Gay Marriage

[Tink]

awg, you are entitled to your opinion and your thoughts, as I am mine.

I have expressed the reason why I don't agree with marriage being changed, throughout this thread.
Maybe you should look a bit deeper, exactly what all this is about, and how it affects society.
If you want the state to over rule your thoughts, then you are heading in the right direction.
Freedom of speech is a good thing, and I would like to keep it in this country.

When you start excluding children, or a mother or father, from the mix, that is not marriage, that is not truth and that is not equal.
That is lying to the children, in my view.
A father and mother have a child -- man and woman.
That is what should be taught in schools.

Natural Law includes them all, and was set up that way.

What people do in society is their business, but there is no reason for the govt to promote this.
LOVE is not a reason for marriage.
Laws are based on morals and justice.
Moving boundaries is what this is all about for the next one to come in and say -- Love wins.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights in this country, apart from the word 'Marriage'.
Changing Marriage changes the demographics.
Being honest is what this is about, and for the next generation.

You mentioned --

I will end by saying that my preferred family model is traditional, in the ideal family world for me, the infant is nurtured and breast fed by the mother, and most certainly not shoved into some childcare centre, all that needs a framework of support.

So why would you change it for the next generation?
Why would you allow them to change that, where if you express those thoughts, the state will tell you that it is 'hate speech'.
You will be shut down and silenced.

Is that what you want for the next generation where they are not allowed to even think it.
This is totalitarian, not freedom.

 

[sydboy007]

awg, you are entitled to your opinion and your thoughts, as I am mine.

Tink

can you expand on what you said

If you want the state to over rule your thoughts, then you are heading in the right direction.

Doesn’t the Church control your thoughts? Isn’t Govt removing itself from controlling marriages a good thing? You’re arguing for continued state control of marriages.

When you start excluding children, or a mother or father, from the mix, that is not marriage, that is not truth and that is not equal.

So all those couples who are unable to have children are not married? All those couple who choose not to have children are not married?

What people do in society is their business, but there is no reason for the govt to promote this.

Allowing something is not promoting it. The Govt allows the consumption of alcohol and tobacco, but I don't think anyone would argue that they promote it. Same with gambling.

LOVE is not a reason for marriage.

So love is not important in a marriage. Good to know. A lot of men will love that you've killed off the romantic comedy genre. What is the most important reason for marriage then?

Laws are based on morals and justice.

laws are based on morals, just not really based on the Biblical sense of morals as I’d say most would agree slavery and wiping out thousands of people for no good reason is not moral. Justice is more about the fair application of laws. You know, like when you find out about child abuse you report it to the police, not move the paedophile to another church to allow the crime to continue. Oh wait, that is the catholic moral stance on child abuse.

Moving boundaries is what this is all about for the next one to come in and say -- Love wins.

If moving boundaries makes for a more inclusive society then why is that a bad thing?

Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights in this country, apart from the word 'Marriage'.

It’s very easy for someone in society who is part of the dominant race and religion to be oblivious to the discrimination that’s occurring on a daily basis.

Changing Marriage changes the demographics.

Do you know what demographics is? It’s just the statistical analysis of populations. What is the relevancy to SS marriage?

Being honest is what this is about, and for the next generation.

So what dishonesty is being told? What about the current generations? Don’t the we of now have some rights too?

 

[Tink]

I have expanded enough, Syd, people need to look more into what you are pushing in this country.

You are entitled to your views as I am mine.

The Law is as it is -- and for a reason.

 

[awg]

awg, you are entitled to your opinion and your thoughts, as I am mine.

I have expressed the reason why I don't agree with marriage being changed, throughout this thread.

Natural Law includes them all, and was set up that way.


LOVE is not a reason for marriage.

So why would you change it for the next generation?
Why would you allow them to change that, where if you express those thoughts, the state will tell you that it is 'hate speech'.
You will be shut down and silenced.

Is that what you want for the next generation where they are not allowed to even think it.
This is totalitarian, not freedom.

