Gay colors?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, derfred...great posts. My only comment would be that the argument about LGBTI seems to now be very political. Perhaps it had to be that way to force change, but in doing so, it in my opinion, is harming the other side of the argument. As a result another group of people find themselves being persecuted for having their opinions and voicing them...that is equally wrong, and just as bad.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason it has become political is because there are public policies directly affecting the rights of LGBTI people and their families (and, by extension, public attitudes towards LGBTI people).
I agree that sometimes people forwarding this left-wing agenda are not as respectful as they should be, overly emotional - even, and shutting down discussion. People should be able to voice their opinions, but again we should not pretend for a second that opinions are equally valuable morally or intellectually.
If the discussion were gender rights or racial marriage etc., we shouldn't even need to have the discussion in 2017. Anyone that thinks that gay marriage should not be legalised because of religious beliefs are literally wrong - intellectually wrong because the religious beliefs are not founded in truth (as anyone who has genuine intellectual curiosity, reasoning or science skills will tell you) and also morally wrong because of its emotional and social impact of LGBTI people and their families.
I appreciate that at least some here who are subtlety expressing anti-gay marriage views do so tactfully, but please unless you event a time machine do realise that your views are wrong.
I agree that sometimes people forwarding this left-wing agenda are not as respectful as they should be, overly emotional - even, and shutting down discussion. People should be able to voice their opinions, but again we should not pretend for a second that opinions are equally valuable morally or intellectually.
If the discussion were gender rights or racial marriage etc., we shouldn't even need to have the discussion in 2017. Anyone that thinks that gay marriage should not be legalised because of religious beliefs are literally wrong - intellectually wrong because the religious beliefs are not founded in truth (as anyone who has genuine intellectual curiosity, reasoning or science skills will tell you) and also morally wrong because of its emotional and social impact of LGBTI people and their families.
I appreciate that at least some here who are subtlety expressing anti-gay marriage views do so tactfully, but please unless you event a time machine do realise that your views are wrong.
Keg and Defred, with respect to tolerance, the problem is the intolerance of homosexuality (etc) always starts with "I don't like what you are" (that's the politest version) and the the other side is silent on the matter until that is said.
You're asking people who have been abused, assaulted, discriminated against, convicted of criminal offences for being what they are. When was the last time Christians as a group suffered that in Australia?
You're asking people who have been abused, assaulted, discriminated against, convicted of criminal offences for being what they are. When was the last time Christians as a group suffered that in Australia?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at the moment no- at least not widespread. However if you ask the Park Royal hotel near Sydney Airport in the aftermath of the ACL sponsored meeting scheduled there last year, or the staff at ACL who receive weekly threats against their welfare, I think they may disagree. When threats of violence are made against Christian groups for simply meeting together to discuss SSM and an individual (admittedly mentally ill one) attempts to firebomb the ACL offices in Canberra then I start to wonder whether more tolerance (not necessarily agreement) is needed on all sides of the discussion.
Religion is a choice. One you are more than entitled to. It is a choice that less and less people are making but that doesn't take away from one having the right to decide one way or another. Sexuality, gender and race cannot be chosen. It is not fair to compare the two.
Society tollerates Christians knocking on our doors each weekend asking us about our faith, but would we tollerate Muslims doing the same? Of course not.
Well that point is very open to debate at present and the thinking is very fluid, so I don't think you should really be holding it up as necessarily being true. Plenty of people have switched from gay to straight and both sides of the gender divide, suggesting that it is more of a choice than the Gay Lobby would like to admit to.
I certainly have a lot of respect for you, your position within the company and the generally supportive positions you take, however I do have to raise a bit of an issue with such a claim. The ACL is nothing more than a hate group similar to the KKK. They do nothing but campaign against equal rights and this is why more and more folk are trying to distance themselves from the group.
