The Law Marriage Equality II

[Old Skool]

Anglican Mainstream: Gays marrying will lead to children being taught about ‘eating human faeces’

Writing about her letter to her MP, Dr Lisa Nolland, lay minister and blogger for Anglican Mainstream, has claimed that legalising same-sex marriage will lead to children being taught risky sexual practises in school, including “eating human faeces”.

Dr Nolland writes that “Legalising gay ‘marriage’ will make mandatory the teaching about gay relationships and gay sex. In the powerful name of LGBT rights, graphic materials like those produced by THT (Terrence Higgins Trust) will become much more mainstream for underage teens.”

She adds that this is “a simply massive issue which has been whitewashed, denied, and ignored by this ‘pro-family’ government. We are in fact damaging children and young people because we are allowing special interest groups access to school populations, knowing that on their sites (which kids are assured provide good advice) they are tacitly or overtly encouraged to experiment with high-risk, psychologically and physically dangerous sex acts which can cost them their lives.”

“We teach our children to wash their hands after going to the toilet; THT’s site resource, “The Bottom Line” (p. 16) describes individuals who gain sexual stimulation by eating human faeces as part of their sex “play”. What madness is happening here?”

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/06/1...ldren-being-taught-about-eating-human-faeces/

 

[cancat]

You know God invented quote tags for reason, yeah?

Leviticus 19:23
If thy neighbours offends thee, thou shalt smite them down and use their blood to write a warning to your enemies

 

[cancat]

My Mother in Laws used to have that opinion.
She missed large portions of all her 9 children's lives, their grandchildren and many,many friends until she realised it was her who was out of step.
Now she accepts everyone for who they are and revels in peoples uniqueness.

Gaining in-laws is an disincentive to any kind of marriage.

 

[Pie eyed]

Actually after 27 years she's turned out to be a Pearler, which I don;t think many husbands could say.
It took 15 years of seeing the world is not what's hypothesised in the bible though.

 

[Gough]

Actually after 27 years she's turned out to be a Pearler, which I don;t think many husbands could say.
It took 15 years of seeing the world is not what's hypothesised in the bible though.

My grandmother had her road to Damascus conversion sitting in a church on Good Friday when she was 88. While she was never particularly devout, she decided that it was all nonsense and for the last 7 years of her life never set foot in a church.
Talking to her about it she said she just found the concept of the afterlife utterly implausible.
Smart on old bird. Would have turned 100 in October this year.

 

[Bosun]

My grandmother had her road to Damascus conversion sitting in a church on Good Friday when she was 88. While she was never particularly devout, she decided that it was all nonsense and for the last 7 years of her life never set foot in a church.
Talking to her about it she said she just found the concept of the afterlife utterly implausible.
Smart on old bird. Would have turned 100 in October this year.

Sounds more like a personal belief shift, nothing to do with intelligence even if it did take 80 odd years to come to that realization. Concept of afterlife is not tied to religion as you perceive it either.

 

[Gough]

Sounds more like a personal belief shift, nothing to do with intelligence even if it did take 80 odd years to come to that realization. Concept of afterlife is not tied to religion as you perceive it either.

The concept of the afterlife is one of the main tenets of almost all religions. I would have thought that if you find one of the main principles of the religion utterly implausible it would cause you to reconsider the rest of the belief structure of that faith.

Besides, the post was made as a small aside to Pie eyed's post about his MIL.

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

SA Salvos distance homophobic comments, but still no to gay marriage:

A spokesperson for the South Australian branch of the Salvation Army has distanced the organisation from international comments that homosexuality was an 'unacceptable urge', but has stood fast on
on the group's anti gay marriage stance.

Major Bruce Harmer said the organisation was also reviewing its stance on gay marriage, but "as it stands today the Salvation Army would uphold the traditional values, being that between a man and a woman."

Major Harmer said he hoped that the last few days of publicity for the organisation over the comments would not discourage public support for the services.
"I hope that people have a big enough view to see that the Salvation Army is not homophobic ...

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/06/18/3527409.htm

 

[Bosun]

The concept of the afterlife is one of the main tenets of almost all religions. I would have thought that if you find one of the main principles of the religion utterly implausible it would cause you to reconsider the rest of the belief structure of that faith.

Besides, the post was made as a small aside to Pie eyed's post about his MIL.

It's also a concept of many a people that don't prescribe to religion as you perceive it. Your comment was nothing more than a snide remark on religionin general.

If one tenet as you put it is enough to deny the whole other practices of that religion, of which many are enlightening and many are discriminatory......well maybe open your mind. Not all Catholics are against same sex marriage for instance but still believe in many of the church's teachings.

 

[Gough]

My other grandmother died a devout Catholic and I was glad for the comfort that her faith gave her as well.

It was really not intended as a backhander, and it meant nothing in the context of my views on gay marriage.

 

[cancat]

A victory for 'equality'.

MEMBERS of a junior netball club have slammed a VCAT decision to allow a 185-centimetre tall, 13-year-old boy interim permission to play in an all-girls' competition.

