21 October 2013

Sky god worshippers unite against gay marriage

| johnboy
Join the conversation
150

The Australian Christian Lobby has rounded up a new “Abrahamic Faith Leaders” grouping to all agree that we have to live our lives the way they tell us to:

Seventy percent of Australians identify with an Abrahamic religion – Christianity, Islam and Judaism. As leaders of several of these faith traditions, we have gathered to share our concerns about the ACT Government’s proposed same sex marriage legislation. We are concerned for the long-term risks of such a Bill for our society.

While affirming the inherent dignity of all human beings, our faith traditions also affirm the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman as being for the good of the individual, the family and society.

We invite the wider community to join with us in calling for the Bill to be subject to community consultation through the normal Legislative Assembly Committee process.

Imam Adama Konda, Canberra Islamic Centre
Arnold Cummins, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Pastor Sean Stanton, Australian Christian Churches, Canberra
Bishop Trevor Edwards, Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn
Pastor BJ Hayes, Canberra National Adventist Church
Monsignor John Woods, Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn
Rabbi Shmuel Feldman, Rabbi for Canberra and Region.

Join the conversation

150
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

neanderthalsis said :

Jesus was essentially a bloke who said we should all try being nice to each other. He hung around prostitutes and tax collectors, worked to help the poor and the sick and was nailed to a lump of wood for his efforts (modern day equivalent would be probably be dealers, users, crims, etc, so Jesus was a bit of a trailblazer in the social work field). He taught tolerance, not narrow minded bigotry.
Many who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are the type whose bible studies never made it beyond Leviticus and Genesis 25 and just use religion as a cover for their bigotry.

I am sure that during all that wandering around with 12 blokes and a loose chick, some questionable activity must have happened or Mary would have had a problems walking everywhere. I dont see what the issue would have been, afterwards when they all shoot guilty “What have I done?” looks at eachother, they could just turn to Jesus and ask for forgivness. Jesus would have had to forgive them or turn the other cheek to risk a pun, otherwise he himself would be a hypocrite.

The bible has been edited to the point that if you compare one from even 250 years ago to one today you will find some glaringly noticible differences (Other books you have not heard of with different endings, un-as-edited Old Testament stuff, the parable of the 9 apostles doing the reach-a-round train while 3 looked on and the psalm about Jesus doing the walk of shame after a big night on the water, etc etc.)

If we can get past the idea that Jesus was less of a bearded young Clint Eastwood looking, western dude and accept he probably looked more like Bin Laden than we would be comfortable with, then we might be able to make religions, even the silly ones like Judaism, Down Syndrome and Scientology, work for everyone.

I propose a rewrite of the worlds major religious doctrines and make them a bit more edgy. Like how the Christian Bale Batman is better than the Adam West Batman.

So shall I say it?

ok

Quicky, To the God Poles!

Dilandach said :

If there really was a Jesus and he was around today, I’d bet he’d be ashamed what is done in his name.

Oh you bet. If Jesus was alive today, he’d be a leather daddy marching in the Mardi Gras showing off his glistening muscles and bulging package for all to see.

That stuff he said about marriage, leaving your parents and cleaving to your wife? He was just kidding, he meant go out and get blown in a toilet cubicle glory hole by a hot sweaty stranger.

Jim Jones said :

My favourite Christians are the ones like Darkfalz

Er, I am not a Christian. I have said on many occasions I hold no religious beliefs and have never used religion in this debate. That doesn’t mean I won’t defend their right to an opinion or against blatant, deliberate mis-charactisation.

neanderthalsis3:35 pm 06 Nov 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

Dilandach said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

One of the key concepts of Christianity appears to be telling people that they can’t do things ‘because God said so’.

I like how you make stuff up to try to make your point. Shame it doesn’t work.

Christians, especially evangelicals are some of the most horrid human beings. They’re ‘Sunday Christians’. Help the poor? No way, they’ll have a reliance on handouts. Help the sick? No chance, that’s their personal responsibility.

If there really was a Jesus and he was around today, I’d bet he’d be ashamed what is done in his name.

Mostly correct.

I know some Christians who do, in fact, do good works and help others out, but they aren’t typically the ones getting involved in lobby groups or making lots of noise about themselves.

largely correct. Jesus was essentially a bloke who said we should all try being nice to each other. He hung around prostitutes and tax collectors, worked to help the poor and the sick and was nailed to a lump of wood for his efforts (modern day equivalent would be probably be dealers, users, crims, etc, so Jesus was a bit of a trailblazer in the social work field). He taught tolerance, not narrow minded bigotry.
Many who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are the type whose bible studies never made it beyond Leviticus and Genesis 25 and just use religion as a cover for their bigotry.

thebrownstreak69 said :

Dilandach said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

One of the key concepts of Christianity appears to be telling people that they can’t do things ‘because God said so’.

I like how you make stuff up to try to make your point. Shame it doesn’t work.

Christians, especially evangelicals are some of the most horrid human beings. They’re ‘Sunday Christians’. Help the poor? No way, they’ll have a reliance on handouts. Help the sick? No chance, that’s their personal responsibility.

If there really was a Jesus and he was around today, I’d bet he’d be ashamed what is done in his name.

Mostly correct.

I know some Christians who do, in fact, do good works and help others out, but they aren’t typically the ones getting involved in lobby groups or making lots of noise about themselves.

My favourite Christians are the ones like Darkfalz: bitter bigots from a bygone age who desperately wish that the communist lefties and the sexual deviants and muslims and hindoos and all those suspicious looking darkies would just bugger off and stop ruining the country for all the normal people (you know, white people with wives and children and full-time jobs and who drink VB and not this limp-wristed sissy crap that they’re all on now and the kids are all on DRUGS now because the teachers are all lefty scum that teach kids to be lazy and gay and take drugs not like my day when you’d get six of the best for talking back, that’s what they need now DISCIPLINE. They need a good war to sort them out.)

They make me laugh.

thebrownstreak6912:43 pm 06 Nov 13

Dilandach said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

One of the key concepts of Christianity appears to be telling people that they can’t do things ‘because God said so’.

I like how you make stuff up to try to make your point. Shame it doesn’t work.

Christians, especially evangelicals are some of the most horrid human beings. They’re ‘Sunday Christians’. Help the poor? No way, they’ll have a reliance on handouts. Help the sick? No chance, that’s their personal responsibility.

If there really was a Jesus and he was around today, I’d bet he’d be ashamed what is done in his name.

Mostly correct.

I know some Christians who do, in fact, do good works and help others out, but they aren’t typically the ones getting involved in lobby groups or making lots of noise about themselves.

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

One of the key concepts of Christianity appears to be telling people that they can’t do things ‘because God said so’.

I like how you make stuff up to try to make your point. Shame it doesn’t work.

Christians, especially evangelicals are some of the most horrid human beings. They’re ‘Sunday Christians’. Help the poor? No way, they’ll have a reliance on handouts. Help the sick? No chance, that’s their personal responsibility.

If there really was a Jesus and he was around today, I’d bet he’d be ashamed what is done in his name.

Waa waa … the christians are all picking on me … whatever will I do?

Maybe I’ll go gay marry one of them as revenge!!!

thebrownstreak6911:26 am 06 Nov 13

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Darkfalz said :

fabforty said :

People have been interpreting (or misinterpreting) religious writings to suit their own means and support their own prejudices for centuries.

What happened to Christianity being about loving your fellow man and being tolerant and kind ?

You misunderstand this basic precept of Christianity. Love the sinner does not mean loving (or tolerating) the sin. You are not meant to condone murdering, raping and stealing just because it’s human beings doing those things and you’re supposed to love those humans.

Insisting people not only “tolerate”, but keep utterly quiet when you want to promote and normalise lifestyle choices which most people wouldn’t want their children to follow is a form of fascism.

Separating the action from the actor is one of the key concepts in Christianity, and one which many people fail to grasp.

One of the key concepts of Christianity appears to be telling people that they can’t do things ‘because God said so’.

I got some news for you, sunshine. Your god hasn’t been seen around these parts for a couple of thousand years. The last time he was here we nailed him to a couple of bits of wood and sent him on his way.

I like how you make stuff up to try to make your point. Shame it doesn’t work.

Robertson said :

Jim Jones said :

I got some news for you, sunshine. Your god hasn’t been seen around these parts for a couple of thousand years. The last time he was here we nailed him to a couple of bits of wood and sent him on his way.

By that “we”, are you claiming to be a Roman, or a Sephardic Jew?

Or was that just another of your characteristically senseless posts?

Come at me, Christian!

Jim Jones said :

I got some news for you, sunshine. Your god hasn’t been seen around these parts for a couple of thousand years. The last time he was here we nailed him to a couple of bits of wood and sent him on his way.

By that “we”, are you claiming to be a Roman, or a Sephardic Jew?

Or was that just another of your characteristically senseless posts?

thebrownstreak69 said :

Darkfalz said :

fabforty said :

People have been interpreting (or misinterpreting) religious writings to suit their own means and support their own prejudices for centuries.

What happened to Christianity being about loving your fellow man and being tolerant and kind ?

You misunderstand this basic precept of Christianity. Love the sinner does not mean loving (or tolerating) the sin. You are not meant to condone murdering, raping and stealing just because it’s human beings doing those things and you’re supposed to love those humans.

Insisting people not only “tolerate”, but keep utterly quiet when you want to promote and normalise lifestyle choices which most people wouldn’t want their children to follow is a form of fascism.

Separating the action from the actor is one of the key concepts in Christianity, and one which many people fail to grasp.

One of the key concepts of Christianity appears to be telling people that they can’t do things ‘because God said so’.

I got some news for you, sunshine. Your god hasn’t been seen around these parts for a couple of thousand years. The last time he was here we nailed him to a couple of bits of wood and sent him on his way.

Darkfalz said :

Odd the gay lobby is deathly afraid of a referendum then? I suspect a majority of these “supporters” are no such thing, they’re people who are tried of being harangued or hearing about it and have taken the attitude “fine, as long as you shut up”. I suspect in a polling booth alone with their conscience, most would still vote no. This is the reason it’s being pushed so hard based on an illusion of public sentiment, rather than actually testing that sentiment.

The left’s agenda on most things is widely promulgated in schools, even religious ones. It’s not a surprise then that a lot of young adults come out of years of brainwashing believing and voting down the GreensLabor worldview. This same demographic is obviously the most vocal on such issues, especially online, where a lot of this bullshit “polling” comes from.

A decade or two of paying tax, living in the real world and having families tends to draw them back towards the centre and in many cases, to the right. Their opinions on many of these things change. It’s a fairly stable flux. The vast majority of the planet is still on the supposed “wrong side of history” here. There’s no tidal wave of gay marriage support and legalisation globally. It’s still just a handful of planets. Weather the storm and this silly social fad will likely pass.[/quote>

Well seriously if the Catholics and other religious groups stop being selfish a***holes, it wouldn’t be a problem. Again, there is absolutely no valid reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. All the reasons involve a minority of religious people who are anti gay in the first place making up scare tactics.

The majority of Australians are sick of small minority religious based groups trying to tell us how to run our lives. Be very careful because one day, there may be a law that discriminates against you and then you can see how it feels.

Stop being selfish and uninformed about the world.

I don’t think Abrahamic religions have completely abandoned ths “mountain god” concept really. Certain mountains are more sacred than others but the prophet or leader is always finding god at the top of the nearest mountain.

Which leads to an even more disturbing thought… Maybe the witches of Mt Ainslie are trying to get ecumenical.

thebrownstreak699:01 am 06 Nov 13

Darkfalz said :

fabforty said :

People have been interpreting (or misinterpreting) religious writings to suit their own means and support their own prejudices for centuries.

What happened to Christianity being about loving your fellow man and being tolerant and kind ?

You misunderstand this basic precept of Christianity. Love the sinner does not mean loving (or tolerating) the sin. You are not meant to condone murdering, raping and stealing just because it’s human beings doing those things and you’re supposed to love those humans.

Insisting people not only “tolerate”, but keep utterly quiet when you want to promote and normalise lifestyle choices which most people wouldn’t want their children to follow is a form of fascism.

Separating the action from the actor is one of the key concepts in Christianity, and one which many people fail to grasp.

neanderthalsis8:49 am 06 Nov 13

Darkfalz said :

Insisting people not only “tolerate”, but keep utterly quiet when you want to promote and normalise lifestyle choices which most people wouldn’t want their children to follow is a form of fascism.

Supporting the majority of the populace in removing a barrier that prevents two people living like most of the rest of us do is a form a fascism? Well I’ll be buggered…

Darkfalz said :

All the polls are wrong … it’s a leftist conspiracy … gays are sinners … schoolteachers are brainwashing children … this whole thing is a fad

Ah … nope.

Thanks for providing some amusement though. It’s always entertaining to hear the uncomprehending yelling of a dinosaur.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

That’s the whole point, a majority of the populace support gay marriage, however it’s not the deal-breaker, the economy is.

It doesn’t change the fact that the majority still support gay-marriage.

Odd the gay lobby is deathly afraid of a referendum then? I suspect a majority of these “supporters” are no such thing, they’re people who are tried of being harangued or hearing about it and have taken the attitude “fine, as long as you shut up”. I suspect in a polling booth alone with their conscience, most would still vote no. This is the reason it’s being pushed so hard based on an illusion of public sentiment, rather than actually testing that sentiment.

The left’s agenda on most things is widely promulgated in schools, even religious ones. It’s not a surprise then that a lot of young adults come out of years of brainwashing believing and voting down the GreensLabor worldview. This same demographic is obviously the most vocal on such issues, especially online, where a lot of this bullshit “polling” comes from.

A decade or two of paying tax, living in the real world and having families tends to draw them back towards the centre and in many cases, to the right. Their opinions on many of these things change. It’s a fairly stable flux. The vast majority of the planet is still on the supposed “wrong side of history” here. There’s no tidal wave of gay marriage support and legalisation globally. It’s still just a handful of planets. Weather the storm and this silly social fad will likely pass.

fabforty said :

People have been interpreting (or misinterpreting) religious writings to suit their own means and support their own prejudices for centuries.

What happened to Christianity being about loving your fellow man and being tolerant and kind ?

You misunderstand this basic precept of Christianity. Love the sinner does not mean loving (or tolerating) the sin. You are not meant to condone murdering, raping and stealing just because it’s human beings doing those things and you’re supposed to love those humans.

