Gay colors?
And the argument about "family" is irrelevant - that boat has long sailed. We have divorce, there is no requirement to have children in wedlock and same-sex couples already raise kids.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people spend far too long going round in circles getting wound up about a very simple concept.
Is it really that hard to just get along with everyone?
In response to the many, "why is there gay Pride and not Christian/Muslim/Straight/insert alternative Pride" - the answer of course being the long history of unjustified persecution of a large number of people based on something really rather irrelevant. To wheel out the rather cliche example - Alan Turing. Did the fact he was gay make him any less of a brilliant mathematical mind? Of course not.
So why should it affect any other person, with other beliefs? As long as their belief doesn't hurt anybody I don't see the problem.
As one of the "younger generation" I'm afraid to report that we see this discrimination as a hallmark of those older people...
Is it really that hard to just get along with everyone?
In response to the many, "why is there gay Pride and not Christian/Muslim/Straight/insert alternative Pride" - the answer of course being the long history of unjustified persecution of a large number of people based on something really rather irrelevant. To wheel out the rather cliche example - Alan Turing. Did the fact he was gay make him any less of a brilliant mathematical mind? Of course not.
So why should it affect any other person, with other beliefs? As long as their belief doesn't hurt anybody I don't see the problem.
As one of the "younger generation" I'm afraid to report that we see this discrimination as a hallmark of those older people...
Keg, you write some thoughtful posts but on the issue of SSM I think you can't see past your own personal beliefs.
One group of people seek to withold a right/privilege/activity from another group, whereas the other group seeks to make the right/privilege/activity avalible to all. You can not suggest that each group are equally trying to force their beliefs on the other.
If aboriginals or women were still not allowed to vote would you suggest it unfair for them to impose their right to vote on the white male society who already could vote? No, because the white men already could vote. Nothing was being imposed on them. The right to vote was simply being extended to the rest of society.
Your marriage is NOT affected by a gay person getting married. Take Mrs Keg on holiday to Ireland or California and you will see that nothing changes in your marriage as a result of the fact that there gay people legally married walking around in those places.
My point being; There is a big difference between seeking to specifically exclude a group of people from an activity versus seeking to have all people be equally entitled to it.
You seek to impose that on all of society.
If aboriginals or women were still not allowed to vote would you suggest it unfair for them to impose their right to vote on the white male society who already could vote? No, because the white men already could vote. Nothing was being imposed on them. The right to vote was simply being extended to the rest of society.
Your marriage is NOT affected by a gay person getting married. Take Mrs Keg on holiday to Ireland or California and you will see that nothing changes in your marriage as a result of the fact that there gay people legally married walking around in those places.
My point being; There is a big difference between seeking to specifically exclude a group of people from an activity versus seeking to have all people be equally entitled to it.
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
One group of people seek to withold a right/privilege/activity from another group, whereas the other group seeks to make the right/privilege/activity avalible to all. You can not suggest that each group are equally trying to force their beliefs on the other.
After much consideration, I've decided to refer to my "dog" a "camel". In fact I demand that all of society refer to my dog as a camel. Camels have four legs and dogs have four legs therefore I reject the traditional definition of a "dog" and suggest that anyone not adhering to my demand is trying to force their beliefs on me.
Seeing as changing the definition doesn't appear to me to have any affect on traditional dog owners in society I see no reason as to why everyone won't aquiesce to my demands on this animal rights issue. If society doesn't tow my line then I shall resort to name calling in an attempt to force traditional dog owning society to bend to my demands lest they be considered biggots.
After all, there must be some other country in the world that refers to dogs as camels. I shall raise this country as a golden standard of "camel" (formerly "dog") ownership, even though dog owners in this country were previously able to think for themselves. Of course we could have a public vote on this contentious issue but I fear that society may reject my new dog-camel definition so I'll accuse the whole of society of being camel hating biggots in order to force an act of parliament.
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
Except that marriage is just a legal construct and easily can be redefined. Just ask John Howard.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia / United Kingdom
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The laws of (civil) marriage essentially allows two consenting adults who are not already family members (that is, not related by blood) the voluntary ability to say that they are next of kin and claim the legal rights and fulfill the legal obligations that the law applies to those who are next of kin. This includes - among many things - inheritance, custody of children, medical decision making (should a spouse be incapable), tax and social security. Other laws (divorce) allow the next of kin status to be dissolved.
There have been many cases where the death of one member of a same sex couple has caused the surviving member to be left destitute because in the absence of a will the legal next of kin (typically a parent) has legal claim over the deceased's assets. If a partner is unconscious in hospital then uncooperative parents can prevent that person's same sex partner from making medical decisions and even prevent the partner visiting. I could go on. This would not apply if the partners could legally marry.
Civil marriage is quite separate to a religious blessing. In Australia, a religious minister can perform both the religious and the legal unions, however there is no obligation in Australia for a religious union and marriage can be completely secular. In countries like France, a the civil part of the marriage and the religious part of a marriage are performed separately because of France's rigorous separation of church and state. The overwhelming majority of LGBTI people don't want religious marriages where the religion forbids it, nor the right to marry in places of worship that are hostile to same sex marriage.