Thx for the reply Tink,

your posts have been many, and I havent read them all, assume a strong Christian belief is at work

Its ironic (to me) that this issue is one to unite fundamentalist Muslims and Christians

Cant really see how gay marriage is repressing my thoughts, although I can see why some would not want to accept when the laws are changed

Not every model of marriage (or child-rearing) may get my tick of approval, but one must be pragmatic.

try mentioning my preferred model of child-rearing in an office full of professional women, and you will soon find difficulty expressing your thoughts

Love not a reason for marriage?? Now that IS radical..I really dont have a clue what you are on about there,
Are we talking arranged marriages?

 

[Tink]

Well their marketing has been 'love wins', and I don't see that as a reason to change the law.

I have given my views, and have replied.

 

[Knobby22]

I know where Tink is coming from.

If we change the definition of marriage, debase the word if you will, which we had been doing even before the gay marriage debate, then we need a new word to mean "true marriage".

The original definition was a union for life, for good times or bad, with respect, between a man or woman, with procreation one of the main aims. That is the Christian definition which everyone said whether it was a Church wedding or not.

That definition probably changed around the 1970s with the pill. Now it is often just lets get together till I get sick of you or times get bad and swap you for a different model.

 

[Tink]

Thanks, Knobby.

That is very much what I am saying, which we have all agreed with, throughout the country.

But there is more -- and it is about freedom of speech.

Redefining is changing marriage as we know it, which they are not saying.

What we believed will be taken away -- and you will not be allowed to express it anymore.
It will be considered as 'HATE SPEECH'.

We will not be allowed to express ourselves, we will be silenced.

This is brainwashing and social engineering.

As I said, this is totalitarian, not freedom.

 

[sydboy007]

Thanks, Knobby.

That is very much what I am saying, which we have all agreed with, throughout the country.

But there is more -- and it is about freedom of speech.

Redefining is changing marriage as we know it, which they are not saying.

What we believed will be taken away -- and you will not be allowed to express it anymore.
It will be considered as 'HATE SPEECH'.

We will not be allowed to express ourselves, we will be silenced.

This is brainwashing and social engineering.

As I said, this is totalitarian, not freedom.

Tink

I've never said you can't say what you say. I do acknowledge much of what you say I don't really understand. When pressed to explain your logic you are unwilling to.

The definition of marriage has changed. You posted that you agree this has happened. Yet you now argue for a static definition of marriage. I don't understand why you can accept the change over thousands of years but now argue for the state to continue controlling marriages, in a legal sense, and argue for a religious inspired definition of marriage in what is a secular country.

You argue for free speech, but when people are calling for change you don't like, you call it brainwashing and social engineering. How about practising what you preach.

You are free to continue believing that marriage is only between 1 man and 1 women, though your religious teachings show no moral qualms by god or jesus about polygamy between a man and his many wives. Changing the legal definition of marriage hs zero impact on you in your daily life. You continually claim otherwise, but have never actually spelt out what will change in your personal situation.

 

[Tisme]

Glad to hear things are working out for you.

A widower in a village of women and I bring in a out of towner a few days a week .... you figure out how things are working out for me

 

[Tink]

Syd, we are on two sides of the fence, and of course you are entitled to your view, just as I am with mine.
The problem is, you are trying to shut down mine, as hate speech.

I have told you in many posts that I do not agree with STATE CONTROL of what happens in our homes, our families, in our lives.
This is Big Brother, coming in your homes and telling you how to think, and if you don't, you will be punished.
You cannot control the way we talk and push it aside as hate speech.

This country was built on our Christian Heritage, so anyone that dismisses it as my Christian faith is like water off a ducks back for me, so don't bother.
Are you going to start calling children that go in search for their parents -- hate speech.
I can see you are, as was quite clear on their ABC that night, that you agreed with.

I have asked for what reason is same sex marriage a benefit for society, and their isn't.
We are not equal as I have pointed out why.
We have children, you don't, and that is why marriage should not be changed.
We don't change laws to make people feel better, laws are there for a reason.

Our laws were all set up based on our Christian values of morals and justice.
That includes, marriage, murder, the list goes on.
There are no variations.

When we start moving the goal posts to suit our own needs, then we start to destroy the country we live in.
The Law is there for a reason.

As stated in this post -
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=98&p=882822&viewfull=1#post882822

- - - -



We have done this debate to death.....

 

[SirRumpole]

So, is this a case of the many being deprived of a say for the sake of a few ?

