That gay marriage thing........

[Knuckles]

Where do you get that from? According to what I posted before, that statement isn't actually correct.

I don't know myself so I'm interested to know if that piece that I posted is right/wrong.

Post number, I haven't seen it. I studied a fair whack of theology while my missus was doing her masters, having to proof, edit and sometimes rewrite most of her work, so I'll have a look at it and see if it gels with the official line.

I don't actually know if there is a specific reference or covenant covering bum sex, but if there is, it won't single out homosexual bum rumba only. My commentwas actually a lampoon of the fundamental interpretation of the attack on Sodom & Gamora (see thumpers, Islam doesn't have the monopoly on fundamental interpretation of religious text to promote radicalisation, jast ask anyone who has been imoliated in a planned parenthood clinic). Thought my irreverent allusion to Daniel and Abraham as middle management and the whole Babel episode, sorta implied a bit of levity.

 

[pink poodle]

Some jerks get all the luck.



Really? I thought everyone knew it was a proven, peer reviewed, scientific fact that every lesbian is just a cock hound who hasn't met the right penis yet.



They also have the right of denyal of service to those not indoctrinated into their dogma, those who are indoctrinated into a competing dogma, anyone who has broken a rule of their dogma. They can also refuse to teach accepted curriculum if it is contrary to their dogma, suppress admissions of sexual and physical abuse and murder.

For the record, I am baptised catholic, was raised catholic. I am not athiest, but have a healthy scepticism towards "facts" that were formulated thousands of years ago, that replace scientific reason with "because magic" and while not anti religion, I am anti institutionalised religion. Having been in the church for a bit I still cannot reconcile the basic tenets of Christianity with the refusal to accept same sex marriage. Sure the old testiment God was against Sodomy, but that mother fucker was smiting dudes left, right and centre. Hell, s/he made middle management murder their own kids for a promotion and wiped out a civilisation because he couldn't understand their language.

This conversation has enough convoluted tangles in it already, let's not confuse Catholicism and Christianity.

It's not about 'winning' anything though. A discussion is not a competition and I am here to ensure that discussion remains civil and on topic. If people take things too far I remove them from the discussion.

You should feel free to be able to speak your mind.

So you'reeffectively saying gay people should be able to own whichever gun they want? Just like other guys? I'm not sure this is a good idea.

Where do you get that from? According to what I posted before, that statement isn't actually correct.

I don't know myself so I'm interested to know if that piece that I posted is right/wrong.

What you posted did say sodomy wasn't a good thing, in certain circumstances. Like gang rape or sneaking around behind your wives' backs. It didn't say a guy couldn't be your wife or a girl couldn't be your husband.

Not at all. No one is asking for the right to deny, they are supporting no action. No action is not a right nor is it a right to deny, it is simply null. You are adding something on to it that fits with how YOU see things not how they see things.

There are lots of people who don't think there is a rights problem in the first place because de facto relationships are treated equally.

Straw man is about re-defining the argument to one that is un acceptable to the other side. The fact is the question is do you support a change in the law to allow same sex couple to marry?

that you guys seem to think you have facts and not strongly held opinions surprises me frankly.

Attitudes like this often cause backfire, not an inconsiderable risk in this debate I suspect

Except that even in a defacto situation there isn't equality.

 

[Spike-X]

Not at all. No one is asking for the right to deny

Oh, come ON.

 

[Knuckles]

Not at all. No one is asking for the right to deny, they are supporting no action. No action is not a right nor is it a right to deny, it is simply null. You are adding something on to it that fits with how YOU see things not how they see things.

Not at all, this is another evasion, it is actually supporting the right of the commonwealth to deny, that was inserted into the marriage act in 2004 by the conservative government, and supported by the Socialist opposition and vaguely objected to by the greens.

There are lots of people who don't think there is a rights problem in the first place because de facto relationships are treated equally.

Not true either. While same sex defacto relationships are legally equivalent in regard to financial matters. But only through a technicality, which protects the rights of unmarried siblings living together to share and inherit mutual property A homosexual partner cannot adopt their partner's child, be classed as a step parent, children born into a defacto same-sex partnership through IVF or natural conception will only have the biological parents listed on their birth certificate. So yeah, unequally equal.

Straw man is about re-defining the argument to one that is un acceptable to the other side. The fact is the question is do you support a change in the law to allow same sex couple to marry?

Exactly. So how is religious freedom and free speech and political correctness not a redefining of the argument to roll back the law defining legal marriage as between a man and a woman to exclusion of all others?

that you guys seem to think you have facts and not strongly held opinions surprises me frankly.

I don't think I have all the answers, but until I see a cognizant argument for the negative, I'll continue to assume it's based on bigotry and hypocrisy. And as stated before, whether my opinion is as irrelevant as the contrary opinion, and the fact that the issue is proposed to be decided by the majority submission of either opinion is what makes it a farce.

Attitudes like this often cause backfire, not an inconsiderable risk in this debate I suspect

 

[johnny]

Not at all. No one is asking for the right to deny, they are supporting no action. No action is not a right nor is it a right to deny, it is simply null. You are adding something on to it that fits with how YOU see things not how they see things.

There are lots of people who don't think there is a rights problem in the first place because de facto relationships are treated equally.

Straw man is about re-defining the argument to one that is un acceptable to the other side. The fact is the question is do you support a change in the law to allow same sex couple to marry?

that you guys seem to think you have facts and not strongly held opinions surprises me frankly.

Attitudes like this often cause backfire, not an inconsiderable risk in this debate I suspect

I think you are being self-servingly technical in the way you are interpreting things.

The question may be 'do you support a change in law....' but the outcome and I believe the interpretation that 99% of people will be 'do you support same-sex marriage'. And let's not forget, it's only law because Howard rushed a change in legislation WITHOUT A PLEBISCITE, mind you, to outlaw same-sex marriage. So to now view it as 'No action' is extremely short sighted, overly technical and pretty out of touch with what is actually occurring.

 

[johnny]

Post number, I haven't seen it. I studied a fair whack of theology while my missus was doing her masters, having to proof, edit and sometimes rewrite most of her work, so I'll have a look at it and see if it gels with the official line.

#193.............................

 

[johnny]

There are lots of people who don't think there is a rights problem in the first place because de facto relationships are treated equally.

But this is about marriage being treated equally, not de factoism. The issue isn't just about legalities in terms of access, etc. It's about excluding one segment of society from the rights that others have based on sexual preference.

Out of all the discussions we've had on this matter you have not gone near this particular point.

Why not?

 

[pharmaboy]

I think you are being self-servingly technical in the way you are interpreting things.

The question may be 'do you support a change in law....' but the outcome and I believe the interpretation that 99% of people will be 'do you support same-sex marriage'. And let's not forget, it's only law because Howard rushed a change in legislation WITHOUT A PLEBISCITE, mind you, to outlaw same-sex marriage. So to now view it as 'No action' is extremely short sighted, overly technical and pretty out of touch with what is actually occurring.

I am trying to explain how re framing the question with inbuilt assumptions is a strawman. It's framing the question is a way that the opposing view wouldn't accept the question in the first place.

Howard did indeed rush to change the legislation with ALP voting for it as well. Where was all the outrage at the time? - doesn't seem so long ago to an old bloke

 

[pharmaboy]

But this is about marriage being treated equally, not de factoism. The issue isn't just about legalities in terms of access, etc. It's about excluding one segment of society from the rights that others have based on sexual preference.

Out of all the discussions we've had on this matter you have not gone near this particular point.

Why not?

Devils advocate

Is it about sexual preference or biological facts?

Marriage is a fairly traditional thing, I know stacks of couples who aren't married, have houses and families together, and it doesn't seem to harm them, it isn't short term, they are lifetime partners and see no need to "marry".

From what I have read of the opposing view on social media ( definately not what tony Abbott, Bernardi thinks) the view is that defacto is close enough to marriage as to make no real difference. Second, that it's between a man and a woman (ostensibly for procreation), I've never thought about it as a sexual preference thing, simply male and female and a fairly traditional institution.

I remember a couple of gay males on another forum that I used to spend a bit of time on talking about this stuff, and they were pointedly against gay marriage because it represented institution and secondly the argument wasn't worth having and more likely to cause division. However I don't know if they have changed that position now - idea being that the broader world is now ready for it .

Because I know a couple of families effected I will vote yes, but that doesn't preclude me from being empathic to another view

 

[johnny]

I am trying to explain how re framing the question with inbuilt assumptions is a strawman. It's framing the question is a way that the opposing view wouldn't accept the question in the first place.

Howard did indeed rush to change the legislation with ALP voting for it as well. Where was all the outrage at the time? - doesn't seem so long ago to an old bloke

Sure there are inbuilt assumptions that most people will see this as a question about marriage equality but I think your assumption that people will view this question in a legalistic framework given the nature of the debate that's been utterly fucking raging for the past 10 years all over the world is getting towards deluded.

I'm pretty sure that there was some outrage at the time. Why would Howard have rushed that through if there weren't people trying to make it happen. But still, it seems to be a strange line that you take. I'm sure that 50 years prior to emancipation that there wasn't a huge outcry, as there wasn't 50 years before Aborignies getting the vote, etc. etc. Societal values change, evolve, etc. You've heard of the Enlightenment, right? 100 years before that, where was the outrage at feudalism? Pffft, government, liberal values and secularism; they didn't want it before the Enlightenment, so therefore it was all a bit of a beat up, right? Of course not, we all change with the times, our understanding of things grow and we always try to improve.

Just because something hadn't occurred to us before doesn't mean we can't care about it now.

Devils advocate

Is it about sexual preference or biological facts?

Marriage is a fairly traditional thing, I know stacks of couples who aren't married, have houses and families together, and it doesn't seem to harm them, it isn't short term, they are lifetime partners and see no need to "marry".

Yep, it's their choice to do that and everyone should be allowed the same choice, there shouldn't be any discrimination based on sexual preference, right?

From what I have read of the opposing view on social media ( definately not what tony Abbott, Bernardi thinks) the view is that defacto is close enough to marriage as to make no real difference.

If it makes no difference then why not let them marry? Secondly, if it made no difference then it's unlikely people would push for it so hard, right? Seen that way I don't see the validity of their argument.

Second, that it's between a man and a woman (ostensibly for procreation), I've never thought about it as a sexual preference thing, simply male and female and a fairly traditional institution.

I'm glad you say ostensibly because you obviously don't need to be married for procreation, as you've stated up the page about the unmarried families. Tradition is a strange thing. It was the traditional approach that women did not vote, it was traditional that women tended to the home whilst the men went out in the world for a career and social life. It's still tradition that women have their genitals mutilated in Somalia and other such horrors. Is tradition a good reason to continue practices that fuck people over...., for no other reason than "that's what we've done in the past"?

I remember a couple of gay males on another forum that I used to spend a bit of time on talking about this stuff, and they were pointedly against gay marriage because it represented institution and secondly the argument wasn't worth having and more likely to cause division. However I don't know if they have changed that position now - idea being that the broader world is now ready for it .

Because I know a couple of families effected I will vote yes, but that doesn't preclude me from being empathic to another view

I am empathetic to the other view as well in many ways. Traditionalists and conservatives shouldn't be forced to change their views of marriage in any way that effects them. But they should neither force others to effect other people's marriages based on their own personal views.

I can't empathise with people who want to stop people from having what they themselves enjoy for their own selfish reasons.

 

[moorey]

Devils advocate

Is it about sexual preference or biological facts?

Marriage is a fairly traditional thing, I know stacks of couples who aren't married, have houses and families together, and it doesn't seem to harm them, it isn't short term, they are lifetime partners and see no need to "marry".

From what I have read of the opposing view on social media ( definately not what tony Abbott, Bernardi thinks) the view is that defacto is close enough to marriage as to make no real difference. Second, that it's between a man and a woman (ostensibly for procreation), I've never thought about it as a sexual preference thing, simply male and female and a fairly traditional institution.

I remember a couple of gay males on another forum that I used to spend a bit of time on talking about this stuff, and they were pointedly against gay marriage because it represented institution and secondly the argument wasn't worth having and more likely to cause division. However I don't know if they have changed that position now - idea being that the broader world is now ready for it .

Because I know a couple of families effected I will vote yes, but that doesn't preclude me from being empathic to another view

It's denying people the choice. 'We' have the choice, whether we opt for it or not. Just because some gay couples don't want it, doesn't mean the option shouldn't be there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think de facto gay couples are recognised in the eyes of the law the same way as 'breeders' are.

 

[pharmaboy]

Sure there are inbuilt assumptions that most people will see this as a question about marriage equality but I think your assumption that people will view this question in a legalistic framework given the nature of the debate that's been utterly fucking raging for the past 10 years all over the world is getting towards deluded.

I'm pretty sure that there was some outrage at the time. Why would Howard have rushed that through if there weren't people trying to make it happen. But still, it seems to be a strange line that you take. I'm sure that 50 years prior to emancipation that there wasn't a huge outcry, as there wasn't 50 years before Aborignies getting the vote, etc. etc. Societal values change, evolve, etc. You've heard of the Enlightenment, right? 100 years before that, where was the outrage at feudalism? Pffft, government, liberal values and secularism; they didn't want it before the Enlightenment, so therefore it was all a bit of a beat up, right? Of course not, we all change with the times, our understanding of things grow and we always try to improve.

Just because something hadn't occurred to us before doesn't mean we can't care about it now.



Yep, it's their choice to do that and everyone should be allowed the same choice, there shouldn't be any discrimination based on sexual preference, right? [




If it makes no difference then why not let them marry? Secondly, if it made no difference then it's unlikely people would push for it so hard, right? Seen that way I don't see the validity of their argument.



I'm glad you say ostensibly because you obviously don't need to be married for procreation, as you've stated up the page about the unmarried families. Tradition is a strange thing. It was the traditional approach that women did not vote, it was traditional that women tended to the home whilst the men went out in the world for a career and social life. It's still tradition that women have their genitals mutilated in Somalia and other such horrors. Is tradition a good reason to continue practices that fuck people over obviously not, the point being however not that people think tradition is good, but also whether it's fucking people over or not, for no other reason than "that's what we've done in the past"?



I am empathetic to the other view as well in many ways. Traditionalists and conservatives shouldn't be forced to change their views of marriage in any way that effects them. But they should neither force others to effect other people's marriages based on their own personal views.

I can't empathise with people who want to stop people from having what they themselves enjoy for their own selfish reasons.

Or not enjoy.....

Here's some personal experience. I know a family, 2 ladies, 2 kids by IVF - many drinks late at night around a table, have never mentioned gay marriage at all, not on social media, not when pissed, not when out riding a bike. A team buddy I've known for many years, single at the moment, mid 30's , had a hard time at school etc, is now vocal about marriage equality, although has been pretty careful about his sexuality in the workplace ( even took a girlfriend to a work trip we did) - only talks in small groups who he knows

What's slightly interesting, is that the former couple have friends that are very vocal, almost like they are offended on behalf of them more than they are offended themselves. Maybe they are just quiet about it, I don't know.

Perhaps I know more people who would vote no than I think. When I think about it, there is no way I would post on social media that I was against the idea for fear of the response, so I'm not sure it's an open an honest debate. I think you already have an example here of that

 

[pharmaboy]

It's denying people the choice. 'We' have the choice, whether we opt for it or not. Just because some gay couples don't want it, doesn't mean the option shouldn't be there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think de facto gay couples are recognised in the eyes of the law the same way as 'breeders' are.

Agree .

Not sure, it's a big area, but from what I've read there is a couple of idiosyncrasies for insurance and such, but I know the family law courts have the same law regardless of sexual preference.

Eg
https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/fin...annulment/de-facto-and-same-sex-relationships

More background on what you get an don't get 2/3rds of the way down under "recognition if same sex relationships"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia

 

[johnny]

Perhaps I know more people who would vote no than I think. When I think about it, there is no way I would post on social media that I was against the idea for fear of the response, so I'm not sure it's an open an honest debate. I think you already have an example here of that

I'm sure that differs from context to context. I have no doubt that there are locations on and off the net that are the complete mirror image of this place.

The point that I would note is that this is an MTB forum - totally devoid of politics, religion, ethics, sexuality, ideology, etc. unless we go completely off topic. Bike riding is not related to any of these issues and yet those vocal among us seem all pretty much in favour - or at least not against - same sex marriage. I don't know what that means but I find it interesting.

 

[Shinigami]

In some situations (life and death at a hospital) marriage gets accepted far faster as giving next of kin rights than anything else. That can cause issues.


Also we're talking about the civil definition of marriage not the religious concept that frequently goes hand in hand in most people's mind.

 

[pharmaboy]

In some situations (life and death at a hospital) marriage gets accepted far faster as giving next of kin rights than anything else. That can cause issues.


Also we're talking about the civil definition of marriage not the religious concept that frequently goes hand in hand in most people's mind.

Good point. Though I've never heard of a dr asking anymore than what is your relationship, so if you say you are married no one asks for a certificate.

 

[pharmaboy]

I'm sure that differs from context to context. I have no doubt that there are locations on and off the net that are the complete mirror image of this place.

The point that I would note is that this is an MTB forum - totally devoid of politics, religion, ethics, sexuality, ideology, etc. unless we go completely off topic. Bike riding is not related to any of these issues and yet those vocal among us seem all pretty much in favour - or at least not against - same sex marriage. I don't know what that means but I find it interesting.

Could be people just don't want to respond. Who wants to feel like they are the minority - I sometimes visit another forum and once every couple of years I get sucked into a politics thread which is populated 90% by rusted on progressives, it only takes 1/2 a dozen replies and you figure out there is no possibility of discussion just argument, so of course you bow out, and make it 95% party members.

They all think the world agrees with their position because they hound any dissenters away so they can all agree until the next lamb wanders in - that's whirlpool in the news btw. You see the same thing on Q&A - I can't bear to watch it anymore because of how polar it has become .

Mixing with people of different opinions should be valued, but it only works well when there is a real mix not group think with one swimming against the tide

 

[pharmaboy]

Crazy question.

Anyone think those Melbourne posters could have been a set up? Agent provocateur sort of thing.

Such bizarre claims, in another circumstance I'd think it was an attempt at humour

 

[Shinigami]

Good point. Though I've never heard of a dr asking anymore than what is your relationship, so if you say you are married no one asks for a certificate.

I have a friend who was thinking of getting married because of this. They feared their nutter mother would sweep in claim to be next of kin and refuse medical intervention on religious grounds.

 

[moorey]

Crazy question.

Anyone think those Melbourne posters could have been a set up? Agent provocateur sort of thing.

Such bizarre claims, in another circumstance I'd think it was an attempt at humour

Not for one second.