sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
For me it is a fair argument that you don't support same sex marriage based on your religious belief. Whether their God is happy for them to apply their beliefs on the free will of others is something between them and their God.
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIt's all about giving bigots outs to oppose it despite public will to just get it done. They need to tell the people what they are voting for. What comes with SSM? I support SSM providing: - Churches are not forced to marry same sex couples. - Businesses are not forced to provide services to same sex couples if they choose not to. Shock horror but I have done a complete U-turn on the perspective of whether or not businesses have rights to deny services. I do not agree with religious beliefs but people have a right to express their religion. I don't believe churches would be forced too, as I previously mentioned churches already restrict those who can have a church service. So I don't see a problem with a church refusing service if they don't believe the couple practice the beliefs of that church. The catholic church current basic criteria include that neither can previously have been married and neither can be impotent (to name but 2). http://www.acmfc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Catholic-Weddings-Q-A-on-Getting-Married-in-the-Catholic-Church.pdfI believe the current Sexual Discrimination Act 1984 already provides exemptions for religions. "(d) any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion." http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/In regards to refuse service based on sexual orientation is illegal in Australia. The Sexual Discrimination Act would have to introduce another exemption for your provision (I personally don't see it happening).
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIt's all about giving bigots outs to oppose it despite public will to just get it done. They need to tell the people what they are voting for. What comes with SSM? I support SSM providing: - Churches are not forced to marry same sex couples. - Businesses are not forced to provide services to same sex couples if they choose not to. Shock horror but I have done a complete U-turn on the perspective of whether or not businesses have rights to deny services. I do not agree with religious beliefs but people have a right to express their religion. I don't believe churches would be forced too, as I previously mentioned churches already restrict those who can have a church service. So I don't see a problem with a church refusing service if they don't believe the couple practice the beliefs of that church. The catholic church current basic criteria include that neither can previously have been married and neither can be impotent (to name but 2). http://www.acmfc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Catholic-Weddings-Q-A-on-Getting-Married-in-the-Catholic-Church.pdfI believe the current Sexual Discrimination Act 1984 already provides exemptions for religions. "(d) any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion." http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/In regards to refuse service based on sexual orientation is illegal in Australia. The Sexual Discrimination Act would have to introduce another exemption for your provision (I personally don't see it happening). Thanks for the info. Based on the discrimination act, would a wedding cake shop have to make a cake for a gay couple which is completely against his beliefs? Lets give an extreme example and say they wanted a penis shaped cake. Is it illegal to refuse?
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xIt's all about giving bigots outs to oppose it despite public will to just get it done. They need to tell the people what they are voting for. What comes with SSM? I support SSM providing: - Churches are not forced to marry same sex couples. - Businesses are not forced to provide services to same sex couples if they choose not to. Shock horror but I have done a complete U-turn on the perspective of whether or not businesses have rights to deny services. I do not agree with religious beliefs but people have a right to express their religion. I don't believe churches would be forced too, as I previously mentioned churches already restrict those who can have a church service. So I don't see a problem with a church refusing service if they don't believe the couple practice the beliefs of that church. The catholic church current basic criteria include that neither can previously have been married and neither can be impotent (to name but 2). http://www.acmfc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Catholic-Weddings-Q-A-on-Getting-Married-in-the-Catholic-Church.pdfI believe the current Sexual Discrimination Act 1984 already provides exemptions for religions. "(d) any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion." http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/In regards to refuse service based on sexual orientation is illegal in Australia. The Sexual Discrimination Act would have to introduce another exemption for your provision (I personally don't see it happening). Thanks for the info. Based on the discrimination act, would a wedding cake shop have to make a cake for a gay couple which is completely against his beliefs? Lets give an extreme example and say they wanted a penis shaped cake. Is it illegal to refuse? You could probably refuse to make the cake based on the "vulgar" nature, but not based on the customers sexual orientation. Your shop would only be exempt if it was run by a religious organisation (your personal religious beliefs are not exempt under the law ... from my understanding, as your personal beliefs are largely what we discriminate on and this is what the law is in place for to stop).
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAlso news flash, gay couples are already allowed to have kids so parenting is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't make it right. Did they look at all the social implications? Still doesn't absolve the plebiscite. Lol people whinging about gay couples having kids always ignore the fact that normal hetero couples are often no better. When it comes to certain religious types, they'drather put a kid in a harmful hetero situation than a nurturing gay one. No we just want nurturing hetero relationships in our families. We religious types do not believe in SSM. Harmful hetero relationships are unacceptable as well. We have ways of teaching people control and respect. As a last resort, there is divorce, and our Church does accept divorce if the relationship is irreversibly damaged or not repairable. That's the last resort however. The Church won't grant a divorce for stupid trivial matters. In other words, they will try and protect the family unit especially if children are involved. Divorce rates are therefore very low in our culture. Probably South of 10% from my experience.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Oh yeh right. As if any of you guys would want any of your children to be "gay". lol
The only difference between myself and some others is that I am honest and don't just go for your socially accepted "norms".
Yes I am socially conservative as I don't believe in gay marriage.
I also do not believe in abortions, except under extremely exceptional circumstances such as rape - a thing our families had to endure in the past through so many wars and upheavals.
I also do not believe in Euthanasia. I believe that no matter how you litigate, the laws will be abused by Doctors, Government and most of all Family!
Fair enough?
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Just fucking do it - none of this plebiscite/referendum crap. Govt is meant to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority - we have had SSM here in NZ for some years and other than making me happy anyone can get married to another consenting adult if they choose to, it has had 0 impact on me or 0 impact on my marriage. It is SOOO stupid to be against SSM Also, Barnaby Joyce lol
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xIt's all about giving bigots outs to oppose it despite public will to just get it done. They need to tell the people what they are voting for. What comes with SSM? I support SSM providing: - Churches are not forced to marry same sex couples. - Businesses are not forced to provide services to same sex couples if they choose not to. Shock horror but I have done a complete U-turn on the perspective of whether or not businesses have rights to deny services. I do not agree with religious beliefs but people have a right to express their religion. I don't believe churches would be forced too, as I previously mentioned churches already restrict those who can have a church service. So I don't see a problem with a church refusing service if they don't believe the couple practice the beliefs of that church. The catholic church current basic criteria include that neither can previously have been married and neither can be impotent (to name but 2). http://www.acmfc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Catholic-Weddings-Q-A-on-Getting-Married-in-the-Catholic-Church.pdfI believe the current Sexual Discrimination Act 1984 already provides exemptions for religions. "(d) any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion." http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/In regards to refuse service based on sexual orientation is illegal in Australia. The Sexual Discrimination Act would have to introduce another exemption for your provision (I personally don't see it happening). Thanks for the info. Based on the discrimination act, would a wedding cake shop have to make a cake for a gay couple which is completely against his beliefs? Lets give an extreme example and say they wanted a penis shaped cake. Is it illegal to refuse? You could probably refuse to make the cake based on the "vulgar" nature, but not based on the customers sexual orientation. Your shop would only be exempt if it was run by a religious organisation (your personal religious beliefs are not exempt under the law ... from my understanding, as your personal beliefs are largely what we discriminate on and this is what the law is in place for to stop). Ok thanks. I've just heard the argument recently that the plebiscite laws would force religious people to do stuff. However, the law is already in place under anti-discrimination acts. Cheers
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAlso news flash, gay couples are already allowed to have kids so parenting is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't make it right. Did they look at all the social implications? Still doesn't absolve the plebiscite. Lol people whinging about gay couples having kids always ignore the fact that normal hetero couples are often no better. When it comes to certain religious types, they'drather put a kid in a harmful hetero situation than a nurturing gay one. No we just want nurturing hetero relationships in our families. We religious types do not believe in SSM. Harmful hetero relationships are unacceptable as well. We have ways of teaching people control and respect. As a last resort, there is divorce, and our Church does accept divorce if the relationship is irreversibly damaged or not repairable. That's the last resort however. The Church won't grant a divorce for stupid trivial matters. In other words, they will try and protect the family unit especially if children are involved. Divorce rates are therefore very low in our culture. Probably South of 10% from my experience. That post is exactly why I could never accept that a Church institution is a positive for society.
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOh yeh right. As if any of you guys would want any of your children to be "gay". lol The only difference between myself and some others is that I am honest and don't just go for your socially accepted "norms". Yes I am socially conservative as I don't believe in gay marriage. I also do not believe in abortions, except under extremely exceptional circumstances such as rape - a thing our families had to endure in the past through so many wars and upheavals. I also do not believe in Euthanasia. I believe that no matter how you litigate, the laws will be abused by Doctors, Government and most of all Family! Fair enough? You are welcome to your beliefs. I respectfully disagree. Where I draw the line is when people who hold beliefs such as yours cry discrimination when you throw religion into a public arena and cop criticism.
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xJust fucking do it - none of this plebiscite/referendum crap. Govt is meant to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority - we have had SSM here in NZ for some years and other than making me happy anyone can get married to another consenting adult if they choose to, it has had 0 impact on me or 0 impact on my marriage. It is SOOO stupid to be against SSM Also, Barnaby Joyce lol But.... but... God doesn't like it. Lol Barnaby. WTF, thought he was like the most occa Aussie ever :laugh:
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Still think the rule is super problematic but this case looks as open shut as the Ludlam deal.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xStill think the rule is super problematic but this case looks as open shut as the Ludlam deal. If it f*cked Ludlam who was actually a half decent human then it has to apply to everyone else.
|
|
|
jlm8695
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOh yeh right. As if any of you guys would want any of your children to be "gay". lol The only difference between myself and some others is that I am honest and don't just go for your socially accepted "norms". Yes I am socially conservative as I don't believe in gay marriage. I also do not believe in abortions, except under extremely exceptional circumstances such as rape - a thing our families had to endure in the past through so many wars and upheavals. I also do not believe in Euthanasia. I believe that no matter how you litigate, the laws will be abused by Doctors, Government and most of all Family! Fair enough? The only reason that anyone wouldn't want their kid to be gay is because they'd have to grow up in a world full of people like you.
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIt's all about giving bigots outs to oppose it despite public will to just get it done. They need to tell the people what they are voting for. What comes with SSM? I support SSM providing: - Churches are not forced to marry same sex couples. - Businesses are not forced to provide services to same sex couples if they choose not to. Shock horror but I have done a complete U-turn on the perspective of whether or not businesses have rights to deny services. I do not agree with religious beliefs but people have a right to express their religion. I don't believe churches would be forced too, as I previously mentioned churches already restrict those who can have a church service. So I don't see a problem with a church refusing service if they don't believe the couple practice the beliefs of that church. The catholic church current basic criteria include that neither can previously have been married and neither can be impotent (to name but 2). http://www.acmfc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Catholic-Weddings-Q-A-on-Getting-Married-in-the-Catholic-Church.pdfI believe the current Sexual Discrimination Act 1984 already provides exemptions for religions. "(d) any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion." http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/In regards to refuse service based on sexual orientation is illegal in Australia. The Sexual Discrimination Act would have to introduce another exemption for your provision (I personally don't see it happening). Thanks for the info. Based on the discrimination act, would a wedding cake shop have to make a cake for a gay couple which is completely against his beliefs? Lets give an extreme example and say they wanted a penis shaped cake. Is it illegal to refuse? You could probably refuse to make the cake based on the "vulgar" nature, but not based on the customers sexual orientation. Your shop would only be exempt if it was run by a religious organisation (your personal religious beliefs are not exempt under the law ... from my understanding, as your personal beliefs are largely what we discriminate on and this is what the law is in place for to stop). Ok thanks. I've just heard the argument recently that the plebiscite laws would force religious people to do stuff. However, the law is already in place under anti-discrimination acts. Cheers This has been occurring overseas in some countries where religions have had legal proceedings filed against them and requiring them to defend themselves at huge expense. As far as I know, The Liberal Government will be including Religious Organisations in an exemption, allowing them to exercise there own beliefs with regard to who may be wed in their Churches. They will do that to protect the right to worship and practice their own religion in the interests of societal pluralism. But what is apparent to me is that the Hard Left, do not want Religious Institutions to be exempt, so that legal proceedings can be bought against them by the anti religion activists and also in order to weaken them. The Left is waging a war against Religions. We see this with Safe Schools, Abortion, Euthanasia, SSM and also their desire to take away religion's charitable organisation status exempting them from Tax.
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xAlso news flash, gay couples are already allowed to have kids so parenting is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't make it right. Did they look at all the social implications? Still doesn't absolve the plebiscite. Lol people whinging about gay couples having kids always ignore the fact that normal hetero couples are often no better. When it comes to certain religious types, they'drather put a kid in a harmful hetero situation than a nurturing gay one. No we just want nurturing hetero relationships in our families. We religious types do not believe in SSM. Harmful hetero relationships are unacceptable as well. We have ways of teaching people control and respect. As a last resort, there is divorce, and our Church does accept divorce if the relationship is irreversibly damaged or not repairable. That's the last resort however. The Church won't grant a divorce for stupid trivial matters. In other words, they will try and protect the family unit especially if children are involved. Divorce rates are therefore very low in our culture. Probably South of 10% from my experience. That post is exactly why I could never accept that a Church institution is a positive for society. You need to get it right. That is only because you do not agree with these conservative social principles and are brainwashed. You are brainwashed by the mainstream media who are trying to reconstruct the new "norms". Isn't it amazing how any dissenting voices are silenced, because if they are not silent, they must endure the most awful vitriolic hyperbole ever and insults galore. I guess it doesn't matter if you offend as long as its the Christians and not the Muslims. Society has gone bonkers. And there will be a price to pay as well. Now, Euthanasia is nothing but assisted suicide. Religion is fundamentally opposed to any form of suicide. But aside from this fact, no matter how much protection is in the system, Euthanasia laws are open to human corruption and abuse. Some people, some where will be knocked off unwillingly, especially the acutely very vulnerable ones. Marriage is also a pillar of all of humanity no matter what religion. It has been so for thousands of years. Abortion is once again pretty much considered murder against another human being in the womb, only thing is, that this human is at its most vulnerable. The Church is pro life, not pro death. There are instances however, whereby Abortion is allowed, and that is against Rape Victims or if there is a pressing medical reason to terminate. Religion isn't your enemy. In fact, the beliefs and rules are very sound, as opposed to all the lunacy now with many things including safe schools.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAlso news flash, gay couples are already allowed to have kids so parenting is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't make it right. Did they look at all the social implications? Still doesn't absolve the plebiscite. Lol people whinging about gay couples having kids always ignore the fact that normal hetero couples are often no better. When it comes to certain religious types, they'drather put a kid in a harmful hetero situation than a nurturing gay one. No we just want nurturing hetero relationships in our families. We religious types do not believe in SSM. Harmful hetero relationships are unacceptable as well. We have ways of teaching people control and respect. As a last resort, there is divorce, and our Church does accept divorce if the relationship is irreversibly damaged or not repairable. That's the last resort however. The Church won't grant a divorce for stupid trivial matters. In other words, they will try and protect the family unit especially if children are involved. Divorce rates are therefore very low in our culture. Probably South of 10% from my experience. That post is exactly why I could never accept that a Church institution is a positive for society. You need to get it right. That is only because you do not agree with these conservative social principles and are brainwashed. You are brainwashed by the mainstream media who are trying to reconstruct the new "norms". Isn't it amazing how any dissenting voices are silenced, because if they are not silent, they must endure the most awful vitriolic hyperbole ever and insults galore. I guess it doesn't matter if you offend as long as its the Christians and not the Muslims. Society has gone bonkers. And there will be a price to pay as well. Now, Euthanasia is nothing but assisted suicide. Religion is fundamentally opposed to any form of suicide. But aside from this fact, no matter how much protection is in the system, Euthanasia laws are open to human corruption and abuse. Some people, some