Australia votes, yes, or no. Poor show.

GoldenKingGaze · Oct 3, 2017

Australia is voting yes or no to same sex marriage. Malcolm Turnbull set it up, and I am disappointed. The No means no change, the Yes means change but it is not spelled out as to what and how... In 1999 Malcolm took us to vote either for the monarch or a new republic model for Australia. He was behind the yes vote and their was a clearly stated model. The press supported the yes vote. The no vote won by about 5% over the yes.

I am disappointed that the yes vote for SSM is unclear as to the what and how of this new system that looks to be entering into action. Malcolm is not behind the change, maybe that is why there is the lack of enthusiasm. But poor show!

Please pray for your country and Australia, under our guardian angels. The angels see further being close to God. So that whatever the outcome, it the best possible. Our senators are only now writing what they will do if the yes vote wins. May God guide their hearts, minds and hands, in Jesus name, amen.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/civicn...ook-it-didnt-go-how-youd-expect/#4bd9b78a8e29

redleghunter · Oct 3, 2017

GoldenKingGaze said:
Australia is voting yes or no to same sex marriage. Malcolm Turnbull set it up, and I am disappointed. The No means no change, the Yes means change but it is not spelled out as to what and how... In 1999 Malcolm took us to vote either for the monarch or a new republic model for Australia. He was behind the yes vote and their was a clearly stated model. The press supported the yes vote. The no vote won by about 5% over the yes.

I am disappointed that the yes vote for SSM is unclear as to the what and how of this new system that looks to be entering into action. Malcolm is not behind the change, maybe that is why there is the lack of enthusiasm. But poor show!

Please pray for your country and Australia, under our guardian angels. The angels see further being close to God. So that whatever the outcome, it the best possible. Our senators are only now writing what they will do if the yes vote wins. May God guide their hearts, minds and hands, in Jesus name, amen.

Are you in support of yea or nay?

GoldenKingGaze · Oct 3, 2017

I think in due course of a senator asking for something for enough people, they should get what they want, smoothly, without fights. So for now, no, it is not thought out and has other effects on schooling and free speech. If the government figures out a conflict resolution and makes both groups content, then yes.

redleghunter · Oct 3, 2017

GoldenKingGaze said:
I think in due course of a senator asking for something for enough people, they should get what they want, smoothly, without fights. So for now, no, it is not thought out and has other effects on schooling and free speech. If the government figures out a conflict resolution and makes both groups content, then yes.

Your view is to wait for your government to tell you what is or is not marriage?

GoldenKingGaze · Oct 3, 2017

Marriage is already defined correctly, changing it though.
There is traditional marriage which should not change, and there can be written, contemporary marriage, same facets, allowed for anyone, heterosexual or homosexual. It is not the same thing. Celebrants and schools would have new rights so that they don't have to change anything.

redleghunter · Oct 3, 2017

GoldenKingGaze said:
Celebrants and schools would have new rights so that they don't have to change anything.

What does the above mean exactly?

Audacious · Oct 3, 2017

My country has had marriage equality for a bit now, and it hasn't changed anything except that gays can marry other gays if they want.

It doesn't really make sense to stop people from being able to be married just because you, as an individual, don't want them to. I don't like vanilla but that doesn't mean I won't let other people eat it.

redleghunter · Oct 3, 2017

Audacious said:
My country has had marriage equality for a bit now, and it hasn't changed anything except that gays can marry other gays if they want.

It doesn't really make sense to stop people from being able to be married just because you, as an individual, don't want them to. I don't like vanilla but that doesn't mean I won't let other people eat it.

I asked a question about celebrants and schools from the OP. An important point in Australia as religious liberty there is subject to what the government decides.

Whereas in the US the free exercise of religion is a natural right the Constitution recognizes. Not a right given by government.

Secular governments can vote for sin all they want. They told us such would never affect religious practices. They lied and most knew they were.

Paidiske · Oct 3, 2017

In Australia, there are currently two classes of people licensed to solemnise marriage.

