Australians Say ‘Yes’ to Same-Sex Marriage, Clearing Path for Legalization

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jig_Saw said:
Maybe, maybe not.
Click to expand...
As Catholics we should be.
Jig_Saw said:
Try to convince people to oppose SSM without using hatred and let me know how that goes.
Click to expand...
Win or lose, I can hold my head high.
1 Peter 3:13-17
13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right? 14 But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.
Click to expand...
God Bless

Thank you for reading.
 
Last edited:
Jig_Saw said:
Try to convince people to oppose SSM without using hatred
Click to expand...
SSM has been debated for several years and opinions are largely formed. [You assert the bulk of those who oppose do so on the basis of hate, which I and others reject.]. I suspect it would be difficult to cause many people at all to change their position - one way or the other - in a short period of time. I would suggest that adopting “hatred” as a means to persuade would be counter-productive to whichever case (pro or anti) sought to utilize it.
 
Rau said:
SSM has been debated for several years and opinions are largely formed. [You assert the bulk of those who oppose do so on the basis of hate, which I and others reject.]. I suspect it would be difficult to cause many people at all to change their position - one way or the other - in a short period of time. I would suggest that adopting “hatred” as a means to persuade would be counter-productive to whichever case (pro or anti) sought to utilize it.
Click to expand...
Opinions have changed to the point where majority of people voted against SSM to the point where the majority of people now vote for it. So, for a portion of the population, the opinions have changed.
 
I thought I just said more or less just that, plus a bit more. We found agreement!
 
Last edited:
Liberal MP, James Paterson, a Yes voter, attempted a compromise by submitting an alternative Bill which offered robust protection for religious individuals, organisations, businesses and parents. Paterson’s Bill would have ensured that the change to the Marriage Act only affected same-sex couples wishing to marry, something repeatedly assured by the Yes campaign. However, Paterson withdrew the Bill for consideration on 15 November, the same day the result was announced.

While many are dismayed at Paterson’s move, it is not a surprise
Click to expand...
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...ge-and-religious-freedom-is-already-in-peril/
 
Last edited:
From the first document you posted:

However, for the growing group of moralists who view themselves as the new suffragettes, legal exemption to marry same-sex couples “on religious grounds” seems about as reasonable to deny women the vote “on religious grounds”.

😨 Praying for Australia
 
Last edited:
The situation was entirely predictable. Incorporation of SSM into marriage is not merely “allowing” some private behaviour, but rather an endorsement of it as good and just and a right for same sex attracted persons. Consequently, discriminating against couples pursuing SSM begins to resemble discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. People seeing the situation from this perspective naturally conclude that refusing to ”bake a cake” for a SSM is no different than discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation.

In the short term, only limited exemptions to non-discrimination laws will be allowed - meaning marriage celebrants may limit themselves to traditional marriage. There are 2 further moves afoot:
  • to incorporate a UN article addressing religious freedom and freedom of speech into Australian Law;
  • to establish an enquiry into religious freedoms that may (if found appropriate) lead to further protections.
In the near term, the legal situation will likely resemble that in the US and elsewhere where SSM is legal.
 
Joe1 said:
However, for the growing group of moralists who view themselves as the new suffragettes, legal exemption to marry same-sex couples “on religious grounds” seems about as reasonable to deny women the vote “on religious grounds”.
Click to expand...
And they are correct. Of course your religious freedom is intact. You are free to hate and discriminate against those people in your own home. If your business openly stipulates to cater only to members - as a closed, members only club - and reserves the right to refuse membership on any and all grounds, you are free to do that. Of course your business will suffer, but that is your choice. Actions have consequences. 🙂
 
Joe1 said:
What do you mean hate and discriminate?
Click to expand...
Often the opposite of what those terms actually mean. Usually employed spuriously by the ‘tolerance’ police.
 
Last edited:
Scowler said:
You are free to hate and discriminate…
Click to expand...
Hate as an internal emotion Is an entirely personal matter and not subject to the law in any fashion. Hate expressed in various ways transgresses the law, and consequences may follow for that expression. To decline to contribute to certain kinds of activities because by assisting those activities (eg. creating a video memento) one feels one is participating in something contrary to moral behaviour is claimed as a right pursuant to freedom of religion, and the law in various jurisdictions is wrestling with the question of whether it is reasonable to judge such acceptable, rather than an unjust discrimination. The law only seeks to oppose unjust discrimination; we “discriminate” routinely and justly. What is unjust is not universally agreed. As in matters of free speech, freedom to act (or in this case, not to participate) as religious beliefs require, is a difficult matter for the law to address.

As a recent newspaper editorial opined:

“…marriage equality [ie. SSM] proponents need to accept that, in a liberal society, it is enough that people tolerate that which they do not approve. They cannot be compelled to like it, or take part in, or teach the new expanded version of marriage.”
 
Last edited:
Good heavens.

I may never think of the term “down under” the same way again.

Oh, wait. My country had a President who lit up the White House in rainbow colors as a victory lap after a similar Supreme Court ruling.

And my state (California) threw out an entire landslide election (supporting the already existing LAW) as being “unconstitutional”.

Sensible Australians … I feel your pain.

WONDER what would happen if ONE Australian judge deemed THAT election “unconstitutional” or the Australian equivalent?
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
To decline to contribute to certain kinds of activities because by assisting those activities (eg. creating a video memento) one feels one is participating in something contrary to moral behavior…
Click to expand...
What nonsense! Taking a picture or a video is not “participating” in anything. If you would be forced to grab “knob A” and help it to insert into “hole B”, you could rightfully complain about participation. But that is not going to happen. 🙂
Rau said:
As in matters of free speech, freedom to act (or in this case, not to participate) as religious beliefs require, is a difficult matter for the law to address.
Click to expand...
Not that hard. We are not talking about general “participation” but not being to discriminate between customers, who wish to employ the legitimate services of the business, open to the public. As a private citizen you cannot be “forced” to do anything you may disapprove of. As a business owner you can declare your business to be a closed, member only club, and you can refuse membership to anyone you don’t like. So, why is the whining about being “forced” to participate?
 
Rau said:
What ignorance you display.
Click to expand...
Not true. You stay an outside observer, not a participant. Of course some people have no idea what certain words mean… and that is their problem.
Rau said:
Because being required to help out the celebration of what one finds immoral - or be sued - is an affront.
Click to expand...
As a private citizen you cannot be “forced” to participate in anything. As a business owner you are allowed to declare your business to be closed to the general public and only cater to a selected few. On the other hand, if you are open to the public, you must cater to all the members of the public, even if you disagree with them.

What is so difficult about these simple principles?
 
CaptFun said:
And my state (California) threw out an entire landslide election (supporting the already existing LAW) as being “unconstitutional”.
Click to expand...
Proposition 8 had a couple of issues ; it violated due process and equal protection clauses. California had already previously granted rights to same sex couples to marry and there hadn’t been a rational basis provided for taking them away. I don’t think it’s a good parallel to what’s happening in Australia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top