Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Gay Marriage

Jump to new
Bill Shorten releases details of Labor's same-sex marriage bill

The words "man and woman" and "husband and wife" will be replaced by "two people" in the Marriage Act under Bill Shorten's proposal to redefine marriage in Australia.

Under the changes gay couples who have already married overseas would have their unions recognised under Australian law, with the repeal of section 88EA of the Act.
Click to expand...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-samesex-marriage-bill-20150529-ghcinb.html

shorten plibersek bitch.jpg

If Labor listens to its deputy and the national conference votes in favour of a binding vote on gay marriage, the major party of the Left in this country could split. Certainly the conservative elements of the party will cross the floor and risk expulsion. If they are kicked out, then a split will soon follow. If a blind eye is turned to the breaking of clear party rules, the solidarity so many within the labour movement claim as an important reason for denying the right to cross the floor will be shattered. A conscience vote avoids all of this.

While I do not doubt Plibersek’s sincerity of purpose when it comes to championing gay rights, there is more at play for her. The Left faction, of which she is the most senior member, is growing in strength internally. It dominates the ranks of the lay membership, which now has an equal say with the parliamentary party when electing federal leaders. Plibersek is playing to her natural constituency, including those in her electorate, which is increasingly under threat from Greens. Many within the Left wouldn’t mind a party split that saw the Right weakened with departures. The challenge the Left faces from the Greens makes it mindful of the need to push causes that appeal to inner-city progressives.
Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...iage-hurts-cause/story-fn53lw5p-1227330766042

Just live in sin and have a pre-nup. Marriage is archaic and should be abolished IMO :2twocents
 
VC, as I have said, I don't believe the polls, just as was shown in the election in the UK, but it does go to show how divided people still are on this topic.
Web poll or not, people still felt the need to have their say.

The Gay News is not a place I would get my information without bias.

Boggo, I am not going to make excuses for the HUMANS in the Catholic Church as I agree it was disgusting what they did, but one question I ask is who are these humans?
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, you can flip it any way you want, but that is exactly what it is, sexual urges for children.
Sadly, they don't tell you that on their references.

We have child pornography running rampant in society for something that we think we have found and dealt with, is it getting better?

Secondly if that country voted in spite, rather than for, then I feel for the children of that country whose rights have just been stripped.
As I said, give rights to one, take it from another.
 
Tink said:
VC, as I have said, I don't believe the polls, just as was shown in the election in the UK, but it does go to show how divided people still are on this topic.
Web poll or not, people still felt the need to have their say.

The Gay News is not a place I would get my information without bias.

Boggo, I am not going to make excuses for the HUMANS in the Catholic Church as I agree it was disgusting what they did, but one question I ask is who are these humans?
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, you can flip it any way you want, but that is exactly what it is, sexual urges for children.
Sadly, they don't tell you that on their references.

We have child pornography running rampant in society for something that we think we have found and dealt with, is it getting better?

Secondly if that country voted in spite, rather than for, then I feel for the children of that country whose rights have just been stripped.
As I said, give rights to one, take it from another.
Click to expand...

Tink

one of your main arguments against gay marriage is that it somehow devalues current marriages.

So if gay marriage does get legalised, would you instantly feel your marriage is somehow devalued? Or are you more worried about how others will view marriage?

If the later, can you understand how gay people feel when they are told their relationships are not worthy of being called marriage.

A possible way around the issue could be to just change the legal side of things so everything is called a civil union. Marriage can just represent the (unimportant) ceremony , but the Govt recognition of the relationship and all that entails can be be referred to s a civil union.

The religious can continue to pretend they have a monopoly over the term marriage, and the community moves on.
 
sydboy007 said:
Tink

one of your main arguments against gay marriage is that it somehow devalues current marriages.

So if gay marriage does get legalised, would you instantly feel your marriage is somehow devalued? Or are you more worried about how others will view marriage?

