Calvin27
Eats Squid
That's my biggest gripe. Colossal waste. Ya know how many mtb parks $100m builds?
That gay marriage thing........
- Thread starter Dozer
- Start date
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
1 really good one.
Knuckles
Lives under a bridge
LTIH: fucking George Brandis, WTF I can't stand you, why are you making me admire your responses...?
Tony Abbotts counter to Brandis (paraphrased) "if we let the poofs get married, we're going to have to let them do all the stuffs, we need to stop the homos now!" is everything that is wrong with this "debate". It's not about freedom of speech, religious freedom, school curriculum, his wadded up panties or even redefining marriage, that was done in 2004 to explicitly deny a particular segment of the population the right to make a decision. It's about removing the ability of someone with no stake in a consenting decision from being able to prevent the decision.
I am fundamentally apposed to the use of coriander in the culinary arts, however that belief in no way, shape or form gives me the right to prevent anyone from partaking of its dubious delights. Is anyone on here going to quietly accept not being able to ride a bike unless it is registered, because a few vocal bogans have decided that the don't like cyclists using "their roads" despite there being no evidence that doing so will impact anyone other than cyclists?
Tony Abbotts counter to Brandis (paraphrased) "if we let the poofs get married, we're going to have to let them do all the stuffs, we need to stop the homos now!" is everything that is wrong with this "debate". It's not about freedom of speech, religious freedom, school curriculum, his wadded up panties or even redefining marriage, that was done in 2004 to explicitly deny a particular segment of the population the right to make a decision. It's about removing the ability of someone with no stake in a consenting decision from being able to prevent the decision.
I am fundamentally apposed to the use of coriander in the culinary arts, however that belief in no way, shape or form gives me the right to prevent anyone from partaking of its dubious delights. Is anyone on here going to quietly accept not being able to ride a bike unless it is registered, because a few vocal bogans have decided that the don't like cyclists using "their roads" despite there being no evidence that doing so will impact anyone other than cyclists?
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
Can you please explain the concept of being "apposed"? It seems your hate crimes against good taste are growing...first it was cinnamon, now it is coriander. What will be next? Nutmeg? Cardamon? Chili?
Tony is just worried that a gay man might either force Tony to marry him or even worse...marry one of Tony's daughters and thus become Tony's son. You can clearly see how this fear is justified? Surely?
Knuckles
Lives under a bridge
And here I was, assuming Tone was in a homosexual relationship with George Pell. Certainly far enough up him, as to make no difference.
And as if we didn't already have evidence enough he'd jumped the shark.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
And that is exactly the kind of homosexual marriage we need to be protecting our pot plants from.
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
I explained how in the post you quoted.
Last edited:
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
The dozens of opinion polls that all show a majority support for marriage equality aren't enough? We have to ask every person in the country what they reckon?
So when do I get to vote on whether you should have equal rights under the law?
pharmaboy
Eats Squid
It says "men and women of full age" - you surely aren't expecting a court to seperate the first sentence from the rest. It's abundantly clear that the UN dec defines marriage as male and female, further it goes on to provide a family as the raison d'être for marriage.
I mean it's pretty old, so hardly likely to have same sex marriage even in the back of their mind. So marriage is a human right, but the same declaration that says that also says it's between a man and a woman.
Australia is looking to move ahead of the law by actively changing it which is great, but let's not get ahead of ourselves because if it were a basic human right then we would already have it and not need any process let alone this one
pharmaboy
Eats Squid
What's the difference to asking a bunch of politicians the same question? Is just a wider pool of people
Reality is the choice is one of 2
No vote occurs at all because the parties can't agree
Vote occurs in a plebiscite
And when you answer an opinion poll the answer doesn't matter, for this it does, and it's not a small sample that extrapolates the result (like an opinion poll ) it's the full monty.
