Advanced  

Latest Result

Semi Final Sydney Showgrounds
Sun, 17 Sep 2017 • 17:25 WST
West Coast Greater Western Sydney
9.4 (58) 19.11 (125)
Game Focus

Next Game

Round 1 Perth Stadium
Sun, 25 Mar 2018 • 16:20 WST
West Coast v Sydney
Game Focus



Gay Marriage + or -?

Discuss whatever you like, whenever you like, however you like

Moderators: Streaker, Mr Q

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Mykidsdad on Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:22 pm

Fat Side wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/german-same-sex-marriage-vote/8668740

German politicians have voted to legalise same-sex marriage in a snap vote only days after Chancellor Angela Merkel changed her mind to allow a free vote....The move brings Germany into line with many other European nations including France, Britain and Spain..


Common sense prevails, will never have it here while people like Tony Abbot have a say.
Official sponsor Wellingham, Watson, Priddis and Hurn for 2017.

I got some work to do.
User avatar
Mykidsdad
Veteran
 
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:19 am
Location: Perth

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Fat Side on Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:04 pm

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-polit ... xoh6h.html

This is becoming a ticking time bomb for Turnbull
Make the switch now
2017 Sponsor of Willie (Pure Silk) Rioli
User avatar
Fat Side
Veteran
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Fat Side on Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:18 am

It's coming. Nothing to stop it now.
Make the switch now
2017 Sponsor of Willie (Pure Silk) Rioli
User avatar
Fat Side
Veteran
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Mr Q on Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:41 pm

Fat Side wrote:It's coming. Nothing to stop it now.


The far right wing are now agitating to use this as a way to roll back anti-discrimination laws where possible. After all, your religious principles can't let you sell a cake to a bunch of fucking poofs or lezzos can they?

Hopefully this gets shut down ASAP. There's no intrinsic difference if you object to objecting to interracial marriage for instance. Discrimination is discrimination, and there's no place for it.

For mine, the only valid objection can be religious ceremonies in religious houses (and personally, I'd like to see that objection overruled, but that's probably a step too far at this time). But for mine, that exemption should be tied to losing any tax-free status that you might have, because the government should not be seen to be supporting discriminatory bodies.

I'd add that the right to discriminate based on religion against staff in places like schools and hospitals should also face this same tie to losing any government support.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 331

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Mr Q on Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:42 pm

I'd add: $120,000,000 dollars to prove: that the polls were almost exactly correct.

$120 million down the drain. Good work, Malcolm Turnbull.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 331

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby MrWoollie on Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:11 pm

Mr Q wrote:I'd add: $120,000,000 dollars to prove: that the polls were almost exactly correct.

$120 million down the drain. Good work, Malcolm Turnbull.

Lightweight.

He's got a long way to go to match John Howard's silly baby bonus and he he isn't on the same planet at Ruddy with his handouts to stimulate the Chinese, Korean and Japanese economies and his 'building the school sheds' revolution and his insulation debacle and his...

Yes it's a waste, but he isn't really trying is he?
2017 sponsor of #6 - Elliot Yeo. 2017 B&F, 2017 EFH POTY.
User avatar
MrWoollie
Veteran
 
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:53 am
Location: Peak District National Park

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Ric on Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:51 pm

Fat Side wrote:It's coming. Nothing to stop it now.


Yep, the immorals won
If smoking is so bad, why does it cure dead fish?
User avatar
Ric
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:52 pm

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby HH on Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:08 pm

Mr Q wrote:For mine, the only valid objection can be religious ceremonies in religious houses (and personally, I'd like to see that objection overruled, but that's probably a step too far at this time). But for mine, that exemption should be tied to losing any tax-free status that you might have, because the government should not be seen to be supporting discriminatory bodies.

I'd add that the right to discriminate based on religion against staff in places like schools and hospitals should also face this same tie to losing any government support.


Good that it's not up to you then.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-ma ... b212f1842c

Alex Greenwich, co-convener of Australian Marriage Equality, said the ‘yes’ campaign had always been clear about its disinterest in impeding on religion.

“Nothing in the proposed legislation would in any way impact the religious celebration of marriage or the ways churches wish to practice it,” Mr Greenwich said.

“There are protections ranging from ensuring a minister of religion is able to marry the couples that he or she wants to, to what can happen on church grounds.

“There are clear, strong and robust religious protections in the draft legislation.”

The same-sex marriage campaign focused on civil marriage, not the religious celebration of marriage, Mr Greenwich said.


The "yes" campaign was run on this basis and the yes vote should therefore be accepted on this basis.
User avatar
HH
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: Captain’s Club

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Ric on Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:06 pm

HH wrote:
Good that it's not up to you then.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-ma ... b212f1842c

Alex Greenwich, co-convener of Australian Marriage Equality, said the ‘yes’ campaign had always been clear about its disinterest in impeding on religion.

“Nothing in the proposed legislation would in any way impact the religious celebration of marriage or the ways churches wish to practice it,” Mr Greenwich said.

“There are protections ranging from ensuring a minister of religion is able to marry the couples that he or she wants to, to what can happen on church grounds.

“There are clear, strong and robust religious protections in the draft legislation.”

The same-sex marriage campaign focused on civil marriage, not the religious celebration of marriage, Mr Greenwich said.


The "yes" campaign was run on this basis and the yes vote should therefore be accepted on this basis.


One must remember that MrQ is the most irreverent person on this site, so his stance on discrimination means bugger all.
If smoking is so bad, why does it cure dead fish?
User avatar
Ric
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:52 pm

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby jourgo on Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:53 am

Mr Q wrote:
Fat Side wrote:It's coming. Nothing to stop it now.


The far right wing are now agitating to use this as a way to roll back anti-discrimination laws where possible. After all, your religious principles can't let you sell a cake to a bunch of fucking poofs or lezzos can they?


Perhaps this is true. However, religious principles may have to ultimately take a back seat to economic realities. If people feel strongly enough about a commercial organisation that discriminates (which is bullshit - it's their business, they should be able to do what they damn well please) based on religious principles, that commercial organisation may lose enough of its customer base that it forces a re-examination of those religious principles. That's the game.

But if that's not the case, and the business continues to thrive while being choosy about who it sells to, those fucking poofs or lezzos can always go across the street to the bakery with the rainbow flag in the window.

Bottom line: government should have fuck all say in the matter.
I got a fever.
And the only prescription,
Is MORE COWBELL!
User avatar
jourgo
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Sunshine Studios

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Fat Side on Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:19 am

Ric wrote:
Fat Side wrote:It's coming. Nothing to stop it now.


Yep, the immorals won


It's here and it's here to stay. Our fellow human beings are now considered equals. The Australian people have rightly embraced the gay/lesbian community and voted almost 2 to 1 in favour of equality.

A huge thumbs up to the yes campaign who were not shifted by the fear mongering of the intolerant, self righteous far right.

Let's get the legislation in order and put this ridiculous political episode behind us.
Make the switch now
2017 Sponsor of Willie (Pure Silk) Rioli
User avatar
Fat Side
Veteran
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Fat Side on Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:24 am

Mr Q wrote:
Fat Side wrote:It's coming. Nothing to stop it now.


For mine, the only valid objection can be religious ceremonies in religious houses (and personally, I'd like to see that objection overruled, but that's probably a step too far at this time). But for mine, that exemption should be tied to losing any tax-free status that you might have, because the government should not be seen to be supporting discriminatory bodies.

I'd add that the right to discriminate based on religion against staff in places like schools and hospitals should also face this same tie to losing any government support.


Absolutely agree. I am tired of the religious right believing they're above anti-discrimination laws. The main religious institutions have trashed the trust placed in them and should no longer be taken seriously by the broader community. The Catholic and Anglican churches should be wrapped up and shut down in this country in the aftermath of the child abuse RC. They sicken me.
Make the switch now
2017 Sponsor of Willie (Pure Silk) Rioli
User avatar
Fat Side
Veteran
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Fat Side on Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:33 am

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/wa-mp ... zlx5y.html

Canning MP Andrew Hastie has confirmed he will abstain from voting on same-sex marriage legislation after a survey of his electorate voted in favour of the changes...

However, he also said he would be voting on amendments to same-sex marriage legislation aimed at preserving freedoms.


This guy is a disgrace and should resign.
Make the switch now
2017 Sponsor of Willie (Pure Silk) Rioli
User avatar
Fat Side
Veteran
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby jourgo on Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:35 am

Fat Side wrote:
Mr Q wrote:
Fat Side wrote:It's coming. Nothing to stop it now.


For mine, the only valid objection can be religious ceremonies in religious houses (and personally, I'd like to see that objection overruled, but that's probably a step too far at this time). But for mine, that exemption should be tied to losing any tax-free status that you might have, because the government should not be seen to be supporting discriminatory bodies.

I'd add that the right to discriminate based on religion against staff in places like schools and hospitals should also face this same tie to losing any government support.


Absolutely agree. I am tired of the religious right believing they're above anti-discrimination laws. The main religious institutions have trashed the trust placed in them and should no longer be taken seriously by the broader community. The Catholic and Anglican churches should be wrapped up and shut down in this country in the aftermath of the child abuse RC. They sicken me.


So no consideration for the genuinely devout and pious members of those churches? The vast majority of members of those churches who find the abuses that took place to be utterly abhorrent? They can just go fuck 'emselves?
I got a fever.
And the only prescription,
Is MORE COWBELL!
User avatar
jourgo
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Sunshine Studios

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Mr Q on Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:38 am

Fat Side wrote:The Catholic and Anglican churches should be wrapped up and shut down in this country in the aftermath of the child abuse RC. They sicken me.


Actually, I don't believe that.

I do believe that they must abide by standard duties of care - the concept of the seal of the confessional is unacceptable now we see where it has led (and one would have to assume that it's been that way for centuries). There is still a lot of reform that's required to bring them into line with community expectations, but that's the way forward, not banning. There are many good and responsible people in mainstream religions. People that have done nothing wrong; it would be wrong to tar them with the sins of others.

I don't believe that any religion should be eligible for tax-free status, with the exception of charitable arms. So the St Vincent de Paul society, yes, the Catholic Church, no; Anglicare yes, the Anglican church no etc. And if there isn't a clear dividing line between the charitable part and the religion, then it's hiding behind the charitable state for tax purposes, so no.

I believe that if you're participating in secular society, then you don't have the right to discriminate. I could make a counter proposal to the concept that a secular business could refuse business based on their religious principals: if you want to do that, then you must *always* abide by those principals in all business. So if you use Christian principals to refuse business to SSM, then you must only service weddings that stricly abide by the tenets of your religion - so no hetero civil wedding ceremonies for instance. In many cases nothing outside your specific sect. If you take public money to provide a service, then you must provide that service in a way that is in line with all secular employers (ie you don't get to sack someone for being gay).

And Ric: "most irreverent"? I have actually voluntarily attended church services (not just weddings and funerals) in the last 18 months. Hardly the action of "the most irreverant person on this board". I just don't believe in pushing the tenets of a religion on to anyone else, whether directly or indirectly.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 331

PreviousNext

Return to General Board, Suggestions and Problems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron