Same Sex Marriage Bill passes

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Andy01

I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to criticise people's beliefs anymore than it is to say what people can/cannot do in their bedrooms... true believers have a conscience too - let's remember to respect that as well.

True that.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Andy01

I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to criticise people's beliefs anymore than it is to say what people can/cannot do in their bedrooms... true believers have a conscience too - let's remember to respect that as well.

By True believers I assume you are referring to believing in the God of Abraham, Jesus of Nazarus, Muhammad etc..?..and not The Labor true believers?

This was not about activities in bedrooms (or garages, living rooms or back sheds, for that matter ) and a persons beliefs (what ever that means?) had nil to do with the issue and should never have come in to it in the first place.

People believe in UFO's, Horoscopes and Flat Earths too...and just like religious ones, these "beliefs" certainly have no relevance to the human right of same sex marriage and its legality in Australia.

Mike

[taminga16 (Greg)]

Originally Posted by csb

TV will become gayer

I am turning off now.

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

What a dreadful thread .....

[The Mekon (John Briggs)]

Originally Posted by FlashDrive

What a dreadful thread .....

I have kept out of this so far, hoping that the mods would close it.

Col, I could not agree more.

John

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

The mods can delete posts that are personal or nasty etc, otherwise it is as legitimate to discus as many others that have propgated on this site in the past...

Mike

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

The mods can delete posts that are personal or nasty etc, otherwise it is as legitimate to discus as many others that have propgated on this site in the past...

Mike

On second thoughts the discussion is both political and religious....fair enough lock it if you want but....please read the original post one more time

...sorry

Mike

[Andy01 (Andy)]

Originally Posted by the mekon

i have kept out of this so far, hoping that the mods would close it.

Col, i could not agree more.

John

+1^

[xelasnave]

Can't we be sensible respectful and polite and not have to go running to the teacher.

All can hold views without judging others.

Before you post ask if your post meets the standards of polite conversation.

Alex

[csb (Craig)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Education level and level of intellect correlate very highly with same sex marriage views...fact, not fiction

Mike

That is so easy to show as pure fiction.

Government ministers, religious leaders, professionals and academics are against SSM.

Usually it's the No camp who have been using false facts and illogical reasoning to back their view. I suppose not all Yes people have high level of intellect

[csb (Craig)]

Further, you possibly equate being against SSM with bigotry.

Being against SSM (having a view that SSM is wrong) does not mean the person is against homosexual people or lifestyles. It is having the view that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Often this view is based on religious beliefs - this demonstrates that the person is using evidence, the writings and tenets of their religion, to conclude that SSM is wrong. I am not sure how those people that don't adhere to a religious belief conclude that SSM is wrong.

Many people are anti-religion and don't see it as legitimate source. To some extent this view is correct. A religious source is only acceptable evidence if you happen to believe in that religion.

So being against SSM is actually a thought through process for many who have looked at the evidence and concluded that it is wrong.

Note: I have not been using my religious beliefs in this debate to state SSM is wrong but I do have that view due to my beliefs. It is not possible for me to actually reason using a source that many people here do not believe.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by csb

That is so easy to show as pure fiction.

Government ministers, religious leaders, professionals and academics are against SSM.

Usually it's the No camp who have been using false facts and illogical reasoning to back their view. I suppose not all Yes people have high level of intellect

Sorry Craig but this is fiction. I don't what metric Mike is using for intellect so I'll leave that aside, however the correlation between highest educational level and voting intention was clearly evident in those surveys that correctly predicted the overall result. Of course there is a lot of scatter and even downright outliers but the overall pattern is clear.

You speak of 'government ministers, religious leaders, professionals and academics' as if they were a homogeneous entity - they all think alike. I don't think a detailed rebuttal of that idea is necessary . However let's look at the groups.

Government ministers: I think it's known that most voted 'yes'.

Religious leaders: I expect that most were opposed to SSM but obviously a minority, possibly a significant minority, are supportive.

Professionals: Sorry, but who or what are professionals? AFAIK everyone who gets paid to do their job is a professional.

Academics: Here I can speak with some authority. I have known a lot of academics quite well over the past 20 years. In general they hold small 'l' liberal views. I know one religious academic who I think it is fair to say is more accepting of SSM than totally thrilled. Everyone else I know is totally supportive. That's in the sciences and they are typically more conservative than the arts.

I don't know where you picked up that statement but I think you should mark the source as 'not to be trusted'.

[Atmos (Colin)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

Will be interesting to see if certain churches forbid marriage of same sex in their churches. I believe there remains a supposedly inalienable right of the church to deny marriage to whomever they please. I think a same sex couple trying to marry in a Catholic Church would only be trying to make a controversy and a point (despite the juxtaposition of the Catholic Church in the first place...SMH). There may be some very over-blown court cases against churches now (and GOOD too).

I agree with Morton in that I suspect a great number of no vote was based upon archaic, centuries old religious dogma. Time we changed religion to be updated with humanity as well (like that will ever happen )

I am going to start this by saying that I am not a Catholic just so that there is no bias

I do believe that it would be wrong for anyone to have a go at the Catholic Church for not marrying same sex couples and the reason I say this is because some of them have always had a strict stance on who they marry, it’s nothing new. One partner is not a Catholic, or a Prodistant or a Greek Orthidox (pick your church ect.) then they won’t marry you. Been divorced, no marriage here. If the priest or whoever thought a young couple was rushing into things or weren’t a good fit, no marriage in this chapel.

I have no warmth towards the Catholic Church at all but there is no arguement that they are being equal. They have a set of guidelines for marriage under their roof that hasn’t changed for a long long time, going after them now for this particular thing I believe is going against what the whole equality movement is about. Just like gender and race quotas, you cannot inequality by being unequal.

[doppler (Rick)]

Marriage is a license issued by the government, the religious/civil side is the ceremony. It seems all the attention is focused on the party and not the contract.

[casstony]

Originally Posted by Kunama

Unfortunately Col, this is what IIS is fast becoming...... TOS don't seem to mean a toss.....

You didn't have to look at the thread Matt

Gay marriage has zero impact on my day to day life and it reduces stress for others so why not. Just relax and worry about something worthwhile people, such as polar bears starving because we're melting the ice they once hunted on.

[csb (Craig)]

You are correct David. My comment was flawed.

Mike put forward the level of intellect into the argumhent which I am sure is nonsense.

My point being that we need to use credible and verifiable evidence in debates. A waste of words to make things up or provide distorted data.

[xelasnave]

Facts will not alter beliefs nor will beliefs alter facts.
Alex

[Deeno]

Originally Posted by Kunama

Unfortunately Col, this is what IIS is fast becoming...... TOS don't seem to mean a toss.....

Not to much has changed.
Self professed intellectuals with opposing views always has made for toxic
browsing....

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by Deeno

Self processed intellectuals with opposing views always has made for toxic
browsing....

ROTFL

[LewisM]

The moment Mike dropped in that "intellect required" bomb of BS is the second this whole talk became a farce. It's stupid attitudes like that and a self-grandiosing superiority complex of "my choice was right nar ne nar ne nar nar" that just nullifies everything said to nothing but background hiss and noise.

Anyone with even half a neuron knew the second it was announced what the result would be. Australia was making it's decisions well before the politicians decided to find out. But oh no, we needed to turn it into an expensive circus and drama event.

Topic over IMHO, at least from me.

{edit: OK, I lied}