Social Engineering

[Tink]

Fifty eight,

The Marriage Act has been between one man and one woman.
The natural process of having children.
It follows common law.

What was done by Howard, was agreed by both parties.

Family (father, mother, child) is the bedrock of society, and needs no government intervention.

-----------------------------

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/gay-marriage.3680/

 

[Tisme]

Couldn't they at least have one Indian extra to show that others were there too?

Yes and why not throw in a Chinaman, a Mexican, a Swede, a Norwegian, a unicorn, Luke Skywalker, etc. I'm sure they were all there.

Have a looksee at the bottom left of this picture and consider the majority .... you know the old George St John saying "ask not what can she do for me, but what can I do for her?" which even as recent as the 1950's shows people still considered the collective over the individuals.

 

[Value Collector]

Fifty eight,

The Marriage Act has been between one man and one woman.

Laws are easily changed, simply change the wording to "Between two people" and its done.

The natural process of having children.

Thats got nothing to do with marriage.

the law doesn't state marriage is for breeding purposes, people that both don't want or can't have children are still able to be married under the law.

Family (father, mother, child) is the bedrock of society, and needs no government intervention.

Again nothing to do with marriage.

You don't have to be married to have children, and you don't need to have children to be married.

-----------------------------

 

[Tink]

same sex already have civil unions which gives them the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.
The GOLD standard.
That is equal, in my view.

Two people and genderless?
Where we can't say
boy and girl
mother and father
ladies and gentlemen
husband and wife.

Not interested in political correctness and trying to strip our culture.

This is my view.
-------------------

Good to see we have a plebiscite and the public will have their say.

 

[PZ99]

Good to see we have a plebiscite and the public will have their say.

If the public vote yes for marriage equality will you accept the outcome?

Just curious

 

[SirRumpole]

If the public vote yes for marriage equality will you accept the outcome?

Just curious

Just curious as to why the gay community did not accept the results of all the previous Parliamentary votes on this issue.

 

[PZ99]

Just curious as to why the gay community did not accept the results of all the previous Parliamentary votes on this issue.

Because they didn't have their say. It just went through and that was the end of it.

There was no democratic process. So this whole thing about it being a moral issue that should be decided by the people smacks of rank hypocrisy IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

Because they didn't have their say. It just went through and that was the end of it.

They are getting their say now.

In any case the gay community were lobbying the politicians so they had their say before.

There was no democratic process. So this whole thing about it being a moral issue that should be decided by the people smacks of rank hypocrisy IMO.

A Parliamentary debate is not democratic, so the people should have their say, er no wait a minute the people aren't democratic either. Maybe an AI program should decide.

 

[Tink]

Just to make it clear that though I stand up for traditional marriage, doesn't mean I treat anyone any differently.
I have said this before.

They are all men and women.

 

[PZ99]

It's just that in recent times I have read that Christian groups are increasingly supporting marriage equality but I don't know whether that's from their own beliefs or from fear of being discriminated if they don't. Maybe it's not as much of a social engineering thing but one of tolerance and/or the accepting of change?

 

[SirRumpole]

It's just that in recent times I have read that Christian groups are increasingly supporting marriage equality but I don't know whether that's from their own beliefs or from fear of being discriminated if they don't. Maybe it's not as much of a social engineering thing but one of tolerance and/or the accepting of change?

The Christian religion is a broad church (amen), and there are progressives and Conservatives. You won't find any degree of consensus in either Christianity or Islam about homosexuality because both religions know that they have members that are gay, but unfortunately for them the Good Book says that homosexuality is a sin.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-homosexuality/

 

[fiftyeight]

Just to make it clear that though I stand up for traditional marriage, doesn't mean I treat anyone any differently.
I have said this before.

They are all men and women.

Just to make it clear, even though I think the idea of marriage is dumb, I 100% support everybody's right to make that decision for themselves.

My "wife" and I celebrated our love and commitment to each other in front of our family and friends.We even stole some of the traditions of marriage as we thought they were a good idea. The celebrant was not registered and nothing official was lodged. We chose to celebrate our love in our way. If others feel the need for the government to recognise their love that is their choice.

This is what I don't get, I think the idea of marriage is dumb but if two people want to do it that is up them. You think the idea of 2 men marrying is dumb but you choose oppose it with every fibre of your being. We both think the idea of 2 men marrying is dumb but you want to get involved in their choice. THAT IS DUMB

 

[sptrawler]

Wake-up call: Australian students fall behind Kazakhstan in maths and science rankings

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ths-and-science-rankings-20161129-gszvt1.html

Wow in the eighties, when I went to pick up my wife from Uni, all the Asian students were in the Library and the Aussies were in the on campus bar.
I wondered how long it would be, before the results would show up. LOL

Best we talk about gay marriage and a Republic, much more in line with the media, than students performance and or our economy.

 

[MrChow]

What if in 100 years time it all reverted back would that be social engineering of that generation?

 

[luutzu]

same sex already have civil unions which gives them the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.
The GOLD standard.
That is equal, in my view.

Two people and genderless?
Where we can't say
boy and girl
mother and father
ladies and gentlemen
husband and wife.

Not interested in political correctness and trying to strip our culture.

This is my view.
-------------------

Good to see we have a plebiscite and the public will have their say.

"gold standard"?

Yes, the good old traditional marriages between a man and a woman... no fights, no extra-marital affairs, no abuse.

 

[pixel]

The Christian religion is a broad church (amen), and there are progressives and Conservatives. You won't find any degree of consensus in either Christianity or Islam about homosexuality because both religions know that they have members that are gay, but unfortunately for them the Good Book says that homosexuality is a sin.

At a time (thousands of years ago) when those "Gods" were invented, your tribe's survival depended on a strong population with genetic diversity. Obviously, the rulers and law makers of the time had figured out that too much inbreeding wouldn't be such a good idea and could lead to (insert your favourite: Tasmania, Europe's Royalty, ...). Hence they permitted their men to raid neighbouring tribes and take women as prisoners and sex slaves. (Read it up in the Pentateuch.) Wasting some good strong semen up another man was counter-productive, hence forbidden and sinful. The Rulers didn't care how a guy felt, whether a woman enjoyed being bred, or whether a member of the tribe would have preferred to live with a same-sex partner. Such behaviour was a waste of scarce resources that wouldn't add to the variety of the tribe's gene pool, therefore it was Sin. Better to set an example and lose a few deviants (by stoning) than to allow a larger number to disobey "God's Commandments".

The thing that irks me in this day and age is the fact that Earth is suffering a massive problem of overpopulation, yet we stick to those ancient tribal rites that only exacerbate the problem. Muslims insist they have to outbreed Infidels. Upholders of "our Great Western Christian Culture" lament the threat of being outbred and want to prevent any of their "perfectly good sperm" being wasted. And all of that in the name of some fictitious Superman who allegedly created mankind in his image.

If that were true, and this all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving mythical figure had made men and women: Why did he make some of them gay? Why didn't he simply give every man the right hormonal balance to be attracted to women - ideally only to the one (or four) allotted to him? And vice-versa?
Making some gay, some lesbian, some even more confused, when you could avoid all the pain and heartache, not to mention jealousy and violence and coveting, seems like a cruel hoax to me and doesn't comply with the "all-loving" attribute. It's what one would rather expect from a sadistic creator, with a touch of masochism thrown in, considering he is said to have returned to get himself killed for getting it wrong. Why not plan ahead and get it right the first time!
As Heinlein put it: "A rather sloppy way to run a Universe..."

 

[Tisme]

"gold standard"?

Yes, the good old traditional marriages between a man and a woman... no fights, no extra-marital affairs, no abuse.

I never fought with my wife, no extra marital affairs, no abuse so I guess I should vote yes because of it?

 

[luutzu]

I never fought with my wife, no extra marital affairs, no abuse so I guess I should vote yes because of it?

I was pointing out the obvious about that "gold standard" McGee.

Not sure when a free and democratic country get the right to decide who other people should marry, what gender-specific love is appropriate.

Even parents don't get to decide who their kid ought to marry.

 

[luutzu]

At a time (thousands of years ago) when those "Gods" were invented, your tribe's survival depended on a strong population with genetic diversity. Obviously, the rulers and law makers of the time had figured out that too much inbreeding wouldn't be such a good idea and could lead to (insert your favourite: Tasmania, Europe's Royalty, ...). Hence they permitted their men to raid neighbouring tribes and take women as prisoners and sex slaves. (Read it up in the Pentateuch.) Wasting some good strong semen up another man was counter-productive, hence forbidden and sinful. The Rulers didn't care how a guy felt, whether a woman enjoyed being bred, or whether a member of the tribe would have preferred to live with a same-sex partner. Such behaviour was a waste of scarce resources that wouldn't add to the variety of the tribe's gene pool, therefore it was Sin. Better to set an example and lose a few deviants (by stoning) than to allow a larger number to disobey "God's Commandments".

The thing that irks me in this day and age is the fact that Earth is suffering a massive problem of overpopulation, yet we stick to those ancient tribal rites that only exacerbate the problem. Muslims insist they have to outbreed Infidels. Upholders of "our Great Western Christian Culture" lament the threat of being outbred and want to prevent any of their "perfectly good sperm" being wasted. And all of that in the name of some fictitious Superman who allegedly created mankind in his image.

If that were true, and this all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving mythical figure had made men and women: Why did he make some of them gay? Why didn't he simply give every man the right hormonal balance to be attracted to women - ideally only to the one (or four) allotted to him? And vice-versa?
Making some gay, some lesbian, some even more confused, when you could avoid all the pain and heartache, not to mention jealousy and violence and coveting, seems like a cruel hoax to me and doesn't comply with the "all-loving" attribute. It's what one would rather expect from a sadistic creator, with a touch of masochism thrown in, considering he is said to have returned to get himself killed for getting it wrong. Why not plan ahead and get it right the first time!
As Heinlein put it: "A rather sloppy way to run a Universe..."

It's either that God is a bit of a prick. Or that His followers just make up stuff about what He deem important or acceptable.

 

[Tisme]

I was pointing out the obvious about that "gold standard" McGee.

Not sure when a free and democratic country get the right to decide who other people should marry, what gender-specific love is appropriate.

Even parents don't get to decide who their kid ought to marry.

Yes we should dismantle everything and run free among the candy canes, without any ordered society. It's 2017 and we don't need old rulz anymore.