Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[mtooler]

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.

Have a bit of a think about what your saying here, hes an older bloke and is not answerable to you, particularly with how youre phrasing your posts towards him. He has constraints on his time, if you want to be constructive offer suggestions what he can do to help. You have no right to slam people because they have a different view than you.

 

[mtooler]

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

Sorry, common law has two meanings, case law and common law legal system which we inherited from the UK.

 

[mtooler]

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.)

In a post modern society where all truth is relative, why does his truth have to be wrong? Cant it just be his truth? Can we impose our truths upon others? Is that a fair thing to do?

 

[Kapanis]

Sorry, common law has two meanings, case law and common law legal system which we inherited from the UK.

I never mentioned common law

 

[mtooler]

I never mentioned common law

Sorry, it was BruceFromBalnarring, earlier post.

 

[BarneyBent]

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.

Agree, and if you think homosexuality is wrong then sure, oppose gay marriage. I will vehemently disagree but if you admit you’re not a fan then I can at least respect that.

I will disagree on the “conflicting rights” point. When it comes to the right to refuse service, sure. But in terms of legalising it, nobody’s rights are being infringed when a same-sex couple marries.

 

[mtooler]

Agree, and if you think homosexuality is wrong then sure, oppose gay marriage. I will vehemently disagree but if you admit you’re not a fan then I can at least respect that.

I will disagree on the “conflicting rights” point. When it comes to the right to refuse service, sure. But in terms of legalising it, nobody’s rights are being infringed when a same-sex couple marries.

See what you're saying regarding ssm, im thinking more widely as issues crop up other than ssm. Eg. Childs right to a chance of mother and father as opposed to the right of two same sex people who love eachother to have a child through assisted reproductive technology to achieve it.

The vote meant very different things to different people. All yes voters probably didnt uniformly agree on why they voted yes and i've seen significant variants on the no votes. For me i did not want to be a hypocrite, believing the bible as I do, then ignore its teachings. Certainly took no joy or satisfaction in my vote, but had to be true to my beliefs (rightly or wrongly in peoples eyes).

Ive got same sex attracted abstinent christian mates, hopefully Christians think beyond right and wrong of homosexuality (many dont) and just view it as another form of temptation. Indeed one has preached many a time at a church ive been to before. It gets under my skin when heterosexual christians directly or indirectly argue that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is less "wrong" (for want of a better word, "sin" is what I call it) than homosexual sex. I also object when Christians seem to have a sliding scale of how bad sins are from swearing which isn't a bad sin to murder a bad sin. A Christian believes all sin is equal, all fall short of the level of goodness to get into heaven, all need a saviour and if they accept the saviour that alone ensures salvation. The sins we commit after salvation, whatever they are, do not disentitle us from salvation.

It might seem odd to those that dont know me but I have been serving the surry hills local homeless LGBT community (not sure ive met any intersex there) over the years when I can take a team of volunteers down to StreetLevel salvos off oxford street in a soup kitchen and drop in centre there, its a privellege and ive been blessed to help where I can and be a listening ear.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

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.)

Maybe we should have a Royal Commission on why Puke voted No. lol

The changes you discuss are obvious in their inequity. Dealing with sex against consent and the like AND yet they still relate to a man and woman which was what was conceived at outset in definition. Same sex doesn't and therefore it throws out the definition the tradition entirely. I don't see it as same sex being excluded as much as never qualifying. They aren't a man and a woman. So you either accept that the long held concept of it being heterosexual is no more or you don't. Call me selfish if you like or lacking empathy (both of which are probably relevant) but I just don't see how they've earned that right. We all have to deal with what genetics are thrown at us but because same sex are a vocal minority we have to offer an easy ride to new territory at expense of a tradition. Why? So we can be seen as enlightened? Inclusive? Perhaps to more empathetic people but to an insensitive hardass hardened by life hardship the answer was no and is still no.

I'm a firm advocate with the philipsophy of stand on your own feet and deal with your lot in life. I have and I've had more hardship than would occur to 5 people even gays. I cut few slack. I'm sorry but I do. That's not just gays but the world. Own what is your lot.

I resolved the decision on an academic level free of emotion and on that level IMO it was a nonsense. I voted. That was about the extent of the process

The concept that I'm somehow obliged to take up the fight for the gay community and make a huge difference is nonsense. I do what I can in how I behave in the little ways I can.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

In a post modern society where all truth is relative, why does his truth have to be wrong? Cant it just be his truth? Can we impose our truths upon others? Is that a fair thing to do?

Because (a) I vehemently disagree that we live in a postmodern society and (b) even if we did, it’s incredibly wrong-headed to characterise post-modernism as somehow meaning “all truth is relative”. That reading of postmodernism is either plain ignorant, or mischievously disingenuous.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Tips?

Tax tips lol

A great deal is made of taxing loans from pte coy's as dividends.

 

[mtooler]

Because (a) I vehemently disagree that we live in a postmodern society and (b) even if we did, it’s incredibly wrong-headed to characterise post-modernism as somehow meaning “all truth is relative”. That reading of postmodernism is either plain ignorant, or mischievously disingenuous.

Can there be a (c) option. If there is absolute right and wrong, who or what determines what is right or wrong, and if that cant be ascertained do we have a right to vehrement disagreeing?

 

[Syd]

Tax tips lol

A great deal is made of taxing loans from pte coy's as dividends. Most accountants get people to pay wages, or intetest or repay debt with tax effect.., yuk. Instead declare a dividend of entire retained profits but payable in 10 years time. No distributable surplus to tax then. When div is due roll over shares to new coy so new coy owns old so that div is tax free to that new coy after which you do another div for 10 years in that new coy. Approved by tax office. never have to pay div 7A loan/ div tax of 45% permanently. Happy client. Happy puke $3k fee please. Oh your gay make that $4k. Joking joking lol

Less than 10 people in the country know this trick. Probably more now lol giving away my IP

This post will self destruct in 10 seconds

I'm working through a Div 7A backlog of debt atm, rhis post may come in handy.

Do you have ATO ruling I can refer to?

Ta

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm working through a Div 7A backlog of debt atm, rhis post may come in handy.

Do you have ATO ruling I can refer to?

Ta

Deleted

 

[Syd]

I did it was happy with it. Later I worked in collaboration with KPMG for that client on an issue and they looked at this thought it was ingenuous and then sought an ATO private ruling I understand and was told the ATO approved it. No public ruling that I recall. Lost my IP bastards..... no fee either!!!!

It works because of the way distributable surplus is defined /calculated - includes dividend provisions. When you haven't got a DS any loan is excluded from div 7A by definition

Need to look at articles to see dividend rules etc but usually you can do this happens in public coy's all the time.

I worked as Nsw tax manager for large second tier firm so my specialty was tax. Don't do that now service my own.

The aim is to connect it with estate plans so that dividend income stream happens in retirement drip feed resulting in refunds!!!! Yaaaaaaaa.

Off topic yeah RW I know sorry

I got some reading to do now.

Here I've been stuck building real estate equity through acquisition in smsf then leasing premises back to company to fund retirement. Slightly above market rates to accelerate rent deduction and fund early loan payout.

Produce income for retirement and capital growth cashed out at selected stages.

Call me a traditionalist.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Have a bit of a think about what your saying here, hes an older bloke and is not answerable to you, particularly with how youre phrasing your posts towards him.

What I'm saying is that it's bullshit to say you support entirely a minority group's rights to equal rights and status, yet deny them the clearest path to that we have without any alternative way to do it. Especially when it's accompanied by a diatribe about how the thought process leading up to the no vote was a deeply academic and cerebral process.

You have no right to slam people because they have a different view than you.

Would have been more meaningful if you'd jumped in with this when puke was calling people brainwashed by the homosexual lobby for disagreeing with him or saying only homosexuals could have the views that myself BB, or others had expressed.

But you didn't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The concept that I'm somehow obliged to take up the fight for the gay community and make a huge difference is nonsense.

No one has said that.

 

[Number37]

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

The Marriage Act 1961 is a Federal Act, it replaced all the state marriage acts.

It is my understanding that state marriage acts never defined WHO could get married, they merely set out the process.

As I said earlier, pre 1961 only a minister of religion could perform a marriage ceremony, if you couldn't get a minister of religion to marry you then you couldn't get married. Given the churches stance on homosexuality clearly they would never allow SSM. The church has also used this power to exclude interracial marriage over the years.

The marriage ritual over time has always been about unifying 2 people, sure that includes procreation, but procreation was NEVER the only reason for going through a marriage ceremony. Anthropologists have attempted to find answers to this very question by looking at marriage traditions in various cultures dating back 1000's of years. There isn't convincing evidence that marriage was ONLY about procreation. For example: it's traditional for Colombian woman to put a coin in their shoe on their wedding day. They do so because it's supposed to bring good luck so that they always have a roof over their head. Similar traditions are found in almost every other culture. What it says is that if marriage was only about procreation then it would make sense for traditions to reflect that, for example: traditions like good luck charms would be aimed at fertility.
That's not to say their isn't evidence of marriage traditions around things like fertility. Almost always there is a series of traditions that includes traditions about fertility.

The point is that there has always been a range of reasons that people have married, to suggest that procreation is the back stop is IMO totally ridiculous because it wholly ignores the many other good reasons people get married.

 

[Number37]

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).

A good point, you couldn't even be homosexual let alone ask for SSM.

Edit: There is an English case from about 1975 (I think) that was about deciding who is family. One of the judges in that case said it was "an abuse of the English language" to say that a defacto couple's unofficially adopted daughter was "family".

 

[mtooler]

A good point, you couldn't even be homosexual let alone ask for SSM.

Edit: There is an English case from about 1975 (I think) that was about deciding who is family. One of the judges in that case said it was "an abuse of the English language" to say that a defacto couple's unofficially adopted daughter was "family".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_v_Hyde Gives an overview of the case that set the common law definition of a marriage in the 1800s, was a UK case.

 

[mtooler]

What I'm saying is that it's bullshit to say you support entirely a minority group's rights to equal rights and status, yet deny them the clearest path to that we have without any alternative way to do it. Especially when it's accompanied by a diatribe about how the thought process leading up to the no vote was a deeply academic and cerebral process.


Would have been more meaningful if you'd jumped in with this when puke was calling people brainwashed by the homosexual lobby for disagreeing with him or saying only homosexuals could have the views that myself BB, or others had expressed.

But you didn't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


No one has said that.

Nah, think its still plenty meaningful now.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The point is that there has always been a range of reasons that people have married, to suggest that procreation is the back stop is IMO totally ridiculous because it wholly ignores the many other good reasons people get married.

Genetics between sexes are designed to create attraction leading to sex the pysiology of which oxytocin and other hormones establishes a deep bond. This process exists and has one genetic aim and that is to procreate. Genetics then creates incentives that mandate that behaviour and outcome ensuring perpetuation of the species. Marriage is a social construct established around that bond. So there is a tie between genetics , sex, emotional bonding, procreation and marriage. That conclusion is immutable. How do you possibly think that the species will survive if this isn't intertwined in this manner? Procreation is most certainly the backstop at the centre because that is the genetic design. That some people engage in the social construct of marriage for reasons other than procreation in no way undermines that central view on the macro level. We cease to exist if the processes and connections fail to eventuate with that central back drop.

That anyone can dispute the central role of procreation in marriage in a macro context is astounding. With respect it's just wrong.

 

[Number37]

Genetics between sexes are designed to create attraction leading to sex the pysiology of which oxytocin and other hormones establishes a deep bond. This process exists and has one genetic aim and that is to procreate. Genetics then creates incentives that mandate that behaviour and outcome ensuring perpetuation of the species. Marriage is a social construct established around that bond. So there is a tie between genetics , sex, emotional bonding, procreation and marriage. That conclusion is immutable. How do you possibly think that the species will survive if this isn't intertwined in this manner? Procreation is most certainly the backstop at the centre because that is the genetic design. That some people engage in the social construct of marriage for reasons other than procreation in no way undermines that central view on the macro level. We cease to exist if the processes and connections fail to eventuate with that central back drop.

That anyone can dispute the central role of procreation in marriage in a macro context is astounding. With respect it's just wrong.

The only problem with your theory is that procreation and marriage can be mutually exclusive.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Nah, think its still plenty meaningful now.

Of course you do, you're taking the chance to chastise from someone from "the other side" as you put it earlier in the thread.

 

[mtooler]

Of course you do, you're taking the chance to chastise from someone from "the other side" as you put it earlier in the thread.

More highlighting your swearing and overt agressive tones in your posts, not really needed.

 

[Kummerspeck]

More highlighting your swearing and overt agressive tones in your posts, not really needed.

Again, if you were actually concerned about it there was plenty of opportunity to take that up with people whose views you share but you chose to ignore it. If you have any further issues, report the posts.

 

[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.

Suck it up buttercup and deal with it. I owe no responsibility to the gay community for anything. If to me the decision was an easy one made quickly and academically without heated emotions then that says I had no vested interest to be emotional. I also didn't cogitate that gays must be entitled to a free ride to a new territory definition and trashing a tradition. Have they earnt it? Like us all they need to own what is shitty in their life ....that they are genetically determined to same sex attraction which to me meant they could never be 'married'. Mutually exclusive IMO

Well the vote was a yes so we move on. When I'm invited to a wedding where the groom Bruce is asked to kiss his Bride Bruce well I'll be genuinely happy for their happiness but at the same time have a smirk on my face what an utter nonsense it is. lol