The off topic thread 3.0

[Bojan KantKick]

Jews, Muslims and Pagans were getting married long before the jesus christ pipe dream.

Thank * society is moving on from the church. The bible is an absolute joke and those referencing it in defence of anything should be laughed at.

 

[Jatz]

Here are two water fountains.

One for coloured people.

One for white people.

What? They both get the same thing, water. What's the issue?

Here's a bus.

Black people sit at the front.

White people sit at the back.

What? They both get the same thing, a seat on the bus. What's the issue?

And to answer two other questions

1) The rule of law existed before Christianity. The Code of Hammurabi, laws enacted by the Babylonian King, predates the birth of Jesus by 1700 years.

And guess what....they include reference to marriage, divorce and adoption.

Marriage was literally a contract between two families with written terms and conditions about what would happen if there was a death/the marriage failed etc etc.

Babylonians, Greeks, Romans etc all had established laws before Christianity.

2) courts no longer require you to swear on a bible.

How do you feel about the following, especially if it helped to get it passed by the pollies?

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.

 

[SM]

How do you feel about the following, especially if it helped to get it passed by the pollies?

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.

I'd go back to the point about marriage pre-dating Christianity and most other religions and ask why they are being catered to?

 

[Jatz]

I'd go back to the point about marriage pre-dating Christianity and most other religions and ask why they are being catered to?

You'd have to ask your local MP. I don't know why they're being catered to but they are. Unless they decide they won't (seems unlikely), it's not a terrible solution imo. But that's obviously just me.

 

[SM]

You'd have to ask your local MP. I don't know why they're being catered to but they are. Unless they decide they won't (seems unlikely), it's not a terrible solution imo. But that's obviously just me.

So we should cater for them even though we don't know why we're catering to them? Seems a bit silly to me. I'd rather say everyone can get married and it can be called marriage. Christian priests don't currently have to marry Muslims/Jews/Atheists - and generally those people don't want a Priest marrying them anyway - but the ceremonies are still marriages.

 

[Jatz]

So we should cater for them even though we don't know why we're catering to them? Seems a bit silly to me. I'd rather say everyone can get married and it can be called marriage. Christian priests don't currently have to marry Muslims/Jews/Atheists - and generally those people don't want a Priest marrying them anyway - but the ceremonies are still marriages.

I agree with you. The politicians don't seem to though.

I don't think they should cater to them but as you say, they currently do (for whatever reason, only they would know I guess). So how do we move past that? Will either come because someone will get a large political gain out of it, or, they figure out a way that keeps most of everyone happy.

 

[SM]

I agree with you. The politicians don't seem to though.

I don't think they should cater to them but as you say, they currently do (for whatever reason, only they would know I guess). So how do we move past that? Will either come because someone will get a large political gain out of it, or, they figure out a way that keeps most of everyone happy.

Politicians should listen to their electorates rather than the other way around.

 

[DapperJong]

You'd have to ask your local MP. I don't know why they're being catered to but they are. Unless they decide they won't (seems unlikely), it's not a terrible solution imo. But that's obviously just me.

It's not great though.

You're asking a lot from both "the church" and any gay couple wanting to get married.

You're asking "the church" to accept homosexuality (which they will never come out and say). Then you're asking a gay couple to enter a system that fundamentally sees them as living in sin.

Whether it's called marriage or civil unions has naught to do with it.

 

[Jatz]

Politicians should listen to their electorates rather than the other way around.

Agreed. I don't really think they do most of the time though. I only ever see ours when it's election time anyway.

 

[Jatz]

It's not great though.

You're asking a lot from both "the church" and any gay couple wanting to get married.

You're asking "the church" to accept homosexuality (which they will never come out and say). Then you're asking a gay couple to enter a system that fundamentally sees them as living in sin.

Whether it's called marriage or civil unions has naught to do with it.

That's a valid point.

 

[DapperJong]

That's a valid point.

I don't blame religious people for this stance (going to hell sounds scary af).

The two can coexist

 

[Jatz]

Good statement from the club.

 

[Jatz]

I don't blame religious people for this stance (going to hell sounds scary af).

The two can coexist

Interesting times we live in. Thankfully people much smarter than myself are paid to make the big decisions.

 

[Cooldude]

View attachment 418248

Good statement from the club.

Reads like "we are totally supporting it but won't say it explicitly because we don't wanna piss anyone off"

 

[Jatz]

Reads like "we are totally supporting it but won't say it explicitly because we don't wanna piss anyone off"

Essentially is I guess. Everyone has the right to express their views on it though. The club explains that's the way they see it but realise that ultimately it's an individual choice.

I think the way they've backed their stance is a good way to go about it.

 

[Loonerty]

Interesting times we live in. Thankfully people much smarter than myself are paid to make the big decisions.

Don't sell yourself so short.

 

[Shoei]

How do you feel about the following, especially if it helped to get it passed by the pollies?

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.

Nope!

The difference is that religious people get to do it in the religious venue of their choice. We've already said church's will retain the right to discriminate against who they will and won't "marry"

Did you also know under state Various state laws you can marry your cousin/aunt/uncle....but gay people nope.

 

[Spanish Sahara]

Nope!

The difference is that religious people get to do it in the religious venue of their choice. We've already said church's will retain the right to discriminate against who they will and won't "marry"

Did you also know under state Various state laws you can marry your cousin/aunt/uncle....but gay people nope.

Tassie and SA??

 

[typeclub]

View attachment 418248

Good statement from the club.

Lol pathetic virtue signalling.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Jews, Muslims and Pagans were getting married long before the jesus christ pipe dream.

Thank **** society is moving on from the church. The bible is an absolute joke and those referencing it in defence of anything should be laughed at.

Its time for Scientology to take over.

 

[FAITH]

I just don't tell my missus about FAITH.

I always thought you were homosexual for some reason.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Its time for Scientology to take over.

Tom Cruise running the world. Pass.
Don’t even like many of his movies.

 

[FAITH]

Gays keep talking bout equality, but have no issue bringing a child into the world which will be raised by 2 mums but no dad or 2 dads and no mum.
How is that equality for the child?

IMO the gay community are full of themselves and being selfish.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Tom Cruise running the world. Pass.
Don’t even like many of his movies.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Gays keep talking bout equality, but have no issue bringing a child into the world which will be raised by 2 mums but no dad or 2 dads and no mum.
How is that equality for the child?

IMO the gay community are full of themselves and being selfish.

Straight community have no issue getting divorced and having children raised by 1 Mum and no dad or 1 dad and no Mum. As unfortunate as that is there’s hardly a whimper in the community about how unfair that is for the child(ren).