Touche. But the ACL can't be funding e'rybody.

What social services could possibly be restricted by allowing gays to marry?

Also, please don't put words in my mouth or create fantasy scenarios that clearly aren't in my frame of thinking... You're better than that.

My parents donate to the ACL by means of their church donations every Sunday... And my Dad is PRO-equality... But then suggesting taxation on non-charitable church finances (would pretty much wipe out our deficit) is completely out of order.

Go figure.

:lol:

Go back and read what EG wrote. If a religious organisation were actually making that argument, it would be tantamount to blackmail. That's the only point I was making.

That wasn't the point. The point was that some Christians fear that allowing gay marriage could lead to an increased secularisation of Australian society. If laws were brought in restricting the ways that religion could be practiced and represented in Australia (like in France) then Christian social service groups like the salvos or Anglicare could be hampered in their community work.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I just struggle to see how that's blackmail, or how you managed to get to that conclusion.

I'm not fully aware of what's happening in France. Help me out?

I'm not an expect on the matter myself, but from my limited understand, it's against the law to bare signs or any religion in public, it's against the law to have any form of religious teaching in schools ect... I understand that those two things aren't related to gay marriage, but some people (conservatives) do fear that Australia could head down that sort of road.


I think that'd be a real shame if that was what we ended up with here, and let me reinforce that I don't practice any religion.

That's my understanding of it as well. They tried to ban the burkha and then watered it down to include all items of religious wear.

It was the only time they got the Christians, Jews and Muslims to agree on anything.

Why do we need religious community services at all?

If Anglicare is so vital, or the Salvos are so vital, surely it is immoral to restrict their services and mission to those of a particular religious leaning?

I had a bit of a look into the French laws, they seem to be a re-hash of freedom of religion laws from 1905. I can't see too much wrong with them, nobody is being denied access to religious teaching, and its certainly not against the law to protest on religious grounds. The laws make sense to a secular society, and are largely what Australian law should look like if politicians had enough balls to back the constitution and separate the government from religious organisations like ACCESS Ministries who have near unfettered access to our children in state schools and have now even started sneaking their costs into school fees.

Still, I'm trying to see how more secularism (which IS a form of freedom of&from religion for EVERYONE) has any effect on how an organisation delivers social programs... Unless of course they would be so callous to only be providing said programs to the Australian public to further their own organisations interests, rather than actually caring about the welfare of the people it provides charity to...

So, is there any hypothetical or real example of where secularisation might have an effect on a religiously provided social program?

:shock:
Google is your friend Mack, go find out how much those services do, and let me assure you, their services are not aimed at people of their religious learning :lol:


Seriously didn't know people could grow up in a major city and not know what those organisations do!

I'm just trying to understand how they would be going away...

I've yet to see a convincing argument against gay marriage

There really is none.

I can't think of any hypothetical, but now I'm keen to do a fair bit more reading on the French situation.

I'm by no means for the state govt paying for scripture teachers, as they are volunteer roles mostly, but if the state employes chaplains and alike, then of course they should be at least partially funded by the state govt.

The chaplains thing was always a bit weird for me.

Why do they have to be chaplains and what qualifications do they have? why not qualified social/youth workers?

It is not the governments place to be funding the spiritual education of children. That's what church and parents are for.

So how would any laws that 'restrict religion' hamper Christian social service groups?

From what I know of it, they would have been qualified through something like Youth Works College. It's the government's idea, and they are the ones employing the chaplains, how is it not their job to pay them? :lol:
Their job isn't spiritual education, as much as 'guidance'... Whatever that means.

But to me, that whole thing is a little strange, it just seems odd. I'm not sure what their role is when schools have counsellors and volunteer scripture teachers also come into schools weekly or fortnightly. Having youth/social workers would make much more sense.

This. Surely it's just blatant discrimination. If either party entered this election with their current policies, I would vote for either if they were pro gay marriage. It would be nice to know that over the 3 years that the government were guaranteed to do one thing that significantly makes this a better country.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Its the same if you are a regular gambler. Develop or appear to develop any kind of system in regards to your punts and if the ATO find out they will treat it as part of your assessable income and will tax you on it.

But they won't give you concessions for your losses :lol:

Tax law sucks arse.

-PB

Gay marriage is going to lead to gay divorce. Divorce is bitchy enough, we all know that gay divorce is going to be ten times worse. Nobody wants to see our court rooms occupied by two men arguing over who gets the chiffon bath robes. If that's not a waste of taxpayer money I don't know what is.

And really, if we allow gay marriage then who are the "fair go brigade" going to campaign for? If we allow gay marriage then what do we have to listen to these vapid beings offering their two cents on? They might have to start campaigning for real issues like immigration and the environment and honestly, I'd rather watch a full episode of Ellen De Generes talking tripe than have these people spouting crap about Christmas Island and Dolphin-free Tuna. Gay people are taking one for the team (not like they wouldn't take it from the team anyway).

On top of that, if we allow gay marriage then we lose the entertainment of John Travolta trying to convince everyone that he can live a "normal" life as a heterosexual, dancing, musical loving pilot whose best friend is Liza Minnelli. And who really wants to see that sitcom plot come to and end?

[size=1]While I'm not actually against gay marriage I just wanted to see if I could put together a vaguely cohesive satirical argument against the concept.[/size]

Nope.

If only I actually cared what you think.

lol.............:cool:

Handbags at ten paces...

Major parties now taking more public money to und their own interests.

Who looks worse here - the ALP for beginning the legislation, or the LNP for supporting it when they have spent the past month crowing and dog whistling about budget crises?

what legislation is this??????

Got a phone call from Chris Bowen today. The man himself. Quite strange. Didn't really have any issues to put to him, so it was pleasantries and let him get on with his day. Funnily enough there is absolutely nothing linking him to the Labor party on his twitter or website, and presumably any facebook page. :lol:

So Julia hates gambling advertising hey....hmmm



Edited by wamackie: 30/5/2013 01:13:52 AM