View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 16 Dec 2017 09:34 am



Reply to topic  [ 2666 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 ... 107  Next
 Up the Mighty Liberals! #inmalcolmwetrust 
Author Message
BLD4LBE
BLD4LBE
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:54 am
Posts: 4073
Ambrose Burnside wrote:
Because of the desire to impose what should be a personal thing on everyone else.

Which is why I keep saying "this doesn't affect you". If it did (ie the proposed law was to force people into gay marriage or to renounce their own marriage or something) I'd be voting no.

Understand?


You are voting to change a law to impose a new personal opinion on what marriage is on everyone else so of course it is going to effect people like Lestat when it is going to devlaue in their eyes something sacred to them.

_________________
Vzzzbx, you lose again!


08 Oct 2017 11:41 am
Profile
googlebomber
googlebomber
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 8660
Location: Just behind GameHED
Gamertag: unfunk
Mii: 3DS: 3797-6243-7145
Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
/headdesk

_________________
The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars


08 Oct 2017 06:10 pm
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
1. If it was so sacred.. the right would have tried to reverse the ease in which you can just decide to get divorced.

2. The religious context of marriage has already been separated from the act when straight couples could marry in a civil ceremony with no religious content. If the right have such an issue with gays devaluing the sacredness of marriage... perhaps they should also try and take that away too?

3. It's still amazing how a group of people can scream that their marriage is being devalued when a large chunk of said people have spent their lives hating, devaluing, attacking, bullying and often simply wishing that gay people didn't exist. Part of their disagreement in this fight is simply because they don't think we deserve equality...


08 Oct 2017 07:06 pm
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
Peppermint Lounge wrote:
Froggy wrote:
You guys OK with Lestat's perfectly fine opinion on marriage?


Couldn’t be more ok. My problem is he wants everyone else to conform to his perfectly fine opinion on marriage.

Yeah because the law exists right now because I forced my opinion onto the world.

Lol, social conventions are group think and tradition, it takes a mass of people and generations to come us with this. I'm just conforming with these norms and definitions.

You guys are ones wanting to force change, I'm saying leave what we have and come up with your own version.

It's not about equal rights, it's about trying to change social conventions.

That's why largely we are having this plebiscite, if the majority of society is ok with changing the meaning of marriage, then that becomes the new norm/convention.

No need to fucking get upset and call me a fucking biggot. People don't realise how much I am for freedom of speech and expression, it's why this place exists and even why someone like Rocco can post freely here.


Last edited by lestat on 09 Oct 2017 07:54 am, edited 1 time in total.



09 Oct 2017 07:48 am
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Coming up with our "own version"? Well.. That's kinda the new age equivalent of "you can drink water.. just not from this fountain".


09 Oct 2017 07:53 am
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
Yeah religious people have this drinking water thing, they call it holy water, but you know it's just water. :rolleyes:


09 Oct 2017 07:56 am
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Your analogy doesn't make sense. They don't drink holy water.


09 Oct 2017 08:11 am
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
I've seen people drink it. It's blessed water, still water.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense either, drinking water/consuming items has nothing to do with covenants.

Call your covenant something different so we know the parties involved, just like how marriage is a covenant that describes that a male and a female are involved.


09 Oct 2017 08:27 am
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
My analogy made complete sense - it was a reference to when black people had to drink from separate water fountains.
They were allowed water.. just not from their fountain.
By your stance - we can have something that is like marriage.. just not call it that.. even though in Australia we are born into a social construct that effectively raises us to believe we can get married... only until we find out that we are different and suddenly excluded.

Which is part and parcel why marriage equality is so important... It's fair to say that you'd hate to think that your children would be excluded from anything.. furthermore I am sure that you'd hate to the idea that your children could be emotionally scarred from being excluded and made to feel different.. inferior.. evil.. unnatural - you know.. all the things that children shouldn't be made to feel. Improving mental health and children and young adults is such an important thing.. and it claims lives every year.. OH But no.. we can't include the gays because FEELINGS.


09 Oct 2017 08:43 am
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
Fountain is a shared public resource, covenants are not shared resources, they are promises between people. There is nothing wrong with using a different label for your covenant to describe the differences in your promise.

There is nothing discriminatory about it either. No one is blocking your relationship and no one is saying you can't form a union.

Hell people are already labeling it same sex marriage. You already have a quasi label, call it the same sex marriage act.

I am a parent with kids, we are different and my kids are always upset about these differences as they learn to find their place in the world, my job as a parent is to help my children understand who they are and also instill the sense of self pride and confidence to ignore these differences. You don't have to tell me about this, kids don't respect "laws", they make these differences obvious. Pretending a difference doesn't exist is not the answer.


09 Oct 2017 09:53 am
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
lestat wrote:
Fountain is a shared public resource, covenants are not shared resources, they are promises between people. There is nothing wrong with using a different label for your covenant to describe the differences in your promise.


The problem is that if you looked state to state.. we don't get the same rights.. it isn't universal and often it's insulting the way the term is used and the value put on it is not the same.

lestat wrote:
There is nothing discriminatory about it either. No one is blocking your relationship and no one is saying you can't form a union.


We just can't form a union the way we are raised to believe we could.

lestat wrote:
Hell people are already labeling it same sex marriage. You already have a quasi label, call it the same sex marriage act.


Are you fucking dense? There's that word.. MARRIAGE. The word that the religious fuckwits are so up in arms about.

Or we could just amend the existing one so it covers both.. you know.. the correct and cheaper way of doing it.

lestat wrote:
I am a parent with kids, we are different and my kids are always upset about these differences as they learn to find their place in the world, my job as a parent is to help my children understand who they are and also instill the sense of self pride and confidence to ignore these differences. You don't have to tell me about this, kids don't respect "laws", they make these differences obvious. Pretending a difference doesn't exist is not the answer.


There's only a difference because people like you insist on making it a difference.. just like how black people weren't allowed to use the same water fountains.. there's no difference.. we have 2 people wanting to have the same thing.. the issue is.. one party is saying no because the other person is a different colour to them.


09 Oct 2017 10:18 am
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
We just can't form a union the way we are raised to believe we could.

I'm sorry, but social conventions and expectations for gay people is relatively new, any expectation you had about marriage growing up would have been of the heterosexual/religious kind, probably why you're hung up on it.

GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
The problem is that if you looked state to state.. we don't get the same rights.. it isn't universal and often it's insulting the way the term is used and the value put on it is not the same.

Are you fucking dense? There's that word.. MARRIAGE. The word that the religious fuckwits are so up in arms about.

Or we could just amend the existing one so it covers both.. you know.. the correct and cheaper way of doing it.

Actually in Qld, they have what I describe, a civil partnership.

https://www.qld.gov.au/law/births-deaths-marriages-and-divorces/marriage-weddings-and-civil-partnerships/civil-partnerships/entering-a-civil-partnership

Is civil partnership offensive? Or would you prefer to use the religious fuckwits derived marriage?

Every proposal I have put forward has been shot down, because you will only accept modifying marriage as the solution.

There are other ways to achieve your goal and also reduce conflict in society and encourage more acceptance.

Marriage is a touchy one because it is the only law we have in our society that is linked to religion. You will not change what religions teach overnight. That's all I have to say on the matter.


09 Oct 2017 10:47 am
Profile WWW
Makes poor choices in hats

Joined: 07 Jul 2006 10:04 pm
Posts: 2717
Gamertag: Hercy
lestat wrote:
Marriage is a touchy one because it is the only law we have in our society that is linked to religion. You will not change what religions teach overnight. That's all I have to say on the matter.


And the laws regarding public holidays and shop trading hours at Xmas and Easter.


09 Oct 2017 12:55 pm
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
lestat wrote:
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
We just can't form a union the way we are raised to believe we could.

I'm sorry, but social conventions and expectations for gay people is relatively new, any expectation you had about marriage growing up would have been of the heterosexual/religious kind, probably why you're hung up on it.


Mate.. the conservatives only want children to grow up straight. They have made that very clear in their approach and attack on safe schools... they simply do not want the idea of gay people to be considered.. we just kinda slink off into the shadows when we you know.. "work it out". Being expected to slink off into the shadows for simply being who we are is absolutely what so many people are hung up on.. and if you think we're being unreasonable, precious and whatnot - well continue cunting along then eh?

My mum said it best really.. even though I've been very lucky in recent years but "I just worry about you so much because it isn't fair.. it isn't equal.. and often it isn't safe. Your life and struggle is so much more difficult being gay". Back in the 90's.. yes it was.. these days I am surrounded by progressive and decent people. Things are fine.. unless of course dipshit right wing morons decide to make things difficult by interfering in my life.




lestat wrote:
Is civil partnership offensive? Or would you prefer to use the religious fuckwits derived marriage?


It's not universal or equal to marriage. The Labor government even stated this when they originally reintroduced it. As they said "It's a start". QLD has been slow on this.. you just have to look at the gay panic law that was only just killed off. Which btw - Was there ever a law to say that someone could kill you because you non-anglo'd in their direction?

Didn't think so... which again - goes to show you that things are still not equal across our country.

lestat wrote:
Every proposal I have put forward has been shot down, because you will only accept modifying marriage as the solution.

Every proposal you have put forward has been not equal and that's why. Putting the definition of marriage back to what it was prior to John Howard's meddling is the quickest, most cost efficient (would have been at least), most inclusive and least destructive way of solving this. We acknowledge straight couples can marry away from any involvement from the church - gay couples should have that exact right also.

lestat wrote:
There are other ways to achieve your goal and also reduce conflict in society and encourage more acceptance.

I think you are forgetting that gay people have been abused, harassed, attacked and murdered over the years.. it still happens.. encouraging acceptance? How very Nickelodeon of you in that you think it's just as simple as that. But hey.. by all means.. dazzle us with your solution to a fight that has been waging for years before either of us were born.

lestat wrote:
Marriage is a touchy one because it is the only law we have in our society that is linked to religion. You will not change what religions teach overnight. That's all I have to say on the matter.

out of curiosity - have you ever lived in a time where it was actually illegal for you to be who you are? And the origins of that decision that being a crime was from the church? Didn't think so. Clearly unbeknownst to you.. this push has not been overnight and as terrible as it sounds.. it will become a reality.. be it by our government doing it's job now.. or we simply wait 10 years and let an entire generation of old people die and with them - their homophobic beliefs and power.

Your argument is flimsy at best so yes - it's probably for the best that you conclude your efforts here. The NO campaigns argument is even less sound.. hence why they are bringing in so many other bullshit things to confuse the matter.
You are right though.. the church doesn't change overnight and this is obvious when you consider the decades of work that have gone into this push for equality. Chile has allowed same sex marriage.. America has allowed it. Countries with a bigger church base than Australia. SPAIN has it. This push has been happening for longer than either of us have been alive.


09 Oct 2017 03:01 pm
Profile
Lives in Blacktown N.S.W
User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010 11:25 am
Posts: 4243
America, Canada, New Zealand, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, South Africa, etc....all have nationwide gay marriage. We're the idiots that stick out like a sore thumb without gay marriage when compared to our fellow English speaking anglo countries. :redface:

For fuck's sake, the likes of Colombia, Taiwan, Uruguay etc...have gay marriage, and we don't! :shock:


09 Oct 2017 03:33 pm
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
You simply won't compromise and that's where it will get ugly, unfortunately you are not ready for marriage, because any married person knows that marriage is all about compromise.

I understand your points, but you simply want all or nothing. It might end up being nothing, then you will have to wait 10 years again, probably better to get the legal rights first, then work on changing definitions and the church to accept.


09 Oct 2017 03:33 pm
Profile WWW
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
Jasper wrote:
America, Canada, New Zealand, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, South Africa, etc....all have nationwide gay marriage. We're the idiots that stick out like a sore thumb without gay marriage when compared to our fellow English speaking anglo countries. :redface:

For fuck's sake, the likes of Colombia, Taiwan, Uruguay etc...have gay marriage, and we don't! :shock:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-21943292
In the US, the states have more power than here, also it's been a long legal battle. Their courts overturned DOMA which was a Howard block tactic. I wouldn't call it smooth and easy, it didn't happen overnight and it was done bit by bit, with a lot of fighting.


09 Oct 2017 03:46 pm
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
You do realise that we could simply swap out gay marriage and say "the right to vote for women or aboriginals".
The fact that so many times religion has been on the wrong side of history... and yet you tell me I'm not ready for marriage because I won't compromise on equal rights? Does your wife cut the crust off your sandwiches too?
Compromising fairly is one thing.. however this debate is not fair.. it isn't respectful either. You just have to look at the NO campaign signs saying "Protect Our Children" yet interestingly enough there are more cases of child abuse in straight families and in the clergy than in same sex families.

