Up the Mighty Liberals! #inmalcolmwetrust

[Madmya]

Legit question here, isn't marriage historically a religious entity?

[GeneraL CyberFunK]

No it isn't. The church would have you believe otherwise though.

1. Marriage was historically about the joining of families for political, land, financial and trade. There is evidence that predates christianity.
2. If Marriage is so religious and bound by the Bible.. why is it that certain parts of the Bible can be ignored or not taken literally.. and yet gay marriage that isn't even IN the bible is so important because Leviticus had a passage about man lying with another man? Leviticus was a seriously fucked up and angry man.. to the point where you could say "Doth Protest Too Much".
3. There are various progressions this country has had with regards to marriage.. Upping the age from 12.. allowing aboriginal women the right to decide (think that was around 1959)... things have changed.. and yet this keeps getting stuck because right wingers think they own marriage.. even though it is more popular to have a civil ceremony and not a religious one.. making it a matter of law.. and should not be affected by the church.

I could go on

[Madmya]

Cheers! The church did have me believe otherwise, but many people saying "there isn't a single reason" was making me question that.

[Cletus]

Well yes and no. You have to consider it from the modern perspective though, which does not require you to be of any religion to marry someone. Plenty of non-denominational marriages out there. They're still allowed to call it marriage too and the religious are fine with it because it still follows the acceptable mixed sex approach.

The ONLY thing I can think of that is somewhat acceptable in voting NO would be that churches may have to perform SSM? It's the only side I can see there is a real argument. If the religion is against it, and someone decides they feel it's discrimination, what happens next? It's all good to say NO voters are forcing their will on the gay community, but what happens if the gay community decide to force their will on the church? Do we say fuck those religious types? Isn't that the same thing the gay community are up in arms over? Because you know eventually, some pair of arsehats are going to push for it.

By the way, I raised this question months ago when we were talking about it and the question was ignored.

[stanard]

That argument doesn't really hold weight though. Churches are allowed to choose who they want to marry based on...anything really. That isn't going to change due to SSM. I'm pretty certain any of those sort of cases that get brought up by the No campaign have been thrown out.

EDIT: That shouldn't change imo. If a church doesn't want to marry you for any reason, then find another church that will. That's for straight and gay couples.

[Cletus]

Thrown out how?

[Lepo5]

No it isn't. The church would have you believe otherwise though.

1. Marriage was historically about the joining of families for political, land, financial and trade. There is evidence that predates christianity.

Judaism pre-dates Christianity as well and it has marriage. I think like most things involving people the original intent devolves into "the joining of families for political, land, financial and trade". I don't dispute the rest of your post but saying that Marriage pre-dates Christianity and is therefore not from the "Church" is just wrong.

[t0mby]

2. If Marriage is so religious and bound by the Bible.. why is it that certain parts of the Bible can be ignored or not taken literally.. and yet gay marriage that isn't even IN the bible is so important because Leviticus had a passage about man lying with another man?

Lying or laying? They could've been talking about lawyers for all we know.

[stanard]

Thrown out how?

Well this is just more religious freedom in general but:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ity-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Julian Porteous, archbishop of Hobart, faced an anti-discrimination tribunal last year when another yes zealot Martine Delaney complained a church booklet on marriage was insulting and offensive to gay men and women and the children they raise.

Was Porteous dragged? Hardly. Handcuffed? No. He had a couple of conciliation sessions with Delaney who then withdrew her complaint in May last year. The church won.

Yet every campaigner for no cites the Hobart case as an outrage against liberty. Porteous speaks darkly of issues left unanswered by the Tasmanian anti-discrimination commissioner, “In particular the ability of the church to freely express its view on marriage.”

But Your Grace, you won. Hands down. The church’s freedom to distribute your pamphlet Don’t Mess with Marriage is now beyond question across Australia.

[Lepo5]

but what happens if the gay community decide to force their will on the church?

This can't happen. Opposite sex couples currently have the legal right to marriage but they most certainly cannot force a church to marry them. They can't sue or claim discrimination this will not change either way with regard to SSM. Stanard is correct when he says the Church can decide who to marry regardless of legal right.

[Cletus]

Ahh...ok, that's what I was asking.

[Ambrose Burnside]

This is why the formal No campaign on TV etc barely even talks about marriage, they're all about making up stories about boys being forced to wear dresses at school etc.

Classic FUD.

In a similar fashion, people on the Internet say I want to murder all old people because I noted that old people voted for Brexit, Trump and that the opinion polls how a similar pattern with SSM even if they have family members directly affected (Hi Tones!). But yes, I'm the bully.

[GeneraL CyberFunK]

No it isn't. The church would have you believe otherwise though.

1. Marriage was historically about the joining of families for political, land, financial and trade. There is evidence that predates christianity.

Judaism pre-dates Christianity as well and it has marriage. I think like most things involving people the original intent devolves into "the joining of families for political, land, financial and trade". I don't dispute the rest of your post but saying that Marriage pre-dates Christianity and is therefore not from the "Church" is just wrong.

Who said we were talking about religions with churches? or even a religion?

The ONLY thing I can think of that is somewhat acceptable in voting NO would be that churches may have to perform SSM? It's the only side I can see there is a real argument. If the religion is against it, and someone decides they feel it's discrimination, what happens next? It's all good to say NO voters are forcing their will on the gay community, but what happens if the gay community decide to force their will on the church? Do we say fuck those religious types? Isn't that the same thing the gay community are up in arms over? Because you know eventually, some pair of arsehats are going to push for it.

If people started pushing for same sex marriages in churches.. I would be right there defending the church and their right to decline. The decline marriages now from straight couples for various reasons.. and seriously.. what fucking idiot gay couple would be that moronic to demand a marriage in a church where they are not seen as equal? This argument from the right is stupid. While there are gay couples who are religious.. more fool them for being part of a religion that doesn't accept them.

If boys want to wear dresses.. what does it honestly matter? Women now wear pants.. and years ago that was a huge deal. Let people wear what they want.. provided it fits in with the agreed dress code and required appropriateness for the occasion.. so Tomby.. that etsy unicorn dildo is fine for next week's trivia night.

The No campaign is about confusing and distracting. All the things that they are fearmongering about are issues that will be addressed when a bill is proposed and the other shit they keep pushing will be ignored because it is fucking stupid and not even relevant.

[Lepo5]

Who said we were talking about religions with churches? or even a religion?

You did, when you said that marriage pre-dates Christianity as some kind of evidence that's it's not from a "religious entity"

[flipswitch]

We need GameHED in here to spice things up.

[unfnknblvbl]

Wow look at your reactions to my post where I never even said I'm voting no and then Unfnk posts some virtue signalling sad ass post from his facebook to top it off. You just proved my point, the complete attitude that anyone who disagree's is only doing it because they are a bigoted homophobe is astounding in it's arrogance but complete lack of self awareness.

Your lack of comprehension beggars belief.

[Froggy]

Wow look at your reactions to my post where I never even said I'm voting no and then Unfnk posts some virtue signalling sad ass post from his facebook to top it off. You just proved my point, the complete attitude that anyone who disagree's is only doing it because they are a bigoted homophobe is astounding in it's arrogance but complete lack of self awareness.

NO ONES BULLYING YOU SO JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP OK WITH YOUR HOMOPHOBIC BULLSHIT.

SHUT THE FUCK UP OLD PEOPLE AND DIE WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE HAVING THAT OPINION EVERYONE I KNOW THINKS THE SAME AS ME!

unfnk virtue signalling to his facebook friends is gold EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES EXPLAIN TO ME I WONT BULLY YOU, YOU BIGOTED HOMOPHOBIC RELIGION GAY HATING WANKTARD, just have a debate man come on. Basically hoping someone replies so you can then abuse them so everyone is like yeah you are the king of values and thinking right!!

I dunno who will get blamed if they manage to fuck this one but generally something ridiculous does because when you are so absolute in your thinking being correct and that any other thought is wrong then it's incomprehensible when a bunch of people are able to form a different opinion. See Ambrose reaction to Brexit and Trump as examples of people still not getting it, i.e. people only voted a different way because someone made them.

*In best David Attenborough voice* and here we have a straight white male.. drenched in default privilege - having no clue what it's like to be in a demographic that has been harassed, bullied, abused, attacked and murdered for decades.

I've tried to engage many NO voters in rational discussion.. in fact I had one just today and the general gist of it was and I shit you not.. this is how simple it is "It's my right to deny you yours". When it comes to such an important topic.. saying it's your opinion and not giving a rational explanation (because let's be clear here.. there isn't one) is a very frustrating issue.. and you want to call the score.. the No voters have been far worse in the content and sentiment that has been put out there. No Voters cry bullying when in fact it is Yes Voters and those from gay community who want legitimate, factual, sensible reasons.. and to hold those accountable for saying the false and misleading things that have been said.

It's a fucked up situation. No Voters KNOW that they only have discriminatory feels and distraction tactics as the basis of their claim... Yes Voters have facts, history, research, stats and a nod to human rights on their side.. but No Voters seem to get upset they are being held accountable and thus get all sooky lala and state they are being bullied. Imagine a defendant in a court of law being asked to justify why they did something only for them to simply say it's their right/opinion like that should be the end of discussion.

If you are voting on how I live my life.. I think I deserve a decent reason as to why you are denying me equality.. if you can't do that.. Vote YES or don't vote at all.

This whole shitastrophe was being a horror for Australian people.

Again thanks for attacking me for something I haven't said or even believe but in and hey straight white guys never get beaten up or picked on or have gay friends right? right? I mean how could you possibly be friends or know anything about the gay side of life if you post on a forum that shock the yes campaign bullies people. Again I say look at your reaction and the others to me just for the slight inkling that someone could possibly vote no and can actually call out the hypocritical bullying the yes side has done, it truly has set you fucktards off.

No voters aren't being upset they are being held accountable, they aren't accountable to you or I on this vote just like whoever votes yes isn't accountable to them. You're being disingenuous by saying the yes side want legitimate factual reasons because there are zero reasons you will accept, why pretend anything other? People are not on trial for their personal opinion on marriage, the court of law stuff is ridiculous.

It's forgotten that you are potentially taking away the core of someone else's belief system to satisfy yours, of course there are going to be religious people and so forth who do not hate gays, do not object to your way off life but are following what they honestly believe is right. To them granting you marriage is taking away a major part of their life hence why there's the hullabaloo about protections. The other part that makes people nervous and I'll say it again is the government saying don't worry we will put those protections in legislation, I can guarantee that as soon as it's through they will start trying to get married in places that do not want them (funnily enough they won't try a mosque or graffiti one) and then launch into discrimination action about it. They could have taken all the angst away by showing the provisions in the legislation but no trust us we are politicians is all we got. The form overseas would make people worried about this be really worried it will happen here.

Stanard, the problem isn't that the Catholic dude got off it's that he was put through that legal process because someone disagreed with his opinion and beliefs and the system allowed him to be punished for it. It's not a win because he had to forcibly attend sessions to justify to some hater that his perfectly normal church teaching was OK to preach in a brochure, just had to spend a thousands on lawyers and deal with the media stress etc and the potential for more losses. The entire thing was ridiculous.

[Froggy]

Wow look at your reactions to my post where I never even said I'm voting no and then Unfnk posts some virtue signalling sad ass post from his facebook to top it off. You just proved my point, the complete attitude that anyone who disagree's is only doing it because they are a bigoted homophobe is astounding in it's arrogance but complete lack of self awareness.

Your lack of comprehension beggars belief.

Please, you just hate it being pointed out.

[stanard]

Still want to know what these legitimate reasons are.

[Hercy]

I wish Froggy would stop bullying yes voters for bullying no voters

[Madmya]

Is Ambrose wishing death on old people again?

[unfnknblvbl]

Wow look at your reactions to my post where I never even said I'm voting no and then Unfnk posts some virtue signalling sad ass post from his facebook to top it off. You just proved my point, the complete attitude that anyone who disagree's is only doing it because they are a bigoted homophobe is astounding in it's arrogance but complete lack of self awareness.

Your lack of comprehension beggars belief.

Please, you just hate it being pointed out.

Uh, no. If a "no" voter can't handle being debated, then is their argument really that strong? Where did I call people bigoted homophobes? You're putting words in my mouth and crying victim.

[Ambrose Burnside]

Is Ambrose wishing death on old people again?

I'm writing a Logan's Run reboot where the main character is gay and he has to turn a straight dude gay before he turns 30. I'm thinking of calling it "SHUT THE FUCK UP OLD PEOPLE AND DIE WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE HAVING THAT OPINION EVERYONE I KNOW THINKS THE SAME AS ME!" Or maybe "EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES EXPLAIN TO ME I WONT BULLY YOU, YOU BIGOTED HOMOPHOBIC RELIGION GAY HATING WANKTARD" rolls of the tongue better? But the current top contender is "Again thanks for attacking me for something I haven't said or even believe but in and hey straight white guys never get beaten up or picked on or have gay friends right? right?"

Tom Cruise is in it.

[Madmya]

I think you should call it "TEN THINGS I HATE ABOUT OLD PEOPLE".

[Madmya]

Still want to know what these legitimate reasons are.

What if voting no guaranteed you hot sex with a 10/10 chick? I'm only one man, what's my one vote going to do?