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)

seafury45 11th Dec 2017 23:56

How about a change of topic? Shanghai Sam has resigned!

WingNut60 12th Dec 2017 00:30


Originally Posted by le Pingouin (Post 9986215)
CS, totalitarian? Hardly. Public servants don't get to illegally discriminate.

Sorry, but can we back up a few steps.
A few posts back they were "effectively public servants."
Now they are public servants.

Are you sure about that?

There are lots of functions that are performed under license of and compliance with government regulation. Plumbers, electricians, gas fitters, immigration agents, doctors.
That doesn't make them a public servant.
All of the above, including civil celebrants, are business entities operating for profit.

le Pingouin 12th Dec 2017 01:37

And do any of them get to discriminate either? No they don't.

Civil celebrants are a damn sight closer to public servants than any of those listed - those listed might all be regulated but they aren't performing a ceremony directly tied to legislation. They could all do their job without government regulation, whereas marriage doesn't exist without the tie to legislation.

CoodaShooda 12th Dec 2017 01:44


whereas marriage doesn't exist without the tie to legislation
That could be the subject of an interesting theological debate.


PS Totalitarian
1. relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

WingNut60 12th Dec 2017 01:49


Originally Posted by le Pingouin (Post 9987068)
And do any of them get to discriminate either? No they don't.

Civil celebrants are a damn sight closer to public servants than any of those listed - those listed might all be regulated but they aren't performing a ceremony directly tied to legislation. They could all do their job without government regulation, whereas marriage doesn't exist without the tie to legislation.

But they are NOT public servants, right.
Every time you bend facts to support your argument you just undermine your position.

I am well aware of what people can and cannot do regarding discrimination.
It is all spelled out clearly in the
Sex Discrimination Act 1984

Have you read it?
Is that not sufficient protection to meet your needs?

owen meaney 12th Dec 2017 01:50

Stranger things indeed. Those that were once the filth of society are now the bastions of righteousness, whilst those that were once the voice of reason are now the filth.

Shangai Sam fell on his sword to save Bill Shorton, nothing more to see.

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.

le Pingouin 12th Dec 2017 01:59

CS, marriage isn't inherently a religious thing. The churches only got involved to regulate and control it. Theology not required.

le Pingouin 12th Dec 2017 02:02

WN60, that is indeed enough. It's those who oppose SSM that are wanting dispensation from it to allow them to discriminate.

CoodaShooda 12th Dec 2017 02:28

To the contrary LeP, the joining of couples in ancient cultures was often tied up in what we might call "religious rites" with the blessings of the gods.

The Catholic Church seems to have become involved in the 12th century in order to provide property protection to young women. "Married for life" meant the young rake couldn't marry her, assume ownership of her property and shoot through.

Government regulation is comparatively recent.

WingNut60 12th Dec 2017 02:39


Originally Posted by le Pingouin (Post 9987084)
WN60, that is indeed enough. It's those who oppose SSM that are wanting dispensation from it to allow them to discriminate.

Those protections were enacted in 2013.
It might do everyone some good to come up to speed on the rules, in particular discrimination with regard provision of goods and services, which is what civil celebrants provide.
They do not provide a public service, they charge commercial rates for their service. They are not members of the Public Service and are therefore not public servants.

le Pingouin 12th Dec 2017 11:26

CS, you say "to the contrary" but follow it immediately with "often tied up in", meaning religion can be involved in, but isn't a necessary element of marriage.

Marriage doesn't exist in Australia without the legal backing of legislation. No legal ceremony, no marriage. You might be "married in the eyes of <deity of your choosing>" having been through a religious ceremony but until you've signed that piece of paper it's not official.

le Pingouin 12th Dec 2017 11:37


Originally Posted by owen meaney (Post 9987076)
Stranger things indeed. Those that were once the filth of society are now the bastions of righteousness, whilst those that were once the voice of reason are now the filth.

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.

Thanks for reinforcing the message that so many of those who oppose SSM do so because they're homophobic bigots.

SSM has absolutely nothing to do with children in or out of schools. It's just sickos like you that link the two, clearly demonstrating homophobia.

Crownstay01 12th Dec 2017 12:01


Originally Posted by CoodaShooda (Post 9987094)
To the contrary LeP, the joining of couples in ancient cultures was often tied up in what we might call "religious rites" with the blessings of the gods.

Arguable, and in any case irrelevant to marriage in Australia in 2017, which is a contract regulated by secular law.


Government regulation is comparatively recent.
Hardwicke's Marriage Act came into force in 1754. Hardly recent.

Crownstay01 12th Dec 2017 13:07


Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was (Post 9983375)
Playing devils advocate, you could as easily say we spent $120 million pandering to the feelings of a vocal minority.

7.8 million eligible voters is a minority?

