Gay Marriage

[Tisme]

Neither can a lot of married straight couples, should their marriages be dissolved by the state?

Yep.

Marriage should be based on mating to procreate and nurture a family in my opinion. If grey divorce happens after that (one in four divorces are empty nest couples ) then fly be free. Even cradle Catholics are joining the "you go your way and I'll go mine" trail.

It is fast becoming an archaic institution anyway, which is why the hipsters and milleniums tend not to value it as anything more than an excuse to have a ceremony party.

If the govt is going to continue with regulating the rules, the money shelled out should be means tested so those young struggling couples have the capacity to raise a family in the interest of the community. Those that have worked fancy free and have means should be encouraged to foot the bill for the IVF, surrogacy ,infant care, etc.

 

[Value Collector]

Yep.

Marriage should be based on mating to procreate and nurture a family in my opinion.

So do you think there are no benefits to marriage other than breeding?

So should we be subjecting couples to fertility testing before marriage licenses are handed out?

Perhaps part of the marriage contract should be a promise to get pregnant within a certain timeframe? And marriages between older couples should be banned.

I guess that's the difference between you and some of the others here, we actually believe there is more to a relationship and a marriage than just procreation.

 

[Tink]

I agree with, Tisme.

I see you mention Catholic again, Syd, yet you forget to mention what we saw on the ABC, with the gay pedophiles.
That blew up in their face on their ABC.
I was talking about Tom O'Carroll (pedophile) that I put up a while ago from a 60 mins show.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_O'Carroll

Syd, what I am saying is that families should be in control of their home life, not government.
They are intruding more and more where people should be free to raise their own families.

As was stated by Brendan O'Neill (NOT RELIGIOUS) which I agree with --

It increases the state's oversight of family life rather than decreasing it

This gives the state the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage, which has been an organic thing developed over thousands of years.

For me, as a libertarian, that's a step too far and I think for you to redefine a view that was standard for thousands of years as bigotry, that in itself is a form of bigotry

You will not tolerate traditionalists. You will not tolerate religious people. You will not tolerate Christians.

In my view, I don't agree that you are being discriminated against, in Australia.

 

[Tisme]

So do you think there are no benefits to marriage other than breeding?

So should we be subjecting couples to fertility testing before marriage licenses are handed out?

Perhaps part of the marriage contract should be a promise to get pregnant within a certain timeframe? And marriages between older couples should be banned.

I guess that's the difference between you and some of the others here, we actually believe there is more to a relationship and a marriage than just procreation.

You're the one that keeps banging on about the tradition so there is copious evidence to show that tribes have been arranging marriages for thousands of years to form alliances and produce common blood, kings have been at it forever, with even Henry VIII marrying a few times to conceive a non bast4rd child/heir. The Indian caste system regulates marriage and sets women alight who marry for love if not prior approved, the Arabs stone, the Jews disown, the Italians are likely to throw a tantrum and kick the offender out, etc, etc.

God help and Anglican marrying a Catholic even one generation ago ....my God you'd have mum doing hail Marys for a year.

Even in my time I was a ground breaker in buying a house and living in sin; the gasps were palpaple.

Love is of minor importance to marriage, but it's a great feeling. Mothering and Fathering are a great pleasure and great bonding exercise all round. The best part is making the the little tykes.

 

[Value Collector]

You're the one that keeps banging on about the tradition so there is copious evidence to show that tribes have been arranging marriages for thousands of years to form alliances and produce common blood, kings have been at it forever, with even Henry VIII marrying a few times to conceive a non bast4rd child/heir. The Indian caste system regulates marriage and sets women alight who marry for love if not prior approved, the Arabs stone, the Jews disown, the Italians are likely to throw a tantrum and kick the offender out, etc, etc.

God help and Anglican marrying a Catholic even one generation ago ....my God you'd have mum doing hail Marys for a year.

Even in my time I was a ground breaker in buying a house and living in sin; the gasps were palpaple.

Love is of minor importance to marriage, but it's a great feeling. Mothering and Fathering are a great pleasure and great bonding exercise all round. The best part is making the the little tykes.

Nice rant, but you avoided the question.

 

[sydboy007]

I agree with, Tisme.

I see you mention Catholic again, Syd, yet you forget to mention what we saw on the ABC, with the gay pedophiles.
That blew up in their face on their ABC.
I was talking about Tom O'Carroll (pedophile) that I put up a while ago from a 60 mins show.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_O'Carroll

Syd, what I am saying is that families should be in control of their home life, not government.
They are intruding more and more where people should be free to raise their own families.

