Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[Number37]

Its very true.

Like Barnaby, people give into lust and choose to ignore God's ordained marriage between a man and a wife and there are consequences for doing so. Barnaby for the hurt caused. King David for killing Uriah and then his child's death. Because some religious people chose to ignore God's teachings doesn't mean they were right to do so or it was condoned, because it wasn't.

Jesus interaction with the woman accused of adultery shows this.

So you acknowledge that in practice marriage hasn't always been between a man & a woman? (Whether it is right or wrong is a different discussion)

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Oh, no no no. I haven’t been trying to convince you. I gave that up about three exhanges in. I’m trying to make sure no neutrals are fooled by your arguments, that’s all.

Remove me from the question. What would convince you?

To make it easier, and as a gesture of good will, I’ll tell you what would convince me that it’s possible to be anti same sex marriage without being discriminatory.

1) That same sex marriage would cause real harm

2) That real harm would be sufficiently severe to justify the restriction of family and reproductive rights. So on par with, for example, statutory rape, incest, student/teacher relationships, certain arranged marriages (a complicated issue itself), and more severe than, for example, people with genetic predispositons to severe diseases (e.g. cancer), or the extremely poor, or those with low IQ. The logic of this condition is that if you’re not willing to restrict marriage and parental rights to the latter examples, then why to homosexuals, unless that is worse?

I think those are pretty fair, don’t you?

So you're concerned that people who have independent thought and fashion their own opinions may be gullibly influenced to an opinion you don't like because you're opinion is right. Ok got it. So they don't have ability to form opinions either without your assistance?

Dare I say that's persecutorial censorship or propaganda lol

Come on mate this is nonsense.

Why not me form my opinion you form yours and them decide their own based upon whatever. See that wasn't too hard was it.

Tbh I'm a little worried by these comments. They show clear sign of mental health issues. You're trying to control everyone's opinion mate and after 30 pages it's pretty OCD type obsessiveness to that outcome. You should be able to take foot off pedal let bygones be bygones but you are somehow so emotionally invested in outcome that you simply can't do that.

I want this to stop. The whole Bigfooty community wants it to stop. Can't we?

 

[BarneyBent]

So you're concerned that people who have independent thought and fashion their own opinions may be gullibly influenced to an opinion you don't like because you're opinion is right. Ok got it. So they don't have ability to form opinions either without your assistance?

Dare I say that's persecutorial censorship or propaganda lol

Come on mate this is nonsense.

Why not me form my opinion you form yours and them decide their own based upon whatever. See that wasn't too hard was it.

Tbh I'm a little worried by these comments. They show clear sign of mental health issues. You're trying to control everyone's opinion mate and after 30 pages it's pretty OCD type obsessiveness to that outcome. You should be able to take foot off pedal let bygones be bygones but you are somehow so emotionally invested in outcome that you simply can't do that.

I want this to stop. The whole Bigfooty community wants it to stop. Can't we?

Way to avoid the question.

I’m not going to let bygones be bygones, because people with your opinions have a real, tangible, negative effect on people. Of course I’m going to dispute it. Just as I would someone saying the same things about people of other races, or people with predispositions to cancer, or people of lower-than-average IQ.

So, I’ll ask again, what would it take for someone to convince you? Because if you can’t answer that question, then that suggests you’re not actually willing to be convinced, and so you’re not debating in good faith, you’re simply pressing an agenda. Even mtooler, who I probably disagree with on more things, and on a more fundamental level than you, seems to think I’m being fair enough. So either come to the table, or admit you’re not actually interested in a debate, just mindlessly defending your position and attacking anybody who dares suggest it’s discriminatory.

 

[mtooler]

There are a number of examples of polygamy in the Bible though. The Old Testament makes it very clear that polygamy is not forbidden, in fact referencing how one is to treat multiple wives, while the New Testament doesn’t seem to forbid it, it just talks about marriage as typically being between one man and one woman (“one flesh” being used both to describe marriage and hiring a sex worker, so it seems to be a very literal, rather than legal/spiritual term).

