The "NO" Case in the Australian SSM Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rau
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am new here and hope I am replying correctly.

I ticked the NO box. I had once thought our nation was built on christian values and laws, and now agree that this is the minority. My understanding of marriage is that is was a religious word used to describe the unity and intention of procreation between a man and woman. I feel that changing the meaning does complicate things. I was personally targeted for my views and my comments that the current laws were not stopping any in the lgbt community from civil union.

I fear this opens the way for transgender rights and sexual divenence. I am firmly of the belief that transgender is a mental health issue and psychiatry is the work of the devil.

I witnessed so much hate on this campain, and in my experience it was not the No voters spewing it.

If anything this has pushed me more into the faith, and I hope to be confirmed as catholic soon.
 
Its been a while since I studied theology of the sacrament but I believe that from the beginning there was nothing new in early Christian communities. The legal vehicles and words used were simply those of the cultures Christians lived in. Roman Law predomonantly.

While I think society is going to pot that has always been its nature over time to do so.
Christian effort I believe needs to start moving away from forcing society to conform to what is essentially christian shariah no matter how enlightened. The soil is no longer fertile.
Better methinks to move into a more humble bloom where you are planted, local community, salt of the earth witness mode. It will get more certain results though more slowly. Like the early church.
Christian politics simply isnt working well any longer. Look at what happened to allegedly christian Ireland in just two generations. Something in our modern approach is simply not working.
 
BlackFriar said:
Christian effort I believe needs to start moving away from forcing society to conform to what is essentially christian shariah no matter how enlightened.
Click to expand...
There is no “forcing” involved. There is no capacity to “force”, only a democratic process to express a view on the best course. To do so need not mean abandoning the other path you propose.
 
Last edited:
It makes my skin crawl to know that at least two Australian Catholic bishops are preaching that it’s okay for Catholics to vote Yes to SSM. Aren’t Catholics supposed to oppose the works of the devil, not support them? And aren’t bishops supposed to be setting good examples?
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
It makes my skin crawl to know that at least two Australian Catholic bishops are preaching that it’s okay for Catholics to vote Yes to SSM. Aren’t Catholics supposed to oppose the works of the devil, not support them? And aren’t bishops supposed to be setting good examples?
Click to expand...
which 2 Bishops?
 
Bishop Vincent Long of Parramatta.

Bishop William Wright of Maitland-Newcastle.
 
Sick and disturbing but not unsurprising. Pope Francis and his “Progressive” followers have allowed this. Its worth asking which said do they support the situation is so bad.

The normalization of Homosexual Marriage and Abortion should have those supporters expelled from the Church but it seems to be fine. There is no vagueness the doctrine is clear, they distort our faith.

Its also clear a lot of these LGBT supporting
priests are closeted homosexuals themselves they want their followers to enable their perversion. They make me sick.
 
CatholicJames180 said:
Its also clear a lot of these LGBT supporting

priests are closeted homosexuals themselves they want their followers to enable their perversion. They make me sick.
Click to expand...
I was going to flag this as slandering Priests, then I thought no, if you are going to slander Priests

Who are you talking about specifically and what’s your proof?
 
CatholicJames180 said:
The normalization of Homosexual Marriage and Abortion should have those supporters expelled from the Church but it seems to be fine. There is no vagueness the doctrine is clear, they distort our faith.
Click to expand...
But who are you talking about? And do they argue for a change in Catholic doctrine, or do they argue that Catholics are not bound to seek alignment of civil law with doctrine? And are instances of the latter point really a matter for prudential judgment?
 
Last edited:
I sincerely hope that Australians, in general, are not foolish enough to vote yes.
 
Holly3278 said:
I sincerely hope that Australians, in general, are not foolish enough to vote yes.
Click to expand...
Marriage has been redefined in many countries to include SSM, and informal surveys report majority support in those countries (and in many others).

Ireland voted in a referendum and voted yes.

It would be remarkable if this Australian postal survey were to return a No vote. More remarkable is that some politicians have said that given the chance in a parliamentary vote they will vote in a particular manner regardless of the survey results.
 
Rau said:
How about discussion, consideration, then registering a vote. Is this forcing?
Click to expand...
Yes majority voting and single issue voting (which is sometimes that of the biggest minority) seems a blunt form of coercion, a use of worldly power rather than the more difficult art of persuasion by means of virtue, concerned personal involvement, quiet example and maybe even a few words if appropriate.

Ireland is a good example of how excessive concentration on worldly means to enforce virtue on a nation has likely passed its use-by-date as it simply generates a backlash.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top