If the later, can you understand how gay people feel when they are told their relationships are not worthy of being called marriage.

A possible way around the issue could be to just change the legal side of things so everything is called a civil union. Marriage can just represent the (unimportant) ceremony , but the Govt recognition of the relationship and all that entails can be be referred to s a civil union.

The religious can continue to pretend they have a monopoly over the term marriage, and the community moves on.
Click to expand...

Given that, do you respect the right of churches to refuse to marry gay people ?
 
Tink said:
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, you can flip it any way you want, but that is exactly what it is, sexual urges for children.
Click to expand...

Tink, you can't just make up your own science to suit your agenda.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.

You keep trying to position paedophilia in the same category as homosexuality in order to denigrate the latter. Studies have shown that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two ends of a scale and everyone is positioned somewhere along that scale, not just at either ends. Although homosexuality was at one stage considered a psychiatric disorder, that idea has long been discredited.

In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.
 
SirRumpole said:
Given that, do you respect the right of churches to refuse to marry gay people ?
Click to expand...

Sure do.

Why push a group to do something they legally are not required to do. Why waste your tiem aroudn people that don't respect you?

There's plenty of other venues to get married at. My parents eloped. Pretty much all my relatives were married outside a church, I suppose mostly due to the fact we're not particularly religious.

Why be part of a Church if it's not progressive enough to recognise your relationship?

The issue is people equate marriage in a church as marriage. It's not. It' just a get together or various people to see a ceremony.

If you don't do the official paper work you're not married. Religious groups like to pretend they have a monopoly on marriage.

The world didn't end when Jesus worked on the Sabbath, if you call giving sight to a blind man work, and the world survived. Anyone who professes to have read and understood their direct from God book, should maybe have a reread of John 4:28-30, Matthew 21:28-32, John 8:1-11 and then do some reflection on that great question "What would Jesus do"????

The sun will continue to rise and set long after Australia accepts gay marriage, and the kind of Jesus I like to believe in would be quite chuffed that we'd made a little more social progress.
 
Sure do.

Why push a group to do something they legally are not required to do. Why waste your tiem aroudn people that don't respect you?

There's plenty of other venues to get married at. My parents eloped. Pretty much all my relatives were married outside a church, I suppose mostly due to the fact we're not particularly religious.

Why be part of a Church if it's not progressive enough to recognise your relationship?

The issue is people equate marriage in a church as marriage. It's not. It' just a get together or various people to see a ceremony.

If you don't do the official paper work you're not married. Religious groups like to pretend they have a monopoly on marriage.
Click to expand...

A very reasonable view.
 
Tink said:
then I feel for the children of that country whose rights have just been stripped.
As I said, give rights to one, take it from another.
Click to expand...

No child has lost any right, and the children that are gay can now look forward to having more rights than they used to be able to look forward to, so it's a net plus for kids.
 
SirRumpole said:
Given that, do you respect the right of churches to refuse to marry gay people ?
Click to expand...

Yes, they can have a bigoted little club if they like. unless they advertise as offering wedding services to the public, then it's should be open to any eligible party that comes.
 
What's up with religion and homosexuals?

The Church explains everything away as "God's plan", that we have to come to term with it because god have his reasons etc.

So natural disasters, drought, famine, war, diseases... all those horrible things are bad, but god weeps and it's part of his plan. Those bacteria and cancerous cells killing your loved ones... It's part of god's creation etc.

But... homosexuality? That's just nasty, god didn't make that... they're definitely going to hell those gays. And according to Pat Robertson in the US, God so hated homosexuals he bring on hurricanes and floods.

ah nuts.
 
SirRumpole said:
Children conceived by IVF could be considered to have lost the "right" to two biological parents, but that hardly matters these days does it ?
Click to expand...

The referendum that tink says caused children to lose their rights, was about gay marriage, not about Ivf laws or biological parents.
 
sydboy007 said:
The religious can continue to pretend they have a monopoly over the term marriage, and the community moves on.
Click to expand...

The religious crowd already pretends theirs is a special union: They call their brand of marriage a sacrament.

Given that, I don't believe there is a need for rebadging marriage and giving it another name (e.g. civil union). Let's simply grow up and continue to label the legal status of two persons who have made this particular commitment to each other a marriage.

In Victorian times, the right to enter into legally binding contracts, especially ownership of property, was restricted to members of one gender. Women needed a guardian, and husbands were required to "audit the household books" at least monthly. The same was true in the case of parliamentary elections.

Societies have moved on and removed gender-specific restrictions in those cases without changing the descriptions of "property", "contract", or "election". Of course, history records strong opposition at the time, with arguments similar to those now leveled against gender-neutral marriages.
God's Will, different brain functions, lunar cycles, ... lots of invented, irrational, unscientific nonsense; over time, the opponents died out. The same will - and should - happen once sanity will have prevailed about "marriage".
 
Syd, this topic has been done to death, but just to answer your post.

I appreciate your post, regarding civil unions and respecting the Churches wishes, regarding Marriage.
Yes, I am looking at it from a Church perspective, but I know many are looking at it as the foundation that holds society together, equal being mum, dad, children..
You don't have to be religious to be standing up for Marriage, we all have parents.
There has been a strong voice against, and many asking for a referendum, they want their voice heard.

Tisme said similarly in one of his posts about handing Marriage back to the Church where it began.

I say that if the govts have historically written bills and legislation to financially encourage a nation of naturally conceiving families and they are now being modified to embrace impossible to naturally conceive couple, then why not just scrap the whole govt interfering in marriages and hand that back to Churches who thought up the idea in the first place for fun and profit:-.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=48&p=870324&viewfull=1#post870324

I know you are not religious but just understanding the Christian Churches teachings and principles, there is a reason for all that they stand up for, and it is not trying to single out anyone.
-- Life, Family and the common good for all.

Marriage is the foundations of society that keeps it together, dismantling Marriage, just moves it to state control.

Marriage is a sacrament, man and woman, becomes husband and wife, have their children and raise them.
They have perfect equality of a mother and father, and BOTH give what a child needs.
I mention the Gold standard because that is what Marriage is and should be taught in schools as is.
I don't agree with removing genders.
I don't believe children should be learning your lifestyle as marriage, you can't have children that way and there is no reason for them to learn about it.

Marriage is about the truth, biological parents with their children.

We have been through this many times.

I was told the other day that this is not a human rights issue.
It has been dealt with regarding your relationships.

VC, we don't live in a communist country, I can say whatever I like.
We do still have free speech.

The Left are determined to destroy the family unit.

Classic leftists lines
-- it is in the science or more education is needed --
hence, more brainwashing for their social engineering.
 
Tink said:
Syd, this topic has been done to death, but just to answer your post.

I appreciate your post, regarding civil unions and respecting the Churches wishes, regarding Marriage.
Yes, I am looking at it from a Church perspective, but I know many are looking at it as the foundation that holds society together, equal being mum, dad, children..
You don't have to be religious to be standing up for Marriage, we all have parents.
There has been a strong voice against, and many asking for a referendum, they want their voice heard.

Tisme said similarly in one of his posts about handing Marriage back to the Church where it began.

I say that if the govts have historically written bills and legislation to financially encourage a nation of naturally conceiving families and they are now being modified to embrace impossible to naturally conceive couple, then why not just scrap the whole govt interfering in marriages and hand that back to Churches who thought up the idea in the first place for fun and profit:-.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=48&p=870324&viewfull=1#post870324

I know you are not religious but just understanding the Christian Churches teachings and principles, there is a reason for all that they stand up for, and it is not trying to single out anyone.
-- Life, Family and the common good for all.

Marriage is the foundations of society that keeps it together, dismantling Marriage, just moves it to state control.

Marriage is a sacrament, man and woman, becomes husband and wife, have their children and raise them.
They have perfect equality of a mother and father, and BOTH give what a child needs.
I mention the Gold standard because that is what Marriage is and should be taught in schools as is.
I don't agree with removing genders.
I don't believe children should be learning your lifestyle as marriage, you can't have children that way and there is no reason for them to learn about it.

Marriage is about the truth, biological parents with their children.

We have been through this many times.

I was told the other day that this is not a human rights issue.
It has been dealt with regarding your relationships.

VC, we don't live in a communist country, I can say whatever I like.
We do still have free speech.

The Left are determined to destroy the family unit.

Classic leftists lines
-- it is in the science or more education is needed --
hence, more brainwashing for their social engineering.
Click to expand...

being homosexual is no more a lifestyle than being heterosexual. it is not a choice, and why would anyone choose to be viewed as deviant by society if they could choose to be part of the dominant group? I knew I was more attracted to men from a younish age. Certainly always found the masculine form more "pleasing to the eye". I was born this way and accept it as being as much apart of me as blue eyes and brown hair.

Brainwashing is more likely to occur within a religion than in a schoolroom. When you have religious people wanting to force schools to treat creationism on the same level as the scientific understanding of how the earth formed and life began, well I suppose it's good to know the earth is just about 6000 years old and according to a lot of the religious right we have humans frolicking with the dinosaurs.

Judeo Christian Churches did not invent marriage. Marriage rituals were around long before Jesus was born. They were pretty much pagan celebrations, though probably religious too but pagan according to the more recent religions. Records show some of the earliest "marriages" were even for same sex couples. It was really only the influence of religion that caused 1600+ years of persecution for homosexuals. Around 340 AD the Christian Emperors Constanttinus II and Constans brought into law prohibitions on same sex marriages. Monastery records from Spain show that 2 men were married on 16 April 1061. If you can bring yourself to take off your religious blinkers you'll see that same sex marriage has been around for a very very long time.

I would argue that a fair society that treats all it's citizens equally has stronger bonds between people than one that views some as more worthy than others. In 20 or 30 years those against same sex marriage will be viewed in the same light as those who supported slavery, and racial segregation and were against interracial marriages. Many of those people were overtly religious, using the bible to justify their positions.
 
Tink said:
.

Tisme said similarly in one of his posts about handing Marriage back to the Church where it began.


.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn't own marriage, never has and never will

Human beings Marrying each other Pre dates pretty much all religions, and it certainly predates both Christianity and Jewish religions, there was marriages happening in cultures all over the world for thousands of years before the Bible was written.

So the religious opinions on marriage don't mean anything when it comes to people or nations that are not part of the religion.

Marriage also predates all countries and political structures, and marriages exist whether those countries recognise them or not, But if a country gets into the business of recognising marriages, while also making itself out to be a nation that embraces diversity and equality, then it should recognise all marriages.

VC, we don't live in a communist country, I can say whatever I like.
We do still have free speech.
Click to expand...

I have never suggested we are a communist country, We are a vibrant secular democracy. I do wonder why you always through the word communist around.

Also, I have never said you don't have the right to free speech, But I also have the write to point out that you are being silly, and that you are wrong.

Marriage is about the truth, biological parents with their children
Click to expand...

Marriage is about what ever the two people involved say its about, My marriage is about loving and supporting each other, enjoying our time together, watching movies, eating out, walking our dogs, kisses, etc etc.

You don't get to say what my marriage is.

For some people marriage is about gets, and I say good for them, but for others marriage is about other things, and that's good too.
 

Similar threads

basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
1K
sptrawler
sptrawler
basilio
Married Sunday, Fired Monday... really?
Replies
18
Views
4K
grah33
G
sydboy007
Combating the stereotypes around homosexuality
Replies
2
Views
992
sydboy007
sydboy007
C
  • Locked
Answers to Islamic Apologism
2 3
Replies
48
Views
9K
doctorj
doctorj
Top