As was stated by Brendan O'Neill (NOT RELIGIOUS) which I agree with --

It increases the state's oversight of family life rather than decreasing it

This gives the state the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage, which has been an organic thing developed over thousands of years.

For me, as a libertarian, that's a step too far and I think for you to redefine a view that was standard for thousands of years as bigotry, that in itself is a form of bigotry

You will not tolerate traditionalists. You will not tolerate religious people. You will not tolerate Christians.

In my view, I don't agree that you are being discriminated against, in Australia.

Who said that gays don't do bad things just like heterosexuals? I've never. All I've done is said there is no linkage between sexuality and paedophilia. How does you 60 minutes report compare to the centuries of Church sanctioned child abuse?

Explain to me how allowing SS marriage is controlling your home life. How would SS marriage impact your or anyone else in the way they raise their families?

So you admit that marriage is organic, that it's meaning has changed over thousands of years. yet now it has to remain static and unchanging forever more. Why is that?

I am not redfining anything. I am asking why it is right to deny SS marriage. It has no affect on your marriage or any marriage, except for the new marriages it will allow.

So you don't believe it is discrimination to say that homosexuals are not able to be married. Only heterosexuals can be married. is it discrimination for Saudi's to not allow women to drive?

I have lots of tolerance. I have Christian friends. I'm relatively traditional in my outlook in life. But I'm not beholden to some archaic texts to tell me how to live a good life.

Explain to me why I shoudl have respect for "christians" when they behave like this???

[video=youtube_share;7y1xJAVZxXg]http://youtu.be/7y1xJAVZxXg[/video]

 

[Tisme]

Nice rant, but you avoided the question.

You simply didn't like the answer.... thus the snipe

 

[Value Collector]

You simply didn't like the answer.... thus the snipe

Nope, I asked if you believed there was any other benefits to marriage and you just ranted about a bunch of stuff, that's not answering the question.

The closest you came to the question was the last paragraph, where you said you personally felt raising kids was the best part of marriage.

The problem with that is, that's like saying "the best part of the weekend is Saturday morning golf, therefore weekends are about Saturday morning golf, unless you play golf you don't need weekends, your simply not capbale of enjoying weekends"

Not everyone wants kids, and you don't need to have them to enjoy or want a marriage. You are just trying to push your ideas onto others, and before you rant and say that gays are pushing their ideas onto you, realise that allowing gay marriage will not change a single aspect of straight marriage.

 

[Tisme]

So do you think there are no benefits to marriage other than breeding?

Yes

So should we be subjecting couples to fertility testing before marriage licenses are handed out?

No

Perhaps part of the marriage contract should be a promise to get pregnant within a certain timeframe? And marriages between older couples should be banned.

Rhetorical rant

I guess that's the difference between you and some of the others here, we actually believe there is more to a relationship and a marriage than just procreation.

Presumptive

 

[SirRumpole]

What I think Tisme is trying to say, is that if two people want to stay together without having children, then marriage is irrelevant. If they want to stay together then they will, and a piece of paper doesn't matter a fig. This is happening more and more in society.

A marriage certificate though gives children some security. A claim to assets in case the parents snuff it unexpectedly, a lineage and access to family history and medical records.


So the whole question of marriage is up for grabs. Gays shouldn't feel "out of society" if they don't get married. A lot of people are realising that it may not be worth the trouble anyway.

 

[Tisme]

You need to read the posts carefully.

Nope, I asked if you believed there was any other benefits to marriage and you just ranted about a bunch of stuff, that's not answering the question.

I did indeed: political, familiar, alliances, social

The closest you came to the question was the last paragraph, where you said you personally felt raising kids was the best part of marriage.

No I didn't I said making them is the best part

The problem with that is, that's like saying "the best part of the weekend is Saturday morning golf, therefore weekends are about Saturday morning golf, unless you play golf you don't need weekends, your simply not capbale of enjoying weekends"

Predicated on a falsehood

Not everyone wants kids, and you don't need to have them to enjoy or want a marriage. You are just trying to push your ideas onto others, and before you rant and say that gays are pushing their ideas onto you, realise that allowing gay marriage will not change a single aspect of straight marriage.

Sure that is the building block of your argument ..... the greater the spread of reasons you make up the more you can dovetail your gay marriage crusade into the equation. You are not only hyper guilty of "trying to push your ideas onto others" you are totally intolerant and disrespectful of its consequences in saying "gay marriage will not change a single aspect of straight marriage" ...of course it will change aspects of true "marriage" ... it will make a mockery of it ... you may as well sledgehammer Palmyra to get the same reaction from true believers in marriage.

Lets hope your kids see marriage as a solemn obligation in the face of the farce it will soon become.

 

[Tisme]

What I think Tisme is trying to say, is that if two people want to stay together without having children, then marriage is irrelevant. If they want to stay together then they will, and a piece of paper doesn't matter a fig. This is happening more and more in society.

A marriage certificate though gives children some security. A claim to assets in case the parents snuff it unexpectedly, a lineage and access to family history and medical records.


So the whole question of marriage is up for grabs. Gays shouldn't feel "out of society" if they don't get married. A lot of people are realising that it may not be worth the trouble anyway.

I'm not trying to say it, I already stated it way back. My 36 year mateship with my wife was envied by all. The marriage (years after we buddied up and built a house & made a home) was indeed a commitment to our potential offspring, our love for one another was never dependent on nuptials and the like.

Kids are precious and should not be experimented with or treated as a fashion accessory. I know what it's like to be without a father and looking through the crowd for someone who looks like me, just incase he wasn't dead afterall. I know what it's like to live in poverty because of a single income. I know what its like to be approached by the cute and cuddly homosexual paedophile. I know what it's like to see sexual discrimination first hand with my mother relegated to persona ingrata when trying to get loans and finance.... real problems, not whether two blokes who want to play with each other's starfish under the umbrella of a magic pudding marriage certificate.

We all remember Aunt Meg and Aunt Daisy who lived together after their hubbies died of alcohol and nicotine poisoning...there was something not quite right, but the elders in the family assured us everything was fine and we should get on and develop ourselves.... a quaint notion that children should have stability, purpose, independence and individuality without the emotional baggage of their (extended) family. They certainly didn't use kids as a shield to justify their own peccadilloes.

 

[Value Collector]

No

Why not, there's a chance they may be infertile, So why let them marry unless they can prove they can have kids?

I mean you main argument is that marriage is for the production of children, if you are ok with straight couples that can't have children getting married you should be fine with gay couples getting married.

 

[Value Collector]

...of course it will change aspects of true "marriage" ... it will make a mockery of it ....

How so?

how would have a lesbian couple getting married on the other side of town affected your marriage?

 

[Tink]

Syd, I mentioned the 60 minutes show and the pedophile advocate because of your 'love wins' marketing, read back.

Controlling peoples thoughts and homes is orwellian/authoritarian.
We should be allowed to raise our children with family values.

When you start making criminals of peoples thoughts, and calling it hate speech, you have gone too far.
The person I mentioned is a champion for freedom of speech, and against this rubbish, same sex marriage.

The TRUTH is Marriage is as is, father, mother and child, and you are changing it to exclude children from their natural parents, or a mother and father, or a man or a woman, in your mix.

The Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay as is for all future generations.

You are giving the state control over families and changing the natural law, and that is not on, imo.
I won't be brainwashed and indoctrinated with your/their social engineering.
Children come first, not selfish adults.

They are removing boundaries. They are removing LAW.
Man does not have the right to change it when it disadvantages one in society, especially vulnerable children.

As I have said there is no reason to change marriage because marriage means families and keeping them together.

Encouraging broken families makes it a fallen society, and in need of government intervention.
There is no reason for the government to promote broken families or your lifestyle.

Politics needs to get out of the public schools, as I have mentioned already, and back to teaching literacy and numeracy, not what and how to think.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851

I would take Mike Baird as a Premier any day over this fool we have in Melbourne, Dictator Dan and his communist Green mates.

We have done this topic to death, and people that have made up their minds are not going to change, one way or the other.

 

[sydboy007]

Syd, I mentioned the 60 minutes show and the pedophile advocate because of your 'love wins' marketing, read back.

I’ve never mentioned love wins. I do take offence when you talk about homosexuality and paedophiles while supporting a church that has been, still is, riddled with them and has spent more time and effort on protecting the priests and hierarchy than the victims.

Controlling peoples thoughts and homes is orwellian/authoritarian.
We should be allowed to raise our children with family values.

When you start making criminals of peoples thoughts, and calling it hate speech, you have gone too far.
The person I mentioned is a champion for freedom of speech, and against this rubbish, same sex marriage.

The TRUTH is Marriage is as is, father, mother and child, and you are changing it to exclude children from their natural parents, or a mother and father, or a man or a woman, in your mix. .

Explain to me how allowing SS marriage impacts the way you or anyone else controls peoples thoughts. So you say it’s wrong for a Govt to control people, but it’s perfectly fine for religious sects to do it. Double standards there.

SS marriage does not exclude children.

This whole section sounds like a classic “war on Christmas” rant

I woudl think most of the time you allow your thoughts to be controlled. Probablly a lot easier to do with someone who's already given up their critical thinking to accept being a member of an organised religion.

The Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay as is for all future generations.

You are giving the state control over families and changing the natural law, and that is not on, imo.
I won't be brainwashed and indoctrinated with your/their social engineering.
Children come first, not selfish adults.

They are removing boundaries. They are removing LAW.
Man does not have the right to change it when it disadvantages one in society, especially vulnerable children.

What is natural law? In your world view god created all things. Therefore he made homosexuals. Then this means homosexuality is part of natural law.

Once again, how does allowing a SS couple get married in say Minto or Budgewoi affect you or anyone else in their married life and the way they raise their family?

IMHO experience children can be just as selfish as adults.

As I have said there is no reason to change marriage because marriage means families and keeping them together.

Encouraging broken families makes it a fallen society, and in need of government intervention.
There is no reason for the government to promote broken families or your lifestyle.

Politics needs to get out of the public schools, as I have mentioned already, and back to teaching literacy and numeracy, not what and how to think.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851

I would take Mike Baird as a Premier any day over this fool we have in Melbourne, Dictator Dan and his communist Green mates.

We have done this topic to death, and people that have made up their minds are not going to change, one way or the other.

So you’re saying that your view on marriage is the correct one, that the the historical changes in marriage are irrelevant, and that the human construct of marriage has to be forced to fit into your view.

Explain how SS marriage encourages broken families.

So you’re against politics in schools, but pro scripture classes. As the Vatican has shown over centuries, politics and religion are like glove to hand. But politics is part of life, part of the world. Children should have a better understanding of how political parties will try to manipulate them. Read my post in the Abbott Govt thread about just how many lies Abbott was telling last weekend. I doubt many people would bother to confirm what they’re being told, but in this day of relatively easy of searching up info on the internet, it’s something we should encourage children to do.

Then again, someone as pro religions as you are may not want Children to be critical thinkers about too much of what they’re spoon fed. How would you have explained how the bible promotes slavery, or how it provided a loophole to see that even Jews could become life long slaves

Exodus 21:4-6 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

How does this work with the god you say is all about family values and the saving of traditional marriage?

If you are not open to critical thinking and examining the evidence, then yes you will never change your mind.

 

[Value Collector]

Tink, you say marriage is "mother, Father and child"

You seem to think Marriages must have children, How do you rationalise this with you churches crazy practice of Marrying Nuns and other virgin women to Jesus, Firstly a marriage to your imaginary friend is not going to produce a child, and secondly marrying so many women to one God, is a form of polygamy, which is one of the examples of non traditional marriage you have said you are against.

 

[sydboy007]

I'll be interested to see what the Catholic appologists have to say on this

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-catho...t-stories-for-altar-boys-20150911-gjkrdv.html

"The church certainly failed in their duty of care to their parishioners. If that bishop who heard the complaint had imposed some sort of rein so that Flaherty couldn't be left alone with youth the first offence may not have been repeated.

"If the church knew about him being a paedophile and moved him from one church to another to go on and abuse more people, well then the church has got a lot of questions to answer."

I find it offensive that this Church has the audacity to talk about family values, protecting our morality, standing up for the traditional role of marriage in society, when it has been countless times white anting the very families it says it's out protecting.

Not only should the perpetrators be jailed, the higher ups who did their best to cover these crimes should also be sent to jail.

How anyone can choose to remain a member of this disgusting organisation is beyond me.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not only should the perpetrators be jailed, the higher ups who did their best to cover these crimes should also be sent to jail.

How anyone can choose to remain a member of this disgusting organisation is beyond me.

Perpetrators have been jailed, and maybe we should ask why the people who protected them have not been charged.

Is the "sanctity of the Confessional" a legal defence, or are they being protected by a "boys club" in the police and prosecutors office ? Maybe the victims or their families were either paid off, or scared off by the thought of having their children being cross examined in the witness stand.

Hopefully the RC (Royal commission) will provide a few answers.

Maybe there should also be a RC into child brides in other religions, but no doubt someone will scream "minority persecution" so it will never happen.

 

[Value Collector]

Perpetrators have been jailed, and maybe we should ask why the people who protected them have not been charged.

Is the "sanctity of the Confessional" a legal defence, or are they being protected by a "boys club" in the police and prosecutors office ? Maybe the victims or their families were either paid off, or scared off by the thought of having their children being cross examined in the witness stand.

Hopefully the RC (Royal commission) will provide a few answers.

Maybe there should also be a RC into child brides in other religions, but no doubt someone will scream "minority persecution" so it will never happen.

I have heard one defence that they felt having admitted their sins, spent a lot of time in thoughtful prayer and been granted forgiveness by the lord, the sins required no further punishment, The Catholic Church believe they are above the laws of the states they operate in.