Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[Angry Red Bull]

Marriage Act 1961 = no mention of man + woman
2004 amendment to Marriage Act 1961 = man + woman

Tradition for 13 years?
Yeah, nah.

The tradition of marriage first arose in the 13th century but probably had unrecognised existence even prior then. Have no interest in what an act of law has to say. It can't do a tradition justice. You want to quote it as relevant? Did I look up what you just did before I developed and then postulated my point of view? Of course not. I knew what the tradition was because it's perpetuated in all our social conditioning from birth to now 61 years of age.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

How was marriage defined before 1961 out of interest? Nothing sinister in asking, I just don't know and you seem up on this.

I'm not up on this either but I believe it had a common law definition as opposed to a statutory definition.

 

[BarneyBent]

Your definition is that marriage is about love, legal rights and family. Certainly gay people can and do have all three. Interestlngly they've already had all three and outside the definition of marriage. So they must be getting more and something valuable too? Unspoken but that 'more' would be validation. But validation isn't a valid argument to change something for which they don't qualify (a tradition) and that's because validation arises from insecurity. if instead persecution were eroded or defeated then there would be no need for validation because there would be no sense of being made to feel inferior by that persecution

I have qualm calling it a marraige which is a heterosexual concept conceived and evolved for entirely different reasons.

If legal rights like social welfare, estate bequests Etc etc are at stake for gays then create them without obliterating a heterosexual tradition......because when you obliterate a tradition and reverse entirely the underlying ethos something valuable is lost- everything which had historically tied us to that tradition......values, beliefs, romantic notions.

I don't mean to be rude but this debate is pointless I'm afraid. I'm not going to spend my life seeking for people to understand my point of view when it's been explained a dozen times or more.

Gays aren't bad. I'm not excluding gays because I think they are
rather because they never qualified. I would like to preserve a tradition unchanged because value systems and ideals are lost when a tradition is thrown away.......my connection to that tradition is lost because it's central theme cannot survive post change definition. You think that's nothing .........I think values ideals and traditions are critically important it's the social connect underlying life and living

It's time to move on. I'm tired of the pointless repetition. No more for me I'm afraid

I want to change a tradition that excludes homosexual couples. You don’t. I know which one is more discriminatory. I do not think traditions have value just because they are old - for a tradition to be valuable, it should be able to evolve with the rest of society. Traditions that don’t are just relics of a worse time.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I want to change a tradition that excludes homosexual couples. You don’t. I know which one is more discriminatory. I do not think traditions have value just because they are old - for a tradition to be valuable, it should be able to evolve with the rest of society. Traditions that don’t are just relics of a worse time.

Yes I know too ......yours. You want to make such a change in order to validate gaydom out of empathy. I suggest it doesn't need validation by me in this way and if validation is sought the best way for that to occur is by defeating persecution rather than destroying a tradition for heterosexuals. So I defend the tradition which is hetetosexually conceived.

You have now repeatedly called me discriminatory when I'm anything but. You are a bigot who can only see what you want for the reason you want. That you resort to such behaviour is a very sad indictment on your character.

You need to leave me alone and stop trolling.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Yes I know too ......yours. You want to make such a change in order to validate gaydom out of empathy. I suggest it doesn't need validation by me in this way and if validation is sought the best way for that to occur is by defeating persecution rather than destroying a tradition for heterosexuals.

You support homosexuals wanting equality but don't approve of the way they're going about it.

 

[BarneyBent]

Yes I know too ......yours. You want to make such a change in order to validate gaydom out of empathy. I suggest it doesn't need validation by me in this way and if validation is sought the best way for that to occur is by defeating persecution rather than destroying a tradition for heterosexuals. So I defend the tradition which is hetetosexually conceived.

You have now repeatedly called me discriminatory when I'm anything but. You are a bigot who can only see what you want for the reason you want. That you resort to such behaviour is a very sad indictment on your character.

You need to leave me alone and stop trolling.

Changing a tradition is not the same as destroying it. Can you honestly not see that? I do not want to destroy marriage. I want to improve it by making it more inclusive.

Can you not see how offensive it is to suggest that a group’s participation in a tradition would destroy it?

It’s like a golf club that traditionally only admits white people, only that golf club is a) government sponsored and b) regularly held as something almost everybody should aspire to join. Creating a separate one for black people is not good enough. Neither is creating a separate form of “marriage”.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You support homosexuals wanting equality but don't approve of the way they're going about it.

Absolutely I support gays and gay equality in every way. Just like blacks and women it's inconceivable that any people be less equal or be persecuted

Do I think change to marriage definition is the right path? No I don't. In one way it shows subservience to heterosexuals......as though it's pleading to be included when on the historical definition and tradition it was never conceived as an institution for them. So why would they want that? Because it validates their predisposition and nothing more. A persecuted person needs validation. A non persecuted person would have robust self belief within community that there is no need for validation. Its almost like a massive cheer that the lifestyle is more accepted now because of the change. Truth is though that those that persecute still will and those that don't won't. So is there demonstrable change or merely an illusion of it? I tend to think the latter.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Absolutely I support gays and gay equality in every way. Just like blacks and women it's inconceivable that any people be less equal or be persecuted

Do I think change to marriage definition is the right path? No I don't.

So what's the right path and what are you doing to support it?

 

[Kummerspeck]

Neither is creating a separate form of “marriage”.

Separate but equal, support for the minority's struggle but not the way they're going about it. These are pretty old tunes.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So what's the right path and what are you doing to support it?

I'm a 61 yo single father of 3 with a very frail and sick mother (90), a brother with mental health problems and a business to run. I don't have the capacity to be an active advocate of the gay community too or any other philanthropic pursuit tbh.

What's the right path? Not too sure tbh.ill think As far as what I'm doing in support- supporting my GFs gay son........which isn't a lot but it's a million random acts that make up societal values and change.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I'm a 61 yo single father of 3 with a very frail and sick mother (90), a brother with mental health problems and a business to run. I don't have the capacity to be an active advocate of the gay community too or any other philanthropic pursuit tbh.

What's the right path? Not too sure tbh.ill think As far as what I'm doing in support- supporting my GFs gay son........which isn't a lot but it's a million random acts that make up societal values and change.

It's pretty bullshit to be a vocal opponent of the clearest path we have right now to a equality in a number of a ways for a minority community, yet not have any alternative ideas about how to go about it.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Your definition is that marriage is about love, legal rights and family. Certainly gay people can and do have all three. Interestlngly they've already had all three and outside the definition of marriage. So they must be getting more and something valuable too? Unspoken but that 'more' would be validation. But validation isn't a valid argument to change something for which they don't qualify (a tradition) and that's because validation arises from insecurity. if instead persecution were eroded or defeated then there would be no need for validation because there would be no sense of being made to feel inferior by that persecution

I have qualm calling it a marraige which is a heterosexual concept conceived and evolved for entirely different reasons.

If legal rights like social welfare, estate bequests Etc etc are at stake for gays then create them without obliterating a heterosexual tradition......because when you obliterate a tradition and reverse entirely the underlying ethos something valuable is lost- everything which had historically tied us to that tradition......values, beliefs, romantic notions.

I don't mean to be rude but this debate is pointless I'm afraid. I'm not going to spend my life seeking for people to understand my point of view when it's been explained a dozen times or more.

Gays aren't bad. I'm not excluding gays because I think they are
rather because they never qualified. I would like to preserve a tradition unchanged because value systems and ideals are lost when a tradition is thrown away.......my connection to that tradition is lost because it's central theme cannot survive post change definition. You think that's nothing .........I think values ideals and traditions are critically important it's the social connect underlying life and living

It's time to move on. I'm tired of the pointless repetition. No more for me I'm afraid

When it all boils down, you're passionately defending your idea of a dictionary definition, nothing more.

(Funnily enough, dictionary definitions change over time anyway. When I was growing up we had a 1931 Oxford Shorter English Dictionary in the house. It "defined" masturbation as "bodily self-pollution". I kid you not.)

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Changing a tradition is not the same as destroying it. Can you honestly not see that? I do not want to destroy marriage. I want to improve it by making it more inclusive.

Can you not see how offensive it is to suggest that a group’s participation in a tradition would destroy it?

It’s like a golf club that traditionally only admits white people, only that golf club is a) government sponsored and b) regularly held as something almost everybody should aspire to join. Creating a separate one for black people is not good enough. Neither is creating a separate form of “marriage”.

Very good post.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It's pretty bullshit to be a vocal opponent of the clearest path we have right now to a equality in a number of a ways for a minority community, yet not have any alternative ideas about how to go about it.

I'm neither passionate nor vocal about this subject whatsoever. My position was challenged. That position was something I determined without haste and not something I'm intent to change. I've had many challenge my poisition and I've responded. Full stop. I'm not marshalling opposition in respect of it. It is what it is- changed without my approval so I move on.

I always think before I determine my position and I'll strenuously defend it. That's all I've done. Doesn't make me a vocal opponent though it's fair to say that the more vitriol and intimidation occurs the more likely I am to be vocal. Cause and effect.

So now seemingly I'm being attacked because I haven't formulated a strategy for the gay community to deal with it's own sh*t. That's a serious attack?
Or are you just attacking me I'm now a good target for vitriol? As apathetic as this may sound the gay community's issues isn't my main concern in life.

When it all boils down, you're passionately defending your idea of a dictionary definition, nothing more.

(Funnily enough, dictionary definitions change over time anyway. When I was growing up we had a 1931 Oxford Shorter English Dictionary in the house. It "defined" masturbation as "bodily self-pollution". I kid you not.)

A dictionary definition is words. My attachment to the tradition is based upon a lifetimes influences which deepens it more than words. I'm not going to cry about it. But all the same I voted no with reason and nothing said here has changed my view. If that offends then people need to get over it.

 

[BarneyBent]

A dictionary definition is words. My attachment to the tradition is based upon a lifetimes influences which deepens it more than words. I'm not going to cry about it. But all the same I voted no with reason and nothing said here has changed my view. If that offends then people need to get over it.

Yes, and we are saying your reason is, by definition, discriminatory.

You may not be discriminatory in other facets of your life. That’s fine, that’s great. But you are so attached to marriage as a heterosexual construct that you don’t want it to be changed to include homosexuals, despite that change in no way changing the function of marriage, just who can partake.

Putting tradition above inclusiveness is textbook discrimination. Many people are deeply, deeply attached to marriage as a tradition, and view with joy the fact that same sex couples can now be included. Why don’t you?

 

[Kummerspeck]

So now seemingly I'm being attacked because I haven't formulated a strategy for the gay community to deal with it's own sh*t. That's a serious attack?
Or are you just attacking me I'm now a good target for vitriol?
.

It's bullshit that you say you're a supporter of equal rights for LGBTQI people while denying them the clearest current path we have to those equal rights BECAUSE they're not heterosexuals. That's not attacking you, making personal comments about you, or doing the teenage "say it to my face" thing like you have multiple times in this thread.

 

[Tedeski]

. To many having a 12" penis may seem a windful .

Are you including the GST component in this figure.

 

[mtooler]

Marriage Act 1961 = no mention of man + woman
2004 amendment to Marriage Act 1961 = man + woman

Tradition for 13 years?
Yeah, nah.

Not that this involves me but I did address it earlier. Remember the context of the time in 1961, homosexual acts were actually illegal in society (its terrible they were but that was the law at the time). As a result of this, no one was thinking marriage wasn't exclusively a man and a woman in 1961 (rightly or wrongly).

 

[mtooler]

How was marriage defined before 1961 out of interest? Nothing sinister in asking, I just don't know and you seem up on this.

Christians/Jews harken back to Genesis taken in around 5000 BC a man and a woman leaving their families to be united together. Implies sexual relations and creation of a new family unit.

 

[mtooler]

I'm not up on this either but I believe it had a common law definition as opposed to a statutory definition.

Common law definition of marriage was established in Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee.

 

[mtooler]

I want to change a tradition that excludes homosexual couples. You don’t. I know which one is more discriminatory. I do not think traditions have value just because they are old - for a tradition to be valuable, it should be able to evolve with the rest of society. Traditions that don’t are just relics of a worse time.

As long as society is right evolving traditions are right, what if the rest of society evolves wrongly and who determines what is right and wrong and further does the majority wishes get to be imposed upon the minirity wishes or vice versa?

Super complex, no easy answers, looks to me a competing rights scenario where everyone has rights and we try to best cater to everyone as much as possible.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Are you including the GST component in this figure.

lol it's always inclusive and then separated later

 

[Kapanis]

Christians/Jews harken back to Genesis taken in around 5000 BC a man and a woman leaving their families to be united together. Implies sexual relations and creation of a new family unit.

Talking about Australia pre 1961. Looking it up states had their own laws re marriage till the federal marriage act in 1961.

 

[Tedeski]

lol it's always inclusive and then separated later

Tips?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I'm neither passionate nor vocal about this subject whatsoever. My position was challenged. That position was something I determined without haste and not something I'm intent to change. I've had many challenge my poisition and I've responded. Full stop. I'm not marshalling opposition in respect of it. It is what it is- changed without my approval so I move on.

I always think before I determine my position and I'll strenuously defend it. That's all I've done. Doesn't make me a vocal opponent though it's fair to say that the more vitriol and intimidation occurs the more likely I am to be vocal. Cause and effect.

So now seemingly I'm being attacked because I haven't formulated a strategy for the gay community to deal with it's own sh*t. That's a serious attack?
Or are you just attacking me I'm now a good target for vitriol? As apathetic as this may sound the gay community's issues isn't my main concern in life.



A dictionary definition is words. My attachment to the tradition is based upon a lifetimes influences which deepens it more than words. I'm not going to cry about it. But all the same I voted no with reason and nothing said here has changed my view. If that offends then people need to get over it.

Well I’m not in the least bit offended, so relax. But you’re just painting yourself into a corner now.

It’s been shown by numerous posters here, how the understanding of marriage has changed over time, in REALLY fundamental ways (property rights, sexual consent to name just two biggies). And yet you’re either still clinging to the “bridge too far” defence (ie “I acknowledge that those are utterly fundamental changes but I believe homosexuality is somehow in a different category” in which case you need to make the case why homosexuality is SO different an issue than something as basic to marriage as sexual consent), or, in the face of all evidence, you’re continuing to maintain that marriage has never changed (in which case, as I said, you’re doing nothing more than defending your idea of the meaning of a word.)