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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16.


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