Polygamy was practised by tribes in the Arabian peninsula for centuries post-Christianity, many of them practising a form of paganism that was nevertheless heavily influenced by the Abrahamic religions including Christianity (there were some pre-Islamic monotheists, or actually more like mostly monotheists that recognised other gods but placed Abraham as prophet well ahead of the rest, and if I recall correctly both Jesus and Abraham were revered at the Kaaba before the rise of Islam).

Incidentally, alongside China, pre-Islamic Arabian nomadic tribes were also apparently known to practice polygyny (women with multiple husbands).

But basically, long story short, the Old Testament explicitly allows polygamy, polygamy was definitely still occurring during the time of the New Testament and in the subsequent centuries in the sphere of influence of Abrahamic religions, albeit less the norm, and the New Testament does not specifically condemn polygamy, it just doesn’t particularly address it.

On that basis, is polygamy allowed based on Christian law? Or is that a modern sensibility we’ve retrospectively applied?

Yeah I'd say that's a pretty big modern sensibility we've retrospectively applied! Totally 100% disagree with it. To save time just grabbed something off the net. Will be my last post as going to watch a movie. Short story that is anti polygamy in the Bible...

Partial obedience is a peril that plagues us all and results in partial blessing. Before we point our finger at Rehoboam, we need to realize that he inherited a number of problems beyond his control. Although his grandfather David was a godly man in many ways, he never dealt with his weakness for women. In disobedience to the Law of Moses, David multiplied wives for himself. As if all of his beautiful wives were not enough, he committed adultery with Bathsheba and, after murdering her husband, took her as another of his wives. Although God forgave David when he repented, God did not remove the disastrous consequences. David’s sin wreaked havoc in the lives of his adult children. Rehoboam’s father, Solomon, multiplied wives more than David had ever dreamed of (300 wives and 700 concubines)! Rehoboam’s mother was a foreigner, an Ammonitess (2 Chron. 12:13). Solomon’s foreign wives led him into idolatry. As a result, God told Solomon that He would tear the kingdom from him and give it to Solomon’s servant. But on account of David, God promised not to do it in Solomon’s lifetime, but rather to tear the kingdom from his son (1 Kings 11:11-13). That’s Rehoboam! When Rehoboam makes a stupid decision that results in the rebellion of the northern kingdom, the author points out that “it was a turn of events from the Lord,” to establish His word (10:15).

Overly, incredibly long story (Christians can be some of the most long winded people of all time), version of disagreeing can be seen here amognst many other sources no doubt.... https://bible.org/seriespage/1-cohesiveness-marriage-union-genesis-224

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Way to avoid the question.

I’m not going to let bygones be bygones, because people with your opinions have a real, tangible, negative effect on people. Of course I’m going to dispute it. Just as I would someone saying the same things about people of other races, or people with predispositions to cancer, or people of lower-than-average IQ.

So, I’ll ask again, what would it take for someone to convince you? Because if you can’t answer that question, then that suggests you’re not actually willing to be convinced, and so you’re not debating in good faith, you’re simply pressing an agenda. Even mtooler, who I probably disagree with on more things, and on a more fundamental level than you, seems to think I’m being fair enough. So either come to the table, or admit you’re not actually interested in a debate, just mindlessly defending your position and attacking anybody who dares suggest it’s discriminatory.

You are one sick little puppy. I cannot believe I missed this before. This debate is done and I'm no longer going to engage you.

 

[BarneyBent]

You are one sick little puppy. I cannot believe I missed this before. This debate is done and I'm no longer going to engage you.

Lol. Thought as much.

 

[BarneyBent]

Yeah I'd say that's a pretty big modern sensibility we've retrospectively applied! Totally 100% disagree with it. To save time just grabbed something off the net. Will be my last post as going to watch a movie. Short story that is anti polygamy in the Bible...