I hope when it's all said and done the LGBTI community appreciate that there is wide support
moorey
call me Mia
Chuckle of the day, right there
I haven't read the code but I don't think that it's about marriage being a right it's more about discrimination. You can't have a law for one folk but not another because of religious belief/sexual orientation. That's discrimination that isn't supposed to occur in liberal democracies, by definition. Discrimination can occur because of age (drinking, driving, gambling, contracts, etc.) and criminal history, etc. but it's not supposed to occur based on things like gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, colour of skin, ethnicity, etc.
I get what you're saying but isn't that a failure of the system we have? We already commit massive amounts of resource to have a govt and political system, they're not supposed to throw the question back at us like this. The follow on is that they do throw the question to us every 3 years and the last question came back on the side of the gang that said plebiscite. However the idea of a mandate for individual elements of a full and complex electoral platform is ingenious. People may support same-sex marriage but support LNP econ policy over that of the ALP and that's something that affects them directly. So they may not want a pleb but still voted for the LNP anyway.
I think we should hold a plebiscite to see if people want a plebiscite.
Haven't read this yet either but some may be interested in it:
Same-sex marriage: What does the Bible really have to say?
OPINION
The Conversation By Robyn J Whitaker, Trinity College
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826
As Australia faces a postal survey on same-sex marriage, we are seeing a steady stream of articles arguing the Yes or No case.
Many on the No side are prone to citing the Bible or appealing to "biblical values". But what does the Bible actually say about human sexuality and homosexuality in particular?
What follows represents a summary of critical biblical scholarship on the issue.
Critical biblical scholarship draws on a range academic disciplines including literary criticism, archaeology, history, philology, and social science to offer the most plausible, historically grounded interpretation of the Bible. It is not simply a matter of personal belief or citing official church doctrine.
Australian scholars are among leaders in the field when it comes to sexuality and the Bible. William Loader has written several books on the matter and this Anglican collection of essays is also excellent.
When it comes to homosexuality there are, at most, six passages of the Bible that are relevant. So what do these passages say?
Genesis 19 and Leviticus
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is well known. This is where the terms "sodomite" and "sodomy" originate, and it has long been associated with biblical condemnation of male homosexual sex. It is, however, actually about gang-rape.
In this story, the men of Sodom seek to rape two visitors (who are actually angels). Their host, Lot, defends them and offers them protection in his house, but offers his virgin daughters to be raped in their place.
Note to Margaret Court
Margaret Court is wrong to claim marriage is "a union between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible," writes Robyn Whitaker.
It is a deeply problematic and complex story that warrants an article of its own, but what is clear is that sexual violence and rape is harshly condemned, and so God destroys the town with sulphur and fire.
Despite the linguistic history of the word "sodomite", Genesis 19 has nothing to say about homosexuality or mutually consenting adults of the same gender expressing their desire and love.
Two of the laws of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) seem more pertinent. They call a man lying with another man instead of his wife an "abomination".
We should note first that the imagined scenario is a married man committing adultery with another male. It is not describing what we would understand to be a sexual orientation.
We might also note the inherent sexism here: women apparently don't have the same desire or their sexuality is deemed too insignificant to be worthy of comment.
Again, we need some context. Yes, this verse clearly condemns adulterous homosexual sex in calling it an "abomination" (to'ebah), but here are all the other things also called an "abomination" in the Bible:
Egyptians eating with Hebrews;
having an image of another god in your house;
sacrificing your child to the god Molech;
having sex with your wife when she is menstruating;
taking your wife's sister as a second wife; and
eating pork.
Banned likewise is wearing mixed-fabric clothing, interbreeding animals of different species, tattoos, mocking the blind by putting obstacles in their way, and trimming your beard.
As you can see, there is quite an assortment of ancient laws, some of which seem to make good sense (such as no child sacrifice) and others of which the majority of Christians no longer keep (such as eating pork and wearing a wool-silk blend).
To claim one set as timeless truths while ignoring the others is patently hypocritical and goes against the grain of the text itself.
These two verses in Leviticus are the sum total of what the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) says about same-sex activities.
The New Testament
The remainder of the biblical references occur in the New Testament, written between approximately 50 and 110 CE in the context of the Roman Empire. The attitudes and norms of Graeco-Roman culture are critical in understanding these texts.
In Graeco-Roman society, there was an acceptance that men might be attracted to other men. Even if married (to a woman) and often prior to marriage, a wealthy man might have a young male lover or male partner.
In educational settings, several ancient authors comment on the male-male mentoring that often included pederasty (sex with boys).
The main ancient objection to male-male sexual activity was that one partner had to take the "woman's role" of being penetrated. In a patriarchal society, to be masculine was to be the active partner, whereas to be passive was deemed feminine and shameful.
These attitudes find their way into the New Testament in various forms. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 list a wide group of people who will not "inherit the Kingdom" without changing.
Why some are boycotting the postal vote
While many same-sex marriage campaigners are calling for young people in particular to get their names on the electoral rolls, others are boycotting the vote altogether.
Paul is using a standard list of vices here to make a wider rhetorical point.
Where some English translations might include "homosexuality" on this list, the translation is not that simple, which is why various English words are used (adulterer, immoral persons, prostitutes).
The Greek word malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 means "soft" or "effeminate" and captures the Graeco-Roman distaste at a man taking a "female" role. In the Bible it is commonly used to describe fancy clothing, and outside the Bible was a term for cult prostitutes.
The word arsenokoites is rarer. Scholars have debated whether it refers to male prostitution or pederasty or something else. To translate it as "homosexual" is problematic for two reasons: it is unlikely Paul had any concept of sexual orientation and he was certainly not describing a committed adult relationship.
In Romans 1:26-27, Paul condemns people swapping out their usual partner for one of the same gender. He claims this is a result of idolatry and uses it as part of his argument for why one should only follow (his) God.
It is typical of the strong "them and us" rhetoric of the ancient world, serving a larger argument and is not a statement on sexuality per se.
As New Testament scholar Sean Winter summarises:
"Paul shares a stereotypical Jewish distrust of Graeco-Roman same sex activity, but is simply not talking about loving partnerships between people with same sex orientation."
Considering the context
We need to put all this in perspective. These are six verses out of more than 31,000 verses or roughly 0.016 per cent of the text.
In contrast, the Bible contains more than 2,000 verses about money (and related issues of greed, wealth, loans, and property), and more than 100 specifically on one's obligation to care for widows.
In other words, monitoring and proscribing human (homo)sexual activity is not a particular concern of the Bible when compared to the overarching demand for justice, economic equality, and the fair treatment of foreigners and strangers.
For certain Christian groups to make this the decisive Christian issue is simply a misreading of biblical values.
Lest readers think the Bible is against sexuality generally, there is an entire biblical book devoted to celebrating human sexual desire. Written in the style of a Mesopotamian love poem, the Song of Songs (sometimes called Song of Solomon), speaks positively of both female and male sexual yearning.
Serious Christians cannot ignore the Bible. They can, however, make sure that they interpret it with all the tools available to them, that they examine their own biases, and stop over-simplifying the issues.
The Bible offers a wide variety of marriage arrangements, many of which we no longer condone. It never condemns same-sex marriage, partly because it simply does not address the issue directly.
It does, however, give us an ethic to guide how we treat one another: an ethic based upon God's generous love and a profound concern for justice.
Robyn J Whitaker is Bromby Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Trinity College and a lecturer at the University of Divinity.
Same-sex marriage: What does the Bible really have to say?
OPINION
The Conversation By Robyn J Whitaker, Trinity College
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826
As Australia faces a postal survey on same-sex marriage, we are seeing a steady stream of articles arguing the Yes or No case.
Many on the No side are prone to citing the Bible or appealing to "biblical values". But what does the Bible actually say about human sexuality and homosexuality in particular?
What follows represents a summary of critical biblical scholarship on the issue.
Critical biblical scholarship draws on a range academic disciplines including literary criticism, archaeology, history, philology, and social science to offer the most plausible, historically grounded interpretation of the Bible. It is not simply a matter of personal belief or citing official church doctrine.
Australian scholars are among leaders in the field when it comes to sexuality and the Bible. William Loader has written several books on the matter and this Anglican collection of essays is also excellent.
When it comes to homosexuality there are, at most, six passages of the Bible that are relevant. So what do these passages say?
Genesis 19 and Leviticus
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is well known. This is where the terms "sodomite" and "sodomy" originate, and it has long been associated with biblical condemnation of male homosexual sex. It is, however, actually about gang-rape.
In this story, the men of Sodom seek to rape two visitors (who are actually angels). Their host, Lot, defends them and offers them protection in his house, but offers his virgin daughters to be raped in their place.
Note to Margaret Court
Margaret Court is wrong to claim marriage is "a union between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible," writes Robyn Whitaker.
It is a deeply problematic and complex story that warrants an article of its own, but what is clear is that sexual violence and rape is harshly condemned, and so God destroys the town with sulphur and fire.
Despite the linguistic history of the word "sodomite", Genesis 19 has nothing to say about homosexuality or mutually consenting adults of the same gender expressing their desire and love.
Two of the laws of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) seem more pertinent. They call a man lying with another man instead of his wife an "abomination".
We should note first that the imagined scenario is a married man committing adultery with another male. It is not describing what we would understand to be a sexual orientation.
We might also note the inherent sexism here: women apparently don't have the same desire or their sexuality is deemed too insignificant to be worthy of comment.
Again, we need some context. Yes, this verse clearly condemns adulterous homosexual sex in calling it an "abomination" (to'ebah), but here are all the other things also called an "abomination" in the Bible:
Egyptians eating with Hebrews;
having an image of another god in your house;
sacrificing your child to the god Molech;
having sex with your wife when she is menstruating;
taking your wife's sister as a second wife; and
eating pork.
Banned likewise is wearing mixed-fabric clothing, interbreeding animals of different species, tattoos, mocking the blind by putting obstacles in their way, and trimming your beard.
As you can see, there is quite an assortment of ancient laws, some of which seem to make good sense (such as no child sacrifice) and others of which the majority of Christians no longer keep (such as eating pork and wearing a wool-silk blend).
To claim one set as timeless truths while ignoring the others is patently hypocritical and goes against the grain of the text itself.
These two verses in Leviticus are the sum total of what the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) says about same-sex activities.
The New Testament
The remainder of the biblical references occur in the New Testament, written between approximately 50 and 110 CE in the context of the Roman Empire. The attitudes and norms of Graeco-Roman culture are critical in understanding these texts.
In Graeco-Roman society, there was an acceptance that men might be attracted to other men. Even if married (to a woman) and often prior to marriage, a wealthy man might have a young male lover or male partner.
In educational settings, several ancient authors comment on the male-male mentoring that often included pederasty (sex with boys).
The main ancient objection to male-male sexual activity was that one partner had to take the "woman's role" of being penetrated. In a patriarchal society, to be masculine was to be the active partner, whereas to be passive was deemed feminine and shameful.
These attitudes find their way into the New Testament in various forms. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 list a wide group of people who will not "inherit the Kingdom" without changing.
Why some are boycotting the postal vote
While many same-sex marriage campaigners are calling for young people in particular to get their names on the electoral rolls, others are boycotting the vote altogether.
Paul is using a standard list of vices here to make a wider rhetorical point.
Where some English translations might include "homosexuality" on this list, the translation is not that simple, which is why various English words are used (adulterer, immoral persons, prostitutes).
The Greek word malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 means "soft" or "effeminate" and captures the Graeco-Roman distaste at a man taking a "female" role. In the Bible it is commonly used to describe fancy clothing, and outside the Bible was a term for cult prostitutes.
The word arsenokoites is rarer. Scholars have debated whether it refers to male prostitution or pederasty or something else. To translate it as "homosexual" is problematic for two reasons: it is unlikely Paul had any concept of sexual orientation and he was certainly not describing a committed adult relationship.
In Romans 1:26-27, Paul condemns people swapping out their usual partner for one of the same gender. He claims this is a result of idolatry and uses it as part of his argument for why one should only follow (his) God.
It is typical of the strong "them and us" rhetoric of the ancient world, serving a larger argument and is not a statement on sexuality per se.
As New Testament scholar Sean Winter summarises:
"Paul shares a stereotypical Jewish distrust of Graeco-Roman same sex activity, but is simply not talking about loving partnerships between people with same sex orientation."
Considering the context
We need to put all this in perspective. These are six verses out of more than 31,000 verses or roughly 0.016 per cent of the text.
In contrast, the Bible contains more than 2,000 verses about money (and related issues of greed, wealth, loans, and property), and more than 100 specifically on one's obligation to care for widows.
In other words, monitoring and proscribing human (homo)sexual activity is not a particular concern of the Bible when compared to the overarching demand for justice, economic equality, and the fair treatment of foreigners and strangers.
For certain Christian groups to make this the decisive Christian issue is simply a misreading of biblical values.
Lest readers think the Bible is against sexuality generally, there is an entire biblical book devoted to celebrating human sexual desire. Written in the style of a Mesopotamian love poem, the Song of Songs (sometimes called Song of Solomon), speaks positively of both female and male sexual yearning.
Serious Christians cannot ignore the Bible. They can, however, make sure that they interpret it with all the tools available to them, that they examine their own biases, and stop over-simplifying the issues.
The Bible offers a wide variety of marriage arrangements, many of which we no longer condone. It never condemns same-sex marriage, partly because it simply does not address the issue directly.
It does, however, give us an ethic to guide how we treat one another: an ethic based upon God's generous love and a profound concern for justice.
Robyn J Whitaker is Bromby Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Trinity College and a lecturer at the University of Divinity.
Knuckles
Lives under a bridge
I think you are confused as to what a plebiscite actually is.
1. It is not a vote. It cannot legally be called or implied that it is a vote.
B. It is not compulsory. There are no electoral penalties for failing to reply to the plebiscite as there would be in any form of election or referendum.
3. The outcomes are non binding.
So:
1. By participating in a plebiscite, you are essentially answering an opinion poll, and like any other opinion poll, the answer doesn't matter. You may, or may not have noticed the particular wording of the official government advertising for the plebiscite calling it a "survey". This is because their inference that it was a vote, during the debate leading up to the announcement was going to get them in hot water with the law, and was the basis of the high Court challenge to it. And let's face it, the LibNats don't need anymore heat from the courts at the moment.
B. It is not the full Monty, it is a sample of the plebs who can be arsed filling it out and sending it in.
3. There is nothing in this process that ensures there will be a free vote in parliament on the issue. The most likely outcome will be current status quo will continue, with the nutters asserting a NO result as the definitive answer on the subject and refusing any further debate on the subject, and a YES result as an interesting anecdote, but a survey is hardly a reason for changing a law that has been set in stone for 13 years, and we should probably start debating a referendum on the matter to make sure it's what Australia wants.
Anyways you look at it, the plebiscite is a pointless waste of public money, that those with the balance of power on the issue can herald or ignore depending if it goes their way or not.
Despite your assertion that the plebiscite is the only legitimate way of forcing a vote in the parliament, it is essentially the same as the opinion polls you claim are invalid.
I would offer the contrary position, that the opinion polls are more valid as they tabulate responses untainted by the solicitation of targeted advertising by either side of the debate. And, of course, they're mostly not funded by the public purse, and cost a fuckton less than the plebiscite.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
I think we need to embrace the plebiscite and make it a more frequent part of our culture. I think the first step should be a plebiscite on the humane treatment of asylum seekers.
