The off topic thread 3.0

[elhadjihenry]

My parents are married and their wedding had nothing to do with a ceremony. On the other point: Legitimately?

Because it is the only way they will be allowed the same rights as straight married couples when it comes to things like visitation in a hospital (as one example).

Yep I'm getting married next year and there will be no religious aspect to it whatsoever, it's a civil ceremony and we will then be married under Australian law. Should be no issue with same sex couples being able to do this to have the same rights as a husband and wife.

 

[Jatz]

But that's not what's being offered to them, so how is it even part of the argument?

They're fighting for 'marriage' because currently it is the only way for them to receive these rights.

That's what I'm asking. If they were offered that, would they object to it? My original question was whether the actual rights or being officially recognised as 'married' is more important.

 

[SM]

No argument there. I don't see why religion should play any part in the legal system.

Again, I haven't studied it since school, so perhaps it's now been phased out.

It's never been a thing. You can swear on a Bible if you want but don't need to. They don't even need to in the US.

 

[Loonerty]

That's what I'm asking. If they were offered that, would they object to it? My original question was whether the actual rights or being officially recognised as 'married' is more important.

I don't know.

But that would involve creating something entirely new JUST so their ceremonies didn't have to be called marriage.
To make them separate from everyone else.

Segregation.

 

[Magma]

and here i was thinking my 13 years in catholic schooling would count for nothing.

 

[Quivorir]

It's never been a thing. You can swear on a Bible if you want but don't need to. They don't even need to in the US.

But in Law and Order they have to...

 

[Cooldude]

Offering them all the same rights yet still not granting them official marriage status is basically a slap in the face, telling ya that you are still not normal and you are still lesser

 

[Jatz]

It's never been a thing. You can swear on a Bible if you want but don't need to. They don't even need to in the US.

Seems you're right. Although they do still get used.

https://www.courts.vic.gov.au/court-system/appearing-court/oaths-and-affirmations

An oath is a verbal promise to tell the truth. Oaths are frequently made while holding the Bible, the New Testament or the Old Testament. Witnesses may choose to swear an oath on another relevant religious text. It is not necessary that a religious text be used in taking an oath.

I don't see why that should even be an option in that case. What purpose does it serve?

 

[SM]

Seems you're right. Although they do still get used.

https://www.courts.vic.gov.au/court-system/appearing-court/oaths-and-affirmations



I don't see why that should even be an option in that case. What purpose does it serve?

No idea, religious people get to do what they want and so can non-religious.

Equal rights.

 

[Cooldude]

The only thing that Christianity truly changed about marriage was the concept of monogamy, they didn't invent marriage, they just made it so that it's between two people.

I'm all for polygamy, just saying

 

[Jatz]

I don't know.

But that would involve creating something entirely new JUST so their ceremonies didn't have to be called marriage.
To make them separate from everyone else.

Segregation.

Guess so. Everyone sees it differently I suppose. As I said, my gay aunty could not care less if it gets passed or not. I find it interesting that some of the loudest advocates of the yes vote are of those it does not directly impact. That's not to say it's wrong, I just find it interesting.

I'm a bit like my aunty I guess. I have no objection to it going through at all, it does not impact me one iota. If it makes other people happy, all power to them.

 

[pantskyle]

What we really need is a new prophet to rock up and write a new version of the bible omitting all of the stupid outdated stuff, book would be three pages long including front and back cover.

 

[SM]

The only thing that Christianity truly changed about marriage was the concept of monogamy, they didn't invent marriage, they just made it so that it's between two people.

I'm all for polygamy, just saying

I actually reckon that'll be the next big thing.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I'm all for polygamy, just saying

Playing with fire. More wives means more nagging..

 

[pantskyle]

Guess so. Everyone sees it differently I suppose. As I said, my gay aunty could not care less if it gets passed or not. I find it interesting that some of the loudest advocates of the yes vote are of those it does not directly impact. That's not to say it's wrong, I just find it interesting.

I'm a bit like my aunty I guess. I have no objection to it going through at all, it does not impact me one iota. If it makes other people happy, all power to them.

You like woman?

 

[Jatz]

What we really need is a new prophet to rock up and write a new version of the bible omitting all of the stupid outdated stuff, book would be three pages long including front and back cover.

You sound like just the man for the job!

Get cracking.

 

[SM]

What we really need is a new prophet to rock up and write a new version of the bible omitting all of the stupid outdated stuff, book would be three pages long including front and back cover.

I could do it. As long as they make the musical about me even funnier than that Morman one.

 

[Jatz]

What we really need is a new prophet to rock up and write a new version of the bible omitting all of the stupid outdated stuff, book would be three pages long including front and back cover.

Alternatively, these could work as well.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

What we really need is a new prophet to rock up and write a new version of the bible omitting all of the stupid outdated stuff, book would be three pages long including front and back cover.

Ha. You know those women’s magazines. Some bloke went through them and removed the pages that advertise something. On average they were 14 pages in total.

Getting the consumer to pay for advertising. Marketing geniuses.

 

[Loonerty]

Guess so. Everyone sees it differently I suppose. As I said, my gay aunty could not care less if it gets passed or not. I find it interesting that some of the loudest advocates of the yes vote are of those it does not directly impact. That's not to say it's wrong, I just find it interesting.

I'm a bit like my aunty I guess. I have no objection to it going through at all, it does not impact me one iota. If it makes other people happy, all power to them.

I think like 7% of the population identify as homosexual. And the remaining 93% are essentially going to be making this decision for them.

But they will have several heterosexual friends or family who want the best for their friends or family and want equality for them. So of course you're going to get a lot of hetero people coming out in support of it.

Also, global warming is not going to directly impact me. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything about it?

On your last sentence: that is almost the perfect reason to vote yes. It will do wonders for the happiness of a vast majority of the people it will affect.

 

[pantskyle]

You sound like just the man for the job!

Get cracking.

Ok.

Front cover:
The Bible 2017 Edition.

Page 1:

In the beginning God created nothing, he doesn't exist.
Have sex with whoever you want as long as they are of legal age and they consent. Try not to * animals though, that's a little weird.
Don't judge someone because they look different to you.
Don't be a campaigner.

Back cover:
Photo of me giving the thumbs up. With a speech bubble saying "Nice melt".

 

[elhadjihenry]

That's what I'm asking. If they were offered that, would they object to it? My original question was whether the actual rights or being officially recognised as 'married' is more important.

The specific rights or recognition is not the issue, it's that there shouldn't be one set of laws for male/female couples and one for same sex couples to receive the same rights. I don't think they would care if "marriage" was rebranded to "civil unions" for everyone, and the only people who got "married" were those who wanted to do it under the veil of religion.

Guess so. Everyone sees it differently I suppose. As I said, my gay aunty could not care less if it gets passed or not. I find it interesting that some of the loudest advocates of the yes vote are of those it does not directly impact. That's not to say it's wrong, I just find it interesting.

I'm a bit like my aunty I guess. I have no objection to it going through at all, it does not impact me one iota. If it makes other people happy, all power to them.

Does your aunty want to get married though? Even though she is gay she may not be affected at all either. The issue is not necessarily the impact on specific people but the fact that these human beings are being denied rights that we have purely because of their sexual orientation.

 

[undefined]

I actually reckon that'll be the next big thing.

Mainstream polygamy would take casual sex to a whole new level.

 

[Jatz]

I actually reckon that'll be the next big thing.

How do you think that'll end up? Do you think the support for that will be majority or minority? Think that would be a much harder thing to pass.

 

[Cooldude]

Playing with fire. More wives means more nagging..

The wives would fight amongst themselves instead of nagging you, it's clever diversion