PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Hempy 13th Dec 2017 04:21


Originally Posted by CoodaShooda (Post 9988238)
But it seems that the more we pursue inclusivity for minority groups, the more divided we are becoming.

The only ‘division’ is emanating from the mouth breathing far-right rednecks and bigots who are stuck in the ‘50’s and are either unwilling or incapable of accepting the notion of that someone who isn’t a white, heterosexual Christian should be entitled to the same rights as a white, heterosexual Christian. Thankfully the volume of their bark is completely disproportionate to their ever diminishing numbers.

gupta 13th Dec 2017 04:59


mouth breathing far-right rednecks and bigots
Doesn't leave a lot of room for rational discussion

But I suppose that's not a strong point in this place

parabellum 13th Dec 2017 05:04

So far, on this well mannered thread, no one has said anything that would warrant them being labelled,

far-right rednecks and bigots who are stuck in the ‘50’s
Hempy, some have defended the SSM position others have expressed concern at possible subsequent effects of the new legislation, opinions have been expressed with passion and a little vitriol in a few cases. All that has, in your case, Hempy, gone straight through to the keeper. Why not go back to the US Politics thread and troll your time away there?

Crownstay01 13th Dec 2017 06:27


Originally Posted by parabellum (Post 9988368)
So far, on this well mannered thread, no one has said anything that would warrant them being labelled rednecks and bigots.

Yes, the bum boys have been validated.

Those that were once the filth of society are now the bastions of righteousness,


Missed those two "well-mannered" comments?

le Pingouin 13th Dec 2017 06:54

CS, it won't help because what you say is based on false premises. People can hold whatever thoughts they like and apply them to themselves and others who voluntarily agree or are like minded, within the law. Where your ideas fall down is in applying those thoughts to others.

Christian churches have had a free pass in Australia in the past and now they're having to argue the point to support their claim over the behaviour of all of society, regardless of belief, they find themselves falling very short of rational argument. No, "tradition" and "my interpretation of the Bible" aren't arguments. The problem is that's all they've got.

They're losing power over society and they don't like it one little bit. Don't believe me? Then why are the conservatives always pushing the line that we're a "Christian nation"? They want to retain the moral power over society and don't want others having a say.

le Pingouin 13th Dec 2017 06:59

parabellum, au contraire - owen meaney absolutely did with "Open slather in your schools now, for the new righteous ones to recruit your sons to their paradigm. Boys are easily influenced and you should be concerned. Doesn't concern me as my children are young adults and were not subject to that sort of mind manipulation."

Pinky the pilot 13th Dec 2017 07:15


mouth breathing far-right rednecks and bigots
:rolleyes::rolleyes:



Doesn't leave a lot of room for rational discussion

But I suppose that's not a strong point in this place
I tend to agree, Gupta.

Oh, and Hempy; Due to some deformation in my nasal passages/sinus I have been a mouth breather since I was a toddler.

I am most definitely NOT a far-right redneck or a bigot!:ugh:

I suggest you modify your thinking. And yes, I do find your use of that term in that context quite offensive.

Hempy 13th Dec 2017 08:21

Talk to the good folks at the Cambridge English Dictionary...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...mouth-breather

Ken Borough 13th Dec 2017 08:23


In England, only Church of England clergy are authorised to perform legal religious marriages.
All other faiths have to have the service of a civil registrar in addition to any religious ceremony.
It's great to have a shabbily dressed civil servant, maybe wearing a cardigan, sitting at the back of the church and then appearing in the wedding photos as the registry is signed. They look like the proverbial mad uncle or aunt from whom everyone steers well clear!

CoodaShooda 13th Dec 2017 09:48

Fleiger and LeP
Earlier on in this thread, I was being assured that future celebrants would have to abide by the new law or they could choose not to be a celebrant.

Wannabe celebrants whose personal beliefs preclude them from supporting SSM would presumably choose not to become a celebrant.

Therefore only those whose mindset would allow them to conduct SSM would join the celebrant set.

I stand by my comment about groupthink.

LeP
I do not subscribe to any particular church but my values are essentially Christian. My son is three quarters Sikh. My daughter is into Wicca. Whose values do you subscribe to?

De_flieger 13th Dec 2017 10:04

How is it 'groupthink' that only those who think a key, legally required aspect of the job is reasonable will be interested in doing the job?

Only those with an interest in aviation and willingness to fly become pilots, you can't say "I want to be a pilot but without doing any of the flying stuff". Only those who find treating patients and dealing with illnesses morally acceptable can become medical doctors. If your personal beliefs are that killing animals for food is immoral, don't get a job in an abbatoir. Equally though, if you dislike flying and can't be a pilot for that reason, that isn't a justification to prevent others who like flying from becoming one.

CoodaShooda 13th Dec 2017 10:31

It's only legally required because a law was amended to make it so.

If the exemption granted to current celebrants was extended to new appointees, it would provide greater diversity (another popular buzz word).