where will be knocked off unwillingly, especially the acutely very vulnerable ones. Marriage is also a pillar of all of humanity no matter what religion. It has been so for thousands of years. Abortion is once again pretty much considered murder against another human being in the womb, only thing is, that this human is at its most vulnerable. The Church is pro life, not pro death. There are instances however, whereby Abortion is allowed, and that is against Rape Victims or if there is a pressing medical reason to terminate. Religion isn't your enemy. In fact, the beliefs and rules are very sound, as opposed to all the lunacy now with many things including safe schools. Religious nut born into a religion and culture of which he had no say in accuses others of being 'brainwashed'. You couldn't make this shit up. Well you could, they'd call it 'religion'.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOh yeh right. As if any of you guys would want any of your children to be "gay". lol The only difference between myself and some others is that I am honest and don't just go for your socially accepted "norms". Yes I am socially conservative as I don't believe in gay marriage. I also do not believe in abortions, except under extremely exceptional circumstances such as rape - a thing our families had to endure in the past through so many wars and upheavals. I also do not believe in Euthanasia. I believe that no matter how you litigate, the laws will be abused by Doctors, Government and most of all Family! Fair enough? The only reason that anyone wouldn't want their kid to be gay is because they'd have to grow up in a world full of people like you. Are you sure? You expect me to believe that? C'mon! Be honest!
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAlso news flash, gay couples are already allowed to have kids so parenting is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't make it right. Did they look at all the social implications? Still doesn't absolve the plebiscite. Lol people whinging about gay couples having kids always ignore the fact that normal hetero couples are often no better. When it comes to certain religious types, they'drather put a kid in a harmful hetero situation than a nurturing gay one. No we just want nurturing hetero relationships in our families. We religious types do not believe in SSM. Harmful hetero relationships are unacceptable as well. We have ways of teaching people control and respect. As a last resort, there is divorce, and our Church does accept divorce if the relationship is irreversibly damaged or not repairable. That's the last resort however. The Church won't grant a divorce for stupid trivial matters. In other words, they will try and protect the family unit especially if children are involved. Divorce rates are therefore very low in our culture. Probably South of 10% from my experience. That post is exactly why I could never accept that a Church institution is a positive for society. You need to get it right. That is only because you do not agree with these conservative social principles and are brainwashed. You are brainwashed by the mainstream media who are trying to reconstruct the new "norms". Isn't it amazing how any dissenting voices are silenced, because if they are not silent, they must endure the most awful vitriolic hyperbole ever and insults galore. I guess it doesn't matter if you offend as long as its the Christians and not the Muslims. Society has gone bonkers. And there will be a price to pay as well. Now, Euthanasia is nothing but assisted suicide. Religion is fundamentally opposed to any form of suicide. But aside from this fact, no matter how much protection is in the system, Euthanasia laws are open to human corruption and abuse. Some people, some where will be knocked off unwillingly, especially the acutely very vulnerable ones. Marriage is also a pillar of all of humanity no matter what religion. It has been so for thousands of years. Abortion is once again pretty much considered murder against another human being in the womb, only thing is, that this human is at its most vulnerable. The Church is pro life, not pro death. There are instances however, whereby Abortion is allowed, and that is against Rape Victims or if there is a pressing medical reason to terminate. Religion isn't your enemy. In fact, the beliefs and rules are very sound, as opposed to all the lunacy now with many things including safe schools. Religious nut born into a religion and culture of which he had no say in accuses others of being 'brainwashed'. You couldn't make this shit up. Well you could, they'd call it 'religion'. Newsflash! EVERYONE has a say as to whether they want to be a part of our religion or not. We are not the SS GESTAPO you know!
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
And if you want to top yourself when you've had enough of life then what the hell has it got to do with anyone else? If your religion forbids it, fine, don't get involved but why should your ridiculous beliefs stop others? Don't answer that because that's a rhetorical question. Moslems don't eat pork but even they wouldn't dare tell a christian not to chow down on a bacon sandwich. The fact that any country, state or province that has assisted suicide or euthanasia does not suffer from any of the falsehoods you perpetuate above proves you are a liar and the worst kind of evangelizing scum. A modicum of research would blow your ridiculous lies away. (Not just on this topic but the 'perils' of gay parenting too. One article, FFS, you need to do better than that. There are literally hundreds of studies that show the complete opposite of that one paper you put up.) Anyone that opposes euthanasia should be forced to sit through a loved one's agonizing final few weeks and then come back and say they're against it. Fortunately the Victorian parliament is more sensible than you and your ilk in the church and will soon introduce legislation for assisted suicide. NSW will follow soon after. Western Australia after that.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAlso news flash, gay couples are already allowed to have kids so parenting is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't make it right. Did they look at all the social implications? Still doesn't absolve the plebiscite. Lol people whinging about gay couples having kids always ignore the fact that normal hetero couples are often no better. When it comes to certain religious types, they'drather put a kid in a harmful hetero situation than a nurturing gay one. No we just want nurturing hetero relationships in our families. We religious types do not believe in SSM. Harmful hetero relationships are unacceptable as well. We have ways of teaching people control and respect. As a last resort, there is divorce, and our Church does accept divorce if the relationship is irreversibly damaged or not repairable. That's the last resort however. The Church won't grant a divorce for stupid trivial matters. In other words, they will try and protect the family unit especially if children are involved. Divorce rates are therefore very low in our culture. Probably South of 10% from my experience. That post is exactly why I could never accept that a Church institution is a positive for society. You need to get it right. That is only because you do not agree with these conservative social principles and are brainwashed. You are brainwashed by the mainstream media who are trying to reconstruct the new "norms". Isn't it amazing how any dissenting voices are silenced, because if they are not silent, they must endure the most awful vitriolic hyperbole ever and insults galore. I guess it doesn't matter if you offend as long as its the Christians and not the Muslims. Society has gone bonkers. And there will be a price to pay as well. Now, Euthanasia is nothing but assisted suicide. Religion is fundamentally opposed to any form of suicide. But aside from this fact, no matter how much protection is in the system, Euthanasia laws are open to human corruption and abuse. Some people, some where will be knocked off unwillingly, especially the acutely very vulnerable ones. Marriage is also a pillar of all of humanity no matter what religion. It has been so for thousands of years. Abortion is once again pretty much considered murder against another human being in the womb, only thing is, that this human is at its most vulnerable. The Church is pro life, not pro death. There are instances however, whereby Abortion is allowed, and that is against Rape Victims or if there is a pressing medical reason to terminate. Religion isn't your enemy. In fact, the beliefs and rules are very sound, as opposed to all the lunacy now with many things including safe schools. Religious nut born into a religion and culture of which he had no say in accuses others of being 'brainwashed'. You couldn't make this shit up. Well you could, they'd call it 'religion'. Newsflash! EVERYONE has a say as to whether they want to be a part of our religion or not. We are not the SS GESTAPO you know! You refused to answer the question I put to you. You still refuse to. You know that had you been born in Japan or Thailand or Nepal you would not be the religion you are. That FACT alone proves you are deluded and a product of your environment. And dishonest and dishonourable. You had no choice and the same way children are instilled with a belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, the same thing that has happened to you. You are a 4th rate troll. I'm off to watch Rick and Morty. Wub a lub dub motherf#$%$#ers!
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAlso news flash, gay couples are already allowed to have kids so parenting is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't make it right. Did they look at all the social implications? Still doesn't absolve the plebiscite. Lol people whinging about gay couples having kids always ignore the fact that normal hetero couples are often no better. When it comes to certain religious types, they'drather put a kid in a harmful hetero situation than a nurturing gay one. No we just want nurturing hetero relationships in our families. We religious types do not believe in SSM. Harmful hetero relationships are unacceptable as well. We have ways of teaching people control and respect. As a last resort, there is divorce, and our Church does accept divorce if the relationship is irreversibly damaged or not repairable. That's the last resort however. The Church won't grant a divorce for stupid trivial matters. In other words, they will try and protect the family unit especially if children are involved. Divorce rates are therefore very low in our culture. Probably South of 10% from my experience. That post is exactly why I could never accept that a Church institution is a positive for society. You need to get it right. That is only because you do not agree with these conservative social principles and are brainwashed. You are brainwashed by the mainstream media who are trying to reconstruct the new "norms". Isn't it amazing how any dissenting voices are silenced, because if they are not silent, they must endure the most awful vitriolic hyperbole ever and insults galore. I guess it doesn't matter if you offend as long as its the Christians and not the Muslims. Society has gone bonkers. And there will be a price to pay as well. Now, Euthanasia is nothing but assisted suicide. Religion is fundamentally opposed to any form of suicide. But aside from this fact, no matter how much protection is in the system, Euthanasia laws are open to human corruption and abuse. Some people, some where will be knocked off unwillingly, especially the acutely very vulnerable ones. Marriage is also a pillar of all of humanity no matter what religion. It has been so for thousands of years. Abortion is once again pretty much considered murder against another human being in the womb, only thing is, that this human is at its most vulnerable. The Church is pro life, not pro death. There are instances however, whereby Abortion is allowed, and that is against Rape Victims or if there is a pressing medical reason to terminate. Religion isn't your enemy. In fact, the beliefs and rules are very sound, as opposed to all the lunacy now with many things including safe schools. Religious nut born into a religion and culture of which he had no say in accuses others of being 'brainwashed'. You couldn't make this shit up. Well you could, they'd call it 'religion'. Newsflash! EVERYONE has a say as to whether they want to be a part of our religion or not. We are not the SS GESTAPO you know! You refused to answer the question I put to you. You still refuse to. You know that had you been born in Japan or Thailand or Nepal you would not be the religion you are. That FACT alone proves you are deluded and a product of your environment. And dishonest and dishonourable. You had no choice and the same way children are instilled with a belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, the same thing that has happened to you. You are a 4th rate troll. I'm off to watch Rick and Morty. Wub a lub dub motherf#$%$#ers! I answered you question fully. It's just that you choose to be blind. Now, on SSM. I'm no bigot because I treat them with respect. They would never get any abuse from me, only chivalry, respect and tolerance as equal human beings. That is what my religion believes. It believes that all humanity is equal. However, marriage has religious connotations and that is irrefutable. I am against SSM. But I may not be against Civil Unions, or gay people wanted to be equal in the eyes of the law, social security and every other institution within the country.
