Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
Double post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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. Give my dog a cheerio and he'd consent to anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
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. Nonsense. Your post encapsulates exactly why the left suffered a backlash in the UK and why Trump occurs. You're using emotive language like "pathetic excuse" and "Everyone gets...". You're TELLING people what's good for them using your own sphere of belief and then extrapolating it to "everyone". EVERYONE is a homophobe, a bigot, pathetic etc IF they don't agree with YOU NO! EVERYONE doesn't get the "TWO adults" bit... YOU might, bit a large chunk of the world's population, many of whom live here and would likely outnumber the 1% that are homosexual in this country DO NOT GET WHY MARRIAGE IS LIMITED TO JUST TWO.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAs 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. Fuck the top stuff we're going round in circles. I'm more interested in the bottom part. Militant atheism is so boring. I profess faith in a higher power but not to a deity and definitely not to business like Christianity. Why do you think I brought up Eusebius and Constantine. Not a very heroic combination although Constantine has been known as Constantine the Great for some reason, the bloke has a lot to answer for. Could have referenced Homer and the Illiad against the bible as facts supporting the Trojan wars. One of my major issues with Christianity has always been their constant need for 'Councils' to clarify or refine teachings and interpretations. Constantine evoked the Council of Nicea before he died to debate interpretations of the bible. There is a lot of confusion of the great flood myth. I for one am 99.9999999% sure that we will never find a giant wooden boat in the hills of Turkey unless it was smashed to 100 pieces. I've seen arguments for the Flood being a reference to a potential great Sumerian flood that led to the downfall of their civilisation. Accepted research suggested soil salnity for a population shift, this could have been magnified by a flood event. Probably going a long way off topic. Regarding the bible as a source for historical events: If you can't cross reference it with more reliable sources from this Roman period than it's pretty much useless given its adaptation over a long period of time. Some of the bible can be cross referenced, some if can not be. It's certainly the last book you want to be relying on in a debate about literally anything other than religious teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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. Nonsense. Your post encapsulates exactly why the left suffered a backlash in the UK and why Trump occurs. You're using emotive language like "pathetic excuse" and "Everyone gets...". You're TELLING people what's good for them using your own sphere of belief and then extrapolating it to "everyone". EVERYONE is a homophobe, a bigot, pathetic etc IF they don't agree with YOU NO! EVERYONE doesn't get the "TWO adults" bit... YOU might, bit a large chunk of the world's population, many of whom live here and would likely outnumber the 1% that are homosexual in this country DO NOT GET WHY MARRIAGE IS LIMITED TO JUST TWO. Emotive? There's nothing emotional about it. Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults and a human and an animal in a discussion about same sex marriage between two consenting adults is pathetic. It's like comparing a Christian of today to a Knights Templar who killed the unbelievers. Not relatable. Belief? What beliefs? Numerous studies have been undertaken showing that children are not adversely affected by Same Sex relationships. Charlotte Patterson is a major researcher, look her up. There's nothing emotional here, just stating the obvious without hiding behind a religious belief.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAs 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. Fuck the top stuff we're going round in circles. I'm more interested in the bottom part. Militant atheism is so boring. I profess faith in a higher power but not to a deity and definitely not to business like Christianity. Why do you think I brought up Eusebius and Constantine. Not a very heroic combination although Constantine has been known as Constantine the Great for some reason, the bloke has a lot to answer for. Could have referenced Homer and the Illiad against the bible as facts supporting the Trojan wars. One of my major issues with Christianity has always been their constant need for 'Councils' to clarify or refine teachings and interpretations. Constantine evoked the Council of Nicea before he died to debate interpretations of the bible. There is a lot of confusion of the great flood myth. I for one am 99.9999999% sure that we will never find a giant wooden boat in the hills of Turkey unless it was smashed to 100 pieces. I've seen arguments for the Flood being a reference to a potential great Sumerian flood that led to the downfall of their civilisation. Accepted research suggested soil salnity for a population shift, this could have been magnified by a flood event. Probably going a long way off topic. Regarding the bible as a source for historical events: If you can't cross reference it with more reliable sources from this Roman period than it's pretty much useless given its adaptation over a long period of time. Some of the bible can be cross referenced, some if can not be. It's certainly the last book you want to be relying on in a debate about literally anything other than religious teachings. The bible as a source of historical events, the flood etc is totally irrelevant in the context of the SSM debate. Its just another red herring by the pro-SSM designed to shut out another group who is anti-SSM What is relevant is that Christian values for better or worse have shaped the society we live in, its morality, its beliefs and the concept of marriage. People with Christian affiliations cannot be shut out for simply being Christians. Oh and if you think the Christians are the worst out there when to comes to SSM, think again.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAnyone who says it's not okay for me to sleep with and marry my 13 year old fiance is ageist and pedophobic, it's the current year. Marriage and religion go hand in hand, that cannot be denied. Yes, as we have become an atheist society the lines have been blurred, but as far as the tradition goes, marriage is about the union of man and woman under god. For a group of society like the homosexuals to denigrate religion and their beliefs on marriage, I find it ironic that they would want to submit to the same cultural union that has been pushed and performed by the religions they hate so much. Why can't you be happy with a civil union and the same legal benefits that entails? Why must you claim the title of marriage if "it's just a piece of paper." What is it with people and ignoring the very important 'consenting adults' part of this entire debate? So what happened for the thousands of years before the Abrahamic religions appeared? I would imagine its a recognition thing. People always seek validation and validation of a relationship/commitment is marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+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. Nonsense. Your post encapsulates exactly why the left suffered a backlash in the UK and why Trump occurs. You're using emotive language like "pathetic excuse" and "Everyone gets...". You're TELLING people what's good for them using your own sphere of belief and then extrapolating it to "everyone". EVERYONE is a homophobe, a bigot, pathetic etc IF they don't agree with YOU NO! EVERYONE doesn't get the "TWO adults" bit... YOU might, bit a large chunk of the world's population, many of whom live here and would likely outnumber the 1% that are homosexual in this country DO NOT GET WHY MARRIAGE IS LIMITED TO JUST TWO. Emotive? There's nothing emotional about it. Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults and a human and an animal in a discussion about same sex marriage between two consenting adults is pathetic. It's like comparing a Christian of today to a Knights Templar who killed the unbelievers. Not relatable. Belief? What beliefs? Numerous studies have been undertaken showing that children are not adversely affected by Same Sex relationships. Charlotte Patterson is a major researcher, look her up. There's nothing emotional here, just stating the obvious without hiding behind a religious belief. I was talking Polygamy. I don't know what you are replying to.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+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. Nonsense. Your post encapsulates exactly why the left suffered a backlash in the UK and why Trump occurs. You're using emotive language like "pathetic excuse" and "Everyone gets...". You're TELLING people what's good for them using your own sphere of belief and then extrapolating it to "everyone". EVERYONE is a homophobe, a bigot, pathetic etc IF they don't agree with YOU NO! EVERYONE doesn't get the "TWO adults" bit... YOU might, bit a large chunk of the world's population, many of whom live here and would likely outnumber the 1% that are homosexual in this country DO NOT GET WHY MARRIAGE IS LIMITED TO JUST TWO. Emotive? There's nothing emotional about it. Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults and a human and an animal in a discussion about same sex marriage between two consenting adults is pathetic. It's like comparing a Christian of today to a Knights Templar who killed the unbelievers. Not relatable. Belief? What beliefs? Numerous studies have been undertaken showing that children are not adversely affected by Same Sex relationships. Charlotte Patterson is a major researcher, look her up. There's nothing emotional here, just stating the obvious without hiding behind a religious belief. I was talking Polygamy. I don't know what you are replying to. It's the same argument. What have you got to suggest that providing they are of legal age it should not be legal?
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAnyone who says it's not okay for me to sleep with and marry my 13 year old fiance is ageist and pedophobic, it's the current year. Marriage and religion go hand in hand, that cannot be denied. Yes, as we have become an atheist society the lines have been blurred, but as far as the tradition goes, marriage is about the union of man and woman under god. For a group of society like the homosexuals to denigrate religion and their beliefs on marriage, I find it ironic that they would want to submit to the same cultural union that has been pushed and performed by the religions they hate so much. Why can't you be happy with a civil union and the same legal benefits that entails? Why must you claim the title of marriage if "it's just a piece of paper." What is it with people and ignoring the very important 'consenting adults' part of this entire debate? So what happened for the thousands of years before the Abrahamic religions appeared? I would imagine its a recognition thing. People always seek validation and validation of a relationship/commitment is marriage. 100% its about validation- a validation that homosexual unions are in every respect the same as heterosexual ones. Many people do not agree.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAnyone who says it's not okay for me to sleep with and marry my 13 year old fiance is ageist and pedophobic, it's the current year. Marriage and religion go hand in hand, that cannot be denied. Yes, as we have become an atheist society the lines have been blurred, but as far as the tradition goes, marriage is about the union of man and woman under god. For a group of society like the homosexuals to denigrate religion and their beliefs on marriage, I find it ironic that they would want to submit to the same cultural union that has been pushed and performed by the religions they hate so much. Why can't you be happy with a civil union and the same legal benefits that entails? Why must you claim the title of marriage if "it's just a piece of paper." What is it with people and ignoring the very important 'consenting adults' part of this entire debate? So what happened for the thousands of years before the Abrahamic religions appeared? I would imagine its a recognition thing. People always seek validation and validation of a relationship/commitment is marriage. 100% its about validation- a validation that homosexual unions are in every respect the same as heterosexual ones. Many people do not agree. Based on what? 1) God doesn't like it - Homophobic 2) Can't produce off-spring - many hetero couples cannot do this either 3) It's un-natural - many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour, homophobic 4) Bad for kids - false, many studies suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+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. Nonsense. Your post encapsulates exactly why the left suffered a backlash in the UK and why Trump occurs. You're using emotive language like "pathetic excuse" and "Everyone gets...". You're TELLING people what's good for them using your own sphere of belief and then extrapolating it to "everyone". EVERYONE is a homophobe, a bigot, pathetic etc IF they don't agree with YOU NO! EVERYONE doesn't get the "TWO adults" bit... YOU might, bit a large chunk of the world's population, many of whom live here and would likely outnumber the 1% that are homosexual in this country DO NOT GET WHY MARRIAGE IS LIMITED TO JUST TWO. Emotive? There's nothing emotional about it. Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults and a human and an animal in a discussion about same sex marriage between two consenting adults is pathetic. It's like comparing a Christian of today to a Knights Templar who killed the unbelievers. Not relatable. Belief? What beliefs? Numerous studies have been undertaken showing that children are not adversely affected by Same Sex relationships. Charlotte Patterson is a major researcher, look her up. There's nothing emotional here, just stating the obvious without hiding behind a religious belief. I was talking Polygamy. I don't know what you are replying to. It's the same argument. What have you got to suggest that providing they are of legal age it should not be legal? What, polygamy? None. But here's the thing: The pro-SSM is *very* careful to not admit that if SSM is allowed, then polygamy can be similarly allowed. Instead they simply dismiss suggestions that SSM could lead to polygamy. WHY?
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+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. Nonsense. Your post encapsulates exactly why the left suffered a backlash in the UK and why Trump occurs. You're using emotive language like "pathetic excuse" and "Everyone gets...". You're TELLING people what's good for them using your own sphere of belief and then extrapolating it to "everyone". EVERYONE is a homophobe, a bigot, pathetic etc IF they don't agree with YOU NO! EVERYONE doesn't get the "TWO adults" bit... YOU might, bit a large chunk of the world's population, many of whom live here and would likely outnumber the 1% that are homosexual in this country DO NOT GET WHY MARRIAGE IS LIMITED TO JUST TWO. Emotive? There's nothing emotional about it. Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults and a human and an animal in a discussion about same sex marriage between two consenting adults is pathetic. It's like comparing a Christian of today to a Knights Templar who killed the unbelievers. Not relatable. Belief? What beliefs? Numerous studies have been undertaken showing that children are not adversely affected by Same Sex relationships. Charlotte Patterson is a major researcher, look her up. There's nothing emotional here, just stating the obvious without hiding behind a religious belief. I was talking Polygamy. I don't know what you are replying to. It's the same argument. What have you got to suggest that providing they are of legal age it should not be legal? What, polygamy? None. But here's the thing: The pro-SSM is *very* careful to not admit that if SSM is allowed, then polygamy can be similarly allowed. Instead they simply dismiss suggestions that SSM could lead to polygamy. WHY? Interesting question. I think that 1) they want to focus on one issue at a time and I can see how you can view the Polygamy argument as distracting from the SSM issue and 2) I think people are only starting to warm to SSM, introducing polygamy to the argument will 'reset' it more or less and they could probably lose a lot of support as I don't think we're ready to have a debate about polygamy.
|
|
|
|
|
99 Problems
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
I still can't comprehend how same sex marriage is still up for debate. Legalising it will not result in a negative impact on anyone. Every moment wasted debating this issue in government is time that should be spent discussing complex issues/policies that actually require debate.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI still can't comprehend how same sex marriage is still up for debate. Legalising it will not result in a negative impact on anyone. Every moment wasted debating this issue in government is time that should be spent discussing complex issues/policies that actually require debate. Like offshore detention which has taken a back-seat to a priest shirt-fronting Shorten.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAnyone who says it's not okay for me to sleep with and marry my 13 year old fiance is ageist and pedophobic, it's the current year. Marriage and religion go hand in hand, that cannot be denied. Yes, as we have become an atheist society the lines have been blurred, but as far as the tradition goes, marriage is about the union of man and woman under god. For a group of society like the homosexuals to denigrate religion and their beliefs on marriage, I find it ironic that they would want to submit to the same cultural union that has been pushed and performed by the religions they hate so much. Why can't you be happy with a civil union and the same legal benefits that entails? Why must you claim the title of marriage if "it's just a piece of paper." What is it with people and ignoring the very important 'consenting adults' part of this entire debate? So what happened for the thousands of years before the Abrahamic religions appeared? I would imagine its a recognition thing. People always seek validation and validation of a relationship/commitment is marriage. 100% its about validation- a validation that homosexual unions are in every respect the same as heterosexual ones. Many people do not agree. Based on what? 1) God doesn't like it - Homophobic 2) Can't produce off-spring - many hetero couples cannot do this either - That's true-not all marriages lead to children- but the vast majority have at least the potential for children, and its this unit of mother and father and children that has over the millenia proven to be the basic and most successful unit of society. This simply cannot happen in homosexual unions without a third party. I don't believe that arrangement is an adequate substitute in all the circumstances for society to endorse on an equal footing as a heterosexual family.3) It's un-natural - many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour, homophobic
- Well you can't have the animal argument both ways
4) Bad for kids - false, many studies suggest otherwise.
- We don't know. Heterosexual families have thousands of years of existence for us to conclude that it is the best way for society to exist and flourish. At best we have a couple of decades worth of a limited number of homosexual case reports that are not scientific in that the sample sizes are too small, the period of follow up is too short, and there are not controls for bias.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+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. Nonsense. Your post encapsulates exactly why the left suffered a backlash in the UK and why Trump occurs. You're using emotive language like "pathetic excuse" and "Everyone gets...". You're TELLING people what's good for them using your own sphere of belief and then extrapolating it to "everyone". EVERYONE is a homophobe, a bigot, pathetic etc IF they don't agree with YOU NO! EVERYONE doesn't get the "TWO adults" bit... YOU might, bit a large chunk of the world's population, many of whom live here and would likely outnumber the 1% that are homosexual in this country DO NOT GET WHY MARRIAGE IS LIMITED TO JUST TWO. Emotive? There's nothing emotional about it. Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults and a human and an animal in a discussion about same sex marriage between two consenting adults is pathetic. It's like comparing a Christian of today to a Knights Templar who killed the unbelievers. Not relatable. Belief? What beliefs? Numerous studies have been undertaken showing that children are not adversely affected by Same Sex relationships. Charlotte Patterson is a major researcher, look her up. There's nothing emotional here, just stating the obvious without hiding behind a religious belief. I was talking Polygamy. I don't know what you are replying to. It's the same argument. What have you got to suggest that providing they are of legal age it should not be legal? What, polygamy? None. But here's the thing: The pro-SSM is *very* careful to not admit that if SSM is allowed, then polygamy can be similarly allowed. Instead they simply dismiss suggestions that SSM could lead to polygamy. WHY? Interesting question. I think that 1) they want to focus on one issue at a time and I can see how you can view the Polygamy argument as distracting from the SSM issue and 2) I think people are only starting to warm to SSM, introducing polygamy to the argument will 'reset' it more or less and they could probably lose a lot of support as I don't think we're ready to have a debate about polygamy. But THATS just it! The pro-SSM knows that, and it choose to dismiss it by not even acknowledging as an issue. get SSm in, then we'll worry about polygamy later. However others are saying :" Wait, if SSM comes in, why couldn't polygamy?
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xAnyone who says it's not okay for me to sleep with and marry my 13 year old fiance is ageist and pedophobic, it's the current year. Marriage and religion go hand in hand, that cannot be denied. Yes, as we have become an atheist society the lines have been blurred, but as far as the tradition goes, marriage is about the union of man and woman under god. For a group of society like the homosexuals to denigrate religion and their beliefs on marriage, I find it ironic that they would want to submit to the same cultural union that has been pushed and performed by the religions they hate so much. Why can't you be happy with a civil union and the same legal benefits that entails? Why must you claim the title of marriage if "it's just a piece of paper." What is it with people and ignoring the very important 'consenting adults' part of this entire debate? So what happened for the thousands of years before the Abrahamic religions appeared? I would imagine its a recognition thing. People always seek validation and validation of a relationship/commitment is marriage. 100% its about validation- a validation that homosexual unions are in every respect the same as heterosexual ones. Many people do not agree. Based on what? 1) God doesn't like it - Homophobic 2) Can't produce off-spring - many hetero couples cannot do this either - That's true-not all marriages lead to children- but the vast majority have at least the potential for children, and its this unit of mother and father and children that has over the millenia proven to be the basic and most successful unit of society. This simply cannot happen in homosexual unions without a third party. I don't believe that arrangement is an adequate substitute in all the circumstances for society to endorse on an equal footing as a heterosexual family.3) It's un-natural - many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour, homophobic
- Well you can't have the animal argument both ways
4) Bad for kids - false, many studies suggest otherwise.
- We don't know. Heterosexual families have thousands of years of existence for us to conclude that it is the best way for society to exist and flourish. At best we have a couple of decades worth of a limited number of homosexual case reports that are not scientific in that the sample sizes are too small, the period of follow up is too short, and there are not controls for bias. 2) Look I think this isn't an unreasonable argument. However to counter that we have an urban concentration of our population that's straining resources. If 5% of the population can't 'naturally' (for the lack of a better word) produce, is it really going to bring about the downfall of our species? If anything, this argument is overplayed. 4) Heterosexual relationships are full of divorce, abuse, drug addictions and so on and so forth. Every type of relationship can have negative affects on children.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+xAnyone who says it's not okay for me to sleep with and marry my 13 year old fiance is ageist and pedophobic, it's the current year. Marriage and religion go hand in hand, that cannot be denied. Yes, as we have become an atheist society the lines have been blurred, but as far as the tradition goes, marriage is about the union of man and woman under god. For a group of society like the homosexuals to denigrate religion and their beliefs on marriage, I find it ironic that they would want to submit to the same cultural union that has been pushed and performed by the religions they hate so much. Why can't you be happy with a civil union and the same legal benefits that entails? Why must you claim the title of marriage if "it's just a piece of paper." Are you trying to make an argument against SSM? Marriage is still a really big deal to people. People see it as a defining part of their life. Why should gay people settle for civil unions when straight can marry, whether they believe in God or not? They want to be treated equally.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
As a straight man, I couldn't give one iota of a fuck if gay people want to get married. Same with polygamy - as long it's consenting adults then what right does the government have to say it's not legal?
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAs a straight man, I couldn't give one iota of a fuck if gay people want to get married. Same with polygamy - as long it's consenting adults then what right does the government have to say it's not legal? This is how I feel.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
So much Devil's Advocating going on in here solely to try and win some strange side of an argument that they don't actually side with? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
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. What does the Anglican Priest have to do with 18C? With 18C, pretty much anyone is able to commence legal proceedings if they felt insulted or offended. That is the problem with subjective laws. We are heading towards a big train wreck. But the Priest isn't doing that. Why bring it up? They were discussing SSM. Yes he was talking about that Shorten called the priest a Homophobe and the Priest got "offended". Hence 18C is a legal avenue he is now exploring. Nothing you said is correct. Shorten did not call the priest a homophobe, the priest is not exploring 18c. you are a fool :) Well perhaps he should explore it. And someone rightfully made that comment. I just can't recall who. There will be a number of these Test Cases. Lino has one. The fools are those who resort to insults. Haha :) I just remembered what you said: ' Well perhaps he should explore it.' Read Shorten's words. Read 18C. Then see what a foolish comment that is. ' And someone rightfully made that comment. I just can't recall who. ' Who's more foolish? the fool or the fool that follows him?
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo much Devil's Advocating going on in here solely to try and win some strange side of an argument that they don't actually side with? -PB Aye, just have a vote for it in parliament and save 160 million and just be done with it ffs.
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
I have mentioned before on this forum that I consider myself an Atheist. That's because I do NOT believe in a creator or God, and subscribe to Evolution.
This however does not mean that I hold any disrespect to the Church (Orthodox) or its followers and believers. My wife is the opposite to me. She is a believer and a follower.
I still got baptized in that Church. I got married in that Church. My kids got baptized in that Church. My kids even go to an Orthodox Private School. They love the Priest and he is genuinely a top bloke too. Oh and the school also teaches Biology and Evolution. The Church is always evolving. They don't still think the earth is flat either as they too evolve as humanity and science evolves.
Neither does my Atheism give me the right to try and undermine the tenets or the establishment or its views which they are entitled to express whether that be on Euthanasia or SSM. They can do what they like. Whether they gain traction is another matter.
It will not change them however. This Church has been around for 2000 years and it has even started wars against oppressive foreign occupiers (Ottoman Empire) and for Centuries it was the lifeblood of an entire people and race. It had underground schools when Greek Culture and Language was punishable by Death (beheading). Without it, there would be no Greeks today during the holocaust and genocide from the Islamist Ottomans.
It also does a lot of good, raises a lot of money and in Greece they even let homeless Syrian Refugees use the Churches for shelter and a place to eat and sleep.
Sorry, but they and religion in general have every right to say and believe what they want as do I. They have every right to lobby Government and they do.
End of!
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Not seeing shit on a subscriber link lol. Does this mean you actually subscribe? -PB
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
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. What does the Anglican Priest have to do with 18C? With 18C, pretty much anyone is able to commence legal proceedings if they felt insulted or offended. That is the problem with subjective laws. We are heading towards a big train wreck. But the Priest isn't doing that. Why bring it up? They were discussing SSM. Yes he was talking about that Shorten called the priest a Homophobe and the Priest got "offended". Hence 18C is a legal avenue he is now exploring. Nothing you said is correct. Shorten did not call the priest a homophobe, the priest is not exploring 18c. you are a fool :) Well perhaps he should explore it. And someone rightfully made that comment. I just can't recall who. There will be a number of these Test Cases. Lino has one. The fools are those who resort to insults. But the priest is homophobic. Their religion dictates them to be that ... perhaps the priest is just upset that someone put it so bluntly to him, rather than the greys that religion try to paint their beliefs as. Priests are no more homophobic than they are Anti Drug addicts. Just like they open their doors to a Heroin shooter and do everything possible to help them, they would also open their doors to the Gay community. Their doctrine is not to judge but offer help wherever they can and to whoever should ask whether that is just spiritual or anything else. They have tenets on the concept of "Marriage" and rightfully so. The Gay Community is able to legalize "Civil Unions" which is effectively the same thing as far as the law is concerned and stop using this Marriage thing as a tool to ridiculing the Church just because you do not agree with their beliefs or values. Believe it or not, Christianity and other religions is as an important identity marker as sexuality itself for some people and this needs to be respected because they have rights too. There is a lot to be said about the Church. As an organisation, I do actually like them and even love them. Because they offer a lot to people and humanity in general. They also offer children excellent values and teach morality which is why I send my kids to a religious school. I think we are all adult enough to understand this and the Church and also be very grateful that in today's cold and harsh world we have them in our midst preaching love and respect. They seem to be the only organisations doing that these days.
|
|
|
|