This is what many call PC censorship. Bring on a plebiscite AT the next election.

Senate report warns same-sex marriage plebiscite could potentially harm people in LGBTI community

A Senate report has warned the Government that a plebiscite on same-sex marriage would be too expensive and too potentially harmful to children and other vulnerable people in the gay and lesbian community.

The majority report from Labor and the crossbench recommends that a parliamentary conscience vote to change the Marriage Act be held instead.

"This issue of marriage equality involves people, and people will be attacked through very nasty and very aggressive advertising campaigns," the chair of the committee, independent senator Glenn Lazarus, said.

He said evidence from LGBTI groups and psychologists was particularly convincing.

"[They were] very worried about the effect it would have on children, particularly children who have same-sex parents," Senator Lazarus said.

Senator Lazarus said he expected the inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee would show support for a public vote, but that he was wrong.

"Quite clearly people that are for and against marriage equality would rather have the Parliament decide the outcome rather than going to a plebiscite," he said.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's support for same-sex marriage is well known, but since ousting Tony Abbott he has been careful to stick to existing Coalition policy.

"Our policy is to have [a plebiscite] after the next federal election," Mr Turnbull told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday night.

"Any policy can be changed but it would have to be considered by the Cabinet and then obviously the party room."
Plebiscite could cost $158.4m, Electoral Commission says

Senator Lazarus said he had not discussed the issue with Mr Turnbull since he became Prime Minister but he hoped the Senate report would force a change of mind.

"I hope it does because he indicated he will listen to the needs and wants of Australians and crossbench senators and all politicians, and the evidence that we uncovered last Thursday night was quite clear," Senator Lazarus said.
Glenn Lazarus
Photo: Glenn Lazarus said a plebiscite would see people attacked "through very nasty and very aggressive advertising campaigns". (AAP: Mick Tsikas)

Same-sex marriage was one of the policies which put pressure on Mr Abbott's prime ministership and the plebiscite was his attempt to deal with that.

Mr Turnbull might hold a different personal view to the man he ousted, but the politics could turn out to be just as challenging.

The committee took evidence from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) which said holding a separate vote or plebiscite would cost $158.4 million.

That figure does not include public funding for a yes and no campaign, which has been provided in previous public votes like the republic referendum.

Greens senator Janet Rice backed the majority report, but said if there must be a plebiscite then the Parliament should impose strict rules on how it is run.

"We firmly believe that appropriate parameters must be established around public advertising for the plebiscite and regulation of the media, including social media, appropriate limitations on campaigning, including the period of time under which campaigning is allowed, and really taking into account what the impact of campaigning could be on vulnerable people," she told the Senate.
'Parliament is the place where this issue should be debated'

The Government members of the committee submitted a minority report backing a plebiscite.
What will life look like under Turnbull?

Malcolm Turnbull said he believed the Parliament would serve its full term, but what would that term look like under his leadership?

Queensland Liberal National Party senator Ian Macdonald said the inquiry reinforced existing views.

"This particular matter has been debated in this Parliament on many occasions in recent times," he said.

"It never seems to be resolved and one would hope that once the Australian people have a say, the matter will be resolved permanently.

"Whatever the Australian people say, regardless of my own views, I would intend to support [the result]."

But Labor committee member Carol Brown said there was now significant evidence Parliament was the right place to decide on same-sex marriage.

"We do need to press on and we do need to put the argument that a plebiscite is not the way to go," she said.

"The Parliament is the place where this issue should be debated with a free vote for all, because that is what we do here, this is the work that we do."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...-conscience-vote-on-same-sex-marriage/6781992

 

[sydboy007]

So, is this a case of the many being deprived of a say for the sake of a few ?

This is what many call PC censorship. Bring on a plebiscite AT the next election.

You do understand that the "queer" community, commonly referred to as the gays, lesbians, transgenders, intersex, bisexual too, face much higher degrees of violence than the general population.

The Australian human rights Commission released a report earlier this year showing ~70% of LGBTI people have been attacked, bullied or harassed. I've faced it myself. My housemate nearly lost an eye due to a bashing a decade ago.