A compromise in this situation is completely on the table - Allow same sex marriage. We don't want to get married in churches and nor should we be allowed to.. Same sex marriage won't affect freedom of speech but it must be reminded that freedom of speech is not without consequences and that goes both ways. The thing is - the NO campaign simply refuse to budge and have resorted to false and misleading statements that call into question the legitimacy and quality of parenting already being undertaken (and successfully) by same sex families.

I won't compromise when the opposing side is spreading false and malicious information. If you'd compromise on something like this.. I definitely wouldn't bother with your advice on what a successful marriage is or what is deserved and what is not.


09 Oct 2017 03:51 pm
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
And what happens when the votes come in and NO is the answer?

Then what?

Is there even a plan here or just barrage people with guilt and hope for the best?


09 Oct 2017 04:28 pm
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
If guilt is applicable.. that kinda states that the verdict is wrong.

I personally think the YES will get up.. but my gut feeling is that we will then have the clusterfuck of LNP MPs not voting in line with the public. That will be something altogether new and horrible.


09 Oct 2017 05:06 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15170
Did anyone know that Ren and Stimpy were married? Ren is male Asthma-Hound Chihuahua. Stimpy is a male cat. I was a big fan of the original series and when I heard Kricfallusi mention it in an interview, it totally blew my mind. I re-evaluated what I considered marriage to be. I don't think people should be allowed to marry animals. I just think two consenting cartoon animals of a different species should be allowed to be married is all.

We can all learn something from that.


09 Oct 2017 07:19 pm
Profile WWW
googlebomber
googlebomber
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 8660
Location: Just behind GameHED
Gamertag: unfunk
Mii: 3DS: 3797-6243-7145
Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
lestat wrote:
covenants are not shared resources, they are promises between people.

lestat wrote:
they are promises between people.

lestat wrote:
promises between people.

lestat wrote:
promises between people.

lestat wrote:
promises between people.

lestat wrote:
promises between people.


ergo; none of your damn business.

_________________
The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars


10 Oct 2017 02:59 am
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
unfnknblvbl wrote:
lestat wrote:
covenants are not shared resources, they are promises between people.

lestat wrote:
they are promises between people.

lestat wrote:
promises between people.

lestat wrote:
promises between people.

lestat wrote:
promises between people.

lestat wrote:
promises between people.


ergo; none of your damn business.

If it was a new covenant, then you'd be right. In this case it changes an existing one and causes discrimination issues for religious freedoms. Hence the reason for the plebiscite in the first place.

If it was so cut and dry, this wouldn't even be an issue.


10 Oct 2017 08:14 am
Profile WWW
Regular Member
Regular Member
User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2006 05:19 pm
Posts: 1940
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: shimma
PSN ID: shimma1138
Steam ID: stanard
The only reason this is still an issue (on both sides of politics) is because of election cycles and the short term view of modern politics. They are simply too scared of losing votes like yours.


10 Oct 2017 09:08 am
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
lestat wrote:
If it was a new covenant, then you'd be right. In this case it changes an existing one and causes discrimination issues for religious freedoms. Hence the reason for the plebiscite in the first place.

If it was so cut and dry, this wouldn't even be an issue.


Actually it's putting the definition of marriage back to what it used to be prior to John Howard changing it.

There is no discrimination at all for religious people and there are no issues for religious freedoms. 1. The question asking about same sex marriage does not instantly mean there is a loss of religious freedom. 2. When passed, churches can continue to deny people marriage.. which is fine.

Let's look at it this way.. 1 person has a plot of land that was given to them. Person 2 comes along who would like the same size and type of land plot. Person 1 does not like this and insists he is being discriminated against and his freedoms are being taken away. The thing is.. Person 1 is not losing anything. He's not sharing his land.. it just means that Person 2 has the same thing as he does. Person 1 would only have reason for being discriminated against if Person 2 was actually taking his Person 1's land or if he was building a giant disc to block out the sun ala Mr Burns? Yes.. it would be a cause for concern.. except this isn't happening.


The reason for the plebiscite was because it was the perfect vessel to delay, draw the toxic, religious, discriminatory vitriol to the surface and ultimately fail.. giving no result other than to divide people to make it an easy out for not passing marriage equality.


10 Oct 2017 10:18 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2666 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 ... 107  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.