De_flieger 12th Dec 2017 13:15


To the contrary LeP, the joining of couples in ancient cultures was often tied up in what we might call "religious rites" with the blessings of the gods.
But not anymore. More than three quarters of all Australian marriages - 76.4% - were conducted by civil celebrants, as opposed to religious leaders, in 2016. 3310.0 - Marriages and Divorces, Australia, 2016

A significant majority of people getting married do so without the involvement of a religious leader, continuing a trend that has been going for decades, with non-religious ceremonies outnumbering religious ones for the first time in 1999, and the amount by which they outnumber religious ceremonies increasing steadily since. The civil and legal aspects are obviously more important or relevant to a great number of people - there's no theological debate, theology simply isn't involved at all in any form for the overwhelming majority of people anymore. I get your concerns about a vocal minority affecting the majority, but I think you might have mis-identified the minority and which group you're in!

Ethel...sometimes! Just remember the immortal words of Brigadier-General Jack D. Ripper, and remind yourself - "I can no longer sit back and allow homosexual infiltration, homosexual indoctrination, homosexual subversion, and the international homosexual conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids." ;)

Crownstay01 12th Dec 2017 13:18


Originally Posted by parabellum (Post 9985831)
Sadly, here in Victoria, seven year old children, nor their parents have the right to disapprove of anything 'same sex'. The Safe Schools programme, the product of a Marxist cell within the LGBTQI+ community and based in Sydney University...

The 1950s called, they want their reds back under the bed.


...has been made mandatory in Victorian state schools...
No, it hasn't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're misinformed, rather than being dishonest.

G-CPTN 12th Dec 2017 20:45


Originally Posted by le Pingouin (Post 9987531)
Marriage doesn't exist in Australia without the legal backing of legislation. No legal ceremony, no marriage. You might be "married in the eyes of <deity of your choosing>" having been through a religious ceremony but until you've signed that piece of paper it's not official.

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.

When my son married in France, they were required to be married by the Mayor (or one of his minions) in addition to the church service.
I suspect that that is the general rule apart from in Church of England marriages.

CoodaShooda 12th Dec 2017 23:43

LeP
I'm wondering whether I need to start using words of less than one syllable to help you understand my contexts. :E

To recap:

The concept of marriage is pre-historic and predates legislative frameworks.
(Crownstay - 1754 is more recent than the 13th century and time BCE which were the subjects of my comments.)

It was not too long ago that our legislation demanded public servants persecute homosexuals. The laws of another place have more recently appeared to demand that homosexuals be thrown from tall buildings.

Laws can therefore be made to reflect whatever the legislature wants them to say. There is no single world rule book (although our current society evolved from the bloody application of a single text).

Our society has (rightly) decided over time that homosexuality is not a criminal offence and laws have evolved to reflect this. I don't see this as being a bad thing.

However, even well intentioned laws can also be used by one group to subjugate another.

The SSM Act requires the adoption over time of a particular form of pro-LGBTIQ group think among marriage practitioners. Is this fair to those who hold differing views?

Will those who do not subscribe to the group think be vilified? Will they be dragged before a Human Rights/Discrimination/"You said what around your kitchen table?" Tribunal - where the process is a significant penalty in itself, regardless of the outcome?

Will this small change to the Marriage Act lead to increasing pressure on our religious organisations and their followers?

That is what I'm interested to see.

Our society is evolving, as societies must. But it seems that the more we pursue inclusivity for minority groups, the more divided we are becoming.

De_flieger 13th Dec 2017 00:11


The SSM Act requires the adoption over time of a particular form of pro-LGBTIQ group think among marriage practitioners. Is this fair to those who hold differing views?
The question is misleading, because it relies on the first statement, which is false. Marriage practitioners are entitled to hold whatever views they like. What they cannot do is act on those views, in their state-sanctioned role, in contravention to current laws. A gas-fitter can think that carbon monoxide is a big part of a healthy atmosphere, but he has to act in a way that minimises carbon monoxide risks to his clients. A policeman can think drugs should be legalised, but still has to arrest drug dealers. A civil marriage practitioner can think that same-sex couples shouldn't be married all they like, it is only when they refuse to do so, they aren't then acting in accordance with the applicable laws for their job.

I've met many Christians, including some in positions of authority such that they can carry out marriages, same sex or otherwise, who are in favour of same-sex marriage. If your concern is that religious groups will be diminished or marginalised the people I know in those groups don't share that concern - entirely the opposite in fact. In my experience more of them see it as making their churches more inclusive and accepting, and reflecting of modern values, which would for them be a good thing in retaining existing parishioners and attracting new ones. Some of them even take the fairly simple view (not one I personally share, but to each their own) that if god (God?) made man in his image, and a proportion of those men are gay, who are we to argue? Our society is evolving, and so are our churches.

De_flieger 13th Dec 2017 00:17


Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Playing devils advocate, you could as easily say we spent $120 million pandering to the feelings of a vocal minority.
7.8 million eligible voters is a minority?
Crownstay01 No, the vocal minority was the spineless politicians on both sides of parliament, and a highly vocal subset of the Christian lobby that at best, represented a narrow, fearful and archaic branch of a diverse group that largely rejected their views.

Hempy 13th Dec 2017 03:21


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 03:59


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 04:04

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 05:27


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 05:54

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 05:59

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 06:15


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 07:21

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

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

Ken Borough 13th Dec 2017 07:23


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 08:48

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 09:04

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 09:31

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 09:58

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 10:08

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 10:42

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 18:11

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 20:46

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 00:30


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 01:35


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 03:16

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 11:10.


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