I don't think it's drawing a long bow at all to believe that if a plebiscite is held that certain elements in Australia will run very negative campaigns which may encourage, for want of a better term, homophobic actions by some in the community.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't think it's drawing a long bow at all to believe that if a plebiscite is held that certain elements in Australia will run very negative campaigns which may encourage, for want of a better term, homophobic actions by some in the community.

I would be quite happy just to have a vote, with advertising campaigns banned or not publicly financed anyway.

Most people have decided one way or the other on this issue, we just want it resolved quickly whatever the result.

Were there "homophobic actions" in Ireland ? Why should they happen here ?

 

[sydboy007]

Syd, we are on two sides of the fence, and of course you are entitled to your view, just as I am with mine.
The problem is, you are trying to shut down mine, as hate speech.

Pease explain how I am trying to shut down what you say as hate speech? When have I ever said anything along those lines?

I have told you in many posts that I do not agree with STATE CONTROL of what happens in our homes, our families, in our lives.
This is Big Brother, coming in your homes and telling you how to think, and if you don't, you will be punished.
You cannot control the way we talk and push it aside as hate speech.

Once again, you claim the Govt is controlling what you do in you home and how you think. Please provide an example of how this would occur if SS marriage was allowed today. How does this occur? I truly do not understand your argument. The state is reducing it’s control in this area.

This country was built on our Christian Heritage, so anyone that dismisses it as my Christian faith is like water off a ducks back for me, so don't bother.
Are you going to start calling children that go in search for their parents -- hate speech.
I can see you are, as was quite clear on their ABC that night, that you agreed with.

Your Christian faith is fairly irrelevant to this debate, unless you’re saying you want to force your religious beliefs on myself and the wider community?

I have asked for what reason is same sex marriage a benefit for society, and their isn't.
We are not equal as I have pointed out why.
We have children, you don't, and that is why marriage should not be changed.
We don't change laws to make people feel better, laws are there for a reason.

So on the one hand you say homosexuals are not discriminated against, but now you say we’re not equal. How does that work?
Not all people who are married have children.
Not all people who have children are married.
So changing the laws to allow women to vote, Aboriginals to vote, anti discrimination laws, anti vilification and hate speech laws, they shouldn’t have been passed because they protected people and made them feel better. I’d hate to live in a society that was controlled by people with your way of thinking.

Our laws were all set up based on our Christian values of morals and justice.
That includes, marriage, murder, the list goes on.
There are no variations.

Why isn’t slavery legal then? Why don’t we allow polygamy? Are there laws against different types of cattle grazing together? Do we prohibit growing different crops in the same field? Do we outlaw clothes made from more than one fabric? Do we allow people to cut their hair and shave? Do we execute anyone for infidelity? Do we stone to death people who claim to be psychics? Do we bar people with flat noses, are blind or lame, from attending a Church? Is it law that we should go to non Christian countries and engage in genocide?

All these are commanded in your biblical teachings. Are these not the Christian values you say provide the foundation of our moral code in Australia? Yet I don’t believe any of these are, so we have changed. I wonder why?

When we start moving the goal posts to suit our own needs, then we start to destroy the country we live in.
The Law is there for a reason.

Are not laws made to suit our needs. Didn’t we create laws protecting the environment? Didn’t we create laws so we don’t engage in brutal acts during war and created the concept of war crimes? Have we not created laws to protect minorities within our communities? Would you see the laws against sexual discrimination revoked, since they are relatively new?

I know you prefer the biblical way where the chosen people had one set of rules, and everyone else had different rules applied to them. Fortunately in the modern world we at least aspire to applying the law equally to all.

 

[Tisme]

I would be quite happy just to have a vote, with advertising campaigns banned or not publicly financed anyway.

Most people have decided one way or the other on this issue, we just want it resolved quickly whatever the result.

Were there "homophobic actions" in Ireland ? Why should they happen here ?

I too disagree with a plebiscite. It should be a full on compulsory referendum that changes the constitution to the people's wishes and a lock put on its revisit for at least three generations...... and while they are at it the flag and dammed daylight saving!!!

Our strength is our community and the community must be able to vote under the safety net of imposed responsibility to cast a vote on their views, not the two thirds turnout in Ireland where 1,201,607 won against the other 2,000,000 eligibles, two thirds of whom didn't think they needed to vote for something so obviously non catholic..... those Oirush

Full on referendum then we can get on and do something to shield us from the threats of another primitive bunch of people with arcane superstitions that want to stone us, cut off our heads like we are a hydra, and impose total intolerance of anything not written in their little book of horrors.

 

[Tisme]

Our laws were all set up based on our Christian values of morals and justice.
That includes, marriage, murder, the list goes on.
There are no variations.

....

That they are Tink.

The Church of England is/was the established church so long as we are a Monarchy and that monarch is the the Supreme Governor of the church, with Jesus the top cockey. The Anglican Church and State are linked because of this and back in the late 19th century when federation was being conceived empire was everything, even the borrows from the US constitution where based on christian equality (the US Anglicans call themselves evangelists to avoid conflicts with English haters).

In the UK a couple of dozen Bishops, by law, sit in the House of Lords; the same mob that Bob Hawke decided to give the flick in 1986 ... not so long ago.

 

[overhang]

Syd, we are on two sides of the fence, and of course you are entitled to your view, just as I am with mine.
The problem is, you are trying to shut down mine, as hate speech.

I have told you in many posts that I do not agree with STATE CONTROL of what happens in our homes, our families, in our lives.
This is Big Brother, coming in your homes and telling you how to think, and if you don't, you will be punished.
You cannot control the way we talk and push it aside as hate speech.

Tink if you don't agree with state control then you would support gay marriage. This isn't about hate speech, you're not been forced to support gay marriage, you're not being subjected to attending a gay marriage but all that is been asked is that you don't force your personal convictions onto someone else as you believe they shouldn't have access to something that you can. And that is what it boils down to, not about hate speech but about the government trying to control what others can do and restrict liberties. I don't support religions and believe they're a blight on society but I don't want the government to legislate to stop people such as yourself from practicing religion as that is a personal freedom that the government shouldn't impose on others.

I have asked for what reason is same sex marriage a benefit for society, and their isn't.

Gay and Lesbians are 14x more likely to attempt suicide than hetrosexuals, I can't blame them when they are treated as second class citizens, marriage equality would go some way to showing that society does accept them and not try and shun them away as outcasts who aren't entitled to celebrate their love in the same way the rest of us can. I would have thought someone who preachers morality would be all about doing everything they can to reduce that rate of suicide, these are people with mothers and fathers and friends too, suicide is devastating on communities.

We are not equal as I have pointed out why.
We have children, you don't, and that is why marriage should not be changed.
We don't change laws to make people feel better, laws are there for a reason.
Our laws were all set up based on our Christian values of morals and justice.
That includes, marriage, murder, the list goes on.
There are no variations.

You're correct, but as a female what gives you the right to comment on this, as you're part of the inferior sex we're not equal and has you're husband given you permission to speak out about this? Are these the christian values that you refer to? You do realise that if we used christian values that we'd still have slavery and that you as a female would be unable to vote? It sure as hell wasn't christian values that won you the right to vote but rather common human morality that recognizing that equality is important in a civilized society. You can't cherry pick values to support your idea of totalitarianism, stop trying to prevent others from doing what you're entitled to do.

 

[Tink]

Just some history, since Syd keeps talking about polygamy --

Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Christian_Church_in_civilization

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ic-Church-to-Western-civilization.html?pg=all

I will answer your post shortly, overhang, but I disagree.

 

[Knobby22]

Gay and Lesbians are 14x more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals.

I will be amazed if having a few get married will change the figure one iota.
The problems are caused by other factors. Some of which are caused by the fact they are gay, especially among men.

Reading New Scientist recently, it appears science is showing that is a lot more than genetic factors that affect people's sexuality.

 

[Knobby22]

Why isn’t slavery legal then? Why don’t we allow polygamy? Are there laws against different types of cattle grazing together? Do we prohibit growing different crops in the same field? Do we outlaw clothes made from more than one fabric? Do we allow people to cut their hair and shave? Do we execute anyone for infidelity? Do we stone to death people who claim to be psychics? Do we bar people with flat noses, are blind or lame, from attending a Church? Is it law that we should go to non Christian countries and engage in genocide?

.

I think you are completely ignorant on Christianity sydboy, which is OK, but you are wrong on all points.
And on some, it is actually stated the direct opposite. Not sure what you are getting this from? Getting mixed up with the Jewish religion?