Religion is a choice. One you are more than entitled to. It is a choice that less and less people are making but that doesn't take away from one having the right to decide one way or another. Sexuality, gender and race cannot be chosen. It is not fair to compare the two.
Society tollerates Christians knocking on our doors each weekend asking us about our faith, but would we tollerate Muslims doing the same? Of course not.
Religion is a choice. One you are more than entitled to. It is a choice that less and less people are making but that doesn't take away from one having the right to decide one way or another. Sexuality, gender and race cannot be chosen. It is not fair to compare the two.
Society tollerates Christians knocking on our doors each weekend asking us about our faith, but would we tollerate Muslims doing the same? Of course not.
Anyone that thinks that gay marriage should not be legalised because of religious beliefs are literally wrong
People should be able to voice their opinions, but again we should not pretend for a second that opinions are equally valuable morally or intellectually.
Look up tolerance in the dictionary, and then have a look in the mirror.
Well that point is very open to debate at present and the thinking is very fluid, so I don't think you should really be holding it up as necessarily being true. Plenty of people have switched from gay to straight and both sides of the gender divide, suggesting that it is more of a choice than the Gay Lobby would like to admit to.
If you are suggesting that being gay or transgender is a choice, clearly you haven't thought about this for more than a second. Why would someone choose to be gay, knowing that he/she will not be accepted by many others?
What ís a choice, is coming out for your feelings. Sadly many girls and guys stay in the closet for many years because they are scared to come out. Being bullied at home, school or at work is not something many people fancy. Or having to cope with colleagues who 'just don't like gay people'. Well, no thanks.
We can all do something about this. Open up to other people. Accept that not everyone is the same and don't let stereotypes dominate your feelings about others.
I think it's great that Qantas takes a lead in this debate. The company sends a message to all employees and customers with the sponsoring of Marty Gras. They want an open workplace where everyone will judge people for who they are, in stead of for what they are.
Having to live with a secret, 'acting' to be straight. It must be very depressing.
And in general, very boring. Why don't you just accept that all people are different? Why do so many people not accept the simple truth that same sex marriage is a normal and civil right. Why do some religious groups want to limit other people in living a happy family life? Just because they believe so? That's their choice. No-one forces them to have a same sex marriage. What are they scared of? Stay out of it if you dislike it. But don't limit others in becoming as happy as you are.
Live and let live.
Yes they are entitled to their opinion, but the problem is they aren't just limiting themselves to an opinion but are actually imposing their belief system on others.
It's pretty simple - you are free to impose the practices of whatever belief system you wish on yourself and other consenting parties but aren't free to impose them on anyone else.
It's pretty simple - you are free to impose the practices of whatever belief system you wish on yourself and other consenting parties but aren't free to impose them on anyone else.
Nunc est bibendum
J3pipercub and berealgetreal. No one forcing you guys to buy into this. Either join in or don't. Your call.
Interesting Aerial Perspective The offender in Canberra was 'known to police' and had previously expressed anti Christian sentiments. It's was not the 'coincidence' that you suggest it was but neither can it be classified as a considered and rational act (as much as these things can ever be anyway). That comes direct from a federal copper with 'knowledge of the case'. Interesting though that the crime scene was cleaned and evidence removed before first light the next morning. Highly unusual. A tangent for another day.
This direction this thread has gone though shows the difficulty surrounding discussing this issue is and the inevitable direction it heads. So a quick summary of the last page.
The view held by many people in Australia that marriage should be between one man and one woman has on this thread been compared with racial segregation and labelled 'morally wrong' by pro SSM proponents.
A Christian group standing up for the family and proper upbringing of kids, standing up for traditional marriage; standing up to prevent the sexualisation of children in the advertising; standing up for the poor against gambling, alcohol and drug addition, standing up for the needy in Australian society and around the world, standing up to stop prostitution and sex exploitation, standing up for the right of parents to not have their kids told at school that their gender is 'fluid', has been labelled a 'hate group'. Worse, violence against them has been pretty much excused on that basis.
Le Pingouin asks for examples of the sort of thing that sadly some LGBTIQ people have experienced happening to Christians and then when provided examples excludes the examples as 'just a few people', and not 'Christians as a group'. I forgot to mention the churches in Victoria that have been firebombed in recent years too. You can't have it both ways here. You can't say that bad acts against some gay people occurred to the LGBTIQ community as a whole and then dismiss similar bad acts against some Christians not being agains the Christian community. I don't mind disagreeing with people but please be consistent with your principles.
Personally I don't like getting into a 'who is the biggest victim' type debate. Clearly many LGBTIQ people have suffered much over the years and that is regrettable. Here and now though? In the 21st century?
It's pretty clear that I'm a Christian bloke and much how someone being gay would be fundamental to who they are and influences the way they view the world, a Christian is who I am and influences the way I view the world. Being a Christian for me is as much 'choice' as someone who is same sex attracted has a choice. Being a Christian is fundamental and core to who I am. There are times when I've thought life would probably be easier were I NOT be a Christian. Does this line of thought sound familiar? (There is an interesting side discsioon here about people who also see their identities as a 'Christian' but are same sex attracted. Stuff by Sam Alberry in the U.K. is quite good).
It's actually not that often that Christians knock on doors asking about faith. It's a popular evangelism tool used by the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses but the fact VHFRT doesn't really understand the difference between them and Christians tells me quite a bit. Personally I've no qualms if a Muslim wants to knock on my door. It'd be an awesome opportunity. I'd ask them for their evidence of how the Quran can say Jesus was a 'good teacher' when he actually claimed to be the Son of God- he was either a loon or who he claimed to be; or how the Gospel accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection were corrupted between when they were written 20-30 years after Jesus compared to when Muhammad claimed they were corrupted 600 years later.
I get that people may choose to believe that science has replaced the bible (an assertion very few people have actually looked at with anything approaching intellectual rigour which is ironic when they're claiming that science has rendered the Bible out of date) though I'd suggest that science does more to affirm the bible than to the contrary. In reality though this is a seperate discussion entirely but someone who classified the bible as ' book written by desert dwellers who lived in lean-to's 4000 years ago' clearly doesn't know as much about the book they malign as they should. Again, by all means study it and then dismiss it but to dismiss it without even knowing what it is? So much for the intellectual argument.
So to summarise: those who disagree with SSM are intolerant and the equivalent of racists. Violence against Christians is only against 'some people', not Christians as a group. Violence against 'some people' who happen to be Christians is OK if they're labelled 'hate groups' by those who disagree with them. People who believe in the Bible are unthinking morons who believe in fairy tales and don't believe in science. Did I miss any?
PS: marriage isn't a 'right'. It's something the government got involved with because of the importance of family to society. i guess we can go down that particular rabbit hole another night.
Interesting Aerial Perspective The offender in Canberra was 'known to police' and had previously expressed anti Christian sentiments. It's was not the 'coincidence' that you suggest it was but neither can it be classified as a considered and rational act (as much as these things can ever be anyway). That comes direct from a federal copper with 'knowledge of the case'. Interesting though that the crime scene was cleaned and evidence removed before first light the next morning. Highly unusual. A tangent for another day.
This direction this thread has gone though shows the difficulty surrounding discussing this issue is and the inevitable direction it heads. So a quick summary of the last page.
The view held by many people in Australia that marriage should be between one man and one woman has on this thread been compared with racial segregation and labelled 'morally wrong' by pro SSM proponents.
A Christian group standing up for the family and proper upbringing of kids, standing up for traditional marriage; standing up to prevent the sexualisation of children in the advertising; standing up for the poor against gambling, alcohol and drug addition, standing up for the needy in Australian society and around the world, standing up to stop prostitution and sex exploitation, standing up for the right of parents to not have their kids told at school that their gender is 'fluid', has been labelled a 'hate group'. Worse, violence against them has been pretty much excused on that basis.
