Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Gay Marriage

So for what reason is Same Sex Marriage a benefit in society?

Why would the Government promote broken homes?
This creates a fallen society, where the Government needs to intervene.

As I said, the Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay that way for all future generations.

Gay marriage isn’t about freedom, but state control.

it allows the state to increase its already considerable clout over both our personal/family lives and our consciences.
The ugly tactics of the loudest gay-marriage proponents are no accident: they speak to this illiberal heart of gay marriage.
There’s one question I’ve asked every liberal I’ve encountered in Australia, all of whom harangue me for my views on gay marriage: why are Western governments that are so allergic to freedom and autonomy passionately embracing gay marriage? They’ve all struggled to answer.
I think it’s because gay marriage chimes brilliantly with these governments’ insatiable desire to diminish the sovereignty of the family and intervene more in our personal lives, and to police what we think.


http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/08/24/guest-post-brendan-oneill-heres-my-beef-with-gay-marriage/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e-branded-bigots/story-fnhulnf5-1227488996781

Such a classy lot -- https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...23929&page=114&p=881149&viewfull=1#post881149

- - - - - - -

Transgenderism Is a Big Part of This Package, and how it is logically a big step to erasing all sex distinctions in law
If we become legally sexless, the implications are vast when it comes to how or whether the state will recognize family relationships such as mother, father, son, or daughter. There’s already a push to eliminate sex identification at birth.

Love’s Got Nothing to Do with State Interest in Marriage
“Love is love” is an empty slogan when it comes to state interest in marriage. How two people feel about one another is none of the state’s business.
The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.
And it still is, whether the union happens traditionally or in a petri dish.
Each and every one of us””equally and without exception””only exists through the heterosexual union.
In any free and functioning society, there is a state interest in encouraging as much as possible those who sire and bear us to be responsible for raising us.

The Kids Are Not Alright.
Same-Sex Marriage Commodifies Children.
Whenever a parent is missing””for whatever reason””a child feels a primal wound.
In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults.
Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities.

The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound
in silence.
 
So for what reason is Same Sex Marriage a benefit in society?



.

Gays are part of our society, and it benefits them, also less discrimination benefits all.




As I said, the Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay that way for all future generations.

Is Marrying your imaginary friend the gold standard?

How do you feel that your cult supports polygamy, how many brides does Jesus have now?

Are you going to speak out against this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gays are part of our society, and it benefits them, also less discrimination benefits all.

Is Marrying your imaginary friend the gold standard?

How do you feel that your cult supports polygamy, how many brides does Jesus have now?

Are you going to speak out against this?

Good luck with habeas corpus on that complaint..... I doubt there is any valid marriage certificate to support your argument.


Imagine how Joseph felt when he found out 'you know who' was shagging his missus.:confused:
 
So for what reason is Same Sex Marriage a benefit in society?

Why would the Government promote broken homes?
This creates a fallen society, where the Government needs to intervene.

Tink

explain to me why a member of an organisation that has been covering up the molestation of children for decades should in any way have standing on the debate about SS marriage. Your support and continue to be a member that has done horrific things. The lack of morality is appalling, yet you feel entitled to hold your views up as a beacon of light against the darkness.

Why are you FORCING your religious beliefs on the rest of the community. Many people don't accept the teachings of your religion, heck there's so many arguments within Christianity that there's thousands of sects based on varying interpretations of what is written in the bible. We live in a secular society, fortunately, otherwise we'd have a society similar to Arabic states where theology sets the laws, and I'd say most women wouldn't like going back to that way of life.

Organised religions are the groups most likely to try and control what people think and do. They only survive by doing so.

So please explain in detail how the Govt allowing me to marry my partner of 15 years would affect your life, your family life, or anyone else but myself and my partner. How is allowing me to have the same rights as heterosexual members of Australian society bad?

Your constant linkage of SS marriage and children is plainly false. There are many marriages that are childless, whether due to biology or choice. Should all those marriages be revoked? Should marriage only be available for those of child bearing age? I suppose technically men can father children at any age, but women start to have issues over the age of 40.

Do you have any non religious arguments against SS marriage? If not, then stop forcing your religious views on others.
 
Tink

Why are you FORCING your religious beliefs on the rest of the community.

Maybe you can explain how expressing one's opinion on a forum is FORCING one's religious beliefs on anyone else, any more than you expressing your opinion is forcing your beliefs on others ?

If you don't like what anyone says, then you have no obligation to read it or to reply.

People expressing their opinions is what forums like this are all about.
 
Good luck with habeas corpus on that complaint..... I doubt there is any valid marriage certificate to support your argument.

Imagine how Joseph felt when he found out 'you know who' was shagging his missus.:confused:

Lol, I am not suggesting pressing charges, just pointing out that Tinks own club/ cult, has some pretty messed up ideas about marriage, that go directly against her gold standard, when she supports a club where people can marry their imaginary friend, I think she is being hypocritical.

Also tink has spoken out against polygamy, yet here is the figure head of her organisation taking thousands of brides. That's crazy before you even start thinking about those brides pretending to eat his flesh as priests drink his blood.
 
Lol, I am not suggesting pressing charges, just pointing out that Tinks own club/ cult, has some pretty messed up ideas about marriage, that go directly against her gold standard, when she supports a club where people can marry their imaginary friend, I think she is being hypocritical.

I'm sure you are clever enough to work out the distinction between philosophical marriage (eg Einstein was married to the Theory of Relativity) and physical marriage. Splitting hairs seems to be a hobby of some people here.
:rolleyes:
 
Maybe you can explain how expressing one's opinion on a forum is FORCING one's religious beliefs on anyone else, any more than you expressing your opinion is forcing your beliefs on others ?

If you don't like what anyone says, then you have no obligation to read it or to reply.

People expressing their opinions is what forums like this are all about.

Tink wants the government to continue banning Sydboy from being able to marry a same sex partner.

Sydboy is not trying to prevent tink from marrying or force her to marry anyone.

A guy that wants the government to ban pork, is trying to force his beliefs on others, because he wants to stop them eating pork, a guy that's saying we should have the right to eat pork if we want, is not trying to force his beliefs he is standing up for his right to have his own beliefs.

tink is in the position of the guy trying to force everyone to conform to his anti pork beliefs, No one her has ever suggested we force anyone to have a same sex marriage.
 
I'm sure you are clever enough to work out the distinction between philosophical marriage (eg Einstein was married to the Theory of Relativity) and physical marriage. Splitting hairs seems to be a hobby of some people here.
:rolleyes:

Do you not think that the girl in the video believes she is actually married to Christ now?

I think she is very sincere in her belief that Christ is a real being and she is physically married, she isn't making a throw away comment like "I am married to my job" she believes she is now married literally.
 
Tink wants the government to continue banning Sydboy from being able to marry a same sex partner.

No one is forcing gay people to break up, if they want to stay together they will, marriage is irrelevant.

The actual benefits of marriage for people without children are obscure. I see it as a "you have it so we want it" situation. Civil unions provide the same rights, so what is the problem with that ?
 
Do you not think that the girl in the video believes she is actually married to Christ now?

I think she is very sincere in her belief that Christ is a real being and she is physically married, she isn't making a throw away comment like "I am married to my job" she believes she is now married literally.

I don't know what any individual believes, no doubt there are many delusions but I don't think it has much to do with gay marriage.
 
Tink wants the government to continue banning Sydboy from being able to marry a same sex partner.

Sydboy is not trying to prevent tink from marrying or force her to marry anyone...

Tink, why do you want to do that to Sydboy? He sounds like a decent guy. :D


ah man, this is nuts. Banning something without any scientific or actual evidence of it harming anyone... and in cases where individuals does cause harm they will be dealt with by the law... it should still be ban anyway.

We don't even ban smoking, or alcohol and you could make better cases why those ought to be ban than banning gay marriage. And have we seen how amazing that little black rock call coal is? Good for humanity too.
 
Maybe you can explain how expressing one's opinion on a forum is FORCING one's religious beliefs on anyone else, any more than you expressing your opinion is forcing your beliefs on others ?

If you don't like what anyone says, then you have no obligation to read it or to reply.

People expressing their opinions is what forums like this are all about.

There's a difference between views based on religious dogma, and views based on, for want of a better term, scientific principles. Calling for the Govt to do things based on religious dogma is basically forcing your religious beliefs on others. Arguing for something to be done because you believe there's evidence to support your claim is a far more rational process.

Have you actually read the claims being made? They're hyperbole....squared.

I find it ironic that someone can complain about Govt control of lives when they are members of one of the most controlling organised religions. The fact that the Govt is reducing it's controlling of marriages by allowing SS marriage seems to be lost.

I've still yet to hear how allowing same sex marriage will affect anyone else.

How would allowing me to marry my long term partner impact you, or tink, or my neighbour? Haven't we as a society moved on from seeing homosexuality as deviant behaviour? Maybe not based on some of the comments on this forum. Then again, the "grumpy old guy" at work reckons they should just allow it, it's inevitable. It doesn't affect him in any way so he doesn't see what all the worry is about.
 
No one is forcing gay people to break up, if they want to stay together they will, marriage is irrelevant.

The actual benefits of marriage for people without children are obscure. I see it as a "you have it so we want it" situation. Civil unions provide the same rights, so what is the problem with that ?

So you're saying words aren't important?

You're saying that you view a civil union in exactly the same way as marriage?

Civil unions do not confer the same rights as marriage. From what I can tell, civil unions don't provide much of anything in terms of a legal basis. About all they can help with is providing evidence of a defacto relationship.

What if the Govt got rid of marriages and everyone has a civil union?
 
Maybe you can explain how expressing one's opinion on a forum is FORCING one's religious beliefs on anyone else, any more than you expressing your opinion is forcing your beliefs on others ?

If you don't like what anyone says, then you have no obligation to read it or to reply.

People expressing their opinions is what forums like this are all about.

+1

Luutzu, I have never said Syd is not a decent person, I have stood up for Marriage and it's meaning.

To redefine Marriage affects us all, as was shown by an athiest, Brendan O'Neill, a champion of freedom of speech, and is not for a totalitarian regime.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=98&p=882822&viewfull=1#post882822

It is VC and Syd that have continuously gone on about the Catholic Church.
What has that got to do with this debate.

I have asked how same sex marriage benefits society -- it doesn't.
Morality is a part of our society, which is based on Christian principles.

Brendan O'Neill and Richard Dawkins are both atheists, and have locked horns on many occasions.
Dawkins is a fundamentalist
The religion thread is here if they want to talk about religion
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27938&page=57

Agree, Rumpole, we are all entitled to freedom of speech, and it is a concern when people try to shut you down with PC.
 
You're saying that you view a civil union in exactly the same way as marriage?

Yes. Imo, marriage/civil union is an agreement between two people. I don't see why government needs to interfere in either one of them unless they confer legal rights on others namely children.

So if people don't intend to have children, I see no difference between marriage & civil union.
 
+1



I have asked how same sex marriage benefits society -- it doesn't.
Morality is a part of our society, which is based on Christian principles.

.

Yes there is no denying that our country is established on Christian principles, no matter how much people want to revise our history. Even upto the post Vietnam war, those refugees from South Vietnam were pretty much all Christians.

Of course we can't argue that Christians invented morality and ethics; which seems to be a pursuit that is central to survival of the tribe and that civility is apparently 335k years old.
 
I don't know what any individual believes, no doubt there are many delusions but I don't think it has much to do with gay marriage.

I am just pointing out that tinks own cult participates in polygamy, which is one of the slippery slope arguments she used against gay marriage, and it also has a definition of marriage that goes beyond Tinks gold standard.

I see it as a "you have it so we want it" situation. Civil unions provide the same rights, so what is the problem with that ?

That's like saying.

"the blacks still get to ride the bus, the just have to sit in the back, they have the same rights to get to the destination, whats the problem with that?"
 
Civil unions do not confer the same rights as marriage. From what I can tell, civil unions don't provide much of anything in terms of a legal basis. About all they can help with is providing evidence of a defacto relationship.

What do you want a legal basis for ? Property transfer ? There are such things as Wills.
 
Top