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAnd if you want to top yourself when you've had enough of life then what the hell has it got to do with anyone else? If your religion forbids it, fine, don't get involved but why should your ridiculous beliefs stop others? Don't answer that because that's a rhetorical question. Moslems don't eat pork but even they wouldn't dare tell a christian not to chow down on a bacon sandwich. The fact that any country, state or province that has assisted suicide or euthanasia does not suffer from any of the falsehoods you perpetuate above proves you are a liar and the worst kind of evangelizing scum. A modicum of research would blow your ridiculous lies away. (Not just on this topic but the 'perils' of gay parenting too. One article, FFS, you need to do better than that. There are literally hundreds of studies that show the complete opposite of that one paper you put up.) Anyone that opposes euthanasia should be forced to sit through a loved one's agonizing final few weeks and then come back and say they're against it. Fortunately the Victorian parliament is more sensible than you and your ilk in the church and will soon introduce legislation for assisted suicide. NSW will follow soon after. Western Australia after that. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone else. You have the free will to top yourself. But we do not support you topping yourself or condone it, or want it legalised. Our religion doesn't get involved in you wanting to top yourself. How can it. You are being ridiculous now. Oh and if you think you can blow my arguments, then go right ahead. The fact you are only talking about it is because it is much easier said than done. That's because you don't have any authentic research. We have sat through many agonising deaths. Some of my family was genocided, others are missing as well. Pain is awful, especially cancer. But it doesn't justify Euthanasia when palliative care is fantastic these days. Especially since the system is open to terrible abuse. I would rather my relative be subjected to pain than an innocent having their life prematurely ended. I would also rather endure it myself as well than to opt for the easy way out and have others subjected to injustice.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAnd if you want to top yourself when you've had enough of life then what the hell has it got to do with anyone else? If your religion forbids it, fine, don't get involved but why should your ridiculous beliefs stop others? Don't answer that because that's a rhetorical question. Moslems don't eat pork but even they wouldn't dare tell a christian not to chow down on a bacon sandwich. The fact that any country, state or province that has assisted suicide or euthanasia does not suffer from any of the falsehoods you perpetuate above proves you are a liar and the worst kind of evangelizing scum. A modicum of research would blow your ridiculous lies away. (Not just on this topic but the 'perils' of gay parenting too. One article, FFS, you need to do better than that. There are literally hundreds of studies that show the complete opposite of that one paper you put up.) Anyone that opposes euthanasia should be forced to sit through a loved one's agonizing final few weeks and then come back and say they're against it. Fortunately the Victorian parliament is more sensible than you and your ilk in the church and will soon introduce legislation for assisted suicide. NSW will follow soon after. Western Australia after that. Oh and if you think you can blow my arguments, then go right ahead. The fact you are only talking about it is because it is much easier said than done. That's because you don't have any authentic research. Against my better judgement here are 75 studies. http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/Other articles with links to studies here. http://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/the-research-same-sex-parenting-no-differences-no-morehttps://qz.com/438469/the-science-is-clear-children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-are-at-no-disadvantage/https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/us-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-same-sex-marriagehttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/children-raised-by-same-sex-couples-healthier-study-finds/5574168http://theconversation.com/same-sex-couples-and-their-children-what-does-the-evidence-tell-us-55565http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-635https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/01/05/same-sex-parenting-studies_n_13822550.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/02/12/what_we_know_about_lesbian_and_gay_parenting_making_sense_of_the_studies.htmlhttps://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/2015-dutch-adolescents-lesbian-families.pdfhttp://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/health/health-of-children-with-same-sex-parents/index.htmlhttps://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundupYou could go on but I've wasted enough time on you. (Again these are more for the benefit of others who may actually think you have a clue.) Your position is an entrenched one and therefore the argument is pointless.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
All I can say is thank fuck we have a separation of church and state.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAll I can say is thank fuck we have a separation of church and state. Yeah it's good. Here's the preamble said every sitting day of Parliament. Read it and be amazed. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/so050 http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice6/Practice6HTML?file=Chapter8§ion=03--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prayer and acknowledgement of countryThe President, on taking the chair each day, shall read the following prayer: Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper the work of Thy servants to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia. Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
The President shall then make an acknowledgement of country in the following terms: I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area and pay respect to the elders, past and present, of all Australia's Indigenous peoples.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Not one single link has provided any scientific research. Not one! Try again. Actually, you provided only one credible link and that is the first one. But it is a long way off from proving that there are no issues with same sex parenting.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNot one single link has provided any scientific research. Not one! Try again. Troll confirmed.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xNot one single link has provided any scientific research. Not one! Try again. Troll confirmed. Don't be pathetic. I edited my post. You provided one credible link. Just one, but it does not disprove that there are no issues with same sex marriage.
|
|
|