contract to have children.

Are you going to have an honest, earnest discussion, or are you going to troll?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Last edited:

sherb

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
26,855
Likes
19,855
Location
Western Sydney
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Swans
To put this 'poll' in perspective-approx cost $122 Million.
Mathew Guy has just announced that if elected in Vic. will set aside $140 mill to train doctors in the area of pallitive care.
Just goes to show how our taxes could be put to much better use!
It's a disgrace.
 

cartwright

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Posts
6,121
Likes
5,442
Location
here
AFL Club
St Kilda

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sainteric

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Posts
2,012
Likes
1,065
AFL Club
St Kilda
Some massive issues with this, that I would like you to explain. Not that you will of course, you will just ignore this, like you have with my other questions...

* This case you reference took place in England, over 150 years ago. Explain its relevance as it pertains to AUSTRALIAN law in 2017? From wikipedia - bolded my emphasis:

Facts of the case
John Hyde, an English Mormon who had been ordained to the priesthood of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church),[2] brought an action of divorce against his wife, Lavinia,[3] for adultery. He had left the LDS Church and began to write and publish anti-Mormon material,[4] a move that caused him to be excommunicated from the LDS Church.[5] His wife left him,[6] and subsequently remarried in Utah Territory, which was the basis for his suit.

Judgement
Citing Warrender v. Warrender,[7] Lord Penzance found that institutions in foreign countries (including marriage) cannot be considered as valid under English law, unless they resemble the equivalent English institution. With respect to marriage, English law could therefore not recognize either polygamy or concubinage as marriage. Similarly, he found that cultural traditions of which the court had no knowledge could not form the basis for a court decision.[8] The court dismissed John Hyde's claim.


* How does this case, and the subsequent court finding, support your position?

The statement made by Lord Penzance:

The case established the common law definition of marriage. Lord Penzance pronounced, "I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others".[9]


Again - no mention AT ALL with regards to sexual relations.

There are, of course well cited criticisms with using this case as evidence for your side:

Criticism[edit]

The heavy reliance on Lord Penzance's definition of marriage has been criticised on two distinct grounds. First, the original statement was an obiter dictum, meaning it did not establish a binding precedent. Second, this dictum was a defence of marriage and not a definition of it.[15

Then of course, is the fact that this is in reference to a christian definition of marriage which has NO RELEVANCE in a secular society like Australia's.

You are embarrassing yourself.
A Christian definition are the basis of most Australian Laws to say it has no relevance is ridiculous. Poligamy is not specifically outlawed in Australia, but Bigamy under the marriage act may get you 5 years. Sexual relations is implied, and before no case divorces in 1975 adultery was a legal concept which wasn't really repealed till 1994, as was the no gay sex laws last one in Tasmania iirc only recently repealed.
 

roscreasl98

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Posts
7,509
Likes
3,477
Location
Over The Hill
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
All Local Footy
To put this 'poll' in perspective-approx cost $122 Million.
Mathew Guy has just announced that if elected in Vic. will set aside $140 mill to train doctors in the area of pallitive care.
Just goes to show how our taxes could be put to much better use!
Oh, and a political party has never, ever promised Millions of dollars to get votes, then not delivered.
Never ever happened....
 

BustedWing

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Posts
2,389
Likes
1,751
AFL Club
Collingwood
A Christian definition are the basis of most Australian Laws to say it has no relevance is ridiculous. Poligamy is not specifically outlawed in Australia, but Bigamy under the marriage act may get you 5 years. Sexual relations is implied, and before no case divorces in 1975 adultery was a legal concept which wasn't really repealed till 1994, as was the no gay sex laws last one in Tasmania iirc only recently repealed.
The Christian definition has many influences in many aspects of Australian life, but, and here is the important bit: IT IS NOT LAW.

In fact, the idea that Australian law must be disctinctly agnostic and not have any religious persuasion is very clear.

We are a secular society. Your religion will have no basis in deciding how the laws of the land are drawn up.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Forward Press

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
26,425
Likes
33,704
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Man Utd
Yep. And the Left howled at the Libs over pushing it through without a public test.

Oh the ironing.
Meanwhile the Right is patting itself on the back thinking it saved money back in 2004 with a simple Parliamentary vote to change the Marriage Act but the $122m this year is a required expense for democratic purposes.

Oh the ironing.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Posts
17,412
Likes
18,235
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Meanwhile the Right is patting itself on the back thinking it saved money back in 2004 with a simple Parliamentary vote to change the Marriage Act but the $122m this year is a required expense for democratic purposes.

Oh the ironing.
Yes. All sides playing politics. How very unusual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom