Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[satanoperca]

They gay crowd has been persecuted.

Lets just take a look at that stupid and dumb statement :
In 1994, the Commonwealth passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994 – Section 4, legalising sexual activity between consenting adults (in private) throughout Australia. It wasn't until 1997 however when the law in Tasmania prohibiting gay male sexual conduct was repealed in Tasmania.

But if we step outside Australia and go to a Muslim country, DEATH.

Oh, and lets no forget, that if you do not believe, you are going to hell.

You old timers have to get over it, times have changed and we the people no longer have to answer directly to the Church but rather to the collective of society.

Which, when I checked, voted for Gay marriage.

 

[cynic]

They have the same rights as everyone else, no one is refusing to serve them anywhere.

Not quite what I was asking!

Unlike those seeking gay marriage, any celebrants with conscientious objections to facilitation of such, are being denied their right to absent themselves!

This legislation doesn't appear to have reduced persecution, it has actually increased it many fold!

 

[satanoperca]

"Unlike those seeking gay marriage, any celebrants with conscientious objections to facilitation of such, are being denied their right to absent themselves!"

As that would be discrimination under the law. Cannot have religious zealots thinking they are above the law can we?

Hmmmm, thinks of the catholic church and rock spiders.

 

[cynic]

"Unlike those seeking gay marriage, any celebrants with conscientious objections to facilitation of such, are being denied their right to absent themselves!"

As that would be discrimination under the law. Cannot have religious zealots thinking they are above the law can we?

Hmmmm, thinks of the catholic church and rock spiders.

That sounds dangerously like discrimination against others for holding a different personal ideology to your own!
In light of this recent incursion on vital social freedoms, perhaps we now need another plebiscite, promptly followed with additional legislation, designed for reinstatement of protections for the rights of clergy and their brethren!

 

[satanoperca]

"In light of this recent incursion on vital social freedoms, perhaps we now need another plebiscite, promptly followed with additional legislation, designed for reinstatement of protections for the rights of clergy and their brethren!"

To not be polite "F---k off" spend more money to protect the Church, they should have thought about protecting the children first and not defending their $$$$. When they admit to their faults, I will protect religious freedoms.

Incursion, my arse, how about the right of 2 people to get married who love each other, oh no, it must meet the requirements of religious zealots to be approved.

Bad luck, people have voted, legislation has passed, deal with it.

And when the little green men/women/bisexual/transgender life forms come down from the skies, how will religion explain them? Did god create them as well.

 

[bellenuit]

Unlike those seeking gay marriage, any celebrants with conscientious objections to facilitation of such, are being denied their right to absent themselves!

No they are not. They can relinquish their license as a civil marriage celebrant if they have objections to fulfilling the role required of them.

Lots of people in the community have objections to gay marriage but do not have the right to maintain their position if they refuse to provide a service to those entitled to it. Their choice is to relinquish their position if they conscientiously object to providing that service. That way they maintained their right to absent themselves while at the same time not infringing on the rights of those requiring the service to obtain that service. No rights have been infringed, because the conscientious objector never had the right to discriminate in that position to begin with. They were always required to provide the service to those entitled to it.

Does a doctor in a public hospital have the right to refuse to treat a patient because that patient is gay or is in a gay relationship. How about refusing them entry into a museum or allowing them to attend a tertiary education course. Everyone would (or at least should) regard such actions as abuse of the gay person's rights.

How about JW's who do not agree with blood transfusion. Should they be entitled to hold a senior position in a medical establishment where they can dictate that blood transfusions should not be carried out on any patient. It is obvious that if they conscientiously object to the procedure, they should vacate that position. That way their right to absent themselves is preserved and the rights of the patients to receive the treatment is also preserved.

 

[SirRumpole]

No they are not. They can relinquish their license as a civil marriage celebrant if they have objections to fulfilling the role required of them.

As has been said many times before, if a cake shop won't cook a wedding cake for gays, there are plenty of other cake shops around.

And why would gays want to be married by someone who obviously dislikes their practices when they can go to someone more friendly ?

It seems an excuse to be vindictive to people they don't like and force them to do something they don't want to do.

 

[cynic]

"In light of this recent incursion on vital social freedoms, perhaps we now need another plebiscite, promptly followed with additional legislation, designed for reinstatement of protections for the rights of clergy and their brethren!"

To not be polite "F---k off" spend more money to protect the Church, they should have thought about protecting the children first and not defending their $$$$. When they admit to their faults, I will protect religious freedoms.

The past misconduct of particular institutions, is totally unrelated to the issue I am highlighting.

Incursion, my arse, how about the right of 2 people to get married who love each other, oh no, it must meet the requirements of religious zealots to be approved.

They always had that right!!!

The problem was that marriage, according to it's true definition, didn't accommodate their needs.

The homosexuals protesting against the exclusion of non heterosexual couplings, from that institution,were seemingly oblivious to the fact, that they were in effect, campaigning against their very own homosexuality!!

Anyway, getting back to the true issue here, how about the right of someone with strong ideological disagreement, having their right of non participation protected?

Bad luck, people have voted, legislation has passed, deal with it.

Yes it is indeed bad luck, in ways that many are yet to realise!!!!

And when the little green men/women/bisexual/transgender life forms come down from the skies, how will religion explain them? Did god create them as well.

Yet again,zero relevance to the issue here.

 

[satanoperca]

"The problem was that marriage, according to it's true definition, didn't accommodate their needs. "

Once again I am hearing the same old crap, it was like that in the past so it must be forever like that in the future.

And Homosexuals were asking be able to be married, and if that only belongs to the religious then by definition that is discrimination.

Again, the people of Australian have spoken, just accept it.

Anyway, getting back to the true issue here, how about the right of someone with strong ideological disagreement, having their right of non participation protected?

I strongly disagree with lots of people and their beliefs, it does not mean I discriminate against them.

All gay marriage has shown, that the church/religious institutions and their so called religious rights have been protected for to long and people, yes the community wants change and they got it.

About time society made changes and this whole thread proves without doubt, we are moving forward in a positive and constructive manner - finally.

The heretics can no longer be persecuted because of their beliefs.

 

[Value Collector]

Oh that's a good one. Substitute "gay" for religious and it's exactly the same.

Except there is a big difference, gays are coming out of a period of real persecution, for a long time simply being gay came with a whole host of risks of social and physical punishment.

Where as for the longest time being “religious” or starting a sentence with the words “as a Christian” gave you all sorts of unearned respect and priviage in the mind of society.

Also gays just want equal rights, not additional rights, religious folk are coming from a place of privilege and are crying not because they are actually being descriminated against, but because they are losing their power to discriminate against others, see the difference.

Eg. If I tell you to stop hitting me with a stick, I am not persecuting you, I am trying to stop you persecuting me.

I am not removing your stick, or telling you not to have a stick, just that you can’t use that stick to hit some one,

 

[Value Collector]

As has been said many times before, if a cake shop won't cook a wedding cake for gays, there are plenty of other cake shops around.

And why would gays want to be married by someone who obviously dislikes their practices when they can go to someone more friendly ?

It seems an excuse to be vindictive to people they don't like and force them to do something they don't want to do.

I hardly think you would think it was ok for some one to refuse service based on race?

How is refusing gays service any different?

 

[cynic]

No they are not. They can relinquish their license as a civil marriage celebrant if they have objections to fulfilling the role required of them.

And instead of changing the marriage act, gay people could simply have married somebody of the opposite gender!

It somehow seems to escape the attention of many, that gay people were never discriminated against under the former marriage act. Just like everybody else of legal age, homosexuals were always permitted to marry somebody of the opposite gender! There was no discrimination because they were never actually excluded! It's just that they didn't want marriage under it's former definition because it didn't suit them!

So now this "purportedly beneficent" change threatens to disrupt the long established careers of many whom happily assumed their roles under the former definition.

Please remind me, how exactly, is all this conducive to a more cohesive and inclusive society, when the needs of many are trampled for the benefit of...
...who exactly?!!

Lots of people in the community have objections to gay marriage but do not have the right to maintain their position if they refuse to provide a service to those entitled to it. Their choice is to relinquish their position if they conscientiously object to providing that service. That way they maintained their right to absent themselves while at the same time not infringing on the rights of those requiring the service to obtain that service. No rights have been infringed, because the conscientious objector never had the right to discriminate in that position to begin with. They were always required to provide the service to those entitled to it.

Does a doctor in a public hospital have the right to refuse to treat a patient because that patient is gay or is in a gay relationship. How about refusing them entry into a museum or allowing them to attend a tertiary education course. Everyone would (or at least should) regard such actions as abuse of the gay person's rights.

How about JW's who do not agree with blood transfusion. Should they be entitled to hold a senior position in a medical establishment where they can dictate that blood transfusions should not be carried out on any patient. It is obvious that if they conscientiously object to the procedure, they should vacate that position. That way their right to absent themselves is preserved and the rights of the patients to receive the treatment is also preserved.

What the FTSE do life saving medical practices have to do with marriage?!!!

(It's starting to sound like somebody is desperately trying to avoid acknowledgement of one or more important distinctions!)

 

[cynic]

"The problem was that marriage, according to it's true definition, didn't accommodate their needs. "

Once again I am hearing the same old crap, it was like that in the past so it must be forever like that in the future.

And Homosexuals were asking be able to be married, and if that only belongs to the religious then by definition that is discrimination.

Errmmm ... The homosexuals weren't asking for the right to be married, because they always had that right. They were asking to redefine the definition of marriage!!
The aforesaid is is an important distinction that seems to be repeatedly ignored in this discussion.

Again, the people of Australian have spoken, just accept it.

Yes I do accept the right of the populace to make their own mistakes. However, I object to being compelled to join them in their crusade, and would dearly like to see those whom support the campaign for increased discrimination and its accompanied losses of liberty, start taking responsibility for their errors, rather than merely deflecting the blame onto others.

Anyway, getting back to the true issue here, how about the right of someone with strong ideological disagreement, having their right of non participation protected?

I strongly disagree with lots of people and their beliefs, it does not mean I discriminate against them.

Are you sure about that?
There seems to be some strongly discriminatory sentiments permeating your postings to this thread, like the following:

All gay marriage has shown, that the church/religious institutions and their so called religious rights have been protected for to long and people, yes the community wants change and they got it.

You forgot to end that paragraph by saying "So there!!!!"

About time society made changes and this whole thread proves without doubt, we are moving forward in a positive and constructive manner - finally.

Last time I checked, society was composed of an entire populace, a large percentage of whom have now been redefined as social pariahs, and appears to be becoming increasingly divided as a result!
If increased division is constructive, then I am gravely fearful of the destination to which "we are moving forward"!

The heretics can no longer be persecuted because of their beliefs.

On the contrary, heretics are still being persecuted, it's just that heresy (along with the heretics) has/have been redefined by the advent of a new religion!
It is curious how it came to be, that a person claiming non discriminatory behaviour, somehow failed to notice this occurrence!

 

[SirRumpole]

I hardly think you would think it was ok for some one to refuse service based on race?

A lot of things aren't right, but they are not against the law either.

As you said before previously, if people advertise that they don't serve xyz then they have a right to do that, but if they say they are open to everyone and then refuse to serve them then they have broken the law.

 

[Tisme]

Your words are big, but I have found that those that need to use big words to provide prove their opinion really have no substance to discuss in the first place.

You really admitting to using ignorance of the English language as a yardstick for quantitative and qualitative merit ?!

Now I realise you weren't actually playing obtuse and yet you still have an even vote on matters importance...sheeeeet! NURSE!

 

[grah33]

I love how people make shyte up, never said anyone who was religious was miserable. It is there choice, I will will always defend that, but not if it means they have the right to discriminate because of their faith.

But go ahead, defend the rights of people who believe in a god, it has been going on for centuries and my beliefs/opinion will not change that.

Again u used the word discriminate ( in an immoral sense of the word), which isn't helpful to the discussion (we're going around in circles). It's not a known or written fact that it is about discrimination (only a belief/opinion ), nor does the No side here see it that way. So what can we do ? You have a belief in you that it's about discrimination, while others have an equally strong belief that it isn't. Does it now still make sense to compel them to obey? Better to split it both ways.

Discrimination usually goes together with dislike and some malice. Sure the gay community does experience that, but the people presenting their views here (No side) don't seem to show these sentiments toward the gay community.

 

[Tisme]

As has been said many times before, if a cake shop won't cook a wedding cake for gays, there are plenty of other cake shops around.

And why would gays want to be married by someone who obviously dislikes their practices when they can go to someone more friendly ?

It seems an excuse to be vindictive to people they don't like and force them to do something they don't want to do.

Forced marriage is now acceptable so long as SSM is involved.

Also a poser: if a hetero couple objected to a gay celebrant would they be dragged through the ringer too?

 

[satanoperca]

WayneL, you were right, I was trolling or I would prefer went fishing, took some time but finally got the big 7 pound trout I was after, and he does n't even realise he caught himself.

"You really admitting to using ignorance of the English language as a yardstick for quantitative and qualitative merit ?!"

There are those big words, hope it makes up for the other parts of you body that might be small.

Thanks Tisme, taken many months, but a fisherman knows when the bag limit is reached and goes home with a happy smile on his face.

Thanks for providing that smile.

 

[cynic]

When advocation of antidisestablishmentarianism is met with accusations of sesquipedalian behaviour, how might one formulate a singularly appropriate and commensurate response?

 

[Tisme]

WayneL, you were right, I was trolling or I would prefer went fishing, took some time but finally got the big 7 pound trout I was after, and he does n't even realise he caught himself.

"You really admitting to using ignorance of the English language as a yardstick for quantitative and qualitative merit ?!"

There are those big words, hope it makes up for the other parts of you body that might be small.

Thanks Tisme, taken many months, but a fisherman knows when the bag limit is reached and goes home with a happy smile on his face.

Thanks for providing that smile.

Now we can see how devilishly clever you are, a veritable Professor Moriarty, perhaps you can explain to us all why there is no change between your supposed trolling vernacular and usual style? You'll have to forgive my mumbling because your hook is supposedly stuck firm in my cheek.

I'm not good at back peddling on a fixed wheel 28", but at least I can get some reverse momentum. That skill seems to elude you, but once again I'm sure that's just part of the grab bag of party tricks at your wily disposal.

really fuc7#n lame