Despite Netball Victoria discouraging teams from speaking out, the coach, parents and players from one of the boy's rival teams, St Therese's of Essendon, say it would be a disaster if VCAT made the ruling permanent that boys can play in the 15 and under matches.

They fear it would smash girls' confidence on court, and spell an end to girls having the choice to play in a team of their own gender. St Therese's head coach Dianne McCormack wrote to The Age saying it was not a personal comment on the boy, who plays for Banyule in the Parkville Netball association's 15 and under C Grade.

The boy and his father have taken Netball Victoria to VCAT, saying the boy was discriminated against under the Equal Opportunity Act. At a hearing on May 30, the application was adjourned to September and the boy was granted permission to play in the meantime.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/p...lay-in-girls-competitions-20120619-20m40.html

 

[Niximus]

A victory for 'equality'.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/p...lay-in-girls-competitions-20120619-20m40.html

Just highlights the ignorance around about this type of thing. From the club and the boy and his father.

A private club can discriminate as much as they like. The boy may be taking it to court but he has nothing to stand on. I'm free to start my own 'No Barts Club' and only allow one Bart in if I want, it is my club.

The same people who think that this represents 'equality' are the same ones scared that we want to force their churches to perform gay marriages.

 

[CF]

Just highlights the ignorance around about this type of thing. From the club and the boy and his father.

A private club can discriminate as much as they like. The boy may be taking it to court but he has nothing to stand on. I'm free to start my own 'No Barts Club' and only allow one Bart in if I want, it is my club.

The same people who think that this represents 'equality' are the same ones scared that we want to force their churches to perform gay marriages.

I think you will find that even private clubs can be held to anti-discrimination laws as a certain men's club in Melb found out a few years ago.

I do agree this is just over the top really and the girls should be allowed to have leagues that exclude men/boys from playing.

But if this is CC's attempt at drawing a parallel to marriage equality then it is a fail. Same sex couples will still be playing in their own leagues, we would just like the right to call it netball like the other leagues. (to use that metaphor).

 

[sherb]

 

[cancat]

I think you will find that even private clubs can be held to anti-discrimination laws as a certain men's club in Melb found out a few years ago.

So how will religious organisations be exempt from the 'anti-discrimination' laws?

I do agree this is just over the top really and the girls should be allowed to have leagues that exclude men/boys from playing.

But if this is CC's attempt at drawing a parallel to marriage equality then it is a fail. Same sex couples will still be playing in their own leagues, we would just like the right to call it netball like the other leagues. (to use that metaphor).

The 'equality' argument is a complete furphy. Society has many situations where groups have equal opportunities via differing avenues. Men can't go into female changing rooms. 13 yo girls should not have to compete at sports against a 13 yo boy. Civil unions with equal rights to marriage can be provided to homosexual relationships without calling it marriage.

 

[Pie eyed]

A victory for 'equality'.



http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/p...lay-in-girls-competitions-20120619-20m40.html

Who's getting married?

 

[Pie eyed]

So how will religious organisations be exempt from the 'anti-discrimination' laws?



The 'equality' argument is a complete furphy. Society has many situations where groups have equal opportunities via differing avenues. Men can't go into female changing rooms. 13 yo girls should not have to compete at sports against a 13 yo boy. Civil unions with equal rights to marriage can be provided to homosexual relationships without calling it marriage.

The equality argument is only a furphy to those opposed because there is no possible way you can argue the current law is not discriminatory and inequitable.
By writing in the words man and woman Howard put the inequality in plain view, where even an idiot can read it.

Ten seconds after that the issue was no longer about equality to those opposed, by protecting some concocted "tradition" and the Vatican approved model of the Family. As if anyone in the Vatican has a clue about normal family or sexual relationships.

 

[CF]

So how will religious organisations be exempt from the 'anti-discrimination' laws?

That is up to religion to work out how it is to be relevant to the 21st century. Not my problem!

The 'equality' argument is a complete furphy. Society has many situations where groups have equal opportunities via differing avenues. Men can't go into female changing rooms. 13 yo girls should not have to compete at sports against a 13 yo boy. Civil unions with equal rights to marriage can be provided to homosexual relationships without calling it marriage.

Gender segregation is not without it critics, with some contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights, and supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain decency, modesty, female and child safety in particular. I argue that in some cases gender segregation is necessary in society and culturally it is acceptable. But I do point out that in some European countries no segregation exists (or very little anyway) and so males/females share the same facilities.

We even see more and more unisex toilets going up all over the place now because it cheaper and it takes less space.

But again this is a completely different issue to allowing same sex couples to marry and I suggest if you want to discuss gender segregation then start a thread about it. I mean allowing a few hundred same sex couples to be "married" is not the end of the world and your responses are a complete over reaction to it. It wouldn't even effect your life in anyway I suspect.

 

[cancat]

That is up to religion to work out how it is to be relevant to the 21st century. Not my problem!

Jews, Muslims and Christians have 'worked out' that their teachings oppose gay marriage. People who support gay marriage should respect that. Your answer puts you in the category of 'I only care about me and my kind'. How is that better than the religions?

Gender segregation is not without it critics, with some contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights, and supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain decency, modesty, female and child safety in particular. I argue that in some cases gender segregation is necessary in society and culturally it is acceptable. But I do point out that in some European countries no segregation exists (or very little anyway) and so males/females share the same facilities.

We even see more and more unisex toilets going up all over the place now because it cheaper and it takes less space.

Having a bob each way there CF Get off the fence! Gender segregation is not an issue in Australia.

Not sure what you mean about unisex toilets. All workplaces have seperate toilets, as do pubs, footy grounds, airports. The only unisex toilets are single person toilets which by default segregate.

Interesting that you mention gender segregation for the purposes of decency, modesty, female and child safety. We segregate genders because of the sexual attraction between heterosexual males and females. Should homosexuals be segregated from heterosexuals? That would be equality right?

 

[CF]

Jews, Muslims and Christians have 'worked out' that their teachings oppose gay marriage. People who support gay marriage should respect that. Your answer puts you in the category of 'I only care about me and my kind'. How is that better than the religions?

Wrong again. You were the one complaining about how religious dogma is becoming at odds with anti-discrimination laws. My answer was that it is up to religion to work out how they fit into modern society, not me. I am an atheist so I hardly think I am in a position to offer them advise. Also as an Australian citizen I am subject to those same laws, just as you are, and any religious body. I respect the laws of this country and even though I don't agree with some wholeheartedly I am willing to bend in order to reach an equitable solution. Something the church is not prepared to do.

Having a bob each way there CF Get off the fence! Gender segregation is not an issue in Australia.

Not sure what you mean about unisex toilets. All workplaces have seperate toilets, as do pubs, footy grounds, airports. The only unisex toilets are single person toilets which by default segregate.

Interesting that you mention gender segregation for the purposes of decency, modesty, female and child safety. We segregate genders because of the sexual attraction between heterosexual males and females. Should homosexuals be segregated from heterosexuals? That would be equality right?

You brought up gender segregation with your comments about change-rooms etc. So my comment was very valid. As I said that issue has nothing to do with this topic and is just another red herring you like to throw in all the time. I find your propensity to come up with silly scenarios to argue your point rather detracts from anything you have to say. So now you are saying that sexual and gender apartheid is equality. Maybe you'd be better off coming up with a cognisant response rather than trying to just use childish point scoring all the time.

 

[cancat]

You brought up gender segregation with your comments about change-rooms etc. So my comment was very valid. As I said that issue has nothing to do with this topic and is just another red herring you like to throw in all the time. I find your propensity to come up with silly scenarios to argue your point rather detracts from anything you have to say. So now you are saying that sexual and gender apartheid is equality

My consistent point is that the arguments for gay marriage based on 'equality' are baseless. My scenarios illustrate this. Our society accepts gender segregation which is what we could term 'gender inequality' - but there is no real inequality; it's just different. Same as if we had civil unions for homosexuals - with same rights and 'responsibilities' (I can recommend a good lawyer ) as heterosexuals.

 

[Old Skool]

A group of Chicago christians who showed support at a 2010 gay pride rally and made a statement on the churches treatment of homosexuals.

A man, by the name of Nathan, is the one you see above hugging the gay guy in his underwear, or Tristan rather. Well, Nathan wrote a blog about this day and this moment and what his and his fellow church-goers had done. Here is what he had to say:

​

I hugged a man in his underwear. I think Jesus would have too.​

I spent the day at Chicago’s Pride Parade. Some friends and I, with The Marin Foundation, wore shirts with “I’m Sorry” written on it. We had signs that said, “I’m sorry that Christians judge you,” “I’m sorry the way churches have treated you,” “I used to be a bible-banging homophobe, sorry.” We wanted to be an alternative Christian voice from the protestors that were there speaking hate into megaphones.

http://www.practikel.com/2012/01/27...o-chicago-gay-pride-holding-apologetic-signs/

 

[Paradigm]

My consistent point is that the arguments for gay marriage based on 'equality' are baseless. My scenarios illustrate this. Our society accepts gender segregation which is what we could term 'gender inequality' - but there is no real inequality; it's just different. Same as if we had civil unions for homosexuals - with same rights and 'responsibilities' (I can recommend a good lawyer ) as heterosexuals.

Likewise.

Am waiting with baited breath for all the "inequalities" of this evil world to be addressed with equal fervour by these posters and their ilk. Those pesky girls schools being first in my sights !!!!!!

 

[Niximus]

Separate but equal is OK is it?

So if we one lot of public toilets for the whites and another for all the non-whites that'd be cool right?

 

[Paradigm]

Separate but equal is OK is it?

So if we one lot of public toilets for the whites and another for all the non-whites that'd be cool right?

Good one Nickster !
This coming from someone who questions the rights of the disabled to have children.... separate but equal ...mmmmm

Those issues have been covered ad infinitum.... this is not an equality issue as has been shown by dozens of examples.