The "NO" Case in the Australian SSM Debate

[josh987654321]

Quit being insulting

I do not wish to insult you because I am glad that you believe in the Churches teaching on issues like euthanasia, marriage and I assume abortion too. But I think what I have said is pretty self explanatory and I don’t see how I could add to it, so I will just leave it here.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I do not wish to insult you because I am glad that you believe in the Churches teaching on issues like euthanasia, marriage and I assume abortion too.

But I think what I have said is pretty self explanatory and I don’t see how I could add to it, so I will just leave it here.

Firstly, you have no idea what I believe as I have never discussed issues besides historical sexual abuse and this survey, and of course, Rainbows. And our wonderful holy Father Pope Francis.

You are being asked to prove it or detract your claim. We can’t just run around accusing others of saying stuff they didn’t. And you have just done that. Especially accusing others of attempting to coerce others not to fill out surveys about this type of thing.

 

[Rau]

You are being asked to prove it or detract your claim. We can’t just run around accusing others of saying stuff they didn’t. And you have just done that. Especially accusing others of attempting to coerce others not to fill out surveys about this type of thing.

Josh made his claim, you denied it and in response to your request for evidence he produced it. Readers can judge whether he was justified or not. There is no need for either of you to litigate the matter further.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Josh made his claim, you denied it and in response to your request for evidence he produced it. Readers can judge whether he was justified or not. There is no need for either of you to litigate the matter further.

Actually no, I did not say it, nor suggest it. Anywhere. And as such, its uncharitable and insulting.

Stating that this survey is not a vote, and has no legal standing, is not in any way saying don’t fill the survey in.

 

[Rau]

Actually no, I did not say it, nor suggest it.

I’ve not shared my view on what you did/did not say. I saw the claim, your denial and Josh’s evidence and, like other readers, can form my own view based on that. My point is there is no need for you to keep denying nor is there a need for josh to keep asserting.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Yes everyone can, however; this does not remove the accusation, nor how I feel about it.

 

[edwest21]

Inclusion, as used here, clearly shows that certain groups cannot be included. Unless, of course, they deny certain things.

 

[edwest21]

“marriage business”? Oh pleeeez. This is about social engineering. To make something legal that is impossible.

 

[Rau]

As of today, the polls show the yes vote at 57% support and No at 34%. Yes has lost about 6% points of support since the last poll and No gained 4%.

 

[edwest21]

Your view is incorrect. I lived through the planned destruction of the family by various named groups in the United States and their counterparts in the rest of the West. The Body of Christ was slowly, gradually poisoned by the media, starting with TV in the 1970s, as well as movies and music. The barbarians were extremely persistent and eventually breached the walls. Dysfunctional is the standard character template on TV. Cohabitation with sex? No big deal. Is anything really a scandal anymore? Really? But don’t take just my word for it.

https://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1942475217

Immoral living and deviant sexual behaviors were marketed like any product.

 

[Rau]

Cohabitation with sex? No big deal.

Certainly it’s presented that way. In fact sex, in the context of romantic affection, is always presented as natural, pleasing and sweet. Sex in the face of mutual sexual attraction is always painted as “understandable” even acceptable.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Do you really expect us to believe you are just innocently pointing out it’s a survey? Sounds to me like you are using the occasion to try and virtue-signal and think errenously like so many others the fight is over before it’s really even begun.

Oh yes, making this nonsense legal isn’t a win. Just look at the GBLT divorce rate. Sky high. Average span of a relationship is less than 2 years. Basically, a lot of these relationships are doomed from the start.

Because they have chosen the path of EVIL over God’s will and in the end, Rose, they will be defeated no matter how badly they want it to work.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Another wise post.

Just look at all the excuse-making going on this forum. This is what happens when Catholics shove their logic aside to virtue-signal and try in a vain attempt get the secular left to love them.

 

[Rau]

Just look at the GBLT divorce rate. Sky high. Average span of a relationship is less than 2 years. B

Can you point me to the reference for this?

 

[Rau]

Just look at all the excuse-making going on this forum.

Are you referring to this thread - Who is making excuses? Has anyone at all spoken in favour if SSM?

I hope you’re not mistaking a capacity to see the basis of an opinion one doesn’t support as “excuse making”. Dialogue becomes impossible when mutual understanding is absent.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Do you really expect us to believe you are just innocently pointing out it’s a survey? Sounds to me like you are using the occasion to try and virtue-signal and think errenously like so many others the fight is over before it’s really even begun.

Oh yes, making this nonsense legal isn’t a win. Just look at the GBLT divorce rate. Sky high. Average span of a relationship is less than 2 years. Basically, a lot of these relationships are doomed from the start.

Because they have chosen the path of EVIL over God’s will and in the end, Rose, they will be defeated no matter how badly they want it to work.

You are free to believe what you want.
It’s not going to change what I posted, and it’s not going to change what my point is. Not one bit.

It also won’t make what josh accused me of, true.

You are free to use buzz in vogue catch phrases like virtue signal. You are free to espouse on divorce rates in countries that already have SSM. You are free to espouse and lament the doom of relationships. None of that extinguishes my point.

You are free to preach about paths of evil, you are free to preach about the Will of God. If someone is already in an sexual SSM/ relationship, or in a sexual relationship outside marriage if heterosexual, they already are in sin. Let’s not pretend they arent. But as Jesus says he who is free from sin cast the first stone.

Again, just in case you missed it.

The survey is NOT a vote
The survey is not compulsory. ( voting is compulsory here)
The survey is NONE binding
The survey has already seen a lot of corruption.
The survey is a huge waste of money

Regardless the result, Parliament, who already has a mandate to introduce and pass this Bill, will do so. If they vote yes as a majority.

And watch the yes side grow legs and fly once Cardinal Pell goes back in court in a couple of weeks. The attitude of badlt ( the chatter who posted on the 7% issue on this thread) is the attitude of most everyone who doesn’t attend Catholic Mass here at the moment. That chatter is just echoing the cry.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Why would any sane Australian listen to the Catholic Church which was just determined to have 7% of their priests accused of child rape in Australia? And who refuse to report child rapists who confess to them. Might as well be getting marital advice from the Mafia.

This is what is being echoed very loudly here by the yes camp. And the non practising Catholic population.
It’s echo is going to get much louder as Cardinal Pell goes back to court on October 6, right in the middle of the survey.

 

[Rau]

Parliament, who already has a mandate to introduce and pass this Bill,

Parliament has the legal capacity to introduce SSM. But where did the mandate you speak of come from? A mandate for a platform or policy is ordinarily held to arise when a party, campaigning on that platform / policy , is elected to government. That hasn’t happened in this instance. In fact the party that did campaign with a promise to act to introduce SSM lost the last election.

What we can say is that:

• the parliament (on a conscience vote basis) would likely favour SSM;
• the people, based on routine opinion pools, would likely favour SSM.

But there does not seem to be “a mandate”. And I don’t believe any parliamentarian is claiming there is one. The only claim of that kind was that the government parties claimed that they had a mandate to hold a plebiscite.

 

[edwest21]

You are the master of deflection and like a stage magician, very good at making the audience forget about the real issue and encouraging them to look at something else in a different way. Being disenguous is not helping.

 

[Rau]

You are the master of deflection and like a stage magician, very good at making the audience forget about the real issue and encouraging them to look at something else in a different way. Being disenguous is not helping.

I re-enforce your condemnation of the media over the way it presents sexual relations, and for some reason known unto you alone, that is disingenuous? Why would that be Ed? Did you want me to support something else you’ve said? If I’m supporting your point, does that make you the Magician