Beer Garden

[rev]

Ahh, run and hide now with some poor character assassination. I like how Mono lets slide the veiled personal abuse directed at me(since those doing it are on "his side"), just like he let the racism from GHS slide a while ago.

The only reason I'm letting everyone's abuse stand is so others can see what people really think and the kinds of things that they decide are appropriate on a public forum. To remove anything at this point would be to hide people's ugly sides, and make any retaliations look out of proportion.

Also I'd get accusations of "stifling freedom of speech". It's a lose-lose situation.

The phrase about heads in the sand doesn't quite describe how far gone some people really are. But hey, we should keep it as civil as possible.

I'm not actually opposed to gays. What I personally think is right or wrong, is irrelevant. Because we all have free will, and what I think or believe is of no relevance to anyone else, nor is it right for me, or anyone, to impose and force their beliefs or views on others. If only your side of this argument believed and practiced the same, which we can see quite clearly from their responses and their treatment of me, that they don't. Hence why I'm enjoying exposing their hypocrisy.

I have said gays should be able to get hitched. I believe they should. While I may or may not agree with their lifestyle, who am I to say they should or shouldn't? Who am I to impose my beliefs on them?
I have said that religious rights should be protected, and religious institutions should not be forced to conform to this LGBTQQI agenda being rammed down societies collective throat.

I was challenged on this. Well, more like attacked and had false accusations made of what I actually said, but whatever.
The opposing side says that we should follow other countries in legalizing SSM. Equality. blah blah.

I challenged this and provided examples of the negative impact of legalizing SSM, by providing examples of intollerance towards religious groups, and examples of where they are being forced to conform or face harsh penalties, and examples were even parents have lost rights regarding their children.

Nobody arguing against me, even though I technically agree gays should be able to tie the knot as long as religious groups are adequately protected, can counter any of the negative examples I've provided of the realities of forcing through SSM without a proper process.

How is it equality, if religious groups and religious people are being persecuted based on their religious beliefs/teachings in regards to same sex marriage? Not just overseas, but here in Australia as well..
And it is happening, you can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, pretend it's not going on, but it is going on, and those examples I provided don't even represent the pointiest end of the tip of the iceberg on the matter.

More then 50% of Australian's might agree, I assume the "non binding" vote will succeed, but what they agree on is that same sex couples should be able to get married.

What they are not being shown, and not being asked, is whether they agree that children should be forced into indoctrination, or whether they agree that religious groups/institutions and others should be exempt from this stuff if it is counter to their religious beliefs and scriptures.

Now pose those sorts of questions to the Australian public and you'll get a very different result to the expected success of the yes vote at present.

I was accused of cherry picking what suits my argument.
Well duh. I'm making an argument for something I believe in, in line with my views and opinion, of course I'm going to do my research and find facts that support my side of the argument. Do these people mean to tell me that they don't use facts that support their side of the argument?
I chose to inform my self on what's happening overseas, since SSM being legalized overseas therefore it should be legalized here is one of the battle cries of the yes campaign. Should I apologize to those whose feelings are hurt by the truth, because the truth and facts don't line up with their indoctrination?

[rev]

Ahh, run and hide now with some poor character assassination. I like how Mono lets slide the veiled personal abuse directed at me(since those doing it are on "his side"), just like he let the racism from GHS slide a while ago.

Given you called someone an idiot just a few posts ago, you don't seem to be demonstrating either an abhorance or an understanding of personal attacks.

After all the abuse I've received from people like you? LOL

It's simply the politically incorrect way of saying what others have directed at me throughout this discussion.

The only reason I'm letting everyone's abuse stand is so others can see what people really think and the kinds of things that they decide are appropriate on a public forum. To remove anything at this point would be to hide people's ugly sides, and make any retaliations look out of proportion.

Also I'd get accusations of "stifling freedom of speech". It's a lose-lose situation.

I agree with your approach being the only available, but as at least one voice in the scenario of letting forumers decide what's appropriate conversation - I've found the mental health jibes and other personal attacks throughout this thread pretty unpleasant. This topic has long since boiled over, but for future discussion I hope as a forum we can agree on a simple rule for all: play the ball not the man. Not for mod enforcement, just an etiquette to keep each other in check.
[/quote]

play the ball not the man

That's hilarious.After all the unwarranted "playing the man" posts directed at me, you people now pull this out.
I do wonder though, do you find any of the inappropriate and offensive jibes at me to be a problem?

What's the matter guys, that post full of examples of intolerance towards religious groups/people opposed to SSM got you a bit jittery has it?

[SRW]

play the ball not the man

That's hilarious.After all the unwarranted "playing the man" posts directed at me, you people now pull this out.
I do wonder though, do you find any of the inappropriate and offensive jibes at me to be a problem? :wink

I did, and I said so. I'm saying so again now. But you've dealt as much if not more than you've been given.

[Maximus]

Let me start with I support gay marriage.
But I like to understand the opposite side of any argument.
I actually haven't heard this arguement said but I can assume the people that are against gay marriage are against it because they find it obscene.

