Gay colors?
Yeah but there are other organisations 'in the box' as well as the Christian Churches. For example, we heard of abuse at the Scouts, swimming, YMCA as well as the do-gooders who transported young children from Blight to Oz in the 1940s and 1950s. Just sayin"
Or everywhere else around the world... what was it, 4000 cases in the Greater Boston area in the US alone... and not sure the other institutions have carried out the world-wide perversion of justice that some of the churches have and for as long and to the degree.
Um, Scouts is a Christian based organization, YMCA stands for Young Men's CHRISTIAN Association... so it is more prevalent and some would say orchestrated and allowed to flourish in Church related organizations... they had the advantage of having indoctrinated young people, threatening them with hell or God's wrath if they told anyone. Let's not kid ourselves.
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?
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 23rd Feb 2017 at 10:31. Reason: add content
Nunc est bibendum
Talk about appalling. This thread was going down hill and High and Flighty"s comments are appalling. That said, some of the follow up stuff has been equally appalling.
I had a longer response to other points raised but I'll leave that for tomorrow. For the time being though, it's been eons since either the Scouts or the YMCA have been 'christian' organisations. My scoutmaster in the early '80s was an atheist. To conflate them as other than that is propaganda at its finest.
I had a longer response to other points raised but I'll leave that for tomorrow. For the time being though, it's been eons since either the Scouts or the YMCA have been 'christian' organisations. My scoutmaster in the early '80s was an atheist. To conflate them as other than that is propaganda at its finest.
HighAndFlighty - pprune at its worst. I can't believe this topic deserved a single post let alone 11 pages. The whole thread should be deleted as it is only giving the worst of pprune a forum to spill bile and hatred.
it is not the business of the State to tell them who they can marry
Any reasonable person would agree that lesbianness, gayness, queerness, non-hetero sexual etecetcness broadly fit into one of the following three categories:
(a) lifestyle choice
(b) mental illness, or
(c) genetic defect
(a) lifestyle choice
(b) mental illness, or
(c) genetic defect
Qantas are taking quite an overt stance on the issue of SSM as there is advertising in support of it in their terminals. I wonder what equalitycampaign are paying for their advertising. What started as a discussion on colours painted on the side of a plane has now become a discussion on the issue of SSM and it has also gone beyond the sponsorship of the Mardi Gras. It should be moved to Jet Blast. I think its interesting that the plebiscite was voted down because of the alleged hate speech that would ensue and create mental health problems for teenage LGBTIQ (still no one has answered what the difference is between the G and the Q BTW). Given Kegs reasonable post about his beliefs (that I also share) and the vilification that he has received in response, I wonder what the Labor party was really concerned about in blocking the plebiscite legislation. I am confident that there would be a lot of "hate" speech and anger directed at one group engaging in the discussion, I just don't think that you can automatically assume that it is the LGBTIQ community.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plebiscite bid failed because internal Labor polling showed that they backed the wrong horse. The SSM crowd are using the same failed tactics that were used by the republic movement in the late 90's and are equally doomed to fail. Australians hate forced cultural change. They hate being told what to think. They despise being told that they need to reflect the cultural mores of another country and they hate specious arguments dressed up as "equality". These tactics work in political circles and in inner city Melbourne and eastern Sydney, but politicians and the media forget that Australia is bigger than a few suburbs. (I can't help but notice the lack of technicolor flags on QANTAS aircraft flying into regional airports, nor gay advertising at same.)
Marriage is a social cultural construct and as such the Australian people will determine the requirements, as is our right as a democracy. It is true that Howard legislated that marriage is between a man and a woman, it is also true that this represents Australian society and the intent of the Australian marriage act of 1961. In 1961 it was never thought that cohabitating gays would try to appropriate the term marriage.
Reading these pages it would seem that the bigger issue most pro SSM people have, is the fact that the tenets from which our social construct was built were founded on Judeo Christian principles. It would seem that this (SSM) is merely a convenient vehicle for people to rail against society. If your push for SSM is based on hatred then your argument is no better than the worst biggot.
Marriage is a social cultural construct and as such the Australian people will determine the requirements, as is our right as a democracy. It is true that Howard legislated that marriage is between a man and a woman, it is also true that this represents Australian society and the intent of the Australian marriage act of 1961. In 1961 it was never thought that cohabitating gays would try to appropriate the term marriage.
Reading these pages it would seem that the bigger issue most pro SSM people have, is the fact that the tenets from which our social construct was built were founded on Judeo Christian principles. It would seem that this (SSM) is merely a convenient vehicle for people to rail against society. If your push for SSM is based on hatred then your argument is no better than the worst biggot.