Le Pingouin asks for examples of the sort of thing that sadly some LGBTIQ people have experienced happening to Christians and then when provided examples excludes the examples as 'just a few people', and not 'Christians as a group'. I forgot to mention the churches in Victoria that have been firebombed in recent years too. You can't have it both ways here. You can't say that bad acts against some gay people occurred to the LGBTIQ community as a whole and then dismiss similar bad acts against some Christians not being agains the Christian community. I don't mind disagreeing with people but please be consistent with your principles.
Personally I don't like getting into a 'who is the biggest victim' type debate. Clearly many LGBTIQ people have suffered much over the years and that is regrettable. Here and now though? In the 21st century?
It's pretty clear that I'm a Christian bloke and much how someone being gay would be fundamental to who they are and influences the way they view the world, a Christian is who I am and influences the way I view the world. Being a Christian for me is as much 'choice' as someone who is same sex attracted has a choice. Being a Christian is fundamental and core to who I am. There are times when I've thought life would probably be easier were I NOT be a Christian. Does this line of thought sound familiar? (There is an interesting side discsioon here about people who also see their identities as a 'Christian' but are same sex attracted. Stuff by Sam Alberry in the U.K. is quite good).
It's actually not that often that Christians knock on doors asking about faith. It's a popular evangelism tool used by the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses but the fact VHFRT doesn't really understand the difference between them and Christians tells me quite a bit. Personally I've no qualms if a Muslim wants to knock on my door. It'd be an awesome opportunity. I'd ask them for their evidence of how the Quran can say Jesus was a 'good teacher' when he actually claimed to be the Son of God- he was either a loon or who he claimed to be; or how the Gospel accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection were corrupted between when they were written 20-30 years after Jesus compared to when Muhammad claimed they were corrupted 600 years later.
I get that people may choose to believe that science has replaced the bible (an assertion very few people have actually looked at with anything approaching intellectual rigour which is ironic when they're claiming that science has rendered the Bible out of date) though I'd suggest that science does more to affirm the bible than to the contrary. In reality though this is a seperate discussion entirely but someone who classified the bible as ' book written by desert dwellers who lived in lean-to's 4000 years ago' clearly doesn't know as much about the book they malign as they should. Again, by all means study it and then dismiss it but to dismiss it without even knowing what it is? So much for the intellectual argument.
So to summarise: those who disagree with SSM are intolerant and the equivalent of racists. Violence against Christians is only against 'some people', not Christians as a group. Violence against 'some people' who happen to be Christians is OK if they're labelled 'hate groups' by those who disagree with them. People who believe in the Bible are unthinking morons who believe in fairy tales and don't believe in science. Did I miss any?
PS: marriage isn't a 'right'. It's something the government got involved with because of the importance of family to society. i guess we can go down that particular rabbit hole another night.
Nunc est bibendum
In reality you're doing the exact same thing the ACL is doing. You're attempting to convince people that your beliefs are right, that the views contrary to yours are Wong, and your view should be supported by society.
It's such a shallow, vacuous line of argument, devoid of any self awareness, and it holds no water when discussing the wider issue of SSM.
Nunc est bibendum
in fact, this campaign for me has in fact wound back that 'open workplace'. I'm very conscious that what I post here could be used against me in the workplace. A lot of others who disagree with SSM are equally concerned about what this campaign could mean in the future if a contrary opinion is proffered at the wrong time or place.
Keg, I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm not denying you anything. You however are denying something to to those who wish to enter into SSM. That's the difference and those who oppose SSM can't see that or wilfully ignore it. It has zero impact on your personal rights to believe what you want, practice whatever faith or belief system you want and doesn't inhibit anything you do.
It's exactly the same argument as for rights based on gender or "race". Or are they vacuous too?
It's exactly the same argument as for rights based on gender or "race". Or are they vacuous too?