Insisting people not only “tolerate”, but keep utterly quiet when you want to promote and normalise lifestyle choices which most people wouldn’t want their children to follow is a form of fascism.

Woody Mann-Caruso8:15 pm 01 Nov 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

something

Didn’t you say you were leaving and never coming back? Or has it been three days already? Is this even your final form?

house_husband7:37 pm 01 Nov 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

no tickets for speeding 20km/h over the limit
– legalizing marijuana
– relaxing the gun laws
– allowing unregistered trail bikes access to state forests and National Parks
– removing the requirement for fishing licenses
– re-introducing plastic bags for free at shopping centers
– sex with children above 12 years old
– being allowed to walk naked in public
– having legal fireworks available to the public
– being allowed to carry a sword for self defense

For a lot of those you can demonstrate some form of harm may occur that is not commensurate with the activity being limited. Letting people off who are driving 20kmh above the limit or having people armed with swords would create more problems in the form of road trauma and violence. But yes for fireworks and plastic bags I think there is a reasonable argument that the harm they do is minimum and an argument could be put forward for their return..

My main point was that when I look at any proposed changes to legislation that impact on people’s personal lives like gay marriage, access to alcohol, etc I try to walk a mile in their shoes regardless of my own personal beliefs. And on issues like gay marriage I just can’t see ANY harm aside from it being against the religious or personal beliefs of people who will never be forced to live a gay lifestyle or even be friends with a gay person if they chose not to.

Ghettosmurf874:34 pm 01 Nov 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

house_husband – “I am not arrogant enough to demand other people are denied something that a reasonable proportion of the population doesn’t see a problem with.”
I think a “reasonable” proportion of the population would support the following:
– no tickets for speeding 20km/h over the limit
– legalizing marijuana
– relaxing the gun laws
– allowing unregistered trail bikes access to state forests and National Parks
– removing the requirement for fishing licenses
– re-introducing plastic bags for free at shopping centers
– sex with children above 12 years old
– being allowed to walk naked in public
– having legal fireworks available to the public
– being allowed to carry a sword for self defense

I’m sure some of these things are frowned upon by the church and there are probably some that are supported in old religious texts, but just because a reasonable [small] proportion of the population wants something, it doesn’t necessarily make it right. Referendum – or I will not believe it is that important to our country.
If on the other hand, that is the way democracy works [and I’ve never seen it work that way in my life], then I might just start lobbying for some things I believe will be very popular among the natives in the next election. Who knows, I’d like to see ordinary folks having to carry a police officers gun for him/her for a mile, just because the law says they must.

You’ve mixed up “reasonable proportion supports something” with “a minority wants this but the rest of the nation disagrees”.

You see, most of those things you listed above are NOT supported by a majority of the population, just by the vocal minority that want that thing.

On the other hand, there is a large proportion of society (polls put it at greater than 50%) that supports gay marriage, despite the proportion of people it will actually affect being far lower than that.

If you went out and polled the general populous about your silly proposals you would find that the only people that support them are the ones who want them for themselves, that being a vocal minority.

Polls are polls and stats can show what you want them to, but I saw info that suggested that as an election priority this issue was not so important. If it had been, why did Abbot win? REFERENDUM!!!

That’s the whole point, a majority of the populace support gay marriage, however it’s not the deal-breaker, the economy is.

It doesn’t change the fact that the majority still support gay-marriage.

wildturkeycanoe4:03 pm 01 Nov 13

Ghettosmurf87 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

house_husband – “I am not arrogant enough to demand other people are denied something that a reasonable proportion of the population doesn’t see a problem with.”
I think a “reasonable” proportion of the population would support the following:
– no tickets for speeding 20km/h over the limit
– legalizing marijuana
– relaxing the gun laws
– allowing unregistered trail bikes access to state forests and National Parks
– removing the requirement for fishing licenses
– re-introducing plastic bags for free at shopping centers
– sex with children above 12 years old
– being allowed to walk naked in public
– having legal fireworks available to the public
– being allowed to carry a sword for self defense

I’m sure some of these things are frowned upon by the church and there are probably some that are supported in old religious texts, but just because a reasonable [small] proportion of the population wants something, it doesn’t necessarily make it right. Referendum – or I will not believe it is that important to our country.
If on the other hand, that is the way democracy works [and I’ve never seen it work that way in my life], then I might just start lobbying for some things I believe will be very popular among the natives in the next election. Who knows, I’d like to see ordinary folks having to carry a police officers gun for him/her for a mile, just because the law says they must.

You’ve mixed up “reasonable proportion supports something” with “a minority wants this but the rest of the nation disagrees”.

You see, most of those things you listed above are NOT supported by a majority of the population, just by the vocal minority that want that thing.

On the other hand, there is a large proportion of society (polls put it at greater than 50%) that supports gay marriage, despite the proportion of people it will actually affect being far lower than that.

If you went out and polled the general populous about your silly proposals you would find that the only people that support them are the ones who want them for themselves, that being a vocal minority.

Polls are polls and stats can show what you want them to, but I saw info that suggested that as an election priority this issue was not so important. If it had been, why did Abbot win? REFERENDUM!!!

wildturkeycanoe said :

house_husband – “I am not arrogant enough to demand other people are denied something that a reasonable proportion of the population doesn’t see a problem with.”
I think a “reasonable” proportion of the population would support the following:
– no tickets for speeding 20km/h over the limit
– legalizing marijuana
– relaxing the gun laws
– allowing unregistered trail bikes access to state forests and National Parks
– removing the requirement for fishing licenses
– re-introducing plastic bags for free at shopping centers
– sex with children above 12 years old
– being allowed to walk naked in public
– having legal fireworks available to the public
– being allowed to carry a sword for self defense

Seriously….. Most polls have shown that a majority of people support gay marriage, either because they don’t care or they support it. Those that don’t care basically feel it doesn’t affect them so whats the problem, but at the same time its not a vote changing issue either.

Then there is the whole scare tactic of associating gay marriage with ridiculous things like pedophilia. I’m yet to see any kind of link between homosexuality and pedophilia. I have however seen more than enough evidence to link pedophilia and the catholic church. At the same time unlike you anti gay marriage people, i’m not going around saying ban the catholic church, because priests have been convicted of pedophilia.

Ghettosmurf873:05 pm 01 Nov 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

house_husband – “I am not arrogant enough to demand other people are denied something that a reasonable proportion of the population doesn’t see a problem with.”
I think a “reasonable” proportion of the population would support the following:
– no tickets for speeding 20km/h over the limit
– legalizing marijuana
– relaxing the gun laws
– allowing unregistered trail bikes access to state forests and National Parks
– removing the requirement for fishing licenses
– re-introducing plastic bags for free at shopping centers
– sex with children above 12 years old
– being allowed to walk naked in public
– having legal fireworks available to the public
– being allowed to carry a sword for self defense

I’m sure some of these things are frowned upon by the church and there are probably some that are supported in old religious texts, but just because a reasonable [small] proportion of the population wants something, it doesn’t necessarily make it right. Referendum – or I will not believe it is that important to our country.
If on the other hand, that is the way democracy works [and I’ve never seen it work that way in my life], then I might just start lobbying for some things I believe will be very popular among the natives in the next election. Who knows, I’d like to see ordinary folks having to carry a police officers gun for him/her for a mile, just because the law says they must.

You’ve mixed up “reasonable proportion supports something” with “a minority wants this but the rest of the nation disagrees”.

You see, most of those things you listed above are NOT supported by a majority of the population, just by the vocal minority that want that thing.

On the other hand, there is a large proportion of society (polls put it at greater than 50%) that supports gay marriage, despite the proportion of people it will actually affect being far lower than that.

If you went out and polled the general populous about your silly proposals you would find that the only people that support them are the ones who want them for themselves, that being a vocal minority.

wildturkeycanoe2:18 pm 01 Nov 13

house_husband – “I am not arrogant enough to demand other people are denied something that a reasonable proportion of the population doesn’t see a problem with.”
I think a “reasonable” proportion of the population would support the following:
– no tickets for speeding 20km/h over the limit
– legalizing marijuana
– relaxing the gun laws
– allowing unregistered trail bikes access to state forests and National Parks
– removing the requirement for fishing licenses
– re-introducing plastic bags for free at shopping centers
– sex with children above 12 years old
– being allowed to walk naked in public
– having legal fireworks available to the public
– being allowed to carry a sword for self defense

I’m sure some of these things are frowned upon by the church and there are probably some that are supported in old religious texts, but just because a reasonable [small] proportion of the population wants something, it doesn’t necessarily make it right. Referendum – or I will not believe it is that important to our country.
If on the other hand, that is the way democracy works [and I’ve never seen it work that way in my life], then I might just start lobbying for some things I believe will be very popular among the natives in the next election. Who knows, I’d like to see ordinary folks having to carry a police officers gun for him/her for a mile, just because the law says they must.

fabforty said :

People have been interpreting (or misinterpreting) religious writings to suit their own means and support their own prejudices for centuries.

I’m not sure that it’s possible to misinterpret religious writings; one interpretation is as valid as any other. In that context, “misinterpret” means “different to my interpretation”.

fabforty said :

What happened to Christianity being about loving your fellow man and being tolerant and kind ?

That’s only your interpretation.

HenryBG said :

maxblues said :

I remember the good old days (yesterday) when all the Abrahamic religions were trying to kill each other.

Nothing like the use of the expression “Abrahamic religions” to give away a limp-wrister who has no clue.

You have the religion that built the civilised world, the religion with the highest per capita claim to human achievement, and the religion most devoted to tearing it all down, all 3 included in your ridiculous set.

I’m confused! Which religion are you assigning to each description?

Muslims can be described as building civilisation in a way, they certainly preserved all the libraries, translated the philosophers and developed workable mathematics.
Human achievement per capita…? Is it the Christians with their wealth?
Are you saying Jews want to tear it all down? I thought they were just telling jokes and making movies about it!

How to confuse a creationist — Homosexuality, Evolution and the Bible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuK9pxjBwX8

maxblues said :

I remember the good old days (yesterday) when all the Abrahamic religions were trying to kill each other.

Nothing like the use of the expression “Abrahamic religions” to give away a limp-wrister who has no clue.

You have the religion that built the civilised world, the religion with the highest per capita claim to human achievement, and the religion most devoted to tearing it all down, all 3 included in your ridiculous set.

Deref said :

The depth of this man’s ignorance is truly frightening; moreso when you realise that his attitudes and beliefs reflect those of the current government of our country. The gods help us all.

He’s just doing an “emperor’s new clothes” routine.

Lots of people don’t bother reacting to the homosexual lobby, but there sure a whole bunch of you who have chosen to be led up the garden path by this bunch of devients.

People have been interpreting (or misinterpreting) religious writings to suit their own means and support their own prejudices for centuries.

What happened to Christianity being about loving your fellow man and being tolerant and kind ?

house_husband1:33 pm 27 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

If someone like myself can’t have the opportunity to have a different point of view, present arguments to support that view and express them freely, then what kind of single minded communist society do we live in.

I’m certainly not denying anyone the opportunity to express their views. The problem I have is the automatic assumption that other people should live their lives by single minded narrow religious beliefs.

For example I personally believe abortion is the killing of an unborn child and that alcohol is worse than may illicit drugs. However I can accept that other people have come to different conclusions through their own beliefs and medical evidence.

So while I choose not to drink and would never support the abortion of a child I had a part in conceiving, I am not arrogant enough to demand other people are denied something that a reasonable proportion of the population doesn’t see a problem with.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:31 am 27 Oct 13

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I chose to be heterosexual when I found parts of the female anatomy attractive. I was born this way

You chose to be born that way? But gay people can’t? Riiiight.

a decision had to be made somewhere along the path of life

A decision not to be afraid of bigots like you, and be open about their homosexuality?

Yes, God created all of us, possibly knowing that some may become gay

Possibly? Is he omniscient or isn’t he? Crom is – maybe you should come to my church.

For you scientists, if Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, then gay people will eventually diminish in numbers and become extinct.

Unless they keep being born to heterosexual parents. (You’d think you’d be against hetero marriage, what with all the gay children it makes.) It’s an annoying flaw in the religious right’s ‘let’s put them in camps and they’ll die out’ policy.

If a daughter who turns of age decides that she is in love with her mother, or indeed her father and want to get married, is that okay by the gay community?

What, like Eve and Cain, or Lot and his daughters? (Boom chicka wa-wow…drink up, daddy…)

Anyway, don’t let the door hit you on the ar*e on the way out, because that might be gay, and you might like it.

Lol burn

The depth of this man’s ignorance is truly frightening; moreso when you realise that his attitudes and beliefs reflect those of the current government of our country. The gods help us all.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Anyway, don’t let the door hit you on the ar*e on the way out, because that might be gay, and you might like it.

haw haw, those door knobs do tend to get stuck sometimes.

wildturkeycanoe said :

If someone like myself can’t have the opportunity to have a different point of view, present arguments to support that view and express them freely, then what kind of single minded communist society do we live in.

Probably the same single-minded communist society that won’t give someone like yourself the opportunity to a different sexual preference, and to be able to express themselves freely. Don’t forget to check under your bed tonight, McCarthy.

Good to see you’ve taken the responsible decision to reduce the impact of gay marriage on yourself by not partaking in gay marriage threads.

Anecdote isn’t evidence no matter how much you wish it were so.

And re evolution and the role of same sex individuals :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm

You are a walking stereotype WTC it’s sad and pathetic to witness.

Woody Mann-Caruso9:30 am 27 Oct 13

I chose to be heterosexual when I found parts of the female anatomy attractive. I was born this way

You chose to be born that way? But gay people can’t? Riiiight.

a decision had to be made somewhere along the path of life

A decision not to be afraid of bigots like you, and be open about their homosexuality?

Yes, God created all of us, possibly knowing that some may become gay

Possibly? Is he omniscient or isn’t he? Crom is – maybe you should come to my church.

For you scientists, if Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, then gay people will eventually diminish in numbers and become extinct.

Unless they keep being born to heterosexual parents. (You’d think you’d be against hetero marriage, what with all the gay children it makes.) It’s an annoying flaw in the religious right’s ‘let’s put them in camps and they’ll die out’ policy.

If a daughter who turns of age decides that she is in love with her mother, or indeed her father and want to get married, is that okay by the gay community?

What, like Eve and Cain, or Lot and his daughters? (Boom chicka wa-wow…drink up, daddy…)

Anyway, don’t let the door hit you on the ar*e on the way out, because that might be gay, and you might like it.

wildturkeycanoe7:14 am 27 Oct 13

Apparently my efforts to have a last say on this topic got lost in the oblivion of the internet. I will try again.
I chose to be heterosexual when I found parts of the female anatomy attractive. I was born this way, obviously having the correct anatomy for reproduction of children. Gay people aren’t born gay. All the gay people I know from my childhood, were all opposite sex liking individuals until their teens and beyond. One of the prominent spokespersons in the Canberra debate who appeared on television celebrating the outcome, actually went out with my wife back in high school. Obviously, he wasn’t gay then and wasn’t born to be. A decision had to be made somewhere along the path of life. If you needed evidence to prove it, I give you case study number 1. Another gay friend went on after high school, married, had a child, divorced and has since become gay. There is number 2. The third study I know of was a bit strange in school already, I believe him to be gay, but he also hasn’t become a very productive member of society either. Fourthly, I know a child who has been apparently born with a gene problem, having way too many female genomes, or something to that effect. To date, there has been no homosexual tendencies and he has a girlfriend in school. It a choice, but people who claim they were born that way are simply wanting to choose to believe they were born that way.
As for all of you who think it doesn’t matter as long as two people love each other and live as partners that’s all they need to get married, I pose this question. If a daughter who turns of age decides that she is in love with her mother, or indeed her father and want to get married, is that okay by the gay community? As long as they have love it should be acknowledged?
For you scientists, if Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, then gay people will eventually diminish in numbers and become extinct. Without a means to reproduce, they cannot grow in numbers, especially if it is some kind of genetic variation that people are born with. Why would nature intend for a natural activity to flourish without a means of perpetuation?
Yes, God created all of us, possibly knowing that some may become gay. He also made a lot of us in the knowledge we may become murderers, rapists, drug users or lazy bogans. But, we all have a choice to continue these paths or change our life. Nothing is forcing us to stay what we are and nothing compels us to change except for other people’s words. If someone like myself can’t have the opportunity to have a different point of view, present arguments to support that view and express them freely, then what kind of single minded communist society do we live in. The churches on a whole appear to be portrayed in a “big brother” capacity, forcing everyone to live one way. Commanding and trying to convince are two different things and real Christians wouldn’t force their beliefs on anyone. Persuasion, though often repeated persuasion, is all they can do. That usually results in the kind of response I’ve witnessed here. Henceforth, I’m taking leave of this nasty [one-sided] debate and letting all of you rejoice that you’ve won the right to live your lives the way you want. I will live my own life the way I want and wonder why I subjected myself to such harsh punishment from anonymous, mostly faceless people, who actively participate in bullying to satisfy their own egos. I know you won’t miss me.
Fare thee well Riotact.
Sincerely – Wildturkeycanoe.

Woody Mann-Caruso6:46 pm 26 Oct 13

Here’s a good one for ya. Prove your gay! Where is the scientific evidence that shows you are prone to homosexuality?

Prove you’re heterosexual. Don’t give me that wife and kids stuff. Plenty of poofs have handbags. Especially religious poofs.

You know, when we have marriage equality (and we will), it’ll be a fantastic outcome in its own right, as it should be. But I can’t but feel a bit giddy at the thought of licking the icing on this rainbow cake, which will be watching those of you who tout the more narrow aspects of your bronze age cult realise that the world has finally left you in its dust, with slave owners and pulling out people’s bits on pyramids. You’ll be the pariahs, the pillars of sodium chloride, because all you could ever do was look backward.

Mostly at people’s bottoms.

Mmm, icing. It’s still warm.

I remember the good old days (yesterday) when all the Abrahamic religions were trying to kill each other.

BimboGeek said :

Where are these gay places of worship that Darkfalz mentions? How does one worship in a gay manner? Do the priests wear dresses? Are the monks and nuns segregated into little same-sex grouphouses? Is there fabulous art and interior decoration? Do … Oh.

😀 Gold!

wildturkeycanoe said :

Bringing all your gay beliefs into society as a topic of discussion amongst the entire country HAS made an impact on me, because it affects my life. Had it been kept in the closet, I wouldn’t have issue with it one iota.

Bringing all your religious beliefs into society as a topic of discussion amongst the entire country HAS made an impact on me, because it affects my life. Had it been kept in the closet, I wouldn’t have issue with it one iota.

Also if people choose to be gay well, God made them right? He knew they’d make that choice before he made them. Gay marriage must be a part of His plan.

wildturkeycanoe said :

That’s it, looks like immorality has taken over the world and I’m the only one left, apart from the seven folks mentioned in this article, who have a skerrick of faith left.

One does not need religion to live morally. It is concerning that you need the fear of God to make you do so.

Where are these gay places of worship that Darkfalz mentions? How does one worship in a gay manner? Do the priests wear dresses? Are the monks and nuns segregated into little same-sex grouphouses? Is there fabulous art and interior decoration? Do … Oh.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:12 pm 25 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref – “Another example, if one were needed, of the frightening power and effectiveness of brainwashing children – IMO a more insidious form of child abuse than that which has occupied the headlines for so many years.”
I could counter that by saying that teaching kids at school that the earth is millions of years old, that we evolved from apes and that having two daddies is normal is also brainwashing. Do they teach alternative theories to all these? Depends on the school…

There are no alternative theories.

There are lots and lots of fairy tales, all different, but not one of them is a theory.

It’s good for schools to read fairy tales to children; it’s not good to pretend that those fairy tales are true.

Can you prove the age of a rock, any more than I can prove a miracle? It all takes faith.

Anything you try to say as fact from now on is invalid.

Moron.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:03 pm 25 Oct 13

Deref said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref – “Another example, if one were needed, of the frightening power and effectiveness of brainwashing children – IMO a more insidious form of child abuse than that which has occupied the headlines for so many years.”
I could counter that by saying that teaching kids at school that the earth is millions of years old, that we evolved from apes and that having two daddies is normal is also brainwashing. Do they teach alternative theories to all these? Depends on the school…

There are no alternative theories.

There are lots and lots of fairy tales, all different, but not one of them is a theory.

It’s good for schools to read fairy tales to children; it’s not good to pretend that those fairy tales are true.

Yep. Could not have been said better.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now.

When did you decide to be heterosexual?

This comment is in relation to whichever fool complained about explaining sexuality to kids:

Your kids are smarter than you, please don’t ruin their brains with your bigotry.

My best friend is gay, and my child has had a lot of interaction with this individual and their partner. You know what, my child didn’t even bat an eyelid at two individuals of the same sex showing affection towards one another; not even a question about it. I know I will be called a bad parent for allowing my offspring to “witness” the “ungodly” act of two people of the same sex holding hands and kissing. But I will sleep easy tonight knowing that I have produced a little person who is open minded, fair and above all accepting of those around her. Religion it seems can’t offer that.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now. It was a choice and like religion they can do what they want at home, or in their gay places of worship. Don’t bring it into my life thanks.

So did the gay members of other species consciously choose to be gay as well? Humans aren’t the only animals that develop homosexual pair bonds. The last stat I saw about sheep was that around 10% of rams are gay. Is today’s liberal society to blame for that too?

And the issue isn’t that gays are bringing anything into your life, the issue is that there are homophobes that frantically prevent other people from having equal rights just because they think of the 30,000 major gods that people have invented over the years that they’ve somehow managed to latch onto the only real one by virtue of having been born into a society where that’s the dominant religion, and gay hatred is one of the few “laws” from their holy book that they bother to follow.

Just think, if you had been born into a society that venerated shemales then you’d be singing the praises of good old fashioned gender bending and be spewing hateful venom at those weirdos that peristed in rigidly seperating the gender roles.

Here_and_Now1:14 pm 23 Oct 13

Huh. Tech- weirdness-fail. Probably don’t need to say it, but that’s wildturkeycanoe’s post (#88) I’m quoting and replying to in #98, not my own, despite what the quoty-thing says.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Honestly, what does it matter what people do in their private lives? Are you going around shaking genitals with everyone you meet?

There is zero basis for denying something that has absolutely zero impact on you.

WRONG. This is the bit that irks me. I’m fine with people doing what they want, whenever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, but when they make it a national legal argument, to bring it out into the open for everyone to hear, that is what makes it impact on me. I have to now explain to my children what gay means, what gay marriage means [for which I still haven’t got an answer to my previous question – what’s going to be different between a civil union and a gay marriage?].
Bringing all your gay beliefs into society as a topic of discussion amongst the entire country HAS made an impact on me, because it affects my life. Had it been kept in the closet, I wouldn’t have issue with it one iota.
I think my genetics have made me a lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity. It’s not my fault, I was born this way. Can I get a ruling that says I can’t work, because I was born lazy, so I can get legal recognition as a disabled person and bludge for the rest of my life?
Here’s a good one for ya. Prove your gay! Where is the scientific evidence that shows you are prone to homosexuality? Is it because of your genetics, the way you were born, or what you do in your life? Actions determine who we are, choices are made before we do these actions. People aren’t born gay, unless they have some gender component disorders. I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now. It was a choice and like religion they can do what they want at home, or in their gay places of worship. Don’t bring it into my life thanks.

Ohh good, a whole group of people can’t get married because you don’t know how to talk to your shitty kids, awesome!

Here_and_Now12:23 pm 23 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

WRONG. This is the bit that irks me. I’m fine with people doing what they want, whenever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, but when they make it a national legal argument, to bring it out into the open for everyone to hear, that is what makes it impact on me. I have to now explain to my children

If you don’t like explaining things to children, parenthood may not have been the best career choice.

what gay means, what gay marriage means (for which I still haven’t got an answer to my previous question – what’s going to be different between a civil union and a gay marriage?).

Here’s a potted highlight:

‘This is a large and complex area but generally, same-sex couples in long-term relationships have had mostly the same legal rights as heterosexual married ones since legislative changes in 2008. At that time, most remaining discrimination was removed by the passage of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws General Law Reform) Act and the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – Superannuation) Act.

There is still a difference to rights available under marriage, as same-sex couples have to demonstrate that they are in a de facto relationship or in a “registered relationship” under a state or territory scheme. One common way of demonstrating a de facto relationship under family law is showing that the couple has lived together on a genuine domestic basis for at least two years.

By contrast, in most circumstances a married couple will have their relationship recognised without needing to show that they have lived together for any length of time. It is conceivable that if something happened to one partner in a relationship, a married spouse of three months would have greater legal rights than a same-sex partner of nine months.

A strict legal analysis also does not take into account the social and symbolic importance of same-sex marriage to same-sex couples.’

– The ABC’s Fact Check, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-21/ask-fact-check-same-sex-marriage/5029100

Happy to help. You’re welcome.

I think my genetics have made me a lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity.

Oh? Not your choices or actions?

It’s not my fault, I was born this way. Can I get a ruling that says I can’t work, because I was born lazy, so I can get legal recognition as a disabled person and bludge for the rest of my life?

That I don’t know, but you may now marry another lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity.

Prove your gay!

Ugghhh. You know what you did.

People aren’t born gay, unless they have some gender component disorders.

Erm, please explain?

Here’s a good one for ya. Prove your gay! Where is the scientific evidence that shows you are prone to homosexuality? Is it because of your genetics, the way you were born, or what you do in your life? Actions determine who we are, choices are made before we do these actions. People aren’t born gay, unless they have some gender component disorders. I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now. It was a choice and like religion they can do what they want at home, or in their gay places of worship. Don’t bring it into my life thanks.

Do you know how much time and effort you could have saved yourself, and still got the same message across, if you’d simply typed ‘I don’t really know anything about sexuality or sex theory’ and been done with it? Just sayin’.

Ghettosmurf8712:16 pm 23 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Honestly, what does it matter what people do in their private lives? Are you going around shaking genitals with everyone you meet?

There is zero basis for denying something that has absolutely zero impact on you.

WRONG. This is the bit that irks me. I’m fine with people doing what they want, whenever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, but when they make it a national legal argument, to bring it out into the open for everyone to hear, that is what makes it impact on me. I have to now explain to my children what gay means, what gay marriage means [for which I still haven’t got an answer to my previous question – what’s going to be different between a civil union and a gay marriage?].
Bringing all your gay beliefs into society as a topic of discussion amongst the entire country HAS made an impact on me, because it affects my life. Had it been kept in the closet, I wouldn’t have issue with it one iota.
I think my genetics have made me a lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity. It’s not my fault, I was born this way. Can I get a ruling that says I can’t work, because I was born lazy, so I can get legal recognition as a disabled person and bludge for the rest of my life?
Here’s a good one for ya. Prove your gay! Where is the scientific evidence that shows you are prone to homosexuality? Is it because of your genetics, the way you were born, or what you do in your life? Actions determine who we are, choices are made before we do these actions. People aren’t born gay, unless they have some gender component disorders. I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now. It was a choice and like religion they can do what they want at home, or in their gay places of worship. Don’t bring it into my life thanks.

Can someone please repeal the freedom of religious expression? I don’t want to have to discuss with my children why some people are allowed to persecute minorities whose actions don’t reflect the beliefs they hold.

Woe is me for having to now explain things to children. The birds and the bees discussion was hard enough. I mean come on guys, sex is icky at the best of times and should only ever occur to produce children….but now I also have to explain gay sex? Too far for me! I don’t want to teach my children anything controversial or hard to stomach. Life is all just roses and candy floss

wildturkeycanoe said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Honestly, what does it matter what people do in their private lives? Are you going around shaking genitals with everyone you meet?

There is zero basis for denying something that has absolutely zero impact on you.

WRONG. This is the bit that irks me. I’m fine with people doing what they want, whenever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, but when they make it a national legal argument, to bring it out into the open for everyone to hear, that is what makes it impact on me. I have to now explain to my children what gay means, what gay marriage means [for which I still haven’t got an answer to my previous question – what’s going to be different between a civil union and a gay marriage?].
Bringing all your gay beliefs into society as a topic of discussion amongst the entire country HAS made an impact on me, because it affects my life. Had it been kept in the closet, I wouldn’t have issue with it one iota.
I think my genetics have made me a lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity. It’s not my fault, I was born this way. Can I get a ruling that says I can’t work, because I was born lazy, so I can get legal recognition as a disabled person and bludge for the rest of my life?
Here’s a good one for ya. Prove your gay! Where is the scientific evidence that shows you are prone to homosexuality? Is it because of your genetics, the way you were born, or what you do in your life? Actions determine who we are, choices are made before we do these actions. People aren’t born gay, unless they have some gender component disorders. I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now. It was a choice and like religion they can do what they want at home, or in their gay places of worship. Don’t bring it into my life thanks.

So your gripe is, you don’t want to explain it to your kids. Seriously that is your issue. To think I have to explain to children why religion is bad for them, because they believe in hiding stuff away that they are not strong enough morally to deal with. Or they make things up because it makes them feel better. But I don’t complain about that. I just move on with life, happy knowing I’m living a fruitful and good life.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Honestly, what does it matter what people do in their private lives? Are you going around shaking genitals with everyone you meet?

There is zero basis for denying something that has absolutely zero impact on you.

WRONG. This is the bit that irks me. I’m fine with people doing what they want, whenever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, but when they make it a national legal argument, to bring it out into the open for everyone to hear, that is what makes it impact on me. I have to now explain to my children what gay means, what gay marriage means [for which I still haven’t got an answer to my previous question – what’s going to be different between a civil union and a gay marriage?].
Bringing all your gay beliefs into society as a topic of discussion amongst the entire country HAS made an impact on me, because it affects my life. Had it been kept in the closet, I wouldn’t have issue with it one iota.
I think my genetics have made me a lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity. It’s not my fault, I was born this way. Can I get a ruling that says I can’t work, because I was born lazy, so I can get legal recognition as a disabled person and bludge for the rest of my life?
Here’s a good one for ya. Prove your gay! Where is the scientific evidence that shows you are prone to homosexuality? Is it because of your genetics, the way you were born, or what you do in your life? Actions determine who we are, choices are made before we do these actions. People aren’t born gay, unless they have some gender component disorders. I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now. It was a choice and like religion they can do what they want at home, or in their gay places of worship. Don’t bring it into my life thanks.

You confuse ‘affects’ with ‘dont like’. So try again.

Do you honestly think that Jesus would be cool and proud with your attitude or are you one of those people that twist Jesus into a homo hating, racist who lectures the poor for being poor and shuns the sick?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Honestly, what does it matter what people do in their private lives? Are you going around shaking genitals with everyone you meet?

There is zero basis for denying something that has absolutely zero impact on you.

WRONG. This is the bit that irks me. I’m fine with people doing what they want, whenever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, but when they make it a national legal argument, to bring it out into the open for everyone to hear, that is what makes it impact on me. I have to now explain to my children what gay means, what gay marriage means [for which I still haven’t got an answer to my previous question – what’s going to be different between a civil union and a gay marriage?].
Bringing all your gay beliefs into society as a topic of discussion amongst the entire country HAS made an impact on me, because it affects my life. Had it been kept in the closet, I wouldn’t have issue with it one iota.
I think my genetics have made me a lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity. It’s not my fault, I was born this way. Can I get a ruling that says I can’t work, because I was born lazy, so I can get legal recognition as a disabled person and bludge for the rest of my life?
Here’s a good one for ya. Prove your gay! Where is the scientific evidence that shows you are prone to homosexuality? Is it because of your genetics, the way you were born, or what you do in your life? Actions determine who we are, choices are made before we do these actions. People aren’t born gay, unless they have some gender component disorders. I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now. It was a choice and like religion they can do what they want at home, or in their gay places of worship. Don’t bring it into my life thanks.

Then change channels or turn off the computer or TV. Or are your neighbours discussing the finer points of felching with megaphones? I admit that would be disconcerting.

Otherwise, you are consuming information in spite of yourself. What’s happening in Brunei right now? if you don’t know it’s because you’re not interested. It’s still in the news. There is no conversation being rammed into you, so to speak, except the one you allow.

house_husband11:49 am 23 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

I have to now explain to my children what gay means, what gay marriage means
.

I hear you. For years I’ve been trying to explain to my children that some people have imaginary friends that they claim are omnipotent but they just don’t buy it. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were an easier sell.

wildturkeycanoe said :

what’s going to be different between a civil union and a gay marriage?

Excellent question.

How about you tell me the answer?

If you think there is no difference then does that mean you have no problem with both gay and hetro marriage being banned and all marriages instead just being civil unions?

If you would not be happy with hetro people being unable to get married, then why?

What difference would it make to a hetro person if their union is legally recognised as a marriage?

Explain to me why hetro people should be allowed to marry (don’t forget hetro atheists can also marry, as can hetro sterile people), then simply apply that same logic to gay people.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Honestly, what does it matter what people do in their private lives? Are you going around shaking genitals with everyone you meet?

There is zero basis for denying something that has absolutely zero impact on you.

WRONG. This is the bit that irks me. I’m fine with people doing what they want, whenever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, but when they make it a national legal argument, to bring it out into the open for everyone to hear, that is what makes it impact on me. I have to now explain to my children what gay means, what gay marriage means [for which I still haven’t got an answer to my previous question – what’s going to be different between a civil union and a gay marriage?].
Bringing all your gay beliefs into society as a topic of discussion amongst the entire country HAS made an impact on me, because it affects my life. Had it been kept in the closet, I wouldn’t have issue with it one iota.
I think my genetics have made me a lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity. It’s not my fault, I was born this way. Can I get a ruling that says I can’t work, because I was born lazy, so I can get legal recognition as a disabled person and bludge for the rest of my life?
Here’s a good one for ya. Prove your gay! Where is the scientific evidence that shows you are prone to homosexuality? Is it because of your genetics, the way you were born, or what you do in your life? Actions determine who we are, choices are made before we do these actions. People aren’t born gay, unless they have some gender component disorders. I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now. It was a choice and like religion they can do what they want at home, or in their gay places of worship. Don’t bring it into my life thanks.

This just keeps getting better!

:popcorn:

lololo buttseks.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I think my genetics have made me a lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity.

I don’t think you can blame it all on genetics. I think you have to work pretty hard at it.

wildturkeycanoe11:27 am 23 Oct 13

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Honestly, what does it matter what people do in their private lives? Are you going around shaking genitals with everyone you meet?

There is zero basis for denying something that has absolutely zero impact on you.

WRONG. This is the bit that irks me. I’m fine with people doing what they want, whenever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, but when they make it a national legal argument, to bring it out into the open for everyone to hear, that is what makes it impact on me. I have to now explain to my children what gay means, what gay marriage means [for which I still haven’t got an answer to my previous question – what’s going to be different between a civil union and a gay marriage?].
Bringing all your gay beliefs into society as a topic of discussion amongst the entire country HAS made an impact on me, because it affects my life. Had it been kept in the closet, I wouldn’t have issue with it one iota.
I think my genetics have made me a lazy, good for nothing, non-contributing member of humanity. It’s not my fault, I was born this way. Can I get a ruling that says I can’t work, because I was born lazy, so I can get legal recognition as a disabled person and bludge for the rest of my life?
Here’s a good one for ya. Prove your gay! Where is the scientific evidence that shows you are prone to homosexuality? Is it because of your genetics, the way you were born, or what you do in your life? Actions determine who we are, choices are made before we do these actions. People aren’t born gay, unless they have some gender component disorders. I know gay people, they weren’t gay back in high school, but they are now. It was a choice and like religion they can do what they want at home, or in their gay places of worship. Don’t bring it into my life thanks.

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Honestly, what does it matter what people do in their private lives? Are you going around shaking genitals with everyone you meet?

There is zero basis for denying something that has absolutely zero impact on you.

Ghettosmurf879:43 am 23 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Ah … that’s a good one. The old ‘homosexuality is icky’ argument.

Stay classy!

Not only is it icky…..but I’ve heard that no heterosexuals have ever had bum sex either……and none of those heterosexuals believed in God either….

Oh wait, something I said isn’t quite true….

Watch out, now kids are going to marry their parents and their pets and the family unit will collapse into nothingness and all those poor kids born anywhere in the world will be mentally scarred during the apocalypse

WildTurkey

I’m not one for the religious/anti religious debate, it’s not something that really takes up to much of my life.

But, how is it that many “Christian Ceremonies” take place around Pagan Ceremonies and are quite similar?

Ancient Rome did not follow Christian belief’s (I think because Christianity did not really exist back then? I may be wrong), they had laws against murder, theft and other traditions that surround how people should go about their lives including marriage.

I think your argument about laws stemming from religion is very one tracked, it appears that religious commandments stem from tradition.

You don’t believe in Atoms, yet people can take photo’s of Atoms? Good luck with your beliefs, just don’t think that people should bow to your every whim, like slavery, the way of the church being the most powerful entity in the world is in the past.

Darkfalz said :

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

Ah … that’s a good one. The old ‘homosexuality is icky’ argument.

Stay classy!

wildturkeycanoe said :

watto23 said :

I personally find the fact people waste their life believing in things that cannot be proven quite sad. However i’m happy for you to believe what you want. Just don’t try and tell the rest of us that what we are doing is wrong.

So, it’s okay for all you guys to tell me what I believe is wrong but I can’t say the same to you? What makes you more right than I am?
As to the debate about gay marriage, if I’m the only one who is against it, why has it been so hard to get through as legislation?
Proof! Everyone wants proof to believe in something. “Oh, look, this fossilized fish has bones similar to ours and so do these birds, we must have evolved from them thousands of years ago!” Yeah, well my flat screen TV looks like the painting of the Mona Lisa, so it must have evolved from it too. Nothing can be ultimately proven to be true in life no matter how much evidence you can conjure up. It’s all theory, some of it convincing, but you have to have some portion of trust that what you are being shown is real and true. We still can’t see atoms, but with the use of microscopes science shows us what they look like. North Koreans believe that their country is the most powerful in the world, only because their television sets show propaganda to prove it. If you aren’t given all the facts, or alternate theories to consider, isn’t that just brainwashing?
I suppose all you science believers also think “Dynamo” does real magic too. It must be real because the people on the show are gasping in amazement and they are real.

What a sad post: the Christian taking masochistic pleasure in his his “martyrdom”, and then arguing against his accusers by clumsily using the very cultural relativism he spurns, before finally again appealing to faith (this time, in the guise of ‘trust’).

wildturkeycanoe6:46 am 23 Oct 13

watto23 said :

I personally find the fact people waste their life believing in things that cannot be proven quite sad. However i’m happy for you to believe what you want. Just don’t try and tell the rest of us that what we are doing is wrong.

So, it’s okay for all you guys to tell me what I believe is wrong but I can’t say the same to you? What makes you more right than I am?
As to the debate about gay marriage, if I’m the only one who is against it, why has it been so hard to get through as legislation?
Proof! Everyone wants proof to believe in something. “Oh, look, this fossilized fish has bones similar to ours and so do these birds, we must have evolved from them thousands of years ago!” Yeah, well my flat screen TV looks like the painting of the Mona Lisa, so it must have evolved from it too. Nothing can be ultimately proven to be true in life no matter how much evidence you can conjure up. It’s all theory, some of it convincing, but you have to have some portion of trust that what you are being shown is real and true. We still can’t see atoms, but with the use of microscopes science shows us what they look like. North Koreans believe that their country is the most powerful in the world, only because their television sets show propaganda to prove it. If you aren’t given all the facts, or alternate theories to consider, isn’t that just brainwashing?
I suppose all you science believers also think “Dynamo” does real magic too. It must be real because the people on the show are gasping in amazement and they are real.

CrocodileGandhi said :

And we didn’t really evolve from apes, so much as we ARE apes. The only schools teaching alternative theories to evolution are either pitifully stupid or actively lying to the children that attend them.

Pretty sure we evolved from male and female apes, not gay ones. What’s always amused me is that we can look back in time at primitive man and know we’re more clever than him, but refuse to believe that other modern humans, evolving in different geography with different evolutionary pressures, could possibly be different from each other than cosmetically. That those who most proudly believe in evolution also believe in a militantly enforced version of egalitarianism, which is essentially a refusal to believe in evolution.

Back to the main topic. Sky god or thinking the thing you go to the toilet out of is a good place to put your johnson. Which is the more objectionable belief?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Can you prove the age of a rock, any more than I can prove a miracle? It all takes faith.

I can pick up a rock. I can look at a rock. I can give the rock to someone else, who can look at it. I can take all sorts of measurements about that rock, including the amount of various isotopes that occur within that rock. Someone else can take the same measurements as I. I can take the same measurements on different rocks, and compare them to measurements of other rocks. At every stage in measuring the age of a rock, there is a physically demonstrable characteristic I can show someone else.
(Of course this is predicated on the assumption that I haven’t imagined the entire fabric of existence. I can’t test that assumption, but given the alternative, I think I’m safe.)

I can’t physically demonstrate to another person the presence of a being, who by it’s very definition, is outside of existence. I certainly couldn’t then presume to tell other people that their lives should be governed by this supernatural being that might very well occur only in my imagination (as all of you might).

krome said :

I’m not too worried about this group guys. I think Arnold Cummins and Pastor BJ Hayes are gay infiltrators.

Obviously. 🙂

I mean, a Mormon religious person (pastor/vicar/padre/whatever) named…keep a straight face here…Cummins!!

And seriously…a Pastor whose initials are…get this…BJ!!

Bwahahahahah!!

The way these blokes have adopted joke names and infiltrated the religious nutters is one of the best pieces of work I’ve ever seen.

Before you know it we’ll have Father H. Andjob joining in with this crew with his mate Rabbi B. Lowjob . 🙂

What?

2 consenting adults, who love each other, who happen to be the same sex getting married?

No no no no, we can’t have that. Especially when a questionable book they probably don’t believe in or follow anyway says they can’t. We believe in this religion, we must make them live to our ways. No marriage for them!

(Totally facetious in case of any confusion).

George Michael had Faith-a-faith-a-faith.

He gay.

Is God punishing us by unleashing a ridiculous number of trolls?

My favourite is morticia. Scared of commies, critical thinking, poofs and dogs that aren’t poodles.

I’m not too worried about this group guys. I think Arnold Cummins and Pastor BJ Hayes are gay infiltrators.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Apparently if I believe in little tiny things that I can’t see spinning in orbits around other little tiny things I can’t see, I am not insane. C’mon people, it takes more faith to believe in science than it does to believe in one almighty God who created all this we live in. If one person here can tell me where all those million year old rocks come from with evidence that you can prove in front of me, I’m willing to listen. Most of science is based on best guesses of the scientist of the day. It is purely based on an assumption that relies on another assumption. We still don’t understand the principle of time and how it has worked throughout the universe and you tell me to trust that a rock is millions of years old? For all we know fairies are real, but nobody has worked out how to capture one and until they do, it will remain a myth. Million year old rocks and a concept of evolution doesn’t help me sleep better at night, knowing my life will be wasted into the nothingness of being here a fraction of a fraction of infinity. Having faith in an afterlife though, knowing what will happen beyond death is so much more worthwhile.
Until then, I’m sticking to what I wasn’t brought up believing but what I chose to make my faith later in life from witnesses and personal experiences.
What personal experiences have these rocks given you lately?

So you believe in God because the fact that there’s no inherent reason for us to be here and the idea that once you die you’re dead forever and that no matter how great your accomplishments in life, you were ultimately just an unimportant cog in the machinery of the Universe and will one day be entirely forgotten and leave no evidence left of your existence scares you s***less?

It scares me s***less too, but you should at least have the intellectual integrity to admit that your obstinate refusal to accept indisputable facts, and your misplaced fear of homosexuality are a result of cowardice as opposed to any kind of empirical evidence.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Apparently if I believe in little tiny things that I can’t see spinning in orbits around other little tiny things I can’t see, I am not insane. C’mon people, it takes more faith to believe in science than it does to believe in one almighty God who created all this we live in. If one person here can tell me where all those million year old rocks come from with evidence that you can prove in front of me, I’m willing to listen. Most of science is based on best guesses of the scientist of the day. It is purely based on an assumption that relies on another assumption. We still don’t understand the principle of time and how it has worked throughout the universe and you tell me to trust that a rock is millions of years old? For all we know fairies are real, but nobody has worked out how to capture one and until they do, it will remain a myth. Million year old rocks and a concept of evolution doesn’t help me sleep better at night, knowing my life will be wasted into the nothingness of being here a fraction of a fraction of infinity. Having faith in an afterlife though, knowing what will happen beyond death is so much more worthwhile.
Until then, I’m sticking to what I wasn’t brought up believing but what I chose to make my faith later in life from witnesses and personal experiences.
What personal experiences have these rocks given you lately?

I personally find the fact people waste their life believing in things that cannot be proven quite sad. Instead I choose to live my life, making the most of it everyday, trying new things, seeing the world, experiencing everything there is and not being limited to a narrow minded view of the world that a religious faith puts on me. Besides no one had been able to prove there is an afterlife or even how it would work, so rather than waiting for that to occur, i’m willing to risk my life on the life I have now and make the most of it until the day I die.

The only thing that religion has shown to do is uneducate the masses so they can be controlled.
Back when people hadn’t worked out the world was round or that the earth moves around the sun. they had no idea how many things happened, many religions believed that gods controlled the weather. I’m assuming you no longer think that.

However i’m happy for you to believe what you want. Just don’t try and tell the rest of us that what we are doing is wrong.

johnboy said :

It is, however, fascinating that repudiating gay marriage leads, apparently, to a repudiation of science, of learning, of not being stupid.

Actually, this Nigerian uni student has used science to prove that homosexuality is wrong. Something to do with the poles of magnets. If the ANU is the University of East Bumcrack, what name should we give this uni and its research?
http://www.starobserver.com.au/the-beat/nigerian-student-disproves-homosexuality-with-magnets/109605

johnboy said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Can you prove the age of a rock, any more than I can prove a miracle? It all takes faith.

Are you really that dumb? If so you need to stop expressing your opinions….There is no faith required.

The science must have moved on since my undergraduate archeological chemistry and geology days, but then, it was quite a while ago.

Fairly convincing evidence atomic theory is onto something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEo-pX6x5Mc

You have the theory, it suggests possible outcomes. You test the outcomes. The theory has predicted behaviours *KABOOM*.

Faith does not do this.

Nuclear bombs however, work, because atoms are real.

It is, however, fascinating that repudiating gay marriage leads, apparently, to a repudiation of science, of learning, of not being stupid.

wildturkeycanoe4:29 pm 22 Oct 13

Apparently if I believe in little tiny things that I can’t see spinning in orbits around other little tiny things I can’t see, I am not insane. C’mon people, it takes more faith to believe in science than it does to believe in one almighty God who created all this we live in. If one person here can tell me where all those million year old rocks come from with evidence that you can prove in front of me, I’m willing to listen. Most of science is based on best guesses of the scientist of the day. It is purely based on an assumption that relies on another assumption. We still don’t understand the principle of time and how it has worked throughout the universe and you tell me to trust that a rock is millions of years old? For all we know fairies are real, but nobody has worked out how to capture one and until they do, it will remain a myth. Million year old rocks and a concept of evolution doesn’t help me sleep better at night, knowing my life will be wasted into the nothingness of being here a fraction of a fraction of infinity. Having faith in an afterlife though, knowing what will happen beyond death is so much more worthwhile.
Until then, I’m sticking to what I wasn’t brought up believing but what I chose to make my faith later in life from witnesses and personal experiences.
What personal experiences have these rocks given you lately?

CrocodileGandhi3:14 pm 22 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref – “Another example, if one were needed, of the frightening power and effectiveness of brainwashing children – IMO a more insidious form of child abuse than that which has occupied the headlines for so many years.”
I could counter that by saying that teaching kids at school that the earth is millions of years old, that we evolved from apes and that having two daddies is normal is also brainwashing. Do they teach alternative theories to all these? Depends on the school…

There are no alternative theories.

There are lots and lots of fairy tales, all different, but not one of them is a theory.

It’s good for schools to read fairy tales to children; it’s not good to pretend that those fairy tales are true.

Can you prove the age of a rock, any more than I can prove a miracle? It all takes faith.

Seriously? The several dating methods available are testable and consistently reliable. And we didn’t really evolve from apes, so much as we ARE apes. The only schools teaching alternative theories to evolution are either pitifully stupid or actively lying to the children that attend them.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref – “Another example, if one were needed, of the frightening power and effectiveness of brainwashing children – IMO a more insidious form of child abuse than that which has occupied the headlines for so many years.”
I could counter that by saying that teaching kids at school that the earth is millions of years old, that we evolved from apes and that having two daddies is normal is also brainwashing. Do they teach alternative theories to all these? Depends on the school…

There are no alternative theories.

There are lots and lots of fairy tales, all different, but not one of them is a theory.

It’s good for schools to read fairy tales to children; it’s not good to pretend that those fairy tales are true.

Can you prove the age of a rock, any more than I can prove a miracle? It all takes faith.

Trolling in a thread like this, dealing with human rights and discrimination, is uncouth.

In fact, WTC, you might be interested to know that the oldest rock ever found on Earth was discovered in Australia (W.A, iirc) and is 4.1 billion years old.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Can you prove the age of a rock, any more than I can prove a miracle?

Of course I can. Here’s one of the ways.

Now please demonstrate your proof of miracles.

wildturkeycanoe said :

It all takes faith.

I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that you’re a troll.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Can you prove the age of a rock, any more than I can prove a miracle? It all takes faith.

Are you really that dumb? If so you need to stop expressing your opinions.

Multiple methods can be used to check the dating of a rock, and the outputs can be checked against the rock’s placement in the geological strata.

There is no faith required.

wildturkeycanoe2:33 pm 22 Oct 13

Deref said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref – “Another example, if one were needed, of the frightening power and effectiveness of brainwashing children – IMO a more insidious form of child abuse than that which has occupied the headlines for so many years.”
I could counter that by saying that teaching kids at school that the earth is millions of years old, that we evolved from apes and that having two daddies is normal is also brainwashing. Do they teach alternative theories to all these? Depends on the school…

There are no alternative theories.

There are lots and lots of fairy tales, all different, but not one of them is a theory.

It’s good for schools to read fairy tales to children; it’s not good to pretend that those fairy tales are true.

Can you prove the age of a rock, any more than I can prove a miracle? It all takes faith.

A few posts here have tried to argue that the majority of Australians don’t support recognition of same sex marriage. So let’s put that one to bed (if you’ll pardon the expression):
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/morgan-poll-may-27-201305270621 (scroll to the italicised bit about a quarter of the way down)
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=spla/bill%20marriage/survey.htm
– and I understand Galaxy did a poll and found 64% in favour – but finding old stuff on their website is a bit of a nightmare).

Guess you could discount any one of these on various technicalities, but when all three come in at very similar figures, surely the idea can’t be too ‘out there’ that near-enough two-thirds of Australians are, in fact, broadly in favour. So, Grimm, I think we can be fairly sure who the real squeaky wheel is – there’s a list of names in the original post that you can start with.

As for wildturkeycanoe’s question of ‘why then did Abbott win the election ?’ – yeah, beats me too. Apparently, it had something to do with us all calling asylum seekers by the wrong name, or something like that.

Also, agree with housebound back at #30 – while I also find this fundamentalist christian stuff highly distasteful, slinging around insults kinda gets us nowhere. Their popularity has never looked back since the whole being-fed-to-lions thing so, while I share the frustration, abuse probably only ends up as encouragement.

Common sense will prevail on this issue (easy for me to say as a old(ish), straight ‘bloke’), and that will be a day for celebration.

Grimm said :

Cantabile said :

as long as the majoritys wishes to get this sorted and Australia-wide then occurs pronto so we can get on with things and stop faffing about.

And I think the majority either don’t care, or are opposed.

Yes – your “I think” is always so much more intellectually rigorous than all the surveys and polling that have already been done on the issue and repeatedly demonstrated that the majority of Australians are pro-gay marriage.

The Australian ‘Christian’ Lobby – the christian version of eHarmony: bringing like-minded, intolerant bigots together.

Cantabile said :

as long as the majoritys wishes to get this sorted and Australia-wide then occurs pronto so we can get on with things and stop faffing about.

And I think the majority either don’t care, or are opposed. The gay marriage brigade are simply a squeaky wheel. I can’t believe the amount of time and money being wasted on it, honestly. But yeah, lets hold a referendum and see which side the majority actually are on. I think the squeaky wheel will be very, very disappointed.

I couldn’t care less about who wants to marry who or what, but I’m sure as hell sick of hearing about it.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Can somebody please explain what REAL benefit gay marriage has over the current recognised status that gay people have in terms of the law?

None at all, other than making a scene and sticking it to religious groups. I’m usually all for annoying fundies, but this issue is just getting too old and tired for it to even be amusing anymore. If the majority of the country were so in favor of gay marriage, the law would have already been changed. As I said, I think you’ll find the vast, vast majority just don’t give a shit either way. The vocal minority on both sides are probably split 50/50.

rosscoact said :

Deref said :

Not sure that I could agree on that point. Both religions and the proposition that there is no God are all theories. Nobody has or can prove otherwise

You are making the common mistake of confusing the term ‘scientific theory’ with the common usage of the word ‘theory’

‘Scientific theory’ is the most reliable, rigorous and comprehensive form of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

This is significantly different from the word ‘theory’ in general usage which means hat something is unsubstantiated or speculative.

It is a huge difference and one which regularly confuses the issue.

HiddenDragon12:38 pm 22 Oct 13

Erg0 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.

I only believe in the marriage of religion and politics if both antidisestablishmentarianists are hot.

Kudos, of the most awesomely polysyllabic variety.

HiddenDragon12:35 pm 22 Oct 13

The fairly unsurprising inclusion of the Anglicans reminds me it was not so long ago that then Archbishop Jensen was publicly musing about looking to Nigeria, rather than Lambeth Palace, for guidance on this vexed issue.

thebrownstreak6912:33 pm 22 Oct 13

poetix said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

poetix said :

I think those comments are far less offensive than what the group is saying.

To focus on the Christians, it’s as if they would prefer a Christianity without Christ, who was not a conservative, and taught that acceptance of all, and following his example (as much as possible), is more important than anything else. The Canberra and Goulburn Diocese of the Anglican Church is, in general, relatively progressive (a woman Bishop and all), so what they are doing here is beyond me. The matter under discussion is recognition of gay marriage by the State, not insisting that a religion perform such a marriage. (Many Anglicans would be happy to see gay marriages being held in church, but that’s not the issue here.)

I think ‘idiot’ is restrained, actually.

In the spirit of advancing the debate, I’m curious as to how you reconcile the concepts of acceptance of people (which is central to Jesus teaching and actions) with condoning sinfulness (homosexuality is described as such at three places within the New Testament), which is what gay marriage in a religious context really is. My understanding is that Jesus teaches us to accept everyone, but to turn away from our sinful nature.

Frankly, I’m struggling a bit to work our how to put this together in the modern context. What is your opinion on this?

(For the rest of us, how about we suspend the name calling for a minute, as I think Poetix might have some interesting insights for us here).

I’m not any good at talking about religion, especially when I’m angry, but I liked this article and the position expressed in it, by a person who is not a theologian:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/12/02/3382170.htm

Personally, I think sin (not a word I would usually use) is being cruel or using other people selfishly, which has nothing to do with sexual preference.

Thankyou for that. I hope you can have a think about this and maybe respond again at some point in the future.

Part of the problem I have with this debate is separating the concepts of ‘acceptance’ and ‘condoning’. So far I haven’t had many responses that really address this, and I suspect a lot of Christians are in the same boat.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.

I only believe in the marriage of religion and politics if both antidisestablishmentarianists are hot.

thebrownstreak69 said :

poetix said :

I think those comments are far less offensive than what the group is saying.

To focus on the Christians, it’s as if they would prefer a Christianity without Christ, who was not a conservative, and taught that acceptance of all, and following his example (as much as possible), is more important than anything else. The Canberra and Goulburn Diocese of the Anglican Church is, in general, relatively progressive (a woman Bishop and all), so what they are doing here is beyond me. The matter under discussion is recognition of gay marriage by the State, not insisting that a religion perform such a marriage. (Many Anglicans would be happy to see gay marriages being held in church, but that’s not the issue here.)

I think ‘idiot’ is restrained, actually.

In the spirit of advancing the debate, I’m curious as to how you reconcile the concepts of acceptance of people (which is central to Jesus teaching and actions) with condoning sinfulness (homosexuality is described as such at three places within the New Testament), which is what gay marriage in a religious context really is. My understanding is that Jesus teaches us to accept everyone, but to turn away from our sinful nature.

