Advanced  

Latest Result

Grand Final MCG
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 • 12:00 WST
West Coast Collingwood
11.13 (79) 11.8 (74)
Game Focus



Gay Marriage + or -?

Discuss whatever you like, whenever you like, however you like

Moderators: Streaker, Mr Q

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby HH on Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:31 pm

MrWoollie wrote:Ah yes. you have the right to be bigoted and to discriminate as long as you are doing it in accordance with your religious beliefs.

Edit: not directed at any one individual here, just a general comment.


Hmmmm. So what did Alex Greenwich really mean when he said the following during the yes campaign:

Alex Greenwich, co-convener of Australian Marriage Equality, said the ‚Äėyes‚Äô campaign had always been clear about its disinterest in impeding on religion.

‚ÄúNothing in the proposed legislation would in any way impact the religious celebration of marriage or the ways churches wish to practice it,‚ÄĚ Mr Greenwich said.

“There are protections ranging from ensuring a minister of religion is able to marry the couples that he or she wants to, to what can happen on church grounds.

“There are clear, strong and robust religious protections in the draft legislation
.‚ÄĚ

The same-sex marriage campaign focused on civil marriage, not the religious celebration of marriage, Mr Greenwich said.
User avatar
HH
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: Captain’s Club

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Mr Q on Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:15 pm

It means that churches won't be forced to perform dame seed marriages. That's it.

It does *not* mean that other people's in society will get to discriminate.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 331

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby farmer joe on Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:18 pm

The Shoppies controlled Senators are going to vote No.....but it is only the right that has religious nut jobs in it isnt it...
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-polit ... zu6zf.html
farmer joe
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Mr Q on Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:28 am

farmer joe wrote:The Shoppies controlled Senators are going to vote No.....but it is only the right that has religious nut jobs in it isnt it...
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-polit ... zu6zf.html


You know something, I don't think anyone has said that. What people *have* pointed out is that the religious right have the Liberal Party by the nuts - and denying that is to deny what's right in front of your face.

The ALP have allowed a conscience vote on this issue for a long time. The Liberals didn't or we wouldn't have just wasted $120 million on this idiotic survey (that just got back exactly the result that all the polling said it would), because the shrinking moderate wing of the Libs would have got it across the line back in 2012.

What's happening to the Liberal Party is very clever by the religious right. They realised that under their own banner, they stood no chance whatsoever of getting more than token representation in Parliament (in line with exactly how many people are really that far to the right). So instead they started infiltrating the Liberal Party, getting candidates pre-selected where moderates stand down (see Ian Goodenough replacing Mal Washer as a good example). By doing that, they can get way more power through holding a major party to ransom than they ever would standing as a Christian party.

Since politics isn't all about religion (at least to everyone outside the RR, for who religion is the main focus), there were bound to be religious people at both ends of the political spectrum.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 331

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Fair Bump Play On on Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:26 pm

Mr Q wrote:What's happening to the Liberal Party is very clever by the religious right. They realised that under their own banner, they stood no chance whatsoever of getting more than token representation in Parliament (in line with exactly how many people are really that far to the right). So instead they started infiltrating the Liberal Party, getting candidates pre-selected where moderates stand down (see Ian Goodenough replacing Mal Washer as a good example). By doing that, they can get way more power through holding a major party to ransom than they ever would standing as a Christian party.


Not that cleaver really in my opinion; simply following the model previously used in the USA, that has allowed the religious right to gain control of the republican party, turning a party or social libertarianism into a party of social conservatives. Insert themselves in to local councils, lobby groups, other powerful groups (such as the AMA or Shoppies), the media, party branches, gain party nominations over moderates and eventually gain control of the Party. The main difference here holding them back compared to the USA is the lack of active Christian's in Australia - especially the ultra-conservative type. Thus, they can at times gain 'effective*' control of the Liberal's (Tony) or National’s (and try with the Labor Party) but their extreme ideas will simply not wash with the population as a whole. Yet, it's only just begun.
Proud 2017 sponsor of Liam -Dangerfield- Duggan, Will Schofield, Simon - the tank - Tunbridge & Tom Gorter
Past sponsor; 2016 self appointed sponsor of Sam it's better with Butler, 2015 of Jamie lace out Bennell, Scooter - future vice-captain - Selwood. 2013 of Mitch - Mr Required - Brown, (And he stayed), 2012 of Scott - the future - Lycett, (And he is), 2011 of Vice Captain ‚Äď fair, but get out of his way - Beau Waters, (His greatest year)
User avatar
Fair Bump Play On
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:06 pm
Location: Getting hot on this globe.

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby MelbourneBased on Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:54 pm

All I can say is $120 million spent by the Government to confirm that the poll came in inline with the majority of Australian attitudes of equality (race,religion,creed, or orientation)
But when it came to bigger issues, like losing money to the big 4 plus MacBank, then the Government play the money card.

Try and explain that to the kids
MelbourneBased
Regular
 
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:36 pm

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Mr Q on Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:11 am

Well the world hasn't come to an end has it?
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 331

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby jourgo on Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:27 am

Bit bored this morning huh?
jourgo
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Right Here

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Mr Q on Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:00 pm

jourgo wrote:Bit bored this morning huh?


Reading back through this thread, I did find a lot of the assertions that the "silent majority" would block SSM at a "referendum" extremely funny.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 331

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby jourgo on Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:09 pm

Mr Q wrote:
jourgo wrote:Bit bored this morning huh?


Reading back through this thread, I did find a lot of the assertions that the "silent majority" would block SSM at a "referendum" extremely funny.


I tend to think its more an indication of how views evolve and change over time. That said, views on SSM moved much quicker than I certainly thought they would. I would've put money on it being knocked back if it went to a vote 10 years back - maybe even 5.
jourgo
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Right Here

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Mr Q on Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:26 pm

jourgo wrote:
Mr Q wrote:
jourgo wrote:Bit bored this morning huh?


Reading back through this thread, I did find a lot of the assertions that the "silent majority" would block SSM at a "referendum" extremely funny.


I tend to think its more an indication of how views evolve and change over time. That said, views on SSM moved much quicker than I certainly thought they would. I would've put money on it being knocked back if it went to a vote 10 years back - maybe even 5.


The polling had been consistent at about 60-65% for years - given how closely that mapped back to the final result, I'd expect that it would have got up from the day this thread was started. Probably earlier - it started to appear in the national consciousness before 2010.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 331

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby Fat Side on Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:37 pm

Mr Q wrote:
jourgo wrote:
Mr Q wrote:
Reading back through this thread, I did find a lot of the assertions that the "silent majority" would block SSM at a "referendum" extremely funny.


I tend to think its more an indication of how views evolve and change over time. That said, views on SSM moved much quicker than I certainly thought they would. I would've put money on it being knocked back if it went to a vote 10 years back - maybe even 5.


The polling had been consistent at about 60-65% for years - given how closely that mapped back to the final result, I'd expect that it would have got up from the day this thread was started. Probably earlier - it started to appear in the national consciousness before 2010.


I reckon a republican vote would go the same way.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm
Location: Enjoying the open space over here

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby jourgo on Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:47 am

Fat Side wrote:I reckon a republican vote would go the same way.


I'd take that bet.
jourgo
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Right Here

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby MrWoollie on Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:22 pm

jourgo wrote:
Fat Side wrote:I reckon a republican vote would go the same way.


I'd take that bet.

Didn't go so well last time! Many reasons, not least the inability of the republican movement to actually agree on what model of republic they wanted... and then sell it.

I think a republic vote SHOULD win. But I thought that last time as well.

When Charles becomes king it will be easier.
2017 sponsor of #6 - Elliot Yeo. 2017 B&F, 2017 EFH POTY.
User avatar
MrWoollie
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:53 am
Location: Peak District National Park

Re: Gay Marriage + or -?

Postby jourgo on Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:29 am

The thing about the republic issue is - unlike the gay marriage issue - its not going to make any real difference to anybody. Australia is famous for its resistance to change - especially when its change for the sake of change. The monarchy has no real bearing on life in Australia. Its not impacting or impeding us in any measurable way, so its not a problem.

I'm 44 years old - which means I've got about another 40 in front of me touch wood. I can't see a situation in my lifetime where the republic will even come up for another vote - let alone get up. It aint broke, and it don't need fixing.
jourgo
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Right Here

PreviousNext

Return to General Board, Suggestions and Problems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests