Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. The Salvation Army is religious. The head of World Vision is Tim Costello. He's a Baptist minister. (They often comment on public policy. Neither pay tax and both are organisations.) You're not winning this argument. As for the church, the church are basing their arguments on tradition, a literal reading of the bible, history, fundamental tenants of their beliefs, legal precedents, conservatism and the fact that our society is historically at least, Christian based. These are fair and reasonable arguments and they're entitled to put them forward. The bible is a subjective work of fiction as has absolutely zero credibility in arguments over government legislation, of which SSM is part of. Our society is secular for political purposes and we're historically Christian because they killed everyone who wouldn't convert in the dark ages. None of what you put forward as justification is reasonable because it's faith based and has absolutely no relevance to people outside of faith. World vision is a religious organization. If they want to weigh in on moral policies in a political forum, you know what I want. Question: Do churches have the right to lobby government to have Noah's Ark taught as fact in our schools? You keep moving the goalposts but anyway. Yes they do have the right to lobby the government. Just like you are free to write to your MP and ask for Sharia law to be introduced for theft. Whether or not you, or the church, get short shrift from the government is another matter. And just for your information the bible is generally recognised of being composed, in general terms, 1/3 history, 1/3 doctrine and 1/3 apocryphal stories, songs, poetry, psalms. It is without doubt a historical document, amongst other things. Moving the goal posts? You keep bringing up different and unrelated organizations. Engineers Australia and a Church are both organizations, that's about the best part of your argument. That doesn't mean they're relatable. Churches lobbying government I don't feel is relatable and I've consistently stated this. The bible is about as historically reliable as Eusebius as a historian on the life of Constantine I*. The bible is given more attention because of the vast number of faithful (emphasis on faith) that subscribe to it. * - Eusebius was a suck up who glorified the life of Constantine I They're not unrelated. They're posted specifically to rebut your arguments but rather than repeat myself I'll just quote what I wrote before. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples.
Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say.
After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members.
As others (Enzo and Aikhme) have also said. As for the other stuff;
If you must be a militant atheist then you really should study some biblical history and theology. It makes your arguments more convincing as most Christians can barely distinguish between the old and new testaments and you can then blow them away with your superior knowledge.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. The Salvation Army is religious. The head of World Vision is Tim Costello. He's a Baptist minister. (They often comment on public policy. Neither pay tax and both are organisations.) You're not winning this argument. As for the church, the church are basing their arguments on tradition, a literal reading of the bible, history, fundamental tenants of their beliefs, legal precedents, conservatism and the fact that our society is historically at least, Christian based. These are fair and reasonable arguments and they're entitled to put them forward. The bible is a subjective work of fiction as has absolutely zero credibility in arguments over government legislation, of which SSM is part of. Our society is secular for political purposes and we're historically Christian because they killed everyone who wouldn't convert in the dark ages. None of what you put forward as justification is reasonable because it's faith based and has absolutely no relevance to people outside of faith. World vision is a religious organization. If they want to weigh in on moral policies in a political forum, you know what I want. Question: Do churches have the right to lobby government to have Noah's Ark taught as fact in our schools? You keep moving the goalposts but anyway. Yes they do have the right to lobby the government. Just like you are free to write to your MP and ask for Sharia law to be introduced for theft. Whether or not you, or the church, get short shrift from the government is another matter. And just for your information the bible is generally recognised of being composed, in general terms, 1/3 history, 1/3 doctrine and 1/3 apocryphal stories, songs, poetry, psalms. It is without doubt a historical document, amongst other things. Moving the goal posts? You keep bringing up different and unrelated organizations. Engineers Australia and a Church are both organizations, that's about the best part of your argument. That doesn't mean they're relatable. Churches lobbying government I don't feel is relatable and I've consistently stated this. The bible is about as historically reliable as Eusebius as a historian on the life of Constantine I*. The bible is given more attention because of the vast number of faithful (emphasis on faith) that subscribe to it. * - Eusebius was a suck up who glorified the life of Constantine I
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
Double post.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. The Salvation Army is religious. The head of World Vision is Tim Costello. He's a Baptist minister. (They often comment on public policy. Neither pay tax and both are organisations.) You're not winning this argument. As for the church, the church are basing their arguments on tradition, a literal reading of the bible, history, fundamental tenants of their beliefs, legal precedents, conservatism and the fact that our society is historically at least, Christian based. These are fair and reasonable arguments and they're entitled to put them forward. The bible is a subjective work of fiction as has absolutely zero credibility in arguments over government legislation, of which SSM is part of. Our society is secular for political purposes and we're historically Christian because they killed everyone who wouldn't convert in the dark ages. None of what you put forward as justification is reasonable because it's faith based and has absolutely no relevance to people outside of faith. World vision is a religious organization. If they want to weigh in on moral policies in a political forum, you know what I want. Question: Do churches have the right to lobby government to have Noah's Ark taught as fact in our schools? You keep moving the goalposts but anyway. Yes they do have the right to lobby the government. Just like you are free to write to your MP and ask for Sharia law to be introduced for theft. Whether or not you, or the church, get short shrift from the government is another matter. And just for your information the bible is generally recognised of being composed, in general terms, 1/3 history, 1/3 doctrine and 1/3 apocryphal stories, songs, poetry, psalms. It is without doubt a historical document, amongst other things.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. Explain how it is a 'deliberate distraction'. If someone says euthanasia should be legalised for the terminally ill is the argument that it will lead to people being pressured into being euthanised a 'deliberate distraction'. It isn't. Exploring the knock on effects of a law being passed is an exercise in risk assessment and a prudent thing to do. It's fair and reasonable and those that think SSM should be allowed should have the intellectual balls to not dismiss these arguments out of hand and engage them and rebut or agree with them. Otherwise they're hypocrites. When intellectual arguments are presented they can be assessed at present? I've only ever seen religious arguments. Utah in the USA legalized polygamy didn't it? Wouldn't there have been studies carried out to assess the social affects of polygamy that could be referenced. It's also an Islamic thing. Wouldn't there be studies to refer to on them as well?
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. I can't wait for the argument that if SSM is legal, why can't beastiality be legal. Another gutter tactic used to ridicule SSM as something un-natural and wrong. its because if you take the logical argument that marriage is all about about "love" regardless as to how repugnant it is, why can't someone marry their pet? Not that I agree with it, its taking the arguments to the nth degree. On thing is certain I'll say once SSM gets in its only a matter of when not if that polygamy gets in, because there is not a single argument that could be made against it then. It will make for interesting times watching the SSM proponents argue against polygamous marriages... See that's the moronic thing about stuff like this. Everyone forgets the 'two consenting adults' part of the argument. It's a pathetic excuse for a debate and it's used to discredit the legitimacy of SSM. Animals cant consent. Australians are repulsed by the idea. Its pure distraction and fear.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. Explain how it is a 'deliberate distraction'. If someone says euthanasia should be legalised for the terminally ill is the argument that it will lead to people being pressured into being euthanised a 'deliberate distraction'. It isn't. Exploring the knock on effects of a law being passed is an exercise in risk assessment and a prudent thing to do. It's fair and reasonable and those that think SSM should be allowed should have the intellectual balls to not dismiss these arguments out of hand and engage them and rebut or agree with them. Otherwise they're hypocrites. If you legalise euthanasia then on day 1 there is potential for some to be 'pressured' as a result of the law. if you legalise SSM there is potential for a debate about polygamy....but you still need another change to the law for poly to happen. So the poly issue is distant from the SSM. The only 'knock on' effect is another debate in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. I can't wait for the argument that if SSM is legal, why can't beastiality be legal. Another gutter tactic used to ridicule SSM as something un-natural and wrong. its because if you take the logical argument that marriage is all about about "love" regardless as to how repugnant it is, why can't someone marry their pet? Not that I agree with it, its taking the arguments to the nth degree. On thing is certain I'll say once SSM gets in its only a matter of when not if that polygamy gets in, because there is not a single argument that could be made against it then. It will make for interesting times watching the SSM proponents argue against polygamous marriages... See that's the moronic thing about stuff like this. Everyone forgets the 'two consenting adults' part of the argument. It's a pathetic excuse for a debate and it's used to discredit the legitimacy of SSM.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. The Salvation Army is religious. The head of World Vision is Tim Costello. He's a Baptist minister. (They often comment on public policy. Neither pay tax and both are organisations.) You're not winning this argument. As for the church, the church are basing their arguments on tradition, a literal reading of the bible, history, fundamental tenants of their beliefs, legal precedents, conservatism and the fact that our society is historically at least, Christian based. These are fair and reasonable arguments and they're entitled to put them forward. The bible is a subjective work of fiction as has absolutely zero credibility in arguments over government legislation, of which SSM is part of. Our society is secular for political purposes and we're historically Christian because they killed everyone who wouldn't convert in the dark ages. None of what you put forward as justification is reasonable because it's faith based and has absolutely no relevance to people outside of faith. World vision is a religious organization. If they want to weigh in on moral policies in a political forum, you know what I want. Question: Do churches have the right to lobby government to have Noah's Ark taught as fact in our schools?
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. I can't wait for the argument that if SSM is legal, why can't beastiality be legal. Another gutter tactic used to ridicule SSM as something un-natural and wrong. its because if you take the logical argument that marriage is all about about "love" regardless as to how repugnant it is, why can't someone marry their pet? Not that I agree with it, its taking the arguments to the nth degree. On thing is certain I'll say once SSM gets in its only a matter of when not if that polygamy gets in, because there is not a single argument that could be made against it then. It will make for interesting times watching the SSM proponents argue against polygamous marriages...
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. Explain how it is a 'deliberate distraction'. If someone says euthanasia should be legalised for the terminally ill is the argument that it will lead to people being pressured into being euthanised a 'deliberate distraction'. It isn't. Exploring the knock on effects of a law being passed is an exercise in risk assessment and a prudent thing to do. It's fair and reasonable and those that think SSM should be allowed should have the intellectual balls to not dismiss these arguments out of hand and engage them and rebut or agree with them. Otherwise they're hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? What is wrong with consenting adults making a decision like this? People have multiple partners these days before marriage/date multiple people, marriage is just a name. In this instance however, wouldn't it be an issue within government for taxation purposes more than anything? However polygamous marriages would play out legally and financially is not the point. The point is that the priest is correct to play that card. It is a valid argument. In fact I would like to see someone try to argue that same-sex marriages should be allowed and polygamous ones should not. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Shorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. Well religion has history of ownership of the term "marriage" of the order of thousands of years across numerous cultures and societies to back that claim up. They have every right to express their opinion, and try influence government policy, as does every body else. Whether that results in anything concrete depends on votes, as it does for everyone else. Arguing "You're religious, therefore no say for you in politics" is not how democracy works.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. I can't wait for the argument that if SSM is legal, why can't beastiality be legal. Another gutter tactic used to ridicule SSM as something un-natural and wrong.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. The Salvation Army is religious. The head of World Vision is Tim Costello. He's a Baptist minister. (They often comment on public policy. Neither pay tax and both are organisations.) You're not winning this argument. As for the church, the church are basing their arguments on tradition, a literal reading of the bible, history, fundamental tenants of their beliefs, legal precedents, conservatism and the fact that our society is historically at least, Christian based. These are fair and reasonable arguments and they're entitled to put them forward.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? What is wrong with consenting adults making a decision like this? People have multiple partners these days before marriage/date multiple people, marriage is just a name. In this instance however, wouldn't it be an issue within government for taxation purposes more than anything? However polygamous marriages would play out legally and financially is not the point. The point is that the priest is correct to play that card. It is a valid argument. In fact I would like to see someone try to argue that same-sex marriages should be allowed and polygamous ones should not. Why would anyone argue that? If you support marriage, what grounds do you have to deny the rights of consenting adults? What peer reviewed (sorry to use this term but in this case it is important) science suggests that these marriages would negatively impact children? The only arguments we see against SSM or Polygamy are false or biased science (there is a lot of it around) or religious grounds which is an unreasonable argument.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Listening to some of the senators speeches today, Di Natale always speaks quite well. His outline wasn't that far fetched although there were some areas that would take some actual fiscal backing up on how things were done. He was followed up by Bernadi who spent most of his speech attaching Sam Dastyari over this drama about his private debt (a travel bill) being paid by a third party Chinese company. Kind of ironic really when the Libs are getting smashed in NSW over misconduct and bribery charges in the fallout from the ICAC investigation. Glasses houses and all that. -PB
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? What is wrong with consenting adults making a decision like this? People have multiple partners these days before marriage/date multiple people, marriage is just a name. In this instance however, wouldn't it be an issue within government for taxation purposes more than anything? However polygamous marriages would play out legally and financially is not the point. The point is that the priest is correct to play that card. It is a valid argument. In fact I would like to see someone try to argue that same-sex marriages should be allowed and polygamous ones should not.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. But it seems like religion has 'ownership' over the issue. The issue is also political. The Flood is also an important part of religion. Should they be allowed to lobby our government to teach it to our kids? Yes, they should be allowed to lobby. And we should politely say, no thanks, teach religion at home or on sunday. As for not paying tax...does that mean only taxpayers can vote. If you get a net benefit from the government, can you not have a voice.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? What is wrong with consenting adults making a decision like this? People have multiple partners these days before marriage/date multiple people, marriage is just a name. In this instance however, wouldn't it be an issue within government for taxation purposes more than anything?
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act?
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. But it seems like religion has 'ownership' over the issue. The issue is also political. The Flood is also an important part of religion. Should they be allowed to lobby our government to teach it to our kids?
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
Marriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers.
But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either.
Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion.
|
|
|
|