But from what you're saying, in future only those who subscribe to the pro-SSM mindset need apply. So one group's views are given precedence over another's in the name of fairness and equality.

le Pingouin 13th Dec 2017 10:58

Unlike the "groupthink" we had until two weeks ago? Too bad if you thought same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. Too bad if you think a divorced Roman Catholic shouldn't be allowed to get re-married, let alone to a non-RC. Too bad if you think real Aussies shouldn't marry Asians. To bad if you think Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/whatever should only marry within their own religion.

So much for your call for "diversity". The marriage ceremony is about the couple, not the celebrant. What about their diversity?

New celebrants are entitled to think what they like, they just have to obey the law while doing their job. Just like everyone else.

De_flieger 13th Dec 2017 11:08

If the job involves marrying same-sex couples, then yes, only those who can morally do that can apply and expect to get the job, just as only those who subscribe to the pro-aviating viewpoint are worth interviewing for a pilot job and only those able to butcher animals should apply to work at a butchers shop. It's giving precedence to those who are willing to do the job, when considering if they should be licenced to do the job, nothing more.

Out of curiosity though, if an exemption was made along the lines of "new or existing civil celebrants can register as conscientious objectors, or similar term, and not be required to carry out same-sex marriages", would you be more open to the idea? I doubt there would be very many people who hold religious views so strong that they can't abide the idea of SSM, but simultaneously so weak that they aren't eligible to be a religious celebrant, so it may be a tiny fraction of a small subset of the community who would use that exemption.

CoodaShooda 13th Dec 2017 11:42

LeP
The recent "groupthink" would have included all points of view. And those examples you mention seem to have been getting by ok. I'm not aware of any campaigns for change for them similar to the recent SSM debate.

The new law will ultimately see this replaced with only one point of view. Dissenters will be discriminated against through exclusion.

Fliers
What's your objection to your suggestion regarding "conscientious objectors"?

le Pingouin 13th Dec 2017 19:11

CS, none of those things I mentioned was legal behaviour for a civil celebrant. Two weeks ago any views of marriage that were counter to the legal definition of marriage were not acceptable for a civil celebrant to impose on couples using their services. The civil celebrant either conformed to the legal definition or sought alternative employment. It very definitely did not include all points of view.

Today exactly the same rule will apply to new civil celebrants, conform to the legal definition of marriage in full or don't participate. They can think what they like, just not impose their views on others.

Dissenters were discriminated against through exclusion pre-SSM and will be now.

CoodaShooda 13th Dec 2017 21:46

Two weeks ago, the law precluded SSM, so dissenting viewpoints were irrelevant.

The introduction of the new law allows current celebrants whose beliefs preclude them from conducting SSMs to remain true to their beliefs.

Future celebrant aspirants whose beliefs preclude them from conducting SSM will not be allowed to become a celebrant, unless they change their beliefs. Why are their beliefs being given less weight than those of SSM supporters?

Hempy 14th Dec 2017 01:30


Originally Posted by CoodaShooda (Post 9989297)
Two weeks ago, the law precluded SSM, so dissenting viewpoints were irrelevant.

The introduction of the new law allows current celebrants whose beliefs preclude them from conducting SSMs to remain true to their beliefs.

Future celebrant aspirants whose beliefs preclude them from conducting SSM will not be allowed to become a celebrant, unless they change their beliefs. Why are their beliefs being given less weight than those of SSM supporters?

Laws also say that a celebrant is precluded from conducting a marriage between a 40 year old Muslim and his 12 year old bride to be. Why are their beliefs being given less weight?

WingNut60 14th Dec 2017 02:35


Originally Posted by Hempy (Post 9989451)
Laws also say that a celebrant is precluded from conducting a marriage between a 40 year old Muslim and his 12 year old bride to be. Why are their beliefs being given less weight?

Not really comparable, in my opinion.

There are a number of perfectly valid reasons why marriage to a pre-pubescent child is not a good idea. eg a real chance of physical and mental damage to the child.
There is no real chance of either occurring in the event of either a member of the clergy or civil celebrant electing not to conduct the marriage of an LGBTQI couple. Certainly not when there are others readily available who will obligingly do so.

Clearly obfuscation.

le Pingouin 14th Dec 2017 04:16

CS, and there we have it. "Dissenting views were irrelevant". Because they're views that you don't hold they're irrelevant and the only ones that count are those that match yours. Shall I use that "argument" right back at you?

As I've repeatedly said, if my sincerely held belief is that people of different religions can't marry then that view is being totally disrespected if I'm a civil celebrant. I either accept that others have different views and get on with being a civil celebrant or I quit. Whether there have been campaigns to change the law in that direction are irrelevant.

It's not about the views of SSM supporters. It's about impact on the couple being married. Denying a couple marriage without legal cause is a far bigger harm than what is being done to the celebrant who disagrees with SSM. That's how these things are balanced. Can you tell me what harm is done to such a celebrant if they officiate at a same-sex marriage?


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:32.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.