Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Value Collector]

Religion?
Marriage is a religious thing.

Marriages existed before any of the religions we have today. and what is being decide here is whether marriages between same sex couples should be recognised by the government, not any religion.

Most of em are demanding the religions recognize and marry them!

Nope, its about the government recognising them.

What? The religions are supposed to change their tenets in order to accommodate LGBTs. That's ridiculous.

No one is asking any religion to change its tenants, religions are asking us to use their tenants to decide laws, thats ridiculous.

Let em start their own religion and get married under that if they want.

Again this is about the government recognising marriages, no one cares whats recognised by the 10,000 different religions out there, they all have their own versions and definitions of marriage, but what matter is that the government recognises them all.

Ask any young bride whether she wants to just have the religious ceremony by itself or does she also want to make it legal with the government and you will find that they want it legal, regardless of what they do at their church, in fact most people wouldn't consider a church wedding real until the papers are filed with the government.

 

[PZ99]

Okay, but let's make sure does not impinge on the liberties of everybody else, like they have in other anglo countries.

It won't be impinging on my liberty you can bet your life on it.

I don't worry about what other people do with their love life.

 

[notting]

Marriages existed before any of the religions we have today. and what is being decide here is whether marriages between same sex couples should be recognised by the government, not any religion.


Nope, its about the government recognising them.



No one is asking any religion to change its tenants, religions are asking us to use their tenants to decide laws, thats ridiculous.



Again this is about the government recognising marriages, no one cares whats recognised by the 10,000 different religions out there, they all have their own versions and definitions of marriage, but what matter is that the government recognises them all.

Ask any young bride whether she wants to just have the religious ceremony by itself or does she also want to make it legal with the government and you will find that they want it legal, regardless of what they do at their church, in fact most people wouldn't consider a church wedding real until the papers are filed with the government.

Beautifully put!!

Only qualm is what about young grooms?
Why can't they just draw up a contract, couldn't be worse than a marriage contract!

 

[wayneL]

It won't be impinging on my liberty you can bet your life on it.

I don't worry about what other people do with their love life.

Hah, so they said of 18d in reference to concerns over 18c.

Yet 18c is still used off label to achieve censorship.

Watch what happens Komrade.

 

[PZ99]

Who cares about 18c/18d? Not me. So what if it upsets the Korporatocratic Right?

I've never been censored by it so it has no effect on my freedoms

 

[Wysiwyg]

Opens the door to him and her leadership positions.

11th October 2017, 12:43 PM
Michelle Suarez has become the first transgender senator in Uruguay.

The 34-year-old politician took her seat in the upper chamber of congress yesterday.

And Suarez, a Communist Party representative, intends to push for a law which would make it compulsory for one percent of government jobs to be reserved for trans people.

 

[SirRumpole]

Duplicating an existing law for the sake of a different label sounds like more red tape to me

Like Pepsi and Coke ?

They both seem to do pretty well, not to mention all the oil companies selling the same product.

 

[Value Collector]

Like Pepsi and Coke ?

Both are registered as companies under the law,

Imagine if we had to enact different corporations acts for all the different types of businesses.

e.g. "Company status is only for coke, why doesn't Pepsi just gets its own law and register as some other enterprise"

 

[PZ99]

Like Pepsi and Coke ?

They both seem to do pretty well, not to mention all the oil companies selling the same product.

Precisely. Thankyou for articulating the difference... or the lack thereof.

Which drink is more offensive to the church? LOL

The only person I know of that got offended by Pepsi was Barbra Streisand. 30 years ago she was offered a $5m dollar contract to advertise their products (b4 Jacko)... she turned it down. She said with a nose like hers she'd be more suited to advertising the coke

 

[Value Collector]

Beautifully put!!

Only qualm is what about young grooms?
Why can't they just draw up a contract, couldn't be worse than a marriage contract!

At the end of the day, each marriage does have its own internal contracts, e.g. some class a trip to the strippers as perfectly fine as long as Hubby or wifey doesn't touch, other marriages that would be grounds for divorce, But what ever the internal rules, the government should recognise them all equally.

Same sex marriages already exist, a marriage is more than a piece of paper, its a commitment between two people, you don't need any government or religion or even a wedding to have a marriage, this isn't about allowing same sex marriages to exist, they already do, this is about getting the government to recognise them.


This video is a christian guy talking to his atheist brother, his take on marriage is perfect, so even some christians understand it

 

[SirRumpole]

Imagine if we had to enact different corporations acts for all the different types of businesses.

Having parallel legislation that keeps everyone happy is worth the so called "red tape" in this instance I believe.

 

[wayneL]

Who cares about 18c/18d? Not me. So what if it upsets the Korporatocratic Right?

I've never been censored by it so it has no effect on my freedoms

I guess North Koreans still have certain freedoms. Just don't bag out Kim, Komrade.

 

[PZ99]

I guess North Koreans still have certain freedoms. Just don't bag out Kim, Komrade.

Where's the relevance your reverence? They have SSM there do they?
Is that responsible for their lack of freedoms or something?

 

[wayneL]

Where's the relevance your reverence? They have SSM there do they?
Is that responsible for their lack of freedoms or something?

SSM is the sideshow, liberty is the main game, as we have been discussing.

Kim is merely the analogy, but dyor on my point (hint: research means venturing outside ones own echo chamber)

 

[PZ99]

Already done mate... years ago. But thanx anyway

 

[wayneL]

Already done mate... years ago. But thanx anyway

Well, research years ago might not cut it in today's mutant ideological landscape.

Even the very definition of words is changing and transmogrifying from the original understanding (tautology intentional for emphasis).

I would advise a revisit a study of liberty and how it relates to the current frankenculture

 

[PZ99]

Here's a clue: When the Rudd govt attempted to remove our freedoms on the internet by way of a compulsory Conroy filter I spoke out against it citing deprivation of liberty... just as I did with data retention laws citing invasion of privacy. Our freedom in the virtual world was under threat because of all the hysteria from the churches about moral corruption and sexual violence which didn't eventuate.

I see the church/religious right attempting to block SSM in the real world as equally restrictive.

It's another scare campaign from the religious minority attempting to control our lifestyles to suit their ulterior motives. By any description it's a deprivation of liberty that started in 2004 and should be removed so that gay people can get on with their lives without further communist style regulations.

It's time to get away from the fugly 1970's era of gay bashing and pie facing and dictating what people can and can't do with their private life.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's time to get away from the fugly 1970's era of gay bashing and pie facing and dictating what people can and can't do with their private life.

People CAN do whatever they like in their private life, but marriage is a public event that involves legalities and public recognition and it's up to society in general as to whether we want to recognise a lifestyle that about 2% of the population engage in as equal to the 98%.

I don't believe it is equal, for the reason that heterosexual relations enable the human race to continue through childbirth and therefore traditional marriage is the foundation of society. If gays want to marry I think it should be under separate legislation that accepts difference but also acknowledges and doesn't undermine the traditional family structure.

 

[wayneL]

Here's a clue: When the Rudd govt attempted to remove our freedoms on the internet by way of a compulsory Conroy filter I spoke out against it citing deprivation of liberty... just as I did with data retention laws citing invasion of privacy. Our freedom in the virtual world was under threat because of all the hysteria from the churches about moral corruption and sexual violence which didn't eventuate.

I see the church/religious right attempting to block SSM in the real world as equally restrictive.

It's another scare campaign from the religious minority attempting to control our lifestyles to suit their ulterior motives. By any description it's a deprivation of liberty that started in 2004 and should be removed so that gay people can get on with their lives without further communist style regulations.

It's time to get away from the fugly 19contributing from the range 70's era of gay bashing and pie facing and dictating what people can and can't do wth their private life.

Hmmm, I think we are coming from the same place, but a different angle. I get where you're coming from, but my point exists post vote.

Watch the totalitarian 5h1tfight that ensues, whichever way it goes.

 

[Logique]

..... It's time to get away from the fugly 1970's era of gay bashing and pie facing and dictating what people can and can't do with their private life.

Nobody is bashing gays, and they can already get married, through civil unions. Afterwards they say 'we're married'.

The SSM lobby is trying to change the definition of marriage at law, and that's sinister.