There are ministers of religion, who are only licensed to solemnise marriages for adherents of their own religion, according to the rites of their religious denomination or group. We already have the right to refuse to marry any couple, and we are not subject to anti-discrimination legislation in this matter.

There are also civil celebrants, who are licensed to solemnise any legal (civil) marriage, according to the ceremony desired by the couple (provided it meets certain government requirements, such as stating consent). Civil celebrants do not have the right to refuse to marry any couple, but are subject to anti-discrimination legislation.

What is proposed by the government if the definition of marriage changes is that there will be three classes of people licensed to solemnise marriage.

There will be ministers of religion, who will carry on only marrying adherents of their religion according to their denomination's rites. There will be no change for this group, and they will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages against conscience.

There will be civil celebrants, who will be subject to anti-discrimination legislation, and thus required to marry same-sex couples if approached.

And there is a proposed new class of "religious celebrants," in effect, civil celebrants with a religious objection to same-sex marriage, who will continue to offer civil ceremonies but will not be required to marry same-sex couples.

This is, in my view, a messy and unnecessary way to do things; I would prefer that all legal marriage be made a civil affair conducted with a justice of the peace, and that then religious couples could seek out a religious ceremony of their choice, but which would have no legal standing.

The schools stuff is, imho, mostly a furphy. Other unrelated issues to do with schools have been dragged into the marriage reform debate.

redleghunter · Oct 3, 2017

Paidiske said:
In Australia, there are currently two classes of people licensed to solemnise marriage.

There are ministers of religion, who are only licensed to solemnise marriages for adherents of their own religion, according to the rites of their religious denomination or group. We already have the right to refuse to marry any couple, and we are not subject to anti-discrimination legislation in this matter.

There are also civil celebrants, who are licensed to solemnise any legal (civil) marriage, according to the ceremony desired by the couple (provided it meets certain government requirements, such as stating consent). Civil celebrants do not have the right to refuse to marry any couple, but are subject to anti-discrimination legislation.

What is proposed by the government if the definition of marriage changes is that there will be three classes of people licensed to solemnise marriage.

There will be ministers of religion, who will carry on only marrying adherents of their religion according to their denomination's rites. There will be no change for this group, and they will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages against conscience.

There will be civil celebrants, who will be subject to anti-discrimination legislation, and thus required to marry same-sex couples if approached.

And there is a proposed new class of "religious celebrants," in effect, civil celebrants with a religious objection to same-sex marriage, who will continue to offer civil ceremonies but will not be required to marry same-sex couples.

This is, in my view, a messy and unnecessary way to do things; I would prefer that all legal marriage be made a civil affair conducted with a justice of the peace, and that then religious couples could seek out a religious ceremony of their choice, but which would have no legal standing.

The schools stuff is, imho, mostly a furphy. Other unrelated issues to do with schools have been dragged into the marriage reform debate.

Thank you for clarifying.

dude99 · Oct 4, 2017

redleghunter said:
I asked a question about celebrants and schools from the OP. An important point in Australia as religious liberty there is subject to what the government decides.

Whereas in the US the free exercise of religion is a natural right the Constitution recognizes. Not a right given by government.

Secular governments can vote for sin all they want. They told us such would never affect religious practices. They lied and most knew they were.

That is true. Look at Canada example and this is where Australia could be like in a few years time:
In Canada, freedoms of speech, press and religion have suffered greatly. If one says or writes anything considered "homophobic", anything questioning same sex marriage, one could face discipline, termination of employment, and/or prosecution by the government.

Also parents in Canada have no right to to take their children out of a class when there is a topic of homosexuality or transgender issues.
In Canada, same-sex marriage is destroying all other rights

Paidiske · Oct 4, 2017

Australia is not Canada. Even if half the hyped-up claims about the situation in Canada are true (I remain highly skeptical), it is not a given that that is what would happen here.

dude99 · Oct 4, 2017

Paidiske said:
Australia is not Canada. Even if half the hyped-up claims about the situation in Canada are true (I remain highly skeptical), it is not a given that that is what would happen here.

Canada has had same sex marriage for over 10 years now. Now there is a pressure to bring the safe schools to all schools in Australia.

Here is case of an outcome of a case in Canada:
An Ontario Superior Court justice has ruled against a Hamilton father who wanted advance notice from the Hamilton public school board of 'false teachings" so he could remove his children from classes on those days.

Steve Tourloukis had argued his rights to religious freedom should mean he could prevent his children being taught about subjects that go against those values.

Justice Robert B. Reid dismissed the application last Wednesday, saying inclusion and equality comes before "individual religious accommodations in public educationCourt rejects Hamilton dad's fight against school board

Paidiske · Oct 4, 2017

Yes, but there was much more to that case than same-sex marriage. Read more here: The Poster Dad For The "No" Campaign Didn't Want His Kids Taught About Wizardry, Horoscopes

Basically, he had a whole laundry list of topics - not all sexuality related - and he wanted the school to notify him in advance every time one of them would be mentioned so he could pull his children out of school. The court decision was that the demand was not practically able to be met, and also to the detriment of the children concerned, who would be excluded or marginalised within their own class. It also noted that part of learning to function in society is learning to get along with people who hold different beliefs or ideas to you.

It also noted that he had the option of charter schools or home schooling, if parental concern about false teachings was paramount; it was not a concern which could be met to the extent this father wanted, within a normal state school.

But that's not - as I said - just about sexuality. This guy's list of issues included environmental concerns, particular forms of ethics, and all sorts of stuff. In fact the court explicitly told him he could withdraw his children from sex ed. classes.

dude99 · Oct 4, 2017

actually the Green party does want to make Safe schools compulsary in all schools and remove religious objections in the anti discrimination act. They could be in the balance of power in the next federal election and never know that can be achieved.

Even if the same sex marriage outcome is no, if Labor gets in, it be compulsary for every Labor member to support same sex marriage. In addition they will expand the number of schools in the safe school system and increase funding, who knows it could be compulsary nationwide. IN the UK all schools need to teach about homosexual and transgender issues now.

In the case of the Christian protested is in the same Canadian province in a new law where:
Canada's Ontario province has passed legislation that allows the government to seize children from families that refuse to accept their child's chosen "gender identity" or "gender expression."

The so-called Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, or Bill 89, was approved by a vote of 63 to 23,
Ontario Passes Law Allowing Gov't to Seize Children From Parents Who Oppose Gender Transition

Of course Christians can co exist in a society that is increasingly non Christian, yet there has been an erosion of religious freedom still.

Paidiske · Oct 4, 2017

Most of that is irrelevant to the proposed reform of the Marriage Act, though.

There is another side to religious freedom in the marriage debate; and that is the religious freedom of those religious groups who do want to solemnise and recognise same-sex marriages.

I will go to the wall for people's right to religious freedom every time. But that doesn't include the right to live in a bubble where you never have to deal with ideas or practices you don't like.

Armoured · Oct 4, 2017

Paidiske said:
In Australia, there are currently two classes of people licensed to solemnise marriage.

There are ministers of religion, who are only licensed to solemnise marriages for adherents of their own religion, according to the rites of their religious denomination or group. We already have the right to refuse to marry any couple, and we are not subject to anti-discrimination legislation in this matter.

There are also civil celebrants, who are licensed to solemnise any legal (civil) marriage, according to the ceremony desired by the couple (provided it meets certain government requirements, such as stating consent). Civil celebrants do not have the right to refuse to marry any couple, but are subject to anti-discrimination legislation.

What is proposed by the government if the definition of marriage changes is that there will be three classes of people licensed to solemnise marriage.

There will be ministers of religion, who will carry on only marrying adherents of their religion according to their denomination's rites. There will be no change for this group, and they will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages against conscience.

There will be civil celebrants, who will be subject to anti-discrimination legislation, and thus required to marry same-sex couples if approached.

And there is a proposed new class of "religious celebrants," in effect, civil celebrants with a religious objection to same-sex marriage, who will continue to offer civil ceremonies but will not be required to marry same-sex couples.

This is, in my view, a messy and unnecessary way to do things; I would prefer that all legal marriage be made a civil affair conducted with a justice of the peace, and that then religious couples could seek out a religious ceremony of their choice, but which would have no legal standing.

The schools stuff is, imho, mostly a furphy. Other unrelated issues to do with schools have been dragged into the marriage reform debate.

upvote for use of the word "furphy".

It would be nice if people had discussed marriage equality, rather than getting into all the nonsense about safe schools and transgender toilet use and all the rest, but the "No" campaign has behaved exactly as predicted and expected. I'm still trying to work out who died and made the "No" campaign "the official " no campaign.

Armoured · Oct 4, 2017

dude99 said:
actually the Green party does want to make Safe schools compulsary in all schools and remove religious objections in the anti discrimination act. They could be in the balance of power in the next federal election and never know that can be achieved.

Even if the same sex marriage outcome is no, if Labor gets in, it be compulsary for every Labor member to support same sex marriage. In addition they will expand the number of schools in the safe school system and increase funding, who knows it could be compulsary nationwide. IN the UK all schools need to teach about homosexual and transgender issues now.

In the case of the Christian protested is in the same Canadian province in a new law where:
Canada's Ontario province has passed legislation that allows the government to seize children from families that refuse to accept their child's chosen "gender identity" or "gender expression."

The so-called Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, or Bill 89, was approved by a vote of 63 to 23,
Ontario Passes Law Allowing Gov't to Seize Children From Parents Who Oppose Gender Transition

Of course Christians can co exist in a society that is increasingly non Christian, yet there has been an erosion of religious freedom still.

What "erosion"? What single thing are you prevented from freely doing in your religious practice?

Paidiske · Oct 4, 2017

Hello, Armoured, nice to see you around.

dude99 · Oct 5, 2017

Paidiske said:
Most of that is irrelevant to the proposed reform of the Marriage Act, though.

There is another side to religious freedom in the marriage debate; and that is the religious freedom of those religious groups who do want to solemnise and recognise same-sex marriages.

I will go to the wall for people's right to religious freedom every time. But that doesn't include the right to live in a bubble where you never have to deal with ideas or practices you don't like.

Actually it is the consequences of legalised same sex marriage.

In another country that has legalised same sex marriage the Swedish government has forced the Church of Sweden to conduct gay marriages:
Sweden's Prime Minister says no priest working for the Church of Sweden should be allowed to refuse to wed same-sex couples.
Swedish Prime Minister: Priests Should Be Forced to Perform Same-Sex Weddings

In addition if one speaks out of not supporting same sex couples that adopt children means you can loose your job as this case in the UK suggests:
AChristian magistrate who lost his job and then his role as an NHS director for speaking out against adoption by same-sex parents will this week sue NHS bosses claiming political correctness can prevent Christians holding public posts.

Richard Page was suspended as an NHS Trust director after he claimed it was better for a child to be brought up by both a man and a woman.

Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (KMPT) claimed his stance “undermined” the confidence of staff, particularly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees.
Christian magistrate in gay adoption row set for legal battle with 0NHS bosses

In a world that is politically correct you need to be careful of what you state as you can loose your job.

Australia votes, yes, or no. Poor show.

Prevent Slavery, support the persecuted.

Thank You Jesus!

Prevent Slavery, support the persecuted.

Thank You Jesus!

Prevent Slavery, support the persecuted.

Thank You Jesus!

Viva La Socialist Revolution

Thank You Jesus!

Clara bonam audax

Thank You Jesus!

Newbie

Clara bonam audax

Newbie

Clara bonam audax

Newbie

Clara bonam audax

So is America great again yet?

So is America great again yet?

Clara bonam audax

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency