Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

One interesting side issue, not commonly known, aprox 0.1% ie 1 in 1000 of births, sex cannot be fully determined, I know at least one such person, a very sad thing for them, if that what is behind some comments regarding State insisting on no sex recognition

Yep things are not black and white when it comes to gender and sexuality.

It's not as simple as straight and gay, the are all sorts of variations.

The best way I have heard it explained in this

"gender is who you go to bed as, sexuality is who you go to bed with"

An example that shows this is a person born with a male body, that deeply feels that they are a woman, how ever they are not attracted to men, so are not gay man, So they may have a sex change, and live as a woman, while also sleeping with women, to get technical they were a lesbian women, born into a males body, once you understand that, you will see there are all sorts of variations.

 

[Tisme]

Wow. You really haven't read the bible. .

Yeah I have actually .... but what I don't understand is how you and VC are like swarming bees even to a theist like myself. I'd hate to know how Tink feels as a practicing christian, knowing how you both were quick out of the blocks to finish me off ... and I don't give a proverbial #$^% whether people 2000 years ago were servants or not.

 

[Tisme]

Nope, it wasn't indentured servitude, that's just some thing apologists say to cover up the immorality in their own texts.

Unless the person was a Jew it was ownership of a person for life, if the person was a Jew you had to release them after 7 years, but you would still own their wife and children, if they wanted to stay with their wife and kids, they had to give them selves to you for life, and you had to mark their ear by hammering a spike through it.

Non Jewish slaves had no realease clause, they were slaves for life, they could be whipped or beaten provided them didn't lose an eye or die within 1 day of the beating. Female slaves could be used for sex.

Jesus didn't say anything against this stuff.

You may well be right ... how does that stack up against, say this site:

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm ?

I don't think I mentioned the Hebrew slavery rules, but you might like to revisit your views having read the "implementation" of the rules here (of course this site is invalid because it doesn't meet with your stance):

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/slavery.html

 

[sydboy007]

Yeah I have actually .... but what I don't understand is how you and VC are like swarming bees even to a theist like myself. I'd hate to know how Tink feels as a practicing christian, knowing how you both were quick out of the blocks to finish me off ... and I don't give a proverbial #$^% whether people 2000 years ago were servants or not.

Well if those who are religous would keep their views based on religion to themselves, we'd all be happier people. We live in a secular society because the alternatives are too similar to saudi arabia and kuwait and their likes.

the less Kim Davis and Creflo Dollars in this world the better.

The less using 2000+ year old stories from a land time forgot would also be good, especially when it comes to homosexuality and same sex marrige.

From a moral perspective there's nothing in the bible that one cannot have without the religious parts.

 

[Tink]

Thanks, Tisme,

As I said, it is all a bluff, filling this thread with Christianity, and no mention about same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage has NO benefits in society.

A fallen society, and more Government Control in your life.

The State becomes the parents.

 

[sydboy007]

Thanks, Tisme,

As I said, it is all a bluff, filling this thread with Christianity, and no mention about same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage has NO benefits in society.

A fallen society, and more Government Control in your life.

The State becomes the parents.

Explain how the Govt stepping out of controlling the definition of marriage is increased control?

Explain why providing a marginalised group of people the same recognition of their relationships is not good for society

Explain how the State becomes the parents.

How would allowing SS marriage cause a fallen society?

Is Sweden a fallen society? is the UK or France? Is Denmark? What evils have occurred in those countries due to SS marriage?

You've still not explained how SS marriage has any impact on your personal life Tink. You regularly refer to natural law and religious morality to back up your points, but I don't recall you explaining why allowing me the choice to marry my long term partner would have any impact on anyone else.

 

[Value Collector]

You may well be right ... how does that stack up against, say this site:

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm ?

I don't think I mentioned the Hebrew slavery rules, but you might like to revisit your views having read the "implementation" of the rules here (of course this site is invalid because it doesn't meet with your stance):

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/slavery.html

Even the sugar coating they are attempting to give slavery is still vastly immoral, and breaks all kinds of Australian and international law.

I am sure slave owners in the USA attempted to sugar coat their slavery also, the fact is there is nothing moral about biblical slavery, and there is nothing in the bible outlawing it, so since the bible is full of immorality, you can not use it as bench mark for anything.

 

[overhang]

Thanks, Tisme,

As I said, it is all a bluff, filling this thread with Christianity, and no mention about same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage has NO benefits in society.

A fallen society, and more Government Control in your life.

The State becomes the parents.

My bolds. Tink it is you and the government that wants to control peoples lives by preventing others from doing what you're able to do. No one is forcing you to have a SS marriage, no one is telling you that you don't have to agree with it but what we're saying is that you have no right to control the lives of others as you want to do. This is not the battle of freedom of speech as you call it but the battle of liberties that you want to suppress.

 

[Tink]

If you are happy with a totalitarian society, good for you, I am not.

It has been explained and I am not explaining anymore.

 

[Knobby22]

In the end we are going to have a plebiscite.
I think this is the best way to go and I will be happy for people to consider the two options and choose. This will take the heat out of the argument once democracy has taken place.

I think Government should get out of people's personal lives but unfortunately, in the case of marriage, it is difficult to do so. My prediction is that if this is passed, very few homosexuals will get married in any case.

 

[overhang]

If you are happy with a totalitarian society, good for you, I am not.

It has been explained and I am not explaining anymore.

Tink I'm not sure totalitarian society means what you think it means.

Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible

That sounds a lot more like a government controlling the definition of marriage than one that says everyone is free to marry who they like. In fact the whole history of marriage in this country has been battling the government for freedom to wed.

 

[Value Collector]

In the end we are going to have a plebiscite.
I think this is the best way to go and I will be happy for people to consider the two options and choose.

A plebiscite is not the best option, it may work out well it the voters make the right decision and allow gay marriage, but this decision shouldn't have to come to a plebiscite.

For example, we all know slavery is morally wrong, however if it was put to a plebiscite in the southern states of the USA there is a chance that it would have been voted to keep slavery legal, this popular vote in no way would have made it morally correct to keep slaves, it is still wrong, on such human rights matters the popular opinion doesn't matter.

It's like the old example, a vote between two wolves and a sheep on what to eat for dinner would result in the wolves eating the sheep, a modern society based on equal rights under the law, no minority group should be able to lose their basic human rights due to a popular vote.

 

[sinner]

Same sex marriage has NO benefits in society.

A fallen society, and more Government Control in your life.

The State becomes the parents.

Thanks Tink, but it appears you forgot to include the references to back up these statements which otherwise appear to be a serious feat of mental gymnastics (congratulations, I assume only possible through a lifetime of training).

 

[SirRumpole]

A plebiscite is not the best option, it may work out well it the voters make the right decision and allow gay marriage, but this decision shouldn't have to come to a plebiscite.

What you are really saying is that it's your way or the highway and the public at large have no right to decide what sort of society we want.

For example, we all know slavery is morally wrong, however if it was put to a plebiscite in the southern states of the USA there is a chance that it would have been voted to keep slavery legal, this popular vote in no way would have made it morally correct to keep slaves, it is still wrong, on such human rights matters the popular opinion doesn't matter.

That rather depends on whether the slaves are allowed to vote.

 

[Knobby22]

A plebiscite is not the best option, it may work out well it the voters make the right decision and allow gay marriage, but this decision shouldn't have to come to a plebiscite.

A plebiscite if passed then reflects the will of the Australian people.
If politicians do it a large minority will not accept the result.

On a side note, slavery was through all history and only ended with industrialisation due to machines doing the work.
All the empires, kingdoms etc. relied on it to achieve wealth. Maybe they were called serfs, peasants or churls instead of slaves but it was the same thing. So obviously in your logic, every civilisation before the 18th century was evil. I suggest you read some of the Roman History books, e.g. the Colleen McCullough books. Comparing it to the US slave movement would be quite illuminating.

 

[Value Collector]

A plebiscite if passed then reflects the will of the Australian people.
If politicians do it a large minority will not accept the result.

.

Yes, it does reflect the will of the majority of Australian people, but this doesn't make something right or moral, and it doesn't give them the right to inflict that will on others when doing so takes away a human right.

All the empires, kingdoms etc. relied on it to achieve wealth. Maybe they were called serfs, peasants or churls instead of slaves but it was the same thing. So obviously in your logic, every civilisation before the 18th century was evil

.

Yes owning people is and always has been immoral, the word evil has a lot of baggage, so I wouldn't say they were evil, but our moral concepts have developed over time, so generally the further back you look the more immoral behaviour you will find.

Slavery didn't cause more wealth to be produced, it just concentrated the wealth produced by many men into the hands of one slave owner, so the extra "wealth" is an illusion.

 

[Value Collector]

What you are really saying is that it's your way or the highway and the public at large have no right to decide what sort of society we want.



.

Society doesn't have the right to deny human rights to others, and people have the right not to be discriminated against because of sexuality.

Do you not understand that a plebiscite to decide whether black children should be allowed to go to state schools would be immoral, Even if the Aussie public voted to ban black kids from schools, banning them is still immoral.

What I am trying to say is that morality is not based on popular opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

What I am trying to say is that morality is not based on popular opinion.

I'm afraid it is, otherwise you are saying that only you and 2% of the population know what morality is.

Have you so little faith in the rest of society, or are you just extremely arrogant ?

 

[Value Collector]

I'm afraid it is, otherwise you are saying that only you and 2% of the population know what morality is.

Have you so little faith in the rest of society, or are you just extremely arrogant ?

So in the example I gave, of the majority voting to restrict black children from attending state schools, would that be moral for the government to follow through and ban blacks from schools?

It's entirely possible for the majority to be wrong, there was a time when the majority thought the earth was flat, this popular opinion didn't change the shape of the earth, it's the same with morality, certain things are immoral, and the popular opinion doesn't change that.

 

[Tisme]

If you are happy with a totalitarian society, good for you, I am not.

It has been explained and I am not explaining anymore.

I'm with you ...governance for the sake of governance annoys me greatly; it's suffocating, it's counter intuitive, it's controlling, it's a death sentence for society ....a death by a thousand cuts.