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
To be honest, I think we should have a plebiscite to determine if we need a plebiscite.
EsPeGe
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Ok I confess I haven't read every post this far but I've got the gist. My observations are as follows.
Firstly I think if it went to a plebiscite it wouldn't get up. People are only too happy to say one thing in person but in an anonymous vote where no one can see I strongly suspect they'll do another. My reason for thinking this..... Well you only have to look at the last election when "we" re-elected people like Pauline and Bob. We don't like to admit it but the US doesn't hold the patent on Rednecks.
One of the issues I think the NO camp has and I do understand it in some ways (I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE!!!!) is the question of will Churches/Priests be forced to marry a gay couple despite their beliefs, to which they are entitled whether you agree with them or not. So when do gay rights trump religious beliefs???? I am sure as shit not gonna get into that one but it is an issue. The court case last year where a bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple due to their own (the bakery owners) religious beliefs were forced to pay damages is a perfect example. Personally if I was the gay couple I would have told them to fuck off and that would be that. I'm fucked if I know what was gained from suing them but it wasn't me so what can I say. I fucking hate the litigious society we are becoming but that's another issue.....
Personally I feel there are far bigger issues out there that need to be tackled and I don't see why we all shouldn't have the same rights, I figure it's pretty fucking simple. And to prove I'm not one of those say one thing do anothers I'll happily post a pic of my yes vote!!!!
Firstly I think if it went to a plebiscite it wouldn't get up. People are only too happy to say one thing in person but in an anonymous vote where no one can see I strongly suspect they'll do another. My reason for thinking this..... Well you only have to look at the last election when "we" re-elected people like Pauline and Bob. We don't like to admit it but the US doesn't hold the patent on Rednecks.
One of the issues I think the NO camp has and I do understand it in some ways (I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE!!!!) is the question of will Churches/Priests be forced to marry a gay couple despite their beliefs, to which they are entitled whether you agree with them or not. So when do gay rights trump religious beliefs???? I am sure as shit not gonna get into that one but it is an issue. The court case last year where a bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple due to their own (the bakery owners) religious beliefs were forced to pay damages is a perfect example. Personally if I was the gay couple I would have told them to fuck off and that would be that. I'm fucked if I know what was gained from suing them but it wasn't me so what can I say. I fucking hate the litigious society we are becoming but that's another issue.....
Personally I feel there are far bigger issues out there that need to be tackled and I don't see why we all shouldn't have the same rights, I figure it's pretty fucking simple. And to prove I'm not one of those say one thing do anothers I'll happily post a pic of my yes vote!!!!
This is somewhat inaccurate.
Opinion polls as we know them (IPSOS, Pew, etc.) are run with strict and reproducible methodologies that ensure that a credible sample size is taken (big enough to statistically infer the results for the relevant population being polled) and it is representative of the population (in that it randomly accesses opinions or a legitimate cross-section of society).
This plebiscite will not reliably tick all of these boxes. The people who will respond and send the letters in are firstly, those who receive them and don't have them flogged out of their mail boxes by lobby groups; those that have the time to send fucking snail mail, those that photocopy and forge mountains of responses, those that are highly motivated by the issue, those that don't live in remote communities, etc. etc.
This plebiscite will not have the credibility of most well-run opinion polls.
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
This has been asked and answered eleventy billion times.
Until somebody can show me where in the Bible it says to treat gay people as less than yourself, I'd say every time.
There are plenty of Christians who are using their religious beliefs as a reason to be inclusive, and to vote yes. So if they can't even agree amongst themselves, why should others be forced to suffer because some people seem to think their imaginary friend wants them to be treated poorly?
There are many big issues to be tackled. For people who are currently being actively discriminated against, this is one of them.