Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[Angry Red Bull]

I’m not gay. And people are upset because you are literally denying homosexual people the same legal status and rights, as well as symbolic validation.

Blame projection all you like, but the fact is, you tried to contribute to their ongoing discrimination. Granted, in the scheme of things this level of discrimination is pretty minor, but just because it’s not literal murder/criminalisation is no excuse to ignore it.

But of course, you don’t identify as someone who is discriminatory, so you justify it using archaic and fundamentally flawed logic - that marriage is about procreation. Plenty of people marry and don’t procreate, plenty of people procreate and don’t marry, and plenty of homosexuals adopt or procreate through surrogacy. So unless you believe that gays shouldn’t be allowed to have children, and that people who can’t or don’t intend to have children shouldn’t be able to marry, your argument is invalid.

You know what we call that? Rationalisation to resolve cognitive dissonance. Your problem, not mine.

Contribute to ongoing discrimination by holding a view? That presupposes your view is right and mine emantues from a desire to discriminate. Shall we ask the adult gay son of my partner what he thinks about me being discriminatory to gays? He being the person I accompanied shopping to pick his female attire and makeup for said Mardi Gras? That sounds like someone who has discriminatory beliefs towards gays ........not. I live and let live. A same sex lifestyle is something someone chooses as is their right and has no affect on me.....BUT that wasn't the question with the vote was it. Nor was it about creating legal equality for same sex partners which I also support. The question was about changing something that has ALWAYS been a man/ woman domain tradition and love isn't enough of a reason to do so based on my beliefs around why the tradition arose and persists- procreation. Undeserving of criticism let alone the vitriol you vent.

I assess people by virtue of their character not their sexual preferences. Full stop. I believe what I believe about marraige and the origin of the tradition that it is about man and woman and procreation. That some can't isn't a reason for me to abandon my views or the tradition because it's been something between men and women for centuries. Is that elitist thinking? Perhaps. I see no valid reason for change. But I've been out voted which is ok- laws arise from societal consensus not singular opinion. I easily move on because at days end it doesn't affect me.

Right now I'm assessing you as someone who likes to intimate someone holding an honest genuine belief because it cuts across his passion......for gays. You say you're not gay. I don't believe you because no one could be so rude and abusive without having an axe to grind. Gays want to launch the discrimination argument because that's what is the lobby to achieve the yes vote. Intimidate and belittle anyone who disagrees with yes as being homophobic or gay basher/ discrimatory. And THAT I'm afraid will always undermine the achievement because a justifiable argument is always that people voted yes to placate the lobby else risk being branded as I'm now being. Guess what no one intimates me away from a genuine held belief. Certainly not you.

I have no cognitive dissonance to rationalise I'm sorry. My rationale is perfectly sound and lacks for nothing.

I'm getting really annoyed now at this constant stream (discrimination) which is a intimidation tactic to silence someone and nothing more. Suggest you drop it as was my initial request/ desire. I did that because sataris showed restraint on his anger and stepped away. I respect that greatly and I don't want to upset anyone but I'm not going to be intimated by someone with a chip on their shoulder.

As mentioned before people who intimidate and berate abuse others for holding a different opinion are bigots. Go read the definition -no cognitive dissonance involved there either

 

[Kirkswan]

The Mardi Gras is to raise awareness about those who are sexually discriminated against. lol Mmmmmmm..........maybe once. Now tbh I think it's a good excuse for a whole heap of gays and lesbians to suggestively parade around half nude or with transvestic fetishism to engage in promiscuous sex in the after party. Nothing wrong with that I might add.....but let's be honest...it's a party to hook up. But I'm cynical. Perhaps we could get more informed insight from some gays who actually do attend? .........and be honest.

If my partners gay son is any indication the only thing of importance is the female attire he might choose.......and the colour of the lipstick. "Pick one out will you.....this is embarrassing". lol Yeah I know how horribly homophobic of me........

The people who attend the Mardi Gras are not necessarily involved in the planning and approvals. The reason for the Mardi Gras is to raise awareness, that the people who attend it have other agendas is not relevant. Just like I go to the Swans game to be watch the game, be involved and make some noise. Others go for a piss up with their mates, see old friends, etc and the game is a nice addendum.

Other factors, such as age, alcohol and acceptance may play a big part in the younger generations attending. But those 50 and older will remember 'the good old days', and they will attend for totally different reasons.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

I make a point of trying to back away from an issue because gays are passionate about it.

I stopped reading right there.

I'm not gay but I support the basic premise of anti-discrimination.

 

[Kirkswan]

The historical tradition of marriage is that the 'tradition' is always changing.

Polygamy,
Child Marriages,
Divorce

These are aspects of the historical tradition of marriage, that seem to have been deemed not 'traditional' enough to maintain in the 21st century.

Not just related to this topic, but 'tradition' is not an argument.

I disagree...

The Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old, and has not changed it's views on marriage very much in all that time. It is based upon a contract between a man and a woman for the specific purpose of raising children. Divorce is not sanctioned (see Henry VIII), although in recent years separation is. Polygamy has never been sanctioned.

The Jewish religion has been around even longer, and it's marriage tradition has not changed very much either. Neither divorce or polygamy are sanctioned.

Many other religions hold similar views and are even older. You will always get factions that break away and form their own church with rules that suit people and circumstances concerned. Polygamy gained sway due to war and the shortage of men. As women at that time were unable to vote or own property, it was polygamy or homelessness and starvation.

Tradition is a valid argument for a personal choice. And that's what this vote was. We were asked to express our views via a national vote and did so. Tradition is a valid argument in certain circumstances, and in view, this is one of those...

PS. If you were born in Australia after 1980 and were circumcised prior to leaving hospital, that was based on a tradition less than 100 years old, with no other reason than to look like your dad.

 

[Kirkswan]

Or adoption?

I know gay couples that are bloody wonderful parents & have raised lovely, smart, successful, well adjusted & respectable sons & daughters.

Saying you can't marry because you can't procreate is a load of shit no matter how long winded you are or how much you try to dress it up.

Fail. Try again.

Woah there! Breathe....

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink... and beating it with a big stick isn't really helpful...

Nothing here is a load of shit, just a different opinion. Australia voted yes... it wasn't unanimous, but the majority ruled. It is one of the very few times in my life that I have seen democracy at work.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

Woah there! Breathe....

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink... and beating it with a big stick isn't really helpful...

Nothing here is a load of shit, just a different opinion. Australia voted yes... it wasn't unanimous, but the majority ruled. It is one of the very few times in my life that I have seen democracy at work.

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.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So in essence it appears several consider that simply because I voted no but in every other respect treat gays equally to non gays that I discriminate. That is the biggest load of shit I've heard. Honestly.

I know who I am and exactly how I treat people. Equally in EVERY respect. You may not know that because you don't know me.

Being non discriminatory IS having the courage of your convictions to vote no for reasons other than discrimination.

For those who don't know but choose to judge based upon based upon well nothing really. They can go and get fuc***. Ignorant self righteous fools.

 

[BarneyBent]

So in essence it appears several consider that simply because I voted no but in every other respect treat gays equally to non gays that I discriminate. That is the biggest load of shit I've heard. Honestly.

I know who I am and exactly how I treat people. Equally in EVERY respect. You may not know that because you don't know me.

Being non discriminatory IS having the courage of your convictions to vote no for reasons other than discrimination.

For those who don't know but choose to judge based upon based upon well nothing really. They can go and get fuc***. Ignorant self righteous fools.

You still have not given a single logical reason for voting no that isn’t discriminatory though.

You say I’m being abusive. When have I abused you? I have accused you of being discriminatory exactly because you are NOT treating people “equally in EVERY respect”. Specifically, that respect is marriage. You claim marriage is about procreation, and that is the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Yet, not all heterosexual couples procreate, and some homosexual couples do procreate or otherwise raise children through adoption. Your argument that marriage is an institution designed for, and therefore somehow limited to, supporting procreation so can only apply to straight couples is invalid given the above facts, unless you also want to add that infertile straight couples can’t marry, and that gay people can’t have children, which would be doubly discriminatory.

You are the one trying to deny rights to a group of people. Being otherwise decent to them doesn’t erase that. So you better have some bloody good arguments or yes, you will be questioned and you will be accused of discrimination.

And for what it’s worth, I’m pretty realistic about my chances of convincing you. If it was just about changing your mind I would have dropped this. But it isn’t about changing your mind. It’s about showing people that might be reading this and who can be swayed either way that your argument is rubbish.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You still have not given a single logical reason for voting no that isn’t discriminatory though.

You say I’m being abusive. When have I abused you? I have accused you of being discriminatory exactly because you are NOT treating people “equally in EVERY respect”. Specifically, that respect is marriage. You claim marriage is about procreation, and that is the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Yet, not all heterosexual couples procreate, and some homosexual couples do procreate or otherwise raise children through adoption. Your argument that marriage is an institution designed for, and therefore somehow limited to, supporting procreation so can only apply to straight couples is invalid given the above facts, unless you also want to add that infertile straight couples can’t marry, and that gay people can’t have children, which would be doubly discriminatory.

You are the one trying to deny rights to a group of people. Being otherwise decent to them doesn’t erase that. So you better have some bloody good arguments or yes, you will be questioned and you will be accused of discrimination.

And for what it’s worth, I’m pretty realistic about my chances of convincing you. If it was just about changing your mind I would have dropped this. But it isn’t about changing your mind. It’s about showing people that might be reading this and who can be swayed either way that your argument is rubbish.

I have explained myself at least 4 times now and I'm not doing it again. Rather then the problem is you don't choose to understand and that's because you don't want to understand which itself is because you are part of the gay lobby which has sight only for the brainwashed beliefs perpetuated in the gay community as 'punishment' for the cruel mistreatment in homophobic persecution....that anyone disagreeing with a gays right to something like marriage is discriminatory. Enough evidence here on this thread I might add.

The persecution is no doubt very cruel because I've seen it first hand with my GF son many times where I've had to counsel and console him now as an adult for the school mistreatment he endured only 10 years ago tears forming. Horrible and disgusting certainly abhorrent in fact. I understand completely the desire and passion for change. I do. I'm an advocate for change in every way for gay equality in rights except marraige. Call it something different and create your own label and tradition and then you don't need me to confer rights because you'll have them. Wonderful I say. But you don't want that. What you want is to change the existing tradition and concept of marraige which is exclusively a heterosexual origin concept tied to procreation to something same sex can participate in. The whole belief system and history and purpose is then destroyed. Why is it necessary to change the heterosexual concept? Does the gay community not have enough self respect....it has to instead fly on the wings of heterosexual community seeking validation??? That is the hypocrissy of this whole debate. If I were gay id be saying who needs heterosexuals approval - let's call it garriage and create our own belief systems and traditions. The need to change the heterosexual concept then is to do with validation and healing alone in a similar vein to how indigenous people needed to hear sorry. In the process though you are automatically being subservient as though it somehow requires approval of the heterosexual community lol. You also create conflict for someone like me who although entirely sympathetic to virtually all gay right issues can't and won't change his traditional view of marraige because they are incongruous and incompatible concepts.

I'm trying to deny rights you say. No mate not even close. I gladly vote on any system which confers identical rights. That is or should be taken for granted. Everyone being treated equally under the law. But something which is a heterosexual traditional concept of marraige tied to procreation is different entirely. Gays don't qualify in my mind but do now because of Yes.

So congratulations the groom may kiss the bride er ah I mean groom.....and the two Bruces can drive off to their wedding night to consummate and procreate. Well not quite. No matter how hard the several million little blighters attack that turd it's simple not going to create something apart from a squelching sensation in your rectum. But that's alright we've crashed the party and now we're married that's what's important

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

But that’s just it - heterosexual marriage was recognised by default, homosexual marriage was not legally recognised. That’s what this was about. Not about a government commanding you to recognise a marriage - the government doesn’t force you to recognise same sex marriage any more than it forces you to recognise straight marriage.

And regarding the broader destruction of marriage, you know what will destroy marriage faster than marriage equality? Keeping it a discriminatory institution in a society that is moving further and further away from that discrimination.

No person to my knowledge has ever been subject to legal sanction for refusing to recognise a heterosexual marriage. If I, not that I would, refused to engage in business with a gay couple because I don’t recognise their union I would be risking being dragged through the Human Right Commission. If I refused to do the same with a hetero couple I’d be risking being thought of as a prick.

Marriage is deeply personal. I don’t think it’s got anything to do with the state. I didn’t end up voting. I couldn’t vote for something that carried sanctions for personal decisions about with whom to do business. Irrespective of their reasons.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I have explained myself at least 4 times now and I'm not doing it again. Rather then the problem is you don't choose to understand

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.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I couldn’t vote for something that carried sanctions for personal decisions about with whom to do business. Irrespective of their reasons.

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

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It is never going to be a topic where everyone agrees. How about we just all just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Personally I’m not fussed either way and whoever someone chooses to be with is their choice

 

[BarneyBent]

No person to my knowledge has ever been subject to legal sanction for refusing to recognise a heterosexual marriage. If I, not that I would, refused to engage in business with a gay couple because I don’t recognise their union I would be risking being dragged through the Human Right Commission. If I refused to do the same with a hetero couple I’d be risking being thought of as a prick.

Marriage is deeply personal. I don’t think it’s got anything to do with the state. I didn’t end up voting. I couldn’t vote for something that carried sanctions for personal decisions about with whom to do business. Irrespective of their reasons.

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.

 

[S120]

It is never going to be a topic where everyone agrees. How about we just all just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Personally I’m not fussed either way and whoever someone chooses to be with is their choice

You don't have to follow the thread. I get why people don't like engaging in debates centred around topics that provoke the kind of passion ITT. I know which side of this argument I fall on - I've been reading along though haven't contributed yet - but imo it's worthwhile broadcasting the opinions of those who I disagree with no matter how wrong or illogical I find them to be. I'd rather know what people who disagree with me think than know what people who agree with me think.

 

[BarneyBent]

I have explained myself at least 4 times now and I'm not doing it again.

And you have repeatedly ignored questions that poke holes in your logic. Your argument does not take into account the fact that not all straight couples procreate, and some gay couples procreate or adopt. Until you can address that, you have not explained yourself.

Rather then the problem is you don't choose to understand and that's because you don't want to understand which itself is because you are part of the gay lobby which has sight only for the brainwashed beliefs perpetuated in the gay community as 'punishment' for the cruel mistreatment in homophobic persecution....that anyone disagreeing with a gays right to something like marriage is discriminatory.

Yes. I believe disagreeing with gay rights is discriminatory. By definition. Shamelessly. You are making my argument for me.

The persecution is no doubt very cruel because I've seen it first hand with my GF son many times where I've had to counsel and console him now as an adult for the school mistreatment he endured only 10 years ago tears forming. Horrible and disgusting certainly abhorrent in fact. I understand completely the desire and passion for change. I do. I'm an advocate for change in every way for gay equality in rights except marraige.

Cool. So you want them to not be persecuted, but you still need to protect marriage from them. Do you want a medal for that? Is the bar really set that low?

Call it something different and create your own label and tradition and then you don't need me to confer rights because you'll have them. Wonderful I say. But you don't want that. What you want is to change the existing tradition and concept of marraige which is exclusively a heterosexual origin concept tied to procreation to something same sex can participate in. The whole belief system and history and purpose is then destroyed.

“Call it something different”! Why? What is so important? What damage will it do to the institution? Guess what, being told “oh, we want to give you legal equality, sort of, but we don’t want to make it FEEL like we’ve done that, so here, have your own little thing and we straights will keep doing what we’ve been doing” is kinda super offensive. Sends the message that no matter what, homosexual relationships will never be considered as valid or worthy as heterosexual relationships. It’s a kick in the teeth.

Why is it necessary to change the heterosexual concept? Does the gay community not have enough self respect....it has to instead fly on the wings of heterosexual community seeking validation??? That is the hypocrissy of this whole debate.

Why was it necessary to change the concept of voting? It used to be about giving educated, wealthy landowning men, those who are capable and have valuable contributions to make, a greater say in now government is run. When you include non-landowners, it defeats the entire point!

Oh, and now you want to include women?? Absolutely not, that destroys the original purpose of giving those who have contributions to make, educated, intelligent men, a say in how government is run.

Oh, and now you want to include blacks? That destroys the entire purpose of giving those with contributions to make, educated, intelligent white people, a say in how government is run. Absolutely not!

If I were gay id be saying who needs heterosexuals approval - let's call it garriage and create our own belief systems and traditions. The need to change the heterosexual concept then is to do with validation and healing alone in a similar vein to how indigenous people needed to hear sorry. In the process though you are automatically being subservient as though it somehow requires approval of the heterosexual community lol. You also create conflict for someone like me who although entirely sympathetic to virtually all gay right issues can't and won't change his traditional view of marraige because they are incongruous and incompatible concepts.

But you aren’t gay, and you clearly haven’t discussed this issue with many who are, so perhaps, just maybe, you’re missing something. You can be damn right that people want to change an exclusively heterosexual concept to be more inclusive. Again, that’s not a bad thing.

I'm trying to deny rights you say. No mate not even close. I gladly vote on any system which confers identical rights. That is or should be taken for granted. Everyone being treated equally under the law. But something which is a heterosexual traditional concept of marraige tied to procreation is different entirely. Gays don't qualify in my mind but do now because of Yes.

“Woo, we’re technically legally equal, you just don’t want to let us use your word! Thank you so much, you’re so generous!”

Yeah, that’s the response you can expect. You don’t deserve a medal for offering conceptually-qualified legal equality. It’s like saying “oh, you’re black? Ok, you can have all the same qualifications as a doctor, but we’re going to call it a Blacktor. You’re welcome.”

Can you see why people aren’t super stoked on that?

So congratulations the groom may kiss the bride er ah I mean groom.....and the two Bruces can drive off to their wedding night to consummate and procreate. Well not quite. No matter how hard the several million little blighters attack that turd it's simple not going to create something apart from a squelching sensation in your rectum. But that's alright we've crashed the party and now we're married that's what's important

You aren’t exactly supporting your assertion of nil homophobia with this paragraph.

But again, comes back to the point you continually refuse to address - many straight couples can’t or won’t have children but still get married. Many gay couples have children through surrogacy or adoption. The child-rearing factor is not a real factor any more.

If you believe marriage is about children, and on that basis wish to exclude homosexual relationships, then it seems to me you must also support excluding infertile straight couples, and preventing gay couples from being parents at all. If you’re going to exclude gay couples with children, but include straight couples without, then your objection is not about procreation, it’s about orientation. Convince me otherwise.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You don't have to follow the thread. I get why people don't like engaging in debates centred around topics that provoke the kind of passion ITT. I know which side of this argument I fall on - I've been reading along though haven't contributed yet - but imo it's worthwhile broadcasting the opinions of those who I disagree with no matter how wrong or illogical I find them to be. I'd rather know what people who disagree with me think than know what people who agree with me think.

Still think it’s a football forum though. As I said I’m not fussed one single bit. How I voted is my own view and I have reasons for that particular vote. However I’m not going to go into detail on here. Don’t think it’s the time or place really. Rather talk football.

 

[mtooler]

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.

Interesting post, i get where youre coming from even though I hold a different persuasion.

2) makes sense as long as the person with religious convictions is happy to abandon them whenever society disagrees with it on a particular issue. Hopefully you'll see thats a really tough ask for someone of faith to be asked to do.

3) i probably would yeah. Let me frame an argument and fire one straight back at you, where only a yes or no answer corner's you into a one size fits all question. Are you happy to force muslims to eat non halal food, they can believe whatever they want but cant insist on halal options being available in Australia? Is that what you're saying?

See how unhelpful it is when a false paradigm / analogy is framed, where the creator insists that those disagreeing believe in the false analogy.

I was a no voter based on my understanding of the bible, that is all, others votes was framed from their values beliefs system which is totally fine and I wont be asking them to not consider what influences their thoughts to be abandoned regardless of societital views on a particular value/belief stance.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Hens and Bucks as a tradition around marriage. Gee 'hens' sounds remarkably like something connected to egg creation, egg incubation, child nurturing and care, maternal influence. Nah can't be because so many here have made it abundantly clear that marriage has no connection to procreation at all. The derivations of language descriptive of traditions to which they relate are revealing. Yeah I know nothing.

 

[Kummerspeck]

. Nah can't be because so many here have made it abundantly clear that marriage has no connection to procreation at all.

Literally no-one has said that.

 

[Shukichi Somiya]

The world has gone completely bonkers if parading around at a gay mardi gras is a financial strategy. Boy oh boy wowee.....

Engaging with the community = more memberships. That meaning the world has gone completely bonkers is perhaps an over-reaction?

 

[BarneyBent]

Interesting post, i get where youre coming from even though I hold a different persuasion.

2) makes sense as long as the person with religious convictions is happy to abandon them whenever society disagrees with it on a particular issue. Hopefully you'll see thats a really tough ask for someone of faith to be asked to do.

3) i probably would yeah. Let me frame an argument and fire one straight back at you, where only a yes or no answer corner's you into a one size fits all question. Are you happy to force muslims to eat non halal food, they can believe whatever they want but cant insist on halal options being available in Australia? Is that what you're saying?

See how unhelpful it is when a false paradigm / analogy is framed, where the creator insists that those disagreeing believe in the false analogy.

I was a no voter based on my understanding of the bible, that is all, others votes was framed from their values beliefs system which is totally fine and I wont be asking them to not consider what influences their thoughts to be abandoned regardless of societital views on a particular value/belief stance.

The halal example is a false equivalency - nobody’s rights are being infringed upon when a Muslim eats halal. If, however, you were to use an example like would you force a Muslim to respect their daughter’s decision to not wear a hijab, then that is absolutely an equivalent analogy, and I would say yes, the law should protect against women being forced by relatives to wear a hijab (admittedly a difficult law to enforce for a number of reasons, short of banning it entirely which to me is wrong for a host of different reasons).

Now, you can argue that a person’s right to be served does not trump a person’s right to choose who they serve based on whatever values they hold. Again though, that is a separate argument, based on the conflict between “freedom to” and “freedom from” (an extreme form of which would be freedom to kill whoever you want, versus freedom from being murdered - we lean towards the “freedom from” side there and make murder illegal).

Now, you’ve got to draw a line somewhere, but if you’re willing to allow discrimination against homosexual couples but not, for example, interracial couples, you better make sure you’ve got some sound reasoning or else it’s just plain old discrimination.

 

[mtooler]

Engaging with the community = more memberships. That meaning the world has gone completely bonkers is perhaps an over-reaction?

Maybe, I dont know, understand where youre coming from, but its a fairly racy celebration, not the usual corporate image they shoot for id imagine. I dont mind it too much though as long as theres some consistency and players are given some leeway too to express themselves without too much judgement however they want to live their life. If Mardis Gras float is ok, im ok if Dusty and Swanny hit Vegas without critique. Im not into hitting Vegas myself but each to their own.

 

[mtooler]

The halal example is a false equivalency - nobody’s rights are being infringed upon when a Muslim eats halal. If, however, you were to use an example like would you force a Muslim to respect their daughter’s decision to not wear a hijab, then that is absolutely an equivalent analogy, and I would say yes, the law should protect against women being forced by relatives to wear a hijab (admittedly a difficult law to enforce for a number of reasons, short of banning it entirely which to me is wrong for a host of different reasons).

Now, you can argue that a person’s right to be served does not trump a person’s right to choose who they serve based on whatever values they hold. Again though, that is a separate argument, based on the conflict between “freedom to” and “freedom from” (an extreme form of which would be freedom to kill whoever you want, versus freedom from being murdered - we lean towards the “freedom from” side there and make murder illegal).

Now, you’ve got to draw a line somewhere, but if you’re willing to allow discrimination against homosexual couples but not, for example, interracial couples, you better make sure you’ve got some sound reasoning or else it’s just plain old discrimination.

Where on similar lines of reasoning, could draw infinite number of examples either way to support or oppose. Freedom of religion is a human right that cant be discriminated against. Mind you, people can discriminate away against my faith, wont change one iota how or what I believe.

Where rights get tricky, and it was correctly identified in the debate, is what we do when two people have rights and those rights impinge against eachother and who has to give ground and why. Its why I like live and let live and each to their own, have a vote and move on. 100% right and 100% wrong wont get society anywhere.

The human right of a baby to have a father and mother is now being taken away by informed choice of adults who no doubt love and adore their children as hopefully all members do in society. The child's rights are secondary to the parents rights when it suits. Theres no heros and villians in this. Ive had my employment threatened multiple times, my family threatened, copped all amounts of colourful abuse, told im the reason children commit suicide and so on, and there have been absolutely abhorent slights against the LGBTI community as well ive seen in the media and online.

Id like to see a society where ideas can be shared without accusations and slanders flying around willy nilly.

 

[swansfan51]

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

I'd be fine with a business being able to refuse to do business with whoever they want.

You should not be forced to buy anything from a business, and equally they should not be forced to sell something to you. Consent is a pretty important concept.