Last edited by psycho joe; 23rd Feb 2017 at 23:17.
If your push for SSM is based on hatred...
Unlike the religious right, people pushing for SSM don't actually care what anyone else does in their personal lives.
The bible will probably even be updated one day as it invariably does, to reflect SSM being the societal norm it will no doubt eventually be.
It has a habit of doing that. As soon as something starts been seeing as bit too barbaric for current times God seems to have a change of heart and orders old mate to come out with a new hip version that the kids can get down with.
I'm not sure who's actually writing this thing though. It would be nice to know who has a direct line of communication with God. I've got a few questions for him.
Nunc est bibendum
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-J.../dp/0310339308
Never know. Perhaps after reading his book and reading the Bible you may work out the answer to the second point so you can ask your questions.
Last edited by Keg; 24th Feb 2017 at 01:19.
That's a false assertion. I don't care what people do in their personal lives but the issue of marriage and the strength of it is a societal issue. We've seen quite clearly how society is trending these days with marriage breaks down and what has occurred since marriage has decreased in the seriousness it was once held. Perhaps the 'religious right' are actually concerned about upholding something that is good for families (that children know and are brought up by their biological mother and father), good for society, and aren't keen to see something put forward that is likely to further diminish the status of marriage and result in kids being brought up without knowing their Mum or Dad. At least traditional marriage doesn't design this as an outcome right from the start.
I can only imagine what many women thought, sitting in church being lectured on the sanctity of marriage.
Nunc est bibendum
G'day Potsie. Does your example not indicate that there is a husband who doesn't comprehend the seriousness of marriage and his role as a husband? IE the original principle about the seriousness of marriag still holds. People don't treat marriage as it ought to be treated. Sometimes that's the husband. Sometimes that's the wife. Either way, the point still holds. Anything that diminishes the strength of the marital structure is a bad thing.
The Christian teaching on marriage is for husbands to give of themselves as Christ gave of himself for the church. That's a pretty big ask for husbands. To basically be willing to put the needs of their wives in front of their own. It's a bigger ask than that really when the Christian teaching is that Jesus went to the cross for the failings of humanity- iE the church. As a husband it's a command I often find daunting in it's hugenesss.
So the teaching on marriage has been consistent, the practise of it by frail and crappy humans on the other hand....
The Christian teaching on marriage is for husbands to give of themselves as Christ gave of himself for the church. That's a pretty big ask for husbands. To basically be willing to put the needs of their wives in front of their own. It's a bigger ask than that really when the Christian teaching is that Jesus went to the cross for the failings of humanity- iE the church. As a husband it's a command I often find daunting in it's hugenesss.
So the teaching on marriage has been consistent, the practise of it by frail and crappy humans on the other hand....
Last edited by Keg; 24th Feb 2017 at 03:09.
Nunc est bibendum
I was going to post this the other day. Some of its already been covered but to re-edit will take as long as it took to write originally. Sorry if there is a little bit of repetition of some of the principles I've already advanced. They're probably explained a bit more in depth here though.
I disagree that the SSM proponents are trying to make marriage 'available to all'. They may dress the argument up as 'equality' but I'd have more respect for the principle they were putting forward if they championed the 'right' for people to marry 'whomever they like' as they often suggest. If it actually is 'marriage equality' then why not open it up to Muslims and let them marry 2-3 different wives or indeed anyone who is interested in a polygamous relationship. So I reject the proffered principle that the SSM debate is about 'equality'.
Of course, you will on occasion come across SSM proponents who actually do support extending the definition of marriage to include polygamous and other forms of marriage on the basis of 'equality'. I respect that they are least being intellectually honest when they discuss the principle of 'equality' but suspect that most Aussies would reject that proposition to fully embrace the principle of 'equality' and what it really means. Of course, another contributor has pointed out that the government does in fact prohibit certain relationships deeming them un suitable for marriage- sorry, can't remember who that was- so unless the SSM advocates are wanting to get rid of these restrictions also spare me the BS argument about #equalityforall.
I find it interesting that you say the issue of family is 'irrelevant' Le Pingouion. I think the research is pretty clear that family structure is important. Sure we have divorce (probably too much of it and I reckon an argument can be made that the ease of divorce has probably weakened the institution of marriage) but your line of thinking seems to be 'family structure is already so fractured that SSM fracturing it potentially more won't matter'. That's faulty logic. Heterosexual marriage is practised imperfectly so therefore SSM should be legislated so that it too can be imperfect? That's like when SSM proponents uphold Kim Kardashian getting married and divorced quickly as an example of why they should be allowed to marry. When some heterosexual people treat marriage as a convenience and a joke it doesn't automatically follow that SSM should be allowed because of the dumb things that heterosexual people do and gay people should be able to do that too. That's false logic and when Kim Kardahsian did what she did that weakened the concept of marriage for everyone. It cemented further in some people's minds that it's not an institution that is critically important for the make up of a society and most people who support traditional marriage are horrified at the way some people trash it.
In that respect I think that SSM proponents try and restrict the impact of SSM as not having an impact on my marriage and instead frame the argument around pro traditional marriage supporters as 'denying' someone else something- as we've seen in this thread. Reivelo and Le Pingouin believe they are not imposing anything on me when in fact they are- they're changing the definition of my marriage. They're putting forward the proposition that a mother and a father are irrelevant and the roles are interchangeable. Sure, some families do awesomely well without one or the other (and sometimes sadly both) but I suspect that deep down, most people would want a child to be brought up with the love and care of both their mother and father.
I disagree that the SSM proponents are trying to make marriage 'available to all'. They may dress the argument up as 'equality' but I'd have more respect for the principle they were putting forward if they championed the 'right' for people to marry 'whomever they like' as they often suggest. If it actually is 'marriage equality' then why not open it up to Muslims and let them marry 2-3 different wives or indeed anyone who is interested in a polygamous relationship. So I reject the proffered principle that the SSM debate is about 'equality'.
Of course, you will on occasion come across SSM proponents who actually do support extending the definition of marriage to include polygamous and other forms of marriage on the basis of 'equality'. I respect that they are least being intellectually honest when they discuss the principle of 'equality' but suspect that most Aussies would reject that proposition to fully embrace the principle of 'equality' and what it really means. Of course, another contributor has pointed out that the government does in fact prohibit certain relationships deeming them un suitable for marriage- sorry, can't remember who that was- so unless the SSM advocates are wanting to get rid of these restrictions also spare me the BS argument about #equalityforall.
I find it interesting that you say the issue of family is 'irrelevant' Le Pingouion. I think the research is pretty clear that family structure is important. Sure we have divorce (probably too much of it and I reckon an argument can be made that the ease of divorce has probably weakened the institution of marriage) but your line of thinking seems to be 'family structure is already so fractured that SSM fracturing it potentially more won't matter'. That's faulty logic. Heterosexual marriage is practised imperfectly so therefore SSM should be legislated so that it too can be imperfect? That's like when SSM proponents uphold Kim Kardashian getting married and divorced quickly as an example of why they should be allowed to marry. When some heterosexual people treat marriage as a convenience and a joke it doesn't automatically follow that SSM should be allowed because of the dumb things that heterosexual people do and gay people should be able to do that too. That's false logic and when Kim Kardahsian did what she did that weakened the concept of marriage for everyone. It cemented further in some people's minds that it's not an institution that is critically important for the make up of a society and most people who support traditional marriage are horrified at the way some people trash it.
In that respect I think that SSM proponents try and restrict the impact of SSM as not having an impact on my marriage and instead frame the argument around pro traditional marriage supporters as 'denying' someone else something- as we've seen in this thread. Reivelo and Le Pingouin believe they are not imposing anything on me when in fact they are- they're changing the definition of my marriage. They're putting forward the proposition that a mother and a father are irrelevant and the roles are interchangeable. Sure, some families do awesomely well without one or the other (and sometimes sadly both) but I suspect that deep down, most people would want a child to be brought up with the love and care of both their mother and father.
The Christian teaching on marriage is for husbands to give of themselves as Christ gave of himself for the church.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great posts Keg, very sound.
If that is the case why all this fuss about calling it 'marriage', why not just select a word or phrase that is acceptable to the LGB crowd and go with it? Compromise and leave the word 'marriage' to heterosexual relationships?
Exactly, it suddenly dawned on them that talk of "at least 70% of Australians want SSM" was total nonsense and if the plebiscite was held SSM would be off the table for at least the next ten or twenty years. It also showed that the ALP may know something of the inner city and industrial areas but they know nothing of the wider Australia and the folks who live there. (nor do they care).
This is not about faith and it's not about preference, it's simply about equality under the law.
plebiscite bid failed because internal Labor polling showed that they backed the wrong horse.
most people would want a child to be brought up with the love and care of both their mother and father.
One other thing, where do the proponents of SSM think they came from - the secont shelf of the third row at Colesworths?
