Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[Angry Red Bull]

Three posters have asked you directly about an inconsistency in your beliefs which you've chosen to ignore in place of ranting on about the gay lobby and how you're being attacked.

Inconsistency in my beliefs? Inconsistent with what? Your views as you would want me to think? I can decide my beliefs for whatever arbitrary reason I choose. In this case for me it has meaning around procreation avd is anything but arbitrary. My beliefs make perfect sense to me. You build a scotoma to anything other than what you want.

The word 'marriage' evolves from many sources but the very first source was the French word related to 'mother'. Enough said then. It is a heterosexual tradition evolving around procreation. Indeed the definitions up to mid 20th century specifically cites procreation as it's central theme. Enough of history but even if that wasn't the case it's certainly so that it is my belief avd how the tradition is important to me. It's a purely heterosexual concept and because same sex can't conceive then for me that's unfortunate.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Inconsistency in my beliefs? Inconsistent with what? Your views as you would want me to think? I can decide my beliefs for whatever arbitrary reason I choose. In this case for me it has meaning around procreation avd is anything but arbitrary. My beliefs make perfect sense to me. You build a scotoma to anything other than what you want.

The word 'marriage' evolves from many sources but the very first source was the French word related to 'mother'. Enough said then. It is a heterosexual tradition evolving around procreation. Indeed the definitions up to mid 20th century specifically cites procreation as it's central theme. Enough of history but even if that wasn't the case it's certainly so that it is my belief avd how the tradition is important to me. It's a purely heterosexual concept and because same sex can't conceive then for me that's unfortunate.

Again not addressing heterosexuals who can't or don't conceive, but going on an attacking rant.

 

[Kirkswan]

I know you meant no harm Kirksy but my breathing is fine thanks.

Yep, opinions abound & each to their own. My opinion is that I cannot see how the ability to procreate or not should be the basis of an argument determining if you can marry or not? Further, if this were the case, why do we let those who cannot procreate however are of different genders still marry while those of the same sex (in the exact same position) cannot?

Thus, the "procreation" argument, to me, is a load of shit.

Btw, I don't mean to offend anyone & respect we all have our views. puke, nothing personal mate.

Calling someone's opinion 'a load of shit' and then saying nothing personal, is an oxymoron. An opinion, is by definition, personal.

 

[BarneyBent]

Inconsistency in my beliefs? Inconsistent with what? Your views as you would want me to think? I can decide my beliefs for whatever arbitrary reason I choose. In this case for me it has meaning around procreation avd is anything but arbitrary. My beliefs make perfect sense to me. You build a scotoma to anything other than what you want.

The word 'marriage' evolves from many sources but the very first source was the French word related to 'mother'. Enough said then. It is a heterosexual tradition evolving around procreation. Indeed the definitions up to mid 20th century specifically cites procreation as it's central theme. Enough of history but even if that wasn't the case it's certainly so that it is my belief avd how the tradition is important to me. It's a purely heterosexual concept and because same sex can't conceive then for me that's unfortunate.

The inconsistency is that you include people who can’t conceive in your definition of marriage, and exclude those who can (through surrogacy) or who can adopt, based solely on their sexual orientation. That is an inconsistency you have yet to explain.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Again not addressing heterosexuals who can't or don't conceive, but going on an attacking rant.

So your argument is that because I believe it to be a heterosexual tradition evolved around procreation that I somehow need to shape my beliefs that only those capable of procreating in actuality may or should be able to marry? I need to be exclusionary to non procreating heterosexuals? I'm not going to shape my beliefs to something you want. Sorry.

Heterosexuals of all varieties avail marraige and that's perfectly fine by me because they are heterosexuals who are genetically designed to procreate even if they now can't. The original concept has evolved to include those. At one stage not that long ago many heterosexual couples who couldn't conceive would say there is no necessity to marry because there will be no offspring. Common they just cohabited. As is often the case things change so now some heterosexuals who can't..... still marry. That represents no inconsistency whatsoever because they remain a man and woman being the basis of the original incarnation.

Entirely different with same sex for very obvious reasons. It doesn't involve a man and woman for whom the tradition was conceived.

There are numerous articles written posing these identical issues that I've outlined with the change in definition. So clearly I'm not alone in these beliefs and concerns.

 

[Kummerspeck]

snip

So marriage evolved from something with procreation at its core to include those who can't procreate as long as they're not homosexual?

 

[Kirkswan]

In my opinion:

All you people who are attacking those who have stated that they voted no, and/or do not believe the float is relevant, need to stop, cease and desist!! Who are you to attack their beliefs? Why should they need to explain anything about them to you or defend them to your critiquing. You are doing more harm than good to your stance.

I am a woman. We menstruate, and we have to pay taxes on the relevant sanitary items used each month. However no-one pays taxes on toilet paper as it is considered a necessary item. Two bodily functions treated differently. In a multitude of ways, women have been discriminated against my whole life. There a million discriminatory actions and/or statements every day against various people for a variety of reasons.

Being aggressive, derogatory, demeaning, insulting, passive-aggressive, rude and just downright mean is not a good way to deal with it.

 

[swansfan51]

I am a woman. We menstruate, and we have to pay taxes on the relevant sanitary items used each month. However no-one pays taxes on toilet paper as it is considered a necessary item. Two bodily functions treated differently. In a multitude of ways, women have been discriminated against my whole life. There a million discriminatory actions and/or statements every day against various people for a variety of reasons.

Being aggressive, derogatory, demeaning, insulting, passive-aggressive, rude and just downright mean is not a good way to deal with it.

Toilet paper attracts GST. At the exact same rate.

 

[Kirkswan]

Toilet paper attracts GST. At the exact same rate.

Is that true? I'm going to double check you... and admit if I was wrong

 

[Kirkswan]

Toilet paper attracts GST. At the exact same rate.

My apologies. It appears that it does, but not in all states and territories (???), and here I thought GST was Federal...

Will look into it and get back to you... the rest of the argument stands.

 

[RW]

Again not addressing heterosexuals who can't or don't conceive, but going on an attacking rant.

It's not just about conception - homosexual couples simply can't consummate their relationship in the same way that heterosexual couples can. It's just how they were created. Do I need to spell it out lol.

I don't have an issue with same sex couples being allowed to marry as that is what a majority of Australians wanted, but puke is correct in saying that marriage was intended to be a covenant between a man and a woman with procreation as one of its aims. The definition of marriage just changed. Life goes on...

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So you'd be fine with businesses being able to refuse to do business with those in interracial marriages?

Yep. I’d consider them racist pricks, but I think it’s their right to do business with whoever they wish.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Yep. I’d consider them racist pricks, but I think it’s their right to do business with whoever they wish.

I want to be crystal clear on this, you're fine with people being discriminated against based on their race?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

1) This bill had nothing to do with legal sanctions against failure to recognise same sex marriages. That is a different, anti-discrimination law, and a different debate. You can be entirely pro-marriage equality and believe private businesses have the right to discriminate on philosophical (e.g. libertarian) grounds. Though a somewhat uncommon position, they are not inherently incompatible.

2) There is a difference between “not recognising” a marriage and not providing services in support of that marriage. Even if you are compelled, legally, under anti-discrimination law, to not refuse service to a gay couple, you can still privately hold that the marriage isn’t real. Doesn’t affect you, doesn’t affect them. So long as you aren’t impinging on their legal rights and protections, recognise or fail to recognise whatever you like.

3) On the anti-discrimination legislation, would you support a business’s right to refuse service to an interracial couple? A Muslim couple? A Christian couple? An atheist couple? A disabled couple? There may be a Christian who only views marriages performed under their denomination to be “real” marriages. They can believe whatever they want, but they can’t refuse service based on it.

I would support any business’ right to trade with whoever they wish, and not trade with whoever they wish.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I want to be crystal clear on this, you're fine with people being discriminated against based on their race?

No.

 

[Kummerspeck]

No.

You literally just said you'd be fine with a business refusing to deal with an interracial couple. What is that in your mind?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You literally just said you'd be fine with a business refusing to deal with an interracial couple. What is that in your mind?

No. I said I was fine with a business being able to refuse to do business. I didn’t say I was fine with them doing it.

I can give you a list of 100 things I consider contemptible that aren’t for governments to make unlawful.

1. Cheating on one’s spouse.
2. Choosing to not do business with a party based on race.
3. Choosing not to do business based on sexuality.
4. Refusing to allow a motor vehicle to merge.
5. Refusing to thank a motorist that has created space for you to merge.

Shall I go on?

 

[Kummerspeck]

No. I said I was fine with a business being able to refuse to do business. I didn’t say I was fine with them doing it.

You're fine with a business being able to refuse to do business, but you're not fine with them doing it. What?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You're fine with a business being able to refuse to do business, but you're not fine with them doing it. What?

I live in this world of grown ups who don’t need a government to tell me I’m not allowed to do something for me to know not to do it.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I live in this world of grown ups who don’t need a government to tell me I’m not allowed to do something for me to know not to do it.

So you're not fine with racial / sexual discrimination but believe that people should be allowed to be discriminated against on those grounds?

I'm genuinely asking, you just said you're fine then not fine with something in the space of ten words, I'm struggling to see your view here

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So you're not fine with racial / sexual discrimination but believe that people should be allowed to be discriminated against on those grounds?

I'm genuinely asking, you just said you're fine then not fine with something in the space of ten words, I'm struggling to see your view here

No I didn’t. I don’t want to be condescending here, really I don’t. But there’s a world of difference between what I’m ok with and what I’m not ok with.

 

[swansfan51]

You're fine with a business being able to refuse to do business, but you're not fine with them doing it. What?

Do you believe a business or individual should be forced, against their will, to provide a service to someone? That seems to violate a fairly fundamental principle of consent.

 

[brad cooper]

This is seriously the worst thread on big footy. Go and argue on facebook,some other forum or just message each other if you want to continue. This is bigfooty, not Question Time.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

This is seriously the worst thread on big footy. Go and argue on facebook,some other forum or just message each other if you want to continue. This is bigfooty, not Question Time.

No.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Do you believe a business or individual should be forced, against their will, to provide a service to someone? That seems to violate a fairly fundamental principle of consent.