John Howard changed the marriage act to specifically state that civil marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Australian law says that LGBTI people aren't equal to other Australians by denying the right to legally nominate next of kin, in the simple legal act of marriage. North America, nearly all of Western Europe, New Zealand and large parts of South America now recognise same sex marriage. Qantas' CEO could marry his partner either in his or his partner's country of origin, but not in the country that they live.
There have been many cases where the death of one member of a same sex couple has caused the surviving member to be left destitute because in the absence of a will the legal next of kin (typically a parent) has legal claim over the deceased's assets. If a partner is unconscious in hospital then uncooperative parents can prevent that person's same sex partner from making medical decisions and even prevent the partner visiting. I could go on. This would not apply if the partners could legally marry.
Civil marriage is quite separate to a religious blessing. In Australia, a religious minister can perform both the religious and the legal unions, however there is no obligation in Australia for a religious union and marriage can be completely secular. In countries like France, a the civil part of the marriage and the religious part of a marriage are performed separately because of France's rigorous separation of church and state. The overwhelming majority of LGBTI people don't want religious marriages where the religion forbids it, nor the right to marry in places of worship that are hostile to same sex marriage.
John Howard changed the marriage act to specifically state that civil marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Australian law says that LGBTI people aren't equal to other Australians by denying the right to legally nominate next of kin, in the simple legal act of marriage. North America, nearly all of Western Europe, New Zealand and large parts of South America now recognise same sex marriage. Qantas' CEO could marry his partner either in his or his partner's country of origin, but not in the country that they live.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of people don't object to a gay civil union with all the strength of a heterosexual marriage, it is the use of the word 'Marriage' that upsets people, find an appropriate word or phrase, claim it, as with the word 'Gay' and much of the opposition would disappear. In the Catholic church I think I am correct in saying that marriage is a sacrament, despite what the current Pope may say I don't see the Catholic church in Australia agreeing to gay 'marriage'.
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
According to the authority of Wikipedia, all Australian states and territories recognise de-facto relationships (including same sex) wrt next of kin and property rights.
Now *that* is wrong, unhealthy, socially devastating and needs to stop!
Hang your head in shame, some christian you are.
Live and let live,peace. And so long to this thread...
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The EU
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=parabellum;9684972 it is the use of the word 'Marriage' that upsets people[/QUOTE]
If people are upset by the use of the word "marriage" then they need to take a good hard look at themselves and their values.
As for the views of the group of hobbyists you label as the Catholic Church, frankly their views are no more relevant than the views of trainspotters, dog-fanciers or any other group of hobbyists.
If people are upset by the use of the word "marriage" then they need to take a good hard look at themselves and their values.
As for the views of the group of hobbyists you label as the Catholic Church, frankly their views are no more relevant than the views of trainspotters, dog-fanciers or any other group of hobbyists.
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
At some point some so-called christians need to take the lead and love their brothers, instead to trying to change/fix/shame them, driving some fine men to take their own lives or live in the shadows without the love of their very own family!
Now *that* is wrong, unhealthy, socially devastating and needs to stop!
Hang your head in shame, some christian you are.
Live and let live,peace. And so long to this thread...
Reply
Now *that* is wrong, unhealthy, socially devastating and needs to stop!
Hang your head in shame, some christian you are.
Live and let live,peace. And so long to this thread...
Reply
1. An expert in suicide. I which case you can access verifiable statistics directly linking suicide to the 1961 marriage act? Or;
2. An expert in theology? Giving you authority to lecture "christians". Or;
3. Using the threat of self harm to gain some sort of twisted moral high ground over the opinions of those whom you view as inferior? (Because it seemed to work for Bill Shorten).
I'll assume it's one of the former, as only a complete moral bankrupt would attempt to use suicide as an attack against those they disagree with.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zero moral authority
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did aircraft colors, come to this? My question is, why was an aircraft taken off line to be painted in gay colors? Was it a commercial choice? A personal choice by the CEO? Is it acceptable that The National Carrier bearing the Australian flag, advertise an event that some don't find remotely acceptable? Is it different to the Wallaby paint job? Indignous? Red Nose, Breast Cancer? If the next CEO is a devote Catholic can he have the Vatican painted on one side? Where does it end? Instead, we have a brawl between straights and gays. I am a white, straight, old bloke, still married to the same woman, so in todays eyes, a boring old fa#t who should know better. But fella's can we forget the gay versus straight war, do we really care if your F/O is gay as long as he/she is competent, who gives a ratz? Can we get back to the paint job?
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
Zero moral authority
God botherers lost their claim to moral authority a long time ago....
Peaedo kiddy fiddlers
God botherers lost their claim to moral authority a long time ago....
Peaedo kiddy fiddlers
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
Good one psyco ...
Like adding homo make it worse
Like adding homo make it worse
You tried to make a connection between religion and child molestation. Yet the link that you gave demonstrated abuse perpetrated by individuals in both religious and secular institutions, virtually all of whom were homosexual. So the link (if any) is one of homosexuality and unfettered access to children.
By all means roll your eyes as much as you want.