Frankly, I’m struggling a bit to work our how to put this together in the modern context. What is your opinion on this?

(For the rest of us, how about we suspend the name calling for a minute, as I think Poetix might have some interesting insights for us here).

I’m not any good at talking about religion, especially when I’m angry, but I liked this article and the position expressed in it, by a person who is not a theologian:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/12/02/3382170.htm

Personally, I think sin (not a word I would usually use) is being cruel or using other people selfishly, which has nothing to do with sexual preference.

house_husband12:16 pm 22 Oct 13

house_husband said :

should have the right to chose the person they wish to have a lifelong intimidate relationship with.

Oops, should be intimate. Although as Freudian slips go it applies to both hetero and homo relationships!

Deref said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref – “Another example, if one were needed, of the frightening power and effectiveness of brainwashing children – IMO a more insidious form of child abuse than that which has occupied the headlines for so many years.”
I could counter that by saying that teaching kids at school that the earth is millions of years old, that we evolved from apes and that having two daddies is normal is also brainwashing. Do they teach alternative theories to all these? Depends on the school…

There are no alternative theories.

There are lots and lots of fairy tales, all different, but not one of them is a theory.

It’s good for schools to read fairy tales to children; it’s not good to pretend that those fairy tales are true.

Not sure that I could agree on that point. Both religions and the proposition that there is no God are all theories. Nobody has or can prove otherwise

Worthwhile theories predict testable outcomes.

While self-identifying as a Christian I’ll be the first to admit it’s not great as theories go.

John Stuart Mill “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”

house_husband11:54 am 22 Oct 13

I’m still struggling to understand what the “long term risks” are if we allow gay marriage? Can someone please tell me what hideous things will happen? When my gay friends visit should I hide my children or take out extra house insurance?

Consenting adults who do thing like pay taxes, fight for their country, volunteer to help the needy, etc should have the right to chose the person they wish to have a lifelong intimidate relationship with.

The fact that may upset certain religions, no matter how much they think they have contributed to the foundation of our laws, is not reason enough to deny them that opportunity. Religious institutions have every right to express their view, but surely they can’t assume that every tenant of their faith must apply to the rest of us in society?

For the very little it’s worth the foundation of our law comes out of pagan germany.

pink little birdie11:48 am 22 Oct 13

Gay couples are taxed and centrelink assessed for everything as though they are married. If the government wants to do that they should give them the option to get married. If not tax them as individuals not couples- that would lower the tax take and increase centrelink payment though.

There are some next of kin laws, super laws and power of attorney laws that are still outstanding.

People would stop caring if civil unions provided the legal status as marriage but they don’t (and straight people would choose get civil unioned instead of married).

wildturkeycanoe said :

poetix said :

housebound said :

Two points:
Good on you JB for publishing the statement, especially given your obvious disagreement with it. It’s called balanced reporting – the Canberra Times could learn from you. It’s the reason we all keep coming back here for our news.
It’s ok to disagre, but if the religious vilification laws had been brought into the ACT (as the ALP once proposed), some of the comments on this thread wouldn’t be there – starting with ‘sky god’, then moving to ‘idiot’, ‘bigots’, ‘we can point at them and laugh’, ‘biggest dirtbags in Canberra’, ‘The sooner old fogey wowsers like you die out the better’.

I think those comments are far less offensive than what the group is saying.

To focus on the Christians, it’s as if they would prefer a Christianity without Christ, who was not a conservative, and taught that acceptance of all, and following his example (as much as possible), is more important than anything else. The Canberra and Goulburn Diocese of the Anglican Church is, in general, relatively progressive (a woman Bishop and all), so what they are doing here is beyond me. The matter under discussion is recognition of gay marriage by the State, not insisting that a religion perform such a marriage. (Many Anglicans would be happy to see gay marriages being held in church, but that’s not the issue here.)

I think ‘idiot’ is restrained, actually.

Can somebody please explain what REAL benefit gay marriage has over the current recognised status that gay people have in terms of the law? From what I can see, it is all just “feel good” stuff, that makes them able to wave a piece of paper saying “I’m married!” but offers no real advantages above that.
If laws are passed that give these rights to gay couples, who is to stop them from laying law suits against the various religions because they won’t marry the two people? It just opens the doors for a change in religious doctrines because the law says they have to. Can anyone guarantee this won’t happen?

Gay marriage will not affect you one iota.

thebrownstreak6911:45 am 22 Oct 13

poetix said :

I think those comments are far less offensive than what the group is saying.

To focus on the Christians, it’s as if they would prefer a Christianity without Christ, who was not a conservative, and taught that acceptance of all, and following his example (as much as possible), is more important than anything else. The Canberra and Goulburn Diocese of the Anglican Church is, in general, relatively progressive (a woman Bishop and all), so what they are doing here is beyond me. The matter under discussion is recognition of gay marriage by the State, not insisting that a religion perform such a marriage. (Many Anglicans would be happy to see gay marriages being held in church, but that’s not the issue here.)

I think ‘idiot’ is restrained, actually.

In the spirit of advancing the debate, I’m curious as to how you reconcile the concepts of acceptance of people (which is central to Jesus teaching and actions) with condoning sinfulness (homosexuality is described as such at three places within the New Testament), which is what gay marriage in a religious context really is. My understanding is that Jesus teaches us to accept everyone, but to turn away from our sinful nature.

Frankly, I’m struggling a bit to work our how to put this together in the modern context. What is your opinion on this?

(For the rest of us, how about we suspend the name calling for a minute, as I think Poetix might have some interesting insights for us here).

I think we might be looking at this the wrong way. People opposed to same sex marriage often ask why people in such relationships shouldn’t just be happy with what they currently have and why they need to be “married”. Can’t they just use some other word?

Perhaps they have a point. What is so special about the word marriage? Perhaps marriage should be banned for everyone in Australia. Of course they can get together and be joined using what ever ceremony they want, but not married. After all, if the ‘M’ word isn’t important for people in same sex relationships, surely it wouldn’t be important for people in hetro relationships either?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Can somebody please explain what REAL benefit gay marriage has over the current recognised status that gay people have in terms of the law? From what I can see, it is all just “feel good” stuff, that makes them able to wave a piece of paper saying “I’m married!” but offers no real advantages above that.
If laws are passed that give these rights to gay couples, who is to stop them from laying law suits against the various religions because they won’t marry the two people? It just opens the doors for a change in religious doctrines because the law says they have to. Can anyone guarantee this won’t happen?

The point is gay couples can already have kids and can do many things. Giving them equality with regards to getting married is just a decent, human thing to do. I know people who had to be baptised as an adult to get married in a catholic church. Now if someone wanted to they could probably have challenged that in a court anyway. Just because gay people are going to get married doesn’t mean all the worst fears of the religious conservative minority in society will happen.

Religion seems to think everyone should follow them, yet also has this self importance that people want to change their religion. The sooner religion realises, that most people don’t care what your beliefs are, just don’t try to make others follow them the better. I’m perfectly happy for people to believe what they want. I’m not happy for those people to impose their beliefs and values on society because they don’t approve.

I’m all for gay marriage and most people in my situation are quite happy for churches to reserve the right to refuse to marry people, just like they do now on a religion basis anyway.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref – “Another example, if one were needed, of the frightening power and effectiveness of brainwashing children – IMO a more insidious form of child abuse than that which has occupied the headlines for so many years.”
I could counter that by saying that teaching kids at school that the earth is millions of years old, that we evolved from apes and that having two daddies is normal is also brainwashing. Do they teach alternative theories to all these? Depends on the school…

There are no alternative theories.

There are lots and lots of fairy tales, all different, but not one of them is a theory.

It’s good for schools to read fairy tales to children; it’s not good to pretend that those fairy tales are true.

Look WildTurkey, what you are thinking is an uncannily accurate representation of today’s society, the same for which could be written for any period in the past 100 years, as youth (which I consider under 30’s because indoctrination takes many years to wear off after school) will always exhibit such behaviour. But what should concern us more today is the indoctrination of young people that is happening in schools and society to push these extreme views of humanism, moral relativism and disbelief in any absolutes at all. If you peek into the primary, secondary and higher educational school systems in Australian and the US today you’ll see social indoctrination of young minds with these types of confusing dialectic arguments.

These youth can’t think straight, they can’t make up their minds on what’s right or wrong, good or bad, ethical or immoral. They are taught to internally convince themselves that anything goes and that the supposed greater good (communism) is more important than cultural norms, societal norms, morals, ethics, individual freedoms and thinking, while their individual rights are taken away from right underneath them. They push for gay marriage rights, but don’t see other basic rights of privacy, freedom of speech, protest and dissent taken away from them at the very same time – they are hoodwinked easily for the wrong causes. They take instruction from government authority as their basis for truth, they are easily swayed. They argue moral relativism in schools, like when is it ok to kill someone, why is it ok to steal, why are Christians no different to Buddist and other types of religions, resulting in them believing in everything and therefore nothing, they end up confused with no moral basis to live their lives.

Ask this generation a question and watch them try to construct an answer – it’s painful, ask them to make a decision and watch them struggle with weighing up options like it’s some kind of herculean task. That’s probably why they are attracted to the latest cause like gay marriage, the environment, refugees and immigration, they follow what they are told and can’t analyse or think for themselves – not that some of these causes may not be legitimate. When they fail or don’t get their way in anything, they’ll blame the world around them, call names, attack the opposition, play the man and not the ball, all straight from the book of socialism and consensus decision making techniques they’re taught at school.

They are taught that if a group of people end up with a general consensus then it must be true, and they must defend that truth for the greater good. Their cultural, parental or societal norms are discarded for a new age moralism that has indoctrinated them – what some call progressive, but is really just brainwashing. Is it really any wonder this generation and those of the past 20 years have had so many problems staying in the workforce, maintaining jobs and working effectively under an organisational structure. It’s not a coincidence they come out of school and can’t spell, write or calculate mentally, but can argue for gay marriage. I can see some here simply throw a hysterical fit and calling you names, threats of slander, trying to discredit you and therefore taking the emphasis off the argument at hand and redirecting them to play the man. These type of forums become old and predictable after a while. They argue that only their opinion can be correct and debate is not acceptable. Moral relativism in schools these days is probably the biggest threat to our society, look at what it’s done to the US, UK and others. Where it originates from and who pushes it is another issue altogether.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.
Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. It has changed along the way, but without those beginnings who knows what kind of anarchy this world would be in. Eastern cultures have their own laws, also founded in religion.
So my point is, we now have a legal system based on religion, being used to change the laws that religion instituted centuries ago. If those of you out there who are atheists and the like, want this gay marriage thing to go through and become a legal right, you have started the ball rolling for all kinds of things. Imagine if next on the list was using the legal system to change another christian based law, such as “thou shalt not steal”? Let’s suppose we as a people, decided that stealing if you needed something to feed your family was acceptable. Due to public outcry the law was debated at highest levels and eventually passed as new law. Next on the list is……..
The law would eventually become a law unto itself and deviate from its roots, religion. These guys are looking after the integrity of the law. I don’t blame them. We’ve seen the more than gradual degradation of society in the last century, even the last 50 years, with more crass, vile and distasteful behavior becoming acceptable to society. Just look at what’s the norm for our teenage generation at the moment. More flesh for the eyes to see, more violence in our streets [just look at the news or search the word king-hit], foul language and disrespect of pretty much anyone and everything is normal practice. Deviating from religious teachings of love and respect, to ones that deny any responsibility for our own actions, but rather blame it all on society and it’s dreadful state of affairs, is only taking us down a path of depravity and indeed a lack of moral values entirely.
Calling these guys bigots is rich, when the definition of bigotry relates to a fear or prejudice of people based on their religion. Whose calling the kettle black here?
Remove religion from law and what do you base the law on? Morality? But morality is based on behavior, where we want “good” in our society. I think we as a society would fall back on biblical principles to define what is good and even Platonic or Hellenic beliefs have some higher power at their core, as do Eastern cultures.
To summarise my thoughts, scattered as they are with the interruptions I’ve had from my home duties whilst composing this, the intervention of these faith leaders in a both religious and legal dispute is warranted, regardless of how important our society thinks its own views on the subject are. Once we have a majority of this country that believes that there is no good or evil, I can recommend they create a totally new system of governing our actions, based on absolutely nothing at all except the will to survive.

wildturkeycanoe10:57 am 22 Oct 13

poetix said :

housebound said :

Two points:
Good on you JB for publishing the statement, especially given your obvious disagreement with it. It’s called balanced reporting – the Canberra Times could learn from you. It’s the reason we all keep coming back here for our news.
It’s ok to disagre, but if the religious vilification laws had been brought into the ACT (as the ALP once proposed), some of the comments on this thread wouldn’t be there – starting with ‘sky god’, then moving to ‘idiot’, ‘bigots’, ‘we can point at them and laugh’, ‘biggest dirtbags in Canberra’, ‘The sooner old fogey wowsers like you die out the better’.

I think those comments are far less offensive than what the group is saying.

To focus on the Christians, it’s as if they would prefer a Christianity without Christ, who was not a conservative, and taught that acceptance of all, and following his example (as much as possible), is more important than anything else. The Canberra and Goulburn Diocese of the Anglican Church is, in general, relatively progressive (a woman Bishop and all), so what they are doing here is beyond me. The matter under discussion is recognition of gay marriage by the State, not insisting that a religion perform such a marriage. (Many Anglicans would be happy to see gay marriages being held in church, but that’s not the issue here.)

I think ‘idiot’ is restrained, actually.

Can somebody please explain what REAL benefit gay marriage has over the current recognised status that gay people have in terms of the law? From what I can see, it is all just “feel good” stuff, that makes them able to wave a piece of paper saying “I’m married!” but offers no real advantages above that.
If laws are passed that give these rights to gay couples, who is to stop them from laying law suits against the various religions because they won’t marry the two people? It just opens the doors for a change in religious doctrines because the law says they have to. Can anyone guarantee this won’t happen?

A coincidence we had a huge storm this morning on the day the gay marriage bill is coming in?

wildturkeycanoe10:44 am 22 Oct 13

That’s it, looks like immorality has taken over the world and I’m the only one left, apart from the seven folks mentioned in this article, who have a skerrick of faith left.
I love how you all bring up these little facts and misquote stuff –

Grail – “Wow! Are you suggesting that the Greeks had no laws? Maybe the Byzantine empire had no laws too (you know, the empire whose bureaucracy gave rise to the use of “Byzantine” to describe a complex system of rules that was impossible for outsiders to understand)? Because according to you, laws didn’t exist until the Roman Empire discovered Jesus.”
When did I say Greeks had no laws or that laws didn’t exist until Christ? DID YOU READ MY COMMENT!!! I said “OUR legal system – BASED on Roman Catholic religion, but not exclusively without input from the other sources I mentioned, which may include Greek philosophy such as Plato, which I also mentioned. Are you just forming an opinion and making up a reply before you actually read something, driven by emotion and the desire to be heard? Who looks like an idiot now?

Deref – “Another example, if one were needed, of the frightening power and effectiveness of brainwashing children – IMO a more insidious form of child abuse than that which has occupied the headlines for so many years.”
I could counter that by saying that teaching kids at school that the earth is millions of years old, that we evolved from apes and that having two daddies is normal is also brainwashing. Do they teach alternative theories to all these? Depends on the school…

It seems religion and atheism have met each other in full force over this issue. I appear to be outnumbered, but will not stay silent as I have a right to speak my mind about the subject, as much as anyone else living in our free land.

To end this session I pose a question to all of you who think that 60-70% of Australians are for gay marriage and a majority would want to win this battle if it was so important. Why did Tony Abbot win the election???? Conservative Christian leader – suck up the truth folks. We are predominately Christians.

Arch Bishop Tutu – one of the most amazing famous people in the world in my humble opinion, and a religious person said he “would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven” and instead choose “the other place.” Maybe some of these fundamentalists could follow this person’s lead

wildturkeycanoe said :

Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. It has changed along the way, but without those beginnings who knows what kind of anarchy this world would be in. Eastern cultures have their own laws, also founded in religion.

The laws in the babble were copied from the Code of Hammurabi even the eye for an eye stuff, and especially the slavery stuff, why aren’t you lobbying to bring slavery back?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

As for the Eastern countries – corruption, slavery, the treatment of women, human rights violatoins – I much prefer the more secular freedom of Australia thanks. Yes we still have the religious who are determined to force their rules on the non-believers ( why exactly? Aren’t religious laws only for the people who believe in them? ) but overall in theory everyone’s treated basically the same, despite being a woman I can own property just like the blokes can, can walk the street without requiring a male chaperone, and shock horror – I can even drive a car!

As for any links between your favoured fairy story and law, isn’t the Vatican the most Catholic place in the world and has the highest crime rate at 1.5 crimes per citizen? Is there any correlation between quality of life and the extent of religious interference in law that doesn’t make atheism look good?

So definitely bring in laws that allow complete uniformity legally for marriage between two people regardlless of plumbing, that’s more in tune with the Australian way than following a book that says slavery and homicide are ok as long as the victims aren’t from your tribe. You got used to equal rights for non-whites, and equal rights for women, I’m sure you’ll get used to this as well.

housebound said :

Two points:
Good on you JB for publishing the statement, especially given your obvious disagreement with it. It’s called balanced reporting – the Canberra Times could learn from you. It’s the reason we all keep coming back here for our news.
It’s ok to disagre, but if the religious vilification laws had been brought into the ACT (as the ALP once proposed), some of the comments on this thread wouldn’t be there – starting with ‘sky god’, then moving to ‘idiot’, ‘bigots’, ‘we can point at them and laugh’, ‘biggest dirtbags in Canberra’, ‘The sooner old fogey wowsers like you die out the better’.

I think those comments are far less offensive than what the group is saying.

To focus on the Christians, it’s as if they would prefer a Christianity without Christ, who was not a conservative, and taught that acceptance of all, and following his example (as much as possible), is more important than anything else. The Canberra and Goulburn Diocese of the Anglican Church is, in general, relatively progressive (a woman Bishop and all), so what they are doing here is beyond me. The matter under discussion is recognition of gay marriage by the State, not insisting that a religion perform such a marriage. (Many Anglicans would be happy to see gay marriages being held in church, but that’s not the issue here.)

I think ‘idiot’ is restrained, actually.

Socrates on youth –
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

Wildturkeycanoe on youth

wildturkeycanoe said :

Just look at what’s the norm for our teenage generation at the moment. More flesh for the eyes to see, more violence in our streets [just look at the news or search the word king-hit], foul language and disrespect of pretty much anyone and everything is normal practice. Deviating from religious teachings of love and respect, to ones that deny any responsibility for our own actions, but rather blame it all on society and it’s dreadful state of affairs, is only taking us down a path of depravity and indeed a lack of moral values entirely.
quote]

If Socrates were alive he could sue for plagerism.

I see in the photo in the Canberra Times article that the Mormons are represented by Arnold Cummins.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/rush-to-save-gay-marriage-bill-20131021-2vxek.html#poll

Funny thing is that he did my marriage. Neither my wife nor I are Mormon, but her sister is and my wife was good friends with the Cummins family so we got him to do a civil service for us.

For a start he wrote on the documentation that we had been married according to the rites of the LDS (which is a lie) and also we didn’t find out until about 10 years (and 3 kids) later that he hadn’t submitted the paperwork, so for all that time we were “living and procreating in sin”.

Shows how important honesty and marriage is to him.

Two points:
Good on you JB for publishing the statement, especially given your obvious disagreement with it. It’s called balanced reporting – the Canberra Times could learn from you. It’s the reason we all keep coming back here for our news.
It’s ok to disagre, but if the religious vilification laws had been brought into the ACT (as the ALP once proposed), some of the comments on this thread wouldn’t be there – starting with ‘sky god’, then moving to ‘idiot’, ‘bigots’, ‘we can point at them and laugh’, ‘biggest dirtbags in Canberra’, ‘The sooner old fogey wowsers like you die out the better’.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.
Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism.

I’ve often wondered whether Christians actually believe this rubbish or whether they’re just trying to convince the rest of us. I think that a lot of them actually do believe it, having been fed it from an early age. Another example, if one were needed, of the frightening power and effectiveness of brainwashing children – IMO a more insidious form of child abuse than that which has occupied the headlines for so many years.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.

Did you know that unless you sign a marriage certificate (i.e.: a legal instrument issues by the state) then you are not legally married? You can go through all the hoopla, play “here comes the bride” and promise to love and cherish each other as much as that guy on the crucifix loved the world, but you’re not actually married without that legal documentation.

Even better, you can skip all the hoopla, never exchange vows, have no witnesses apart from the clerks in the registry office when you sign the certificate, and still be legally married.

So who married the couple together in the first place? The state, not the church. The sacrament of matrimony is not a legal instrument and neither matrimony nor the wedding should be confused with an actual marriage. Did you know that atheists and agnostics can get married? Not only do they not care what your god thinks about them getting married, they don’t even believe your god exists!

wildturkeycanoe said :

Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. It has changed along the way, but without those beginnings who knows what kind of anarchy this world would be in. Eastern cultures have their own laws, also founded in religion.

Wow! Are you suggesting that the Greeks had no laws? Maybe the Byzantine empire had no laws too (you know, the empire whose bureaucracy gave rise to the use of “Byzantine” to describe a complex system of rules that was impossible for outsiders to understand)? Because according to you, laws didn’t exist until the Roman Empire discovered Jesus. Wow! Whose soldiers crucified Jesus, and under whose laws? Wouldn’t it be bizarre if our modern legal system was based on ancient legal systems, rather than modern religions?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Calling these guys bigots is rich, when the definition of bigotry relates to a fear or prejudice of people based on their religion.

… or gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics that make the other different from the bigot.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.
Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. ….

I have a task for you. Take a look at the 10 commandments. See how many of them have made it into law.

Obviously some such as the one about not killing but a lot of them haven’t.

You will find that the ones that became laws are also laws in pretty much every country regardless of their religion.

The commandments that are more closely tied to Christianity didn’t make it in to our laws.

Our laws are not based on religion. The useful “religious” laws are similar to our society laws because they are the rules that make society work and have been rules before any present religion existed. I would bet that they have been rules before we were humans.

wildturkeycanoe6:39 am 22 Oct 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.
Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. It has changed along the way, but without those beginnings who knows what kind of anarchy this world would be in. Eastern cultures have their own laws, also founded in religion.
So my point is, we now have a legal system based on religion, being used to change the laws that religion instituted centuries ago. If those of you out there who are atheists and the like, want this gay marriage thing to go through and become a legal right, you have started the ball rolling for all kinds of things. Imagine if next on the list was using the legal system to change another christian based law, such as “thou shalt not steal”? Let’s suppose we as a people, decided that stealing if you needed something to feed your family was acceptable. Due to public outcry the law was debated at highest levels and eventually passed as new law. Next on the list is……..
The law would eventually become a law unto itself and deviate from its roots, religion. These guys are looking after the integrity of the law. I don’t blame them. We’ve seen the more than gradual degradation of society in the last century, even the last 50 years, with more crass, vile and distasteful behavior becoming acceptable to society. Just look at what’s the norm for our teenage generation at the moment. More flesh for the eyes to see, more violence in our streets [just look at the news or search the word king-hit], foul language and disrespect of pretty much anyone and everything is normal practice. Deviating from religious teachings of love and respect, to ones that deny any responsibility for our own actions, but rather blame it all on society and it’s dreadful state of affairs, is only taking us down a path of depravity and indeed a lack of moral values entirely.
Calling these guys bigots is rich, when the definition of bigotry relates to a fear or prejudice of people based on their religion. Whose calling the kettle black here?
Remove religion from law and what do you base the law on? Morality? But morality is based on behavior, where we want “good” in our society. I think we as a society would fall back on biblical principles to define what is good and even Platonic or Hellenic beliefs have some higher power at their core, as do Eastern cultures.
To summarise my thoughts, scattered as they are with the interruptions I’ve had from my home duties whilst composing this, the intervention of these faith leaders in a both religious and legal dispute is warranted, regardless of how important our society thinks its own views on the subject are. Once we have a majority of this country that believes that there is no good or evil, I can recommend they create a totally new system of governing our actions, based on absolutely nothing at all except the will to survive.

Idiot, as I have said 1235323421388908 times, marriage was around long before Christianity.

Do not get me started on any of your other comments. The sooner old fogey wowsers like you die out the better.

One last comment: if you see a young girls wearing not much clothing, do you think it is ok to rape her or do you call her a slut?

– First point, if marriage was around before Christianity and law was founded on religion, you are saying that marriage is something unrelated totally to law. If that’s the case, why are gays so much wanting marriage to becoming something legislated, or become part of the law, or for that matter part of religion?
– Second, you’ve just proven my point, society has descended into the abyss. I’m making a viewpoint known for the sake of this argument and you’ve gone all out with name-calling. I’m not offended, but your personal attacks are what exactly? Does it make you feel validated? Are you more correct because you called me an idiot? I’m proud of my old-fogey views of life, at least I have respect for other people, unlike most of today’s generation.
-Thirdly, neither is the case. I think with the attitude of the rest of her generation, she’s gonna get into trouble eventually. Waving a red flag at a bull can only eventually get the bull’s attention. Modesty can’t do anyone any harm, but the flagrant flaunting of our bodies with what sometimes should be left for the privacy of a bedroom is another corrupting factor of our world’s degradation.
Honestly, take a chill pill, this is public debate and your viewpoint may not necessarily be the right one. I’ll be more than happy to die out if the entire population turns out to be as rude as you and Dr. Koresh.

Thank goodness my pastor hasn’t signed this and aligned himself with these nutjobs.

Christians are not all like this, as I’m sure you’re already aware. I do agree with the community consultation, as long as the majoritys wishes to get this sorted and Australia-wide then occurs pronto so we can get on with things and stop faffing about.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.
Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. It has changed along the way, but without those beginnings who knows what kind of anarchy this world would be in. Eastern cultures have their own laws, also founded in religion.
So my point is, we now have a legal system based on religion, being used to change the laws that religion instituted centuries ago. If those of you out there who are atheists and the like, want this gay marriage thing to go through and become a legal right, you have started the ball rolling for all kinds of things. Imagine if next on the list was using the legal system to change another christian based law, such as “thou shalt not steal”? Let’s suppose we as a people, decided that stealing if you needed something to feed your family was acceptable. Due to public outcry the law was debated at highest levels and eventually passed as new law. Next on the list is……..
The law would eventually become a law unto itself and deviate from its roots, religion. These guys are looking after the integrity of the law. I don’t blame them. We’ve seen the more than gradual degradation of society in the last century, even the last 50 years, with more crass, vile and distasteful behavior becoming acceptable to society. Just look at what’s the norm for our teenage generation at the moment. More flesh for the eyes to see, more violence in our streets [just look at the news or search the word king-hit], foul language and disrespect of pretty much anyone and everything is normal practice. Deviating from religious teachings of love and respect, to ones that deny any responsibility for our own actions, but rather blame it all on society and it’s dreadful state of affairs, is only taking us down a path of depravity and indeed a lack of moral values entirely.
Calling these guys bigots is rich, when the definition of bigotry relates to a fear or prejudice of people based on their religion. Whose calling the kettle black here?
Remove religion from law and what do you base the law on? Morality? But morality is based on behavior, where we want “good” in our society. I think we as a society would fall back on biblical principles to define what is good and even Platonic or Hellenic beliefs have some higher power at their core, as do Eastern cultures.
To summarise my thoughts, scattered as they are with the interruptions I’ve had from my home duties whilst composing this, the intervention of these faith leaders in a both religious and legal dispute is warranted, regardless of how important our society thinks its own views on the subject are. Once we have a majority of this country that believes that there is no good or evil, I can recommend they create a totally new system of governing our actions, based on absolutely nothing at all except the will to survive.

Bah! Secularised society! Kids these days can’t even walk to church uphill both ways anymore!!

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.
Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. It has changed along the way, but without those beginnings who knows what kind of anarchy this world would be in. Eastern cultures have their own laws, also founded in religion.
So my point is, we now have a legal system based on religion, being used to change the laws that religion instituted centuries ago. If those of you out there who are atheists and the like, want this gay marriage thing to go through and become a legal right, you have started the ball rolling for all kinds of things. Imagine if next on the list was using the legal system to change another christian based law, such as “thou shalt not steal”? Let’s suppose we as a people, decided that stealing if you needed something to feed your family was acceptable. Due to public outcry the law was debated at highest levels and eventually passed as new law. Next on the list is……..
The law would eventually become a law unto itself and deviate from its roots, religion. These guys are looking after the integrity of the law. I don’t blame them. We’ve seen the more than gradual degradation of society in the last century, even the last 50 years, with more crass, vile and distasteful behavior becoming acceptable to society. Just look at what’s the norm for our teenage generation at the moment. More flesh for the eyes to see, more violence in our streets [just look at the news or search the word king-hit], foul language and disrespect of pretty much anyone and everything is normal practice. Deviating from religious teachings of love and respect, to ones that deny any responsibility for our own actions, but rather blame it all on society and it’s dreadful state of affairs, is only taking us down a path of depravity and indeed a lack of moral values entirely.
Calling these guys bigots is rich, when the definition of bigotry relates to a fear or prejudice of people based on their religion. Whose calling the kettle black here?
Remove religion from law and what do you base the law on? Morality? But morality is based on behavior, where we want “good” in our society. I think we as a society would fall back on biblical principles to define what is good and even Platonic or Hellenic beliefs have some higher power at their core, as do Eastern cultures.
To summarise my thoughts, scattered as they are with the interruptions I’ve had from my home duties whilst composing this, the intervention of these faith leaders in a both religious and legal dispute is warranted, regardless of how important our society thinks its own views on the subject are. Once we have a majority of this country that believes that there is no good or evil, I can recommend they create a totally new system of governing our actions, based on absolutely nothing at all except the will to survive.

All this time I have thought that you were a water loving Bourbon drinker. How wrong was I?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:59 pm 21 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.
Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. It has changed along the way, but without those beginnings who knows what kind of anarchy this world would be in. Eastern cultures have their own laws, also founded in religion.
So my point is, we now have a legal system based on religion, being used to change the laws that religion instituted centuries ago. If those of you out there who are atheists and the like, want this gay marriage thing to go through and become a legal right, you have started the ball rolling for all kinds of things. Imagine if next on the list was using the legal system to change another christian based law, such as “thou shalt not steal”? Let’s suppose we as a people, decided that stealing if you needed something to feed your family was acceptable. Due to public outcry the law was debated at highest levels and eventually passed as new law. Next on the list is……..
The law would eventually become a law unto itself and deviate from its roots, religion. These guys are looking after the integrity of the law. I don’t blame them. We’ve seen the more than gradual degradation of society in the last century, even the last 50 years, with more crass, vile and distasteful behavior becoming acceptable to society. Just look at what’s the norm for our teenage generation at the moment. More flesh for the eyes to see, more violence in our streets [just look at the news or search the word king-hit], foul language and disrespect of pretty much anyone and everything is normal practice. Deviating from religious teachings of love and respect, to ones that deny any responsibility for our own actions, but rather blame it all on society and it’s dreadful state of affairs, is only taking us down a path of depravity and indeed a lack of moral values entirely.
Calling these guys bigots is rich, when the definition of bigotry relates to a fear or prejudice of people based on their religion. Whose calling the kettle black here?
Remove religion from law and what do you base the law on? Morality? But morality is based on behavior, where we want “good” in our society. I think we as a society would fall back on biblical principles to define what is good and even Platonic or Hellenic beliefs have some higher power at their core, as do Eastern cultures.
To summarise my thoughts, scattered as they are with the interruptions I’ve had from my home duties whilst composing this, the intervention of these faith leaders in a both religious and legal dispute is warranted, regardless of how important our society thinks its own views on the subject are. Once we have a majority of this country that believes that there is no good or evil, I can recommend they create a totally new system of governing our actions, based on absolutely nothing at all except the will to survive.

Idiot, as I have said 1235323421388908 times, marriage was around long before Christianity.

Do not get me started on any of your other comments. The sooner old fogey wowsers like you die out the better.

One last comment: if you see a young girls wearing not much clothing, do you think it is ok to rape her or do you call her a slut?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.
Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. It has changed along the way, but without those beginnings who knows what kind of anarchy this world would be in. Eastern cultures have their own laws, also founded in religion.
So my point is, we now have a legal system based on religion, being used to change the laws that religion instituted centuries ago. If those of you out there who are atheists and the like, want this gay marriage thing to go through and become a legal right, you have started the ball rolling for all kinds of things. Imagine if next on the list was using the legal system to change another christian based law, such as “thou shalt not steal”? Let’s suppose we as a people, decided that stealing if you needed something to feed your family was acceptable. Due to public outcry the law was debated at highest levels and eventually passed as new law. Next on the list is……..
The law would eventually become a law unto itself and deviate from its roots, religion. These guys are looking after the integrity of the law. I don’t blame them. We’ve seen the more than gradual degradation of society in the last century, even the last 50 years, with more crass, vile and distasteful behavior becoming acceptable to society. Just look at what’s the norm for our teenage generation at the moment. More flesh for the eyes to see, more violence in our streets [just look at the news or search the word king-hit], foul language and disrespect of pretty much anyone and everything is normal practice. Deviating from religious teachings of love and respect, to ones that deny any responsibility for our own actions, but rather blame it all on society and it’s dreadful state of affairs, is only taking us down a path of depravity and indeed a lack of moral values entirely.
Calling these guys bigots is rich, when the definition of bigotry relates to a fear or prejudice of people based on their religion. Whose calling the kettle black here?
Remove religion from law and what do you base the law on? Morality? But morality is based on behavior, where we want “good” in our society. I think we as a society would fall back on biblical principles to define what is good and even Platonic or Hellenic beliefs have some higher power at their core, as do Eastern cultures.
To summarise my thoughts, scattered as they are with the interruptions I’ve had from my home duties whilst composing this, the intervention of these faith leaders in a both religious and legal dispute is warranted, regardless of how important our society thinks its own views on the subject are. Once we have a majority of this country that believes that there is no good or evil, I can recommend they create a totally new system of governing our actions, based on absolutely nothing at all except the will to survive.

Get stuffed, I’ve never heard such a big load of crap in all my life.

Maybe this is the key to peace in the middle east. Get Israel to introduce gay marriage and then we can see Judaism, Islam and Christianity unite together against what is apparently a far bigger evil than the ongoing slaughter of men women and children (in God’s name).

And if they are worried about the long term effects of the Bill, maybe the legislative assembly should get rid of it and make it an Act instead.

CrocodileGandhi9:24 pm 21 Oct 13

I’ve read from some polls that up to 67% of Australians agree with same-sex marriage. So even if all of the hedonistic non-abrahamic faithful agree with it, that means that some 37% of their the people they smugly purport to represent also agree with it. A majority of the people they claim to be speaking for disagree with them.

Also amusing that these groups are strongly opposed, sometimes even diametrically so, on many issues, but they’ll joins hands in harmony to keep away the gays.

wildturkeycanoe8:40 pm 21 Oct 13

Mike Crowther said :

The issue for me is very simple. ‘Pastor’ Danny, George ‘I was just giving the bloke some court support’ Pell and Rabbi Cowan do not live here. Nor do they vote or pay any taxes in the ACT. (Tax and religion in the same sentence! Who’d have thought?) So the ACT government should grant them precisely zero input into our legislation. It is simply none of their frigging business. Now if our local god-botherers want to dissent, that’s fine. But my experience having chosen to make Canberra my home many years ago is that most residents of this territory (including religious types) generally enjoy a live and let live attitude. Take your sectarian poison somewhere else. We don’t need it.

God-botherers – don’t understand that tag, as the only people that worry God are the ones who aren’t talking to him.
I seriously doubt you based your decision of moving to Canberra on a lack of religious sects and their influence on your life. I would have thought an isolated community in the outback would offer a vastly superior experience.

neanderthalsis said :

All together now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DiBZmz8CDE

and it was great to see that the singing was being led by a transgendered person.

IP

wildturkeycanoe8:31 pm 21 Oct 13

Religion and politics should never go hand in hand, who married them together in the first place.
Law and religion on the other hand, you couldn’t have law without religion. The foundations of our legal system are in religious laws, mainly from Roman Catholicism. It has changed along the way, but without those beginnings who knows what kind of anarchy this world would be in. Eastern cultures have their own laws, also founded in religion.
So my point is, we now have a legal system based on religion, being used to change the laws that religion instituted centuries ago. If those of you out there who are atheists and the like, want this gay marriage thing to go through and become a legal right, you have started the ball rolling for all kinds of things. Imagine if next on the list was using the legal system to change another christian based law, such as “thou shalt not steal”? Let’s suppose we as a people, decided that stealing if you needed something to feed your family was acceptable. Due to public outcry the law was debated at highest levels and eventually passed as new law. Next on the list is……..
The law would eventually become a law unto itself and deviate from its roots, religion. These guys are looking after the integrity of the law. I don’t blame them. We’ve seen the more than gradual degradation of society in the last century, even the last 50 years, with more crass, vile and distasteful behavior becoming acceptable to society. Just look at what’s the norm for our teenage generation at the moment. More flesh for the eyes to see, more violence in our streets [just look at the news or search the word king-hit], foul language and disrespect of pretty much anyone and everything is normal practice. Deviating from religious teachings of love and respect, to ones that deny any responsibility for our own actions, but rather blame it all on society and it’s dreadful state of affairs, is only taking us down a path of depravity and indeed a lack of moral values entirely.
Calling these guys bigots is rich, when the definition of bigotry relates to a fear or prejudice of people based on their religion. Whose calling the kettle black here?
Remove religion from law and what do you base the law on? Morality? But morality is based on behavior, where we want “good” in our society. I think we as a society would fall back on biblical principles to define what is good and even Platonic or Hellenic beliefs have some higher power at their core, as do Eastern cultures.
To summarise my thoughts, scattered as they are with the interruptions I’ve had from my home duties whilst composing this, the intervention of these faith leaders in a both religious and legal dispute is warranted, regardless of how important our society thinks its own views on the subject are. Once we have a majority of this country that believes that there is no good or evil, I can recommend they create a totally new system of governing our actions, based on absolutely nothing at all except the will to survive.

Deref said :

poetix said :

This makes me both angry and a little ill.

rAmen to that.

Although this is absolutely hilarious.

neanderthalsis said :

All together now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DiBZmz8CDE

Wait…it’s not supposed to be serious is it?

“Comments are disabled for this video.” – says it all really…

IP

Lets not forget all the other Traditional Values of the Abrahamic religions (a.k.a. bronze-age dogmatism)

Money cannot be lent at interest to your brother, only to foreigners (Deuteronomy 23: 19-20)
Eating pork is forbidden (Deuteronomy 14:8)
A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother’s wife (Deuteronomy 25:5-6
A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Exodus 22:16-17)
A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Tattoos are forbidden (Leviticus 19:28)
Slavery is fine, as long as the slave is from a foreign country (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Sex slavery is also fine (Exodus 21:7-11)
Beating a slave is fine as long as he survives for 2 days (Exodus 21:20-21)
Polyester and any fabric blends are banned (Leviticus 19:19)
Divorce is banned (Mark 10:8)
Men without testicles are not allowed in church (Deuteronomy 23:1) seriously!
Can’t eat prawns, lobster, mussels (Leviticus 11:10)
If your wife defends you in a fight by grabbing the attackers testicles, you must cut off your wife’s hand (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
Withdrawal method of contraception is banned (Genesis 38:9-10)
Witches need to be burned (Exodus 22:18-20)
Women must not speak in church (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

I’m not really sure why the signatories have picked out the mostly harmless proposal of gay marriage when there are so many more issues to get hung up about.

Looks like gay marriage has united Christianity and Islam.

Well done.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:40 pm 21 Oct 13

Is this a list of the biggest dirtbags in canberra?

Based on the Census data, 70% would be a stretch I’d say but not by much nationally. That’s religious identification though, not participation. And there’s a lot of stats around that show a large portion of Christians don’t agree with Church doctrines on a range of things, from homosexuality to the prohibition on women in senior church positions. So it’s a disingenuous number.

In the ACT though, only 57% identify with Abrahamic religions so their figure’s become all the more disingenuous, for the ACT is not typical of Australian trends often.

Really to get figure like what they’re quoting in the ACT, you’d have to go back to the mid 1960s/70s, or if they really wanted to make a point, go back to 1911 when 97% of FCT residents were Christian.

PorkChops said :

“Seventy percent of Australians identify with an Abrahamic religion – Christianity, Islam and Judaism.”

Really? Or do they mean sixty one percent of Australians were christened at birth into some religion that they don’t follow or just pretend they do when it comes to enrolling their child at a private school. My mother wrote on the Census that she was a Catholic but she hasn’t been inside a church for decades and no longer believes in God.

Why did she not simply tick the “No religion” box like I do?

Mike Crowther6:05 pm 21 Oct 13

The issue for me is very simple. ‘Pastor’ Danny, George ‘I was just giving the bloke some court support’ Pell and Rabbi Cowan do not live here. Nor do they vote or pay any taxes in the ACT. (Tax and religion in the same sentence! Who’d have thought?) So the ACT government should grant them precisely zero input into our legislation. It is simply none of their frigging business. Now if our local god-botherers want to dissent, that’s fine. But my experience having chosen to make Canberra my home many years ago is that most residents of this territory (including religious types) generally enjoy a live and let live attitude. Take your sectarian poison somewhere else. We don’t need it.

“Seventy percent of Australians identify with an Abrahamic religion – Christianity, Islam and Judaism.”

Really? Or do they mean sixty one percent of Australians were christened at birth into some religion that they don’t follow or just pretend they do when it comes to enrolling their child at a private school. My mother wrote on the Census that she was a Catholic but she hasn’t been inside a church for decades and no longer believes in God.

poetix said :

This makes me both angry and a little ill.

rAmen to that.

Although this is absolutely hilarious.

neanderthalsis said :

All together now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DiBZmz8CDE

Wait…it’s not supposed to be serious is it?

This makes me both angry and a little ill.

That is some weaselly wording right there. They can’t convince their own congregations to unite behind them in opposition of gay marriage, but they expect the government to listen to them?

ScienceRules4:54 pm 21 Oct 13

Nice that the bigots are self-identifying now (not that there was ever really any doubt) for future reference.

Oh and by “for future reference” I simply mean so we can point at them and laugh when none of their doom and gloom predictions come true.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.