Australia on Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]H factor wrote:
When your rights were violated you did nothing.

Your “rights” ceased to exist for that time in effective purposes. If you want to say “but I still had them!” go ahead beans. You didn’t at that time. And you did nothing. The circumstance had changed what your rights meant. This has happened throughout history.

You can sugar coat that all you want and talk about timing and everything else if it makes you feel better, but the fact remains. When your rights were taken away from you (and they were) you did nothing. You might have done nothing for purely rational reasons (like why I pay taxes despite hating most of what they go towards) but the fact is you did nothing.

And I don’t blame you. I probably wouldn’t have done anything either. Been mad. bitched to people. Whined on the net. Your rights WERE “violated” (makes you feel better than ceased to exist?) and you did nothing. Men had established new rules for a while of which you followed.

Which is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along. [/quote]

^^^

Has a point.

82

Yeah, I didn’t read any of this, but IMO, this topic is debated far too often. Only about 2% of people are gay. Not 10%, not 25%, not 33%, just two.

Let 'em get hitched, it won’t make a fucking difference. You wouldn’t have even noticed if you hadn’t made such a big deal about it. Pick your battles, people. There’s better things to waste your time arguing about.

83

Why would you hate paying taxes if you have no right to that excess wealth?

That just makes you greedy.

84

Of course that means there isn’t a ‘right’ to marriage for gays, too. So, what are we arguing about? No rights are being infringed upon in not recognizing gay marriage, after all.

85

[quote]H factor wrote:

I don’t really care that people believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but it is annoying that they want to force their beliefs down everyone’s throat and use a really old book to control people so they can behave exactly like they think someone they have never met nor seen wants everyone to behave. Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions. Yet they STILL want to use that as the basis for rules when it comes to telling people how to live.

When you really stop and think about it…it’s basically the most insanely stupid thing in the history of the universe. Only if you stop and think about it though. [/quote]

No, it isn’t. It’s a perfectly valid way to do things. Especially if there are no inherent rights, moral obligations, etc. We could institute a full blown theocracy and it would be no more right or wrong in your cold, deaf, and dumb universe than a pack of hyenas eating a stuck-in-the-mud water buffalo alive. Hind quarters first. Save moral outrage for moralists.

86

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I don’t really care that people believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but it is annoying that they want to force their beliefs down everyone’s throat and use a really old book to control people so they can behave exactly like they think someone they have never met nor seen wants everyone to behave. Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions. Yet they STILL want to use that as the basis for rules when it comes to telling people how to live.

When you really stop and think about it…it’s basically the most insanely stupid thing in the history of the universe. Only if you stop and think about it though. [/quote]

No, it isn’t. It’s a perfectly valid way to do things.
[/quote]

Ok you convinced me with this.

It makes perfect sense to base our laws off a very old book that has been changed and argued about its meaning for centuries. What could possibly be wrong?

Quran, Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Book of Shadows which one should we use?

I bet Tom Cruise picks Dianetics! That has all sorts of fun thoughts!

87

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Yeah, I didn’t read any of this, but IMO, this topic is debated far too often. Only about 2% of people are gay. Not 10%, not 25%, not 33%, just two.

Let 'em get hitched, it won’t make a fucking difference. You wouldn’t have even noticed if you hadn’t made such a big deal about it. Pick your battles, people. There’s better things to waste your time arguing about.[/quote]

It’s FAR less than 2% (not everyone wants to get married) and even when legally recognized, they don’t get the same benefits and, IMO, that’s kinda the point.

[i]Special Snowflake Syndrome-

A malady affecting a significant portion of the world’s population wherein the afflicted will demand special treatment, conduct themselves with a ludicrous, unfounded sense of entitlement, and [b]generally make the lives of everyone around them that much more miserable.

The danger of this disease is that the sufferers rarely, if ever, know that they have contracted it, and continue about their merry way under the assumption that EVERYONE ELSE is the problem.[/b]

This condition, if left untreated, can radically alter the carrier’s demeanor, to include any of the following: a complete devolution to child-like behavior, temper tantrums, and/or fits of narcissistic rage.

When confronted with an individual suspected of harboring Special Snowflake Syndrome, one’s best course of action is to run away. Further attempts at educating the carrier on the reality of their condition (e.g., quoting Tyler Durden: “You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You’re the same decaying organic matter as everything else.”) will likely prove futile, and potentially hazardous to the informer.

See also; Victim-American, Victimocracy[/i]

It has long been known (as evidenced by the sqeeky-wheel analogy) that acquiescing to their “needs” only exacerbates the problem.

AFAIK, the most effective treatment is to acutely accelerate or otherwise accentuate the sufferers organic decay, often by physical means. Chronic cures have yet to be developed.

I’m all heart-broken that an 80 yr. old woman with no dependents or other obvious debts/expenditures had to pay $360k in taxes on a $3M estate her gay partner left to her. I’m sure her win probably bankrupted her financially and the taxpayers, upholding the law as written, weren’t charged a dime.

88

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
When your rights were violated you did nothing.

Your “rights” ceased to exist for that time in effective purposes. If you want to say “but I still had them!” go ahead beans. You didn’t at that time. And you did nothing. The circumstance had changed what your rights meant. This has happened throughout history.

You can sugar coat that all you want and talk about timing and everything else if it makes you feel better, but the fact remains. When your rights were taken away from you (and they were) you did nothing. You might have done nothing for purely rational reasons (like why I pay taxes despite hating most of what they go towards) but the fact is you did nothing.

And I don’t blame you. I probably wouldn’t have done anything either. Been mad. bitched to people. Whined on the net. Your rights WERE “violated” (makes you feel better than ceased to exist?) and you did nothing. Men had established new rules for a while of which you followed.

Which is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along. [/quote]

^^^

Has a point. [/quote]

No he doesn’t. Or not one that means anything other than ‘Aha, I caught a human taking an action that may not 100% align with their ideas.’ In which case, great point.

89

[quote]H factor wrote:

They came from men. All your “rights” come from men. They are not provided by your creator.[/quote]

How ‘original sin’ of you. A man isn’t a sovereign entity or a divine being. On his own he’s an animal needing tamed by society and only through being part of the group does he find meaningful existence?

[quote]They are able to be taken away from you. They are not the same wherever you live. Rights were created by men and the definition of those rights have been constantly changing. Sounds like the Bible. *

  • In B4, but the MEANING of those rights hasn’t changed.[/quote]

So, your proposal is to wholly replace a 1500 yr. old collection of books that has been changed and argued about for centuries with a 200 yr. old memo (which is based on old collection of books and the same material that the collection of books is based on) that has been changed and argued about for centuries?

Plenty of hot air, no lift.

90

[quote]H factor wrote:

It makes perfect sense to base our laws off a very old book…[/quote]

Of course it does. If there is no “right” or “wrong,” or ultimate purpose, or divine expectations, then we are capable of existing in any condition we have the might to enforce. Otherwise, there is no right and wrong way to exist. You existing under theocratic rule is neither ‘good’ or ‘evil.’ The universe doesn’t care. As far as us, we owe each other nothing, as you’ve pointed out.

91

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

It makes perfect sense to base our laws off a very old book…[/quote]

Of course it does. If there is no “right” or “wrong,” or ultimate purpose, or divine expectations, then we are capable of existing in any condition we have the might to enforce. Otherwise, there is no right and wrong way to exist. You existing under theocratic rule is neither ‘good’ or ‘evil.’ The universe doesn’t care. As far as us, we owe each other nothing, as you’ve pointed out.

[/quote]

Of course the universe doesn’t care. Why would it? We can exist in any condition even without divine expectations.

I don’t need heaven to motivate me to treat people nicely. Us existing under ANY rule is neither good nor evil. “Good” and “evil” are merely based on norms and values which change over time.

I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to argue here.

92

[quote]H factor wrote:

I don’t need heaven to motivate me to treat people nicely.[/quote]

I (obviously) don’t know sloth’s point. I do know that you have a slight misinterpretation here. Heaven doesn’t (strictly) motivate you to treat people nicely, heaven is how others are motivated not to treat you despicably. Saying you don’t need heaven to treat people nicely assumes someone hasn’t refrained from murdering you because of their Christian (or other) values or heritage.

93

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

It makes perfect sense to base our laws off a very old book…[/quote]

Of course it does. If there is no “right” or “wrong,” or ultimate purpose, or divine expectations, then we are capable of existing in any condition we have the might to enforce. Otherwise, there is no right and wrong way to exist. You existing under theocratic rule is neither ‘good’ or ‘evil.’ The universe doesn’t care. As far as us, we owe each other nothing, as you’ve pointed out.

[/quote]

Of course the universe doesn’t care. Why would it? We can exist in any condition even without divine expectations.

I don’t need heaven to motivate me to treat people nicely. Us existing under ANY rule is neither good nor evil. “Good” and “evil” are merely based on norms and values which change over time.

I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to argue here. [/quote]
Your moral outrage (seemingly) at having to live by my rules and my book. As you said, there’s not really a good or evil way for us to order society, so just try to relax and get along with the program.

94

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions.[/quote]

Here is your quote about the changes. You are saying that these “Changes” are so big that we should not believe what it says.

My argument is that the changes DO NOT change the meaning of the Bible, so the changes are pointless.

If I wrote “They’re going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Does it change the meaning if I instead wrote “There going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Just because I changed the word They’re does not change the meaning. You are stuck on the They’re and not the meaning.

I wish you would believe, but you chose not to and that is your choice. Just do not put me down because I choose to believe, it is my choice.

And no I did not dismiss V post.
[/quote]

Please read this over and over and over and over again:

[quote]Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.

But others are more important. They meant something.[/quote]

And that is the changes we know about and can find. You said it hasn’t been changed. Your wrong. Now you want to goalpost shift and say well yeah it’s changed, but not enough to matter.

No. The fucking book (which you believers can’t even agree on the meaning of anyways) has been changed over history many times.
[/quote]

I never goalpost moved anything. I asked for proof of changes. Your “changes” were not about misspellings, but about Religious people arguing about the Bible. That is meaning and not changes.
[/quote]

I wish I could make a law that says if you have not read the Bible, you cannot discuss it.

It seems to me it is the only book in the world people feel have the right to open criticize without knowing what it says. Do that with any other book and you will be called ridiculous in varying ways. But it’s cool to bitch about the Bible, without knowing a damn thing about it.

It gets old, I tell you.

95

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions.[/quote]

Here is your quote about the changes. You are saying that these “Changes” are so big that we should not believe what it says.

My argument is that the changes DO NOT change the meaning of the Bible, so the changes are pointless.

If I wrote “They’re going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Does it change the meaning if I instead wrote “There going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Just because I changed the word They’re does not change the meaning. You are stuck on the They’re and not the meaning.

I wish you would believe, but you chose not to and that is your choice. Just do not put me down because I choose to believe, it is my choice.

And no I did not dismiss V post.
[/quote]

Please read this over and over and over and over again:

[quote]Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.

But others are more important. They meant something.[/quote]

And that is the changes we know about and can find. You said it hasn’t been changed. Your wrong. Now you want to goalpost shift and say well yeah it’s changed, but not enough to matter.

No. The fucking book (which you believers can’t even agree on the meaning of anyways) has been changed over history many times.
[/quote]

I never goalpost moved anything. I asked for proof of changes. Your “changes” were not about misspellings, but about Religious people arguing about the Bible. That is meaning and not changes.
[/quote]

I wish I could make a law that says if you have not read the Bible, you cannot discuss it.
.[/quote]

X2.

Frederick Douglas adressed New Yorker women, who had invited him to speak on July 4th.

And he adressed them, asking them why he should celebrate.

Then he launched into a psalm, or parts of it:

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the LORD’S song in a strange land?

If you do not know your Bible, if you do not know how important it was, you will never understand what he did there.

96

Frederick Douglas… wasn’t he, like, in Spartacus?

97

450×650 30.5 KB

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Oh well, pity Abbot will probably win this election.[/quote]

The Bible didn’t recognize “slavery” as a natural condition. Servitude was not the ownership of a lesser being in those times except in the case of Egypt where the Hebrews were viewed as less than human.
It was often a form of payment, as in indentured servant and after a time, most were free to leave, if they so chose. But often, they were considered members of the family.

The point is that his comparison was a non-sequitur. In that he is uninformed about the culture differences between the ancient Hebrews and the slave owners of the previous 4 centuries.

I don’t disagree that gays are born with it. I am not particularly affronted if people are granted coupled benefits be they gay, or just friends who choose to never marry, or brothers or sisters who live together as a partial family unit, or what not. But a marriage it is not and never will be.
The dichotomy in the male-female pair bond is unique and cannot be replicated in a same sex pair bond. I have never seen anybody make the case that it is or even can be. Love, does not a marriage make, it’s a lot more than that.
Until somebody can prove that same sexed couples are the same as opposite sexed couples that are in the understood definition of marriage, you cannot call it that.
To me it’s not about ‘rights’ I don’t really care from that perspective. I care from the perspective that you cannot make something be, what it is not.

I think people think of this issue two dimensionally, only politically. They don’t think about what it really means. You start blurring definitions of what things are willy-nilly, you introduce slippery-slopes which often render meanings useless.
[/quote]

Your views on Biblical slavery are rather myopic, bordering on outright incorrect in all but one of the practices applications. That referring to the clearly delineated difference between slaves of Israelite and non Israelite origin. Those laws clearly defined manumission vs. human chattel.

It is very interesting that you accuse another person of being uninformed about the ancient hebrew cultural practice of slavery when you don’t seem to understand it yourself.

Sexual and conjugal slavery, permanent enslavement and being born into slavery were all practices of the time.

What I find funny about your comment is it seems to closely parallel (although probably/hopefully not intentionally) a somewhat antebellum view of “happy” African Slaves.

Hopefully people took upon themselves to make a simple google search on the subject before they took your statement verbatim.

I have to guess that references such as this one are where you got your information. Unfortunately the author here seems to be more of a biblical apologist, rather than an expert with any real knowledge on the subject.

As for the rest of your comment, it is very circular and thereby unclear. Ultimately it doesn’t seem to make much sense. It actually reminded me a lot of the chewbacca defense from south park.

The bottom line is when gay marriage is legalized nation wide the only thing that will happen is that a lot of gay people will get married.

Modern society will not melt down, laws and buildings will not crumble and life will go on much the same as we already know it.

98

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions.[/quote]

Here is your quote about the changes. You are saying that these “Changes” are so big that we should not believe what it says.

My argument is that the changes DO NOT change the meaning of the Bible, so the changes are pointless.

If I wrote “They’re going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Does it change the meaning if I instead wrote “There going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Just because I changed the word They’re does not change the meaning. You are stuck on the They’re and not the meaning.

I wish you would believe, but you chose not to and that is your choice. Just do not put me down because I choose to believe, it is my choice.

And no I did not dismiss V post.
[/quote]

Please read this over and over and over and over again:

[quote]Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.

But others are more important. They meant something.[/quote]

And that is the changes we know about and can find. You said it hasn’t been changed. Your wrong. Now you want to goalpost shift and say well yeah it’s changed, but not enough to matter.

No. The fucking book (which you believers can’t even agree on the meaning of anyways) has been changed over history many times.
[/quote]

I never goalpost moved anything. I asked for proof of changes. Your “changes” were not about misspellings, but about Religious people arguing about the Bible. That is meaning and not changes.
[/quote]

I wish I could make a law that says if you have not read the Bible, you cannot discuss it.

It seems to me it is the only book in the world people feel have the right to open criticize without knowing what it says. Do that with any other book and you will be called ridiculous in varying ways. But it’s cool to bitch about the Bible, without knowing a damn thing about it.

It gets old, I tell you.[/quote]

We have confirmation changes have been made.

I’ve also read the Bible. Full of hypocrises. Not what I’d want to base any law on.

99

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions.[/quote]

Here is your quote about the changes. You are saying that these “Changes” are so big that we should not believe what it says.

My argument is that the changes DO NOT change the meaning of the Bible, so the changes are pointless.

If I wrote “They’re going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Does it change the meaning if I instead wrote “There going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Just because I changed the word They’re does not change the meaning. You are stuck on the They’re and not the meaning.

I wish you would believe, but you chose not to and that is your choice. Just do not put me down because I choose to believe, it is my choice.

And no I did not dismiss V post.
[/quote]

Please read this over and over and over and over again:

[quote]Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.

But others are more important. They meant something.[/quote]

And that is the changes we know about and can find. You said it hasn’t been changed. Your wrong. Now you want to goalpost shift and say well yeah it’s changed, but not enough to matter.

No. The fucking book (which you believers can’t even agree on the meaning of anyways) has been changed over history many times.
[/quote]

I never goalpost moved anything. I asked for proof of changes. Your “changes” were not about misspellings, but about Religious people arguing about the Bible. That is meaning and not changes.
[/quote]

I wish I could make a law that says if you have not read the Bible, you cannot discuss it.

It seems to me it is the only book in the world people feel have the right to open criticize without knowing what it says. Do that with any other book and you will be called ridiculous in varying ways. But it’s cool to bitch about the Bible, without knowing a damn thing about it.

It gets old, I tell you.[/quote]

We have confirmation changes have been made.

I’ve also read the Bible. Full of hypocrises. Not what I’d want to base any law on. [/quote]

Oh boy! Here we go. Could you please give me one hypocrisy or contradiction. Oh, and I hope, I truly do, that since you have read the bible you will use proper context and understanding of the law as it was in OT and how it was fulfilled with Christ. Also please watch yourself with any kind of chronological snobbery.

100

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Oh well, pity Abbot will probably win this election.[/quote]

You do realise that Rudd was against gay marriage until the polls and his advisors told him it was a winner right? Rudd is a professional politician.

“The former PM and current backbencher’s announcement marks a significant shift for Mr Rudd. In September 2012, Mr Rudd voted against gay marriage legislation introduced by fellow ALP backbencher Stephen Jones.” - NOVA

It never ceases to amaze me how many people like this walking pile of turd. If compulsory castration was popular he’d make an ‘impassioned plea’ for it. What a dud you are.