... ... ...

There is a line somewhere for obscene and that line is an imaginary line humans make up in society.
A vote is a good way to get the majority idea of where the line should be.

In all the flurry, I felt the need to jump back in and highlight this post. One of the most sensible things I've read. Completely aligns with all the points I made about respect, engagement and constructive debate many, many pages ago. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much direct, nor constructive, engagement happening in the past dozen or so pages -- from either side.

[Matt]

I have no interest in 'engaging' or 'debating' (either constructively or otherwise) with anyone who believes I should be entitled to less rights than them by virtue of who I love.

[Mpol03]

I have no interest in 'engaging' or 'debating' (either constructively or otherwise) with anyone who believes I should be entitled to less rights than them by virtue of who I love.

[rev]

I have no interest in 'engaging' or 'debating' (either constructively or otherwise) with anyone who believes I should be entitled to less rights than them by virtue of who I love.

Good, stop replying then. Put me on ignore too.

Why? Because I never once said anything of the sort.
You're just someone who can't look at this without your emotions and selfishness getting in the way. You are a militant left winger, the sort of idiot I highlighted with some pictures of vandalised churches.

People like you are the problem, who think that anyone who doesn't automatically agree with 100% of everything you say/think, is attacking you.

This was a rather amusing exercise to be honest.
I never once disagreed that gays should have the same legal rights, as couples, that straight people do, you know, what you are all supposedly "fighting" for.
I've given examples of how it's gone beyond those simple legal rights, but none of you seem to want to talk about those negatives occurring overseas where ssm has been passed. Or the negatives of this whole issue that are starting to creep in to Australia.

All that my issue is, is that the process with which this will be done, so it doesn't affect others. So that it doesn't cause other problems.
I've given examples of how it has affected others in other western countries where ssm has been legalized. I used other countries because one of the core arguments in the Yes campaign is that others have done it, we should catch up with the times and do it too. Really strong argument from the yes side lmfao.

You're all a bunch of hypocritical, emotionally unstable, selfish individuals.

[[Shuz]]

People like you are the problem, who think that anyone who doesn't automatically agree with 100% of everything you say/think, is attacking you.

You're all a bunch of hypocritical, emotionally unstable, selfish individuals.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Maximus]

I have no interest in 'engaging' or 'debating' (either constructively or otherwise) with anyone who believes I should be entitled to less rights than them by virtue of who I love.

I'm assuming you mean that there are people on this forum who believe as much. In which case, please quote the exact text where this belief has been stated.

[Matt]

I have no interest in 'engaging' or 'debating' (either constructively or otherwise) with anyone who believes I should be entitled to less rights than them by virtue of who I love.

I'm assuming you mean that there are people on this forum who believe as much. In which case, please quote the exact text where this belief has been stated.

"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

Fairly straightforward.

[Nort]

It just makes me so sad that people arguing we need changes to law to "protect religious freedom" apparently like the status quo and think it is fine for society to ignore those who have religious objections to interfaith marriages, interracial marriages, or divorced people getting married. Society won't be truly free until any service provider has you fill out a checklist of what you are buying, what it is for, and who will be consuming/using it to ensure you meet their religious standards as a customer.

[Maximus]

"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

Fairly straightforward.

I'd say simplistic. It's entirely possible to vote no because you believe no one should have the legal right to marry. That would also result in equal legal rights. In fact, it's exactly what Rev has been advocating for over the past gazillion pages.

[rev]

I have no interest in 'engaging' or 'debating' (either constructively or otherwise) with anyone who believes I should be entitled to less rights than them by virtue of who I love.

I'm assuming you mean that there are people on this forum who believe as much. In which case, please quote the exact text where this belief has been stated.

"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

Fairly straightforward.

That doesn't answer his question.

Considering I'm the one whose being accused of saying as much, by you, I'll take this as you conceding it was never said.

[rev]

It just makes me so sad that people arguing we need changes to law to "protect religious freedom" apparently like the status quo and think it is fine for society to ignore those who have religious objections to interfaith marriages, interracial marriages, or divorced people getting married. Society won't be truly free until any service provider has you fill out a checklist of what you are buying, what it is for, and who will be consuming/using it to ensure you meet their religious standards as a customer.

Name one major religion that refuses interacial marriages.

[Ben]

It just makes me so sad that people arguing we need changes to law to "protect religious freedom" apparently like the status quo and think it is fine for society to ignore those who have religious objections to interfaith marriages, interracial marriages, or divorced people getting married. Society won't be truly free until any service provider has you fill out a checklist of what you are buying, what it is for, and who will be consuming/using it to ensure you meet their religious standards as a customer.

Name one major religion that refuses interacial marriages.

Greek orthodox.

Excerpt from this book:

ORTHODOX VIEW OF INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE

Bishop Iakovos, Prof. of Orthodox Theology, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. 1987.

"No matter what Hollywood say, I can't believe God smiles on such (interracial) marriages."

https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church- ... 0937032565