Partial obedience is a peril that plagues us all and results in partial blessing. Before we point our finger at Rehoboam, we need to realize that he inherited a number of problems beyond his control. Although his grandfather David was a godly man in many ways, he never dealt with his weakness for women. In disobedience to the Law of Moses, David multiplied wives for himself. As if all of his beautiful wives were not enough, he committed adultery with Bathsheba and, after murdering her husband, took her as another of his wives. Although God forgave David when he repented, God did not remove the disastrous consequences. David’s sin wreaked havoc in the lives of his adult children. Rehoboam’s father, Solomon, multiplied wives more than David had ever dreamed of (300 wives and 700 concubines)! Rehoboam’s mother was a foreigner, an Ammonitess (2 Chron. 12:13). Solomon’s foreign wives led him into idolatry. As a result, God told Solomon that He would tear the kingdom from him and give it to Solomon’s servant. But on account of David, God promised not to do it in Solomon’s lifetime, but rather to tear the kingdom from his son (1 Kings 11:11-13). That’s Rehoboam! When Rehoboam makes a stupid decision that results in the rebellion of the northern kingdom, the author points out that “it was a turn of events from the Lord,” to establish His word (10:15).

Overly, incredibly long story (Christians can be some of the most long winded people of all time), version of disagreeing can be seen here amognst many other sources no doubt.... https://bible.org/seriespage/1-cohesiveness-marriage-union-genesis-224

That’s interesting, thanks for that. It certainly conflicts with other elements, and seems to apply to more the sheer quantity, rather than the simple fact of having multiple wives. That said, can certainly see how it can be used to argue the Bible argues against polygamy.

How do you reconcile that with the references to polygamy in the Old Testament and the failure to explicitly condemn anything other than one man, one woman in the New Testament despite that being a relatively common occurance amongst the societies in the Abrahamic sphere of influence?

 

[Kapanis]

Wow, its a long list haha, it would take me a lifetime to explain them all. How confident would you be that the claimed conflicts in the bible on that website are true is one was disproved to you? (Loaded question, I just quickly found one that wouldn't take very long to do haha), but in good faith with you I simply dont have time to prove where all of them are flawed.

This one is probably one of the easy ones that the site says a former pastor compiled, I'd humbly suggest that the pastor kindly reads the couple of verses between Genesis 7:17 and Genesis 7:24 and into Chapter 8 too

Allegation of inconsistency from website
GE 7:24 The flood lasts 150 days (yellow and blue make green)
GE 7:17 40 days (blue)
GE 8:5 Ten Months (green shades)

Not to Bible bash anyone but if people are comfortable with it being on the site I will post it below, highlight the verses and allow people to make their own minds up. Happy for it to be deleted though, my intent isn't to convert or alienate other beliefs here. I prefer the NIV version personally as its interpretation I feel is fairly robust on the whole (commentaries that elaborate Ancient Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek help, but meh, i've already bored people to death on this post thus far, kudos if you're still reading

Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind,everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8

1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

6 After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.

13 By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

...

So long story short, that took ages to do haha and while I love contending for my faith, in good faith I hope you are ok with me not trying to explain all of them away as I simply don't have enough time to do it.

While colour coding to assist readers I am happy for them to draw their own conclusions as to how inconsistent/contradictory the passages of scripture above are without me throwing my 2 bobs worth in.

As I said there's errors. Do you think the entire document is flawed?
How do you explain homo sapien Aboriginal existence in this land for 40,000 years, Africa 180,000 years, South America 25,000 years yet Adam and Eve approx 7000 years?

 

[mtooler]

So you acknowledge that in practice marriage hasn't always been between a man & a woman? (Whether it is right or wrong is a different discussion)

Not really, marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage happens when described in Genesis as the man and woman leaving their families and the two become one flesh. Barnaby committed adultery. Sex before marriage is called fornication. So whatever you're describing that doesn't fit the definition of marriage is something different. But marriage always was and is between a man and a woman in my beliefs. People sleep around, have defacto relationships, prostitution etc but I dont see that as marriage as such, others might, just depends how each person chooses to define marriage. Clearly it appears we define marriage differently. I define it based on the bible.

 

[mtooler]

As I said there's errors. Do you think the entire document is flawed?
How do you explain homo sapien Aboriginal existence in this land for 40,000 years, Africa 180,000 years, South America 25,000 years yet Adam and Eve approx 7000 years?

Its massive, I cant go through it all, but did you understand my reply to it, it took a long time to put together for you.

 

[Kapanis]

Its massive, I cant go through it all, but did you understand my reply to it, it took a long time to put together for you.

Totally, understood.

 

[mtooler]

That’s interesting, thanks for that. It certainly conflicts with other elements, and seems to apply to more the sheer quantity, rather than the simple fact of having multiple wives. That said, can certainly see how it can be used to argue the Bible argues against polygamy.

How do you reconcile that with the references to polygamy in the Old Testament and the failure to explicitly condemn anything other than one man, one woman in the New Testament despite that being a relatively common occurance amongst the societies in the Abrahamic sphere of influence?

A cheeky Christian would point you towards John 21:25, I as such would not do so The closest scripture that talks about the general area of marriage with Jesus and Pharisees is Matthew 22. I don't have time to unpack it for you though.
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’b]" style="box-sizing: border-box">? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

 

[BarneyBent]

A cheeky Christian would point you towards John 21:25, I as such would not do so The closest scripture that talks about the general area of marriage with Jesus and Pharisees is Matthew 22. I don't have time to unpack it for you though.
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’b]" style="box-sizing: border-box">? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Interesting. I admit I’m by no means an expert in scripture (and don’t place any weight it in regardless). I probably only know enough to get me into trouble, somewhat like biopsych, statistics and puke (sorry, couldn’t help having a dig, blame the Thursday night beers), so I’m being careful to frame these very much as questions... but the above reads to me as Jesus suggesting marriage is a thing of the material world, a path towards godliness perhaps, but not something relevant in the afterlife. It says nothing that I can see about polygamy.

You’ve said you don’t have the time to unpack that, and I can respect that. But if you’ve got a quick link I could read that would point me in the right direction that would be cool.

By the way, I appreciate you’re in this debate in good faith. I didn’t intend earlier to disparage your religious beliefs but I recognise it could have come off that way. Just meant that we won’t get anywhere arguing over a point that is a fundamentally irreconcilable difference in beliefs, I’ve learnt from experience that it’s a fast track to nowhere. I’m genuinely keen to hear your views based on scripture, even if I fundamentally disagree with your ultimate position and will probably fight it at every turn!

 

[Number37]

Not really, marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage happens when described in Genesis as the man and woman leaving their families and the two become one flesh. Barnaby committed adultery. Sex before marriage is called fornication. So whatever you're describing that doesn't fit the definition of marriage is something different. But marriage always was and is between a man and a woman in my beliefs. People sleep around, have defacto relationships, prostitution etc but I dont see that as marriage as such, others might, just depends how each person chooses to define marriage. Clearly it appears we define marriage differently. I define it based on the bible.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Barnaby.

What proportion of people at any one time have defined marriage in the same way you do?
I would suggest that at any time in history the proportion would have been less than 35% and more like less than 20% (given the proportion of Christians in the world over time).

Buddhist views on marriage are very straight forward, marriage is entirely a personal and individual thing.
Hindu views on marriage marriage may surprise you, the kama sutra acknowledges 3rd gender (same sex) marriages.
Taoism regarded homosexual sex as neither good nor bad.
Confucianism encouraged close relations between master and pupils which is thought to have indirectly encouraged same sex relations.
China’s greatest novel, “The Dream of the Red Chamber”, written in the late 18th century, includes both heterosexual and same-sex relations.


Again, to suggest marriage has always been defined in your way is simply NOT TRUE.

 

[Mister B]

Took 30 pages in but we finally reached the inevitable stalemate in such a debate.
Christians: The universe can't be made of nothing, how did the material to create the universe get there?
Alternative viewpoint: If materials can't exist without a creator, how can a creator exist without being created itself.

All this from an argument about the Swans engaging with the local community.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Done a little more research on the theories why same sex bubble along at 3% of population and not eliminated as part of natural selection (as is the paradox) under Darwinian model. The answer most suitable IMO seems to be that genetic diversity of itself creates strengths that aid survival. Example: what if a strictly male hetetosexual deadly disease were to arise that decimated all hetero men. Then the gay men would survive and could be turned to to perpetuate the species.

Kinda like a genetic backup plan or having a spare tyre if you get a flat. Better analogy may be a permanent substitute you will only bring into the game as last resort: Jordan Foote

Problematic though

She: come on Bruce PLEASE can you put it in the other hole tonight. It's critical to species.

He: Don't lay that on me again......I'm going out with Bruce ....and don't wait up

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Barnaby.

What proportion of people at any one time have defined marriage in the same way you do?
I would suggest that at any time in history the proportion would have been less than 35% and more like less than 20% (given the proportion of Christians in the world over time).

Buddhist views on marriage are very straight forward, marriage is entirely a personal and individual thing.
Hindu views on marriage marriage may surprise you, the kama sutra acknowledges 3rd gender (same sex) marriages.
Taoism regarded homosexual sex as neither good nor bad.
Confucianism encouraged close relations between master and pupils which is thought to have indirectly encouraged same sex relations.
China’s greatest novel, “The Dream of the Red Chamber”, written in the late 18th century, includes both heterosexual and same-sex relations.

Again, to suggest marriage has always been defined in your way is simply NOT TRUE.

You need to be very careful I believe to distinguish between attitudes toward same sex sexual relations on the one hand and a social construct of marriage on the other. They are entirely different things. Some of the references you offer speak of those attitudes not social constructs or marraige. Your reference to Buddhism in particular on my reading is wrong, it references marriage as a social construct to establish well being of man differentiating it from animal kingdom for harmony and order in procreation. Ie man and woman and uses the concepts of husband and wife specifically and procreation.....which just doesn't happen with scat play. Likewise Hinduism refers to bonding of two spirits on marraige union as husband and wife- ie man and woman

A recent Supreme Court decision in the USA which had nine judges considered the historical precedent of same sex marriage. One of the judges postulated that prior to 2001 he could find no definition in history that suggested marriage was anything other than man and a woman. Three of the judges asked the counsel representing the same sex couple to offer a submission on legal precedents of the contrary definition to discount his findings and that legal representative suggested there were none!!!!! The same sex propaganda Machine then set in motion to find academics who could cite same sex marriages in history and they did with isolated examples. The emperor Nero married a man and a prior emperor married a male child. A tribe in Africa allowed marriage between women where a husband had died. Ok getting a little desperate now where you have to rely on some gay dude in history presiding with unfettered power who chooses to sanctify his own 'marriage'. Likewise the earlier paedaphile. Or an African tribe who offers assistance to a widow

There is ample evidence to support with a few minor exceptions that marriage has always been man and woman. Now it's not. So we bow to our new social construct. Can I smirk?

 

[Number37]

You need to be very careful I believe to distinguish between attitudes toward same sex sexual relations on the one hand and a social construct of marriage on the other. They are entirely different things. Some of the references you offer speak of those attitudes not social constructs or marraige. Your reference to Buddhism in particular on my reading is wrong, it references marriage as a social construct to establish well being of man differentiating it from animal kingdom for harmony and order in procreation. Ie man and woman and uses the concepts of husband and wife specifically and procreation.....which just doesn't happen with scat play. Likewise Hinduism refers to bonding of two spirits on marraige union as husband and wife- ie man and woman

A recent Supreme Court decision in the USA which had nine judges considered the historical precedent of same sex marriage. One of the judges postulated that prior to 2001 he could find no definition in history that suggested marriage was anything other than man and a woman. Three of the judges asked the counsel representing the same sex couple to offer a submission on legal precedents of the contrary definition to discount his findings and that legal representative suggested there were none!!!!! The same sex propaganda Machine then set in motion to find academics who could cite same sex marriages in history and they did with isolated examples. The emperor Nero married a man and a prior emperor married a male child. A tribe in Africa allowed marriage between women where a husband had died. Ok getting a little desperate now where you have to rely on some gay dude in history presiding with unfettered power who chooses to sanctify his own 'marriage'. Likewise the earlier paedaphile. Or an African tribe who offers assistance to a widow

There is ample evidence to support with a few minor exceptions that marriage has always been man and woman. Now it's not. So we bow to our new social construct. Can I smirk?

Your logic has failed you, AGAIN.

How can there be an 'attitude to same sex marriage' without there being same sex marriage (at the very least the possibility of SSM)?
Your reading on Buddhism and Hinduism is very shallow if that is all that you have come up with.

Using terms like "same sex propaganda machine" shows your true colours.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Your logic has failed you, AGAIN.

How can there be an 'attitude to same sex marriage' without there being same sex marriage (at the very least the possibility of SSM)?
Your reading on Buddhism and Hinduism is very shallow if that is all that you have come up with.

Using terms like "same sex propaganda machine" shows your true colours.

I said same sex sexual relations not marriage. If you think there is no propaganda on either side that is extremely naive. Acknowledging existence of propaganda shows nothing other than I believe there is such a thing and I do more firmly now than I ever contemplated at the start of this thread because I've seen it in operation and it's more prevalent for a minority who consider themselves oppressed than it is for majority. Understandable. There most definately is on both sides. I look for answers and will be guided by them. Why? Because unlike most here I have no personal investment in outcome. When I resolve an answer and know the correctness of it no amount of abuse bigotry or intimidation will change it. I didn't resolve the vote until I deliberated immediately when I got the paperwork. I didn't even consider the same sex children issue until a few days ago because it's unimportant to me other than academic interest. True colours? Pretty good song

Buddhism and Hinduism links please. Mine were either direct word for word or slightly paraphrased.

Once again long bows for their own selfish aim....let's not worry about truth.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Your logic has failed you, AGAIN.

How can there be an 'attitude to same sex marriage' without there being same sex marriage (at the very least the possibility of SSM)?
Your reading on Buddhism and Hinduism is very shallow if that is all that you have come up with.

Using terms like "same sex propaganda machine" shows your true colours.

We are getting in ridiculous territory when a gay agenda produced document arising from a supreme court decision in USA which failed to offer ANY evidence in support of ANY definition of marriage prior 2001 other than a man with a woman resorts to citing Neros proclamation to support his own same sex orientation/marriage......you know because he had power to do what he pleased. That becomes soooooooo stupid as to be unworthy of comment BUT that is what litters the gay agenda documents which often have zero foundation whatsoever but that doesn't matter because immediately any ones challenges the nonsense we'll just howl them down as homophobic discriminators.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Your logic has failed you, AGAIN.

How can there be an 'attitude to same sex marriage' without there being same sex marriage (at the very least the possibility of SSM)?
Your reading on Buddhism and Hinduism is very shallow if that is all that you have come up with.

Using terms like "same sex propaganda machine" shows your true colours.

As for comparative logic correct me if I'm wrong but you are the same person who, having little to no knowledge of tax matters would suggest that senior tax partner at KPMG with 30 yrs exp and a specialist tax consultant who at one stage advised other tax agents for a living with 38 yrs experience are both misguided in supporting a strategy you think dodgy. Lmao. Oh mate you crack me up. Rofl. I won't say it.....

 

[Number37]

As for comparative logic correct me if I'm wrong but you are the same person who, having little to no knowledge of tax matters would suggest that senior tax partner at KPMG with 30 yrs exp and a specialist tax consultant who at one stage advised other tax agents for a living with 38 yrs experience are both misguided in supporting a strategy you think dodgy. Lmao. Oh mate you crack me up. Rofl. I won't say it.....

On Wednesday I had a quick read of 4 or 5 articles on tax avoidance + as part of my undergraduate studies I learned all about the purposive approach to statutory interpretation....I became an instant tax expert. Don't you dare tell me I am wrong, because I just told you that I was right.

Isn't that how it works?

 

[Kapanis]

As for comparative logic correct me if I'm wrong but you are the same person who, having little to no knowledge of tax matters would suggest that senior tax partner at KPMG with 30 yrs exp and a specialist tax consultant who at one stage advised other tax agents for a living with 38 yrs experience are both misguided in supporting a strategy you think dodgy. Lmao. Oh mate you crack me up. Rofl. I won't say it.....

Are you Macca Puke? If so thanks for the GF tickets in 12 and 14.

 

[BarneyBent]

As for comparative logic correct me if I'm wrong but you are the same person who, having little to no knowledge of tax matters would suggest that senior tax partner at KPMG with 30 yrs exp and a specialist tax consultant who at one stage advised other tax agents for a living with 38 yrs experience are both misguided in supporting a strategy you think dodgy. Lmao. Oh mate you crack me up. Rofl. I won't say it.....

As a guy who proudly works at one of the big 4, even I’m not so blind to think that necessarily means “not dodgy”. If recent leaks are anything to go by, quite possibly the opposite.

That said, freely admit I have no idea what I’m talking about in terms of tax (I’m in another service line completely) so not actually arguing the point one way or another. I just wouldn’t particularly brandish “KPMG” as a certificate of authenticity, it opens oneself up to some uncomfortable questions.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

On Wednesday I had a quick read of 4 or 5 articles on tax avoidance + as part of my undergraduate studies I learned all about the purposive approach to statutory interpretation....I became an instant tax expert. Don't you dare tell me I am wrong, because I just told you that I was right.

Isn't that how it works?

Cooper Brooke's. Decision. Mate congratulations for doing that. That is good. I apologise for laughing and mocking not nice. Take my hat off to people who seek to understand anything. Happy you are doing a course. There are a myriad of rules of statutory interpretation and yes legislation should take a view consistent with it's aims. Overriding principle is that the meaning must be one capable from the words themselves. That is always the starting point and usually ending point because you expect the draftsman know their stuff. The number if time you need to do anything along purposive lines is 1 in 1000. You cant impute to them something which isn't there though but if there remains two competing interpretations then you give credence to that interpretation consistent with purpose. explanatory memorandum etc.have a wonderful text dealing solely with Statutory interpretation into library can't buy it now

Brings back fond memories on point. must be 15 years ago now. I found an anomaly in the way super contributions are deductible. a person can get a tax deduction for contribtuons he makes to a fund as controlling shareholder in a coy he is also employee in. Created through the wording an anomalous outcome where contributions weren't taxable despite the tax deduction unlimited deductions to non complying fund no fbt Etcetc etc massive drafting stuff up. The implications were massive where unlimited deduction could occur without tax. Clearly unintended. I circulated amongst my contacts the issue. Simultaneously with me finding the loophole another tax solicitor likewise found it and started to market it.

I wasn't going to touch it unless I had certainty it was workable and I had nagging concerns about the anomaly - it shouldn't exist. I sought meeting with Brendon Sullivan QC and his opinion was that it would fail because the court would be obliged to give an interpretation consistent per CB. I did though see other barrister opinions in support but I backed away because if my nsgging concern and Brendon's opinion

6 months later I found out that ATO were actually giving private binding rulings directly on point. I was astounded. So I thought IF I get a PR then client is safe. within a month or two the ATO realised the implcations and made an announcement that they would vigorously attack anyone touching it. The amount of money at stake was massive. Heard on the grapevine that one taxpayer put $100M to get tax deduction!!!!! absolutely crazy stuff....and of course when ATO started waving the stick it was run for hills for them all. I heard that there was something like $1b at stake. lol

Despite being one of two prime movers I didn't touch it and full fed court decision on test case disallowed it. They ended up being obliged to take a view (though not the preferred view on the words) that was consistent with intent. I was prudent and cautious and it paid dividends. A lot of people were burnt.

Back to my strategy. You will need to take my word a simple dividend declared with future payment date can't be attacked under part 1VA because it's an ordinary commercial dealing. there isn't any contentious interpretational issue they are well understood and clear. Purposive won't have impact- rarely does. I could give you a 15 page analysis with sections and case law but I won't the cost would be opportunity of $5k- $10k. And it would bore people to tears

If at days end you think your 4-5 articles reading will give the insights you need then congratulations. We leave it there