• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

SSM postal vote

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
36,068
20,331
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,770,905.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
3. No legal definition of marriage

Advantages: Flexibility for people to do as they like. Gives LGBT all the equality they could reasonably want. Not based on a lie.

Disadvantages: None.

Actually, I disagree that there are no disadvantages if there is no legal definition of marriage. Perhaps once that would have been true, in more primitive cultures, but now so many of our laws and social structures are built around the concept, that it would be extraordinarily difficult to unwind them all.

In particular, for those of us who don't necessarily see our horizons limited to being in the same country for the rest of our lives, unless the entire world were to simultaneously drop any legal definition of marriage, travel and living/working/raising children between different countries would become much more complicated if we, in essence, ceased to have any laws which recognised marriage.

For myself, I'd rather we reform our laws to be more like the French system; separate legal and ceremonial aspects of marriage; make it so that everyone has to go sign papers with a JP or what-have-you to be legally married, and make the ceremonial side of it completely separate and completely optional. (Ie. No more signing papers in church etc).
 
Upvote 0

ken777

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
Aug 6, 2007
2,245
661
Australia
✟63,308.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A person openly supplying services for weddings:
MAY NOT refuse service because they disagree with the religion of the people getting married.
MAY NOT refuse service because they disagree with the races of the people getting married.
WHY do you think a special exception for homosexual people is reasonable?

There are 3 "ken said"s in your post #40 that I did not say - would appreciate your editing the post.

This one I did say: "I have no problem with same sex couples having protection under the law but what you are proposing is that same sex couples have protection that overrides the rights of others."

And your reply was" A person openly supplying services for weddings:
MAY NOT refuse service because they disagree with the religion of the people getting married.
MAY NOT refuse service because they disagree with the races of the people getting married.
WHY do you think a special exception for homosexual people is reasonable?"

Do you really think a photographer should have to photograph a nudist wedding? Some photographers would, and some would object because it is contrary to their moral/religious beliefs.

People who support the use of legal penalties to try to force businesses to service ss weddings ignore that since the beginning of Christianity, the marriage of one man and one woman has had deep religious significance.

The awarding of a new legal right should not punish those who have established a business on rights that have existed for centuries. We recognize this principle when we allow hospitals not to perform abortions.
 
Upvote 0

AntiCow

oom oom oom
Jun 24, 2003
65
0
47
Melbourne
Visit site
✟24,885.00
Faith
Christian
"If you read an article about a couple who have been married for 60 years and are still happy and in love, do you sneer and say "That's not a real marriage." if you hear they never had children? Personally, I'd be impressed and cheered."

I don't know how you get this from anything I wrote.

As for the "constant" thing - the constant is that marriage itself has existed in every society, and every religion and every time throughout human history. That requires explanation, and I can't see how that can be explained except for how I've explained it.

This pattern - of love->marriage->children that I outlined earlier can also be seen in other animals. There are not many monogamous animals, but one good example is that of albatrosses. As it turns out, albatrosses as well as being monogamous invest large amounts of time into their young, as humans do.

So clearly the monogamy -> children pattern is biologically based. Also I think it is clear that if there is such a thing as albatross marriage, it would be weird to say that infertile albatrosses or old, infertile albatrosses are not really married. All it means is that something out of the ordinary has happened, or something has gone wrong.

I think from this it is also clear why gay marriage has been rare throughout history and why gays and lesbians have historically shown little interest in the institution, even in gay friendly societies. There is simply little practical benefit for them in getting married.

But it shows one more thing: given that marriage has a biological basis, is not merely a social construction, and is tightly linked with other biologically-based behaviours, it is not something you can chop and change, and assume that the only consequences will be the consequences you want.
 
Upvote 0

AntiCow

oom oom oom
Jun 24, 2003
65
0
47
Melbourne
Visit site
✟24,885.00
Faith
Christian
Actually, I disagree that there are no disadvantages if there is no legal definition of marriage. Perhaps once that would have been true, in more primitive cultures, but now so many of our laws and social structures are built around the concept, that it would be extraordinarily difficult to unwind them all.

In particular, for those of us who don't necessarily see our horizons limited to being in the same country for the rest of our lives, unless the entire world were to simultaneously drop any legal definition of marriage, travel and living/working/raising children between different countries would become much more complicated if we, in essence, ceased to have any laws which recognised marriage.

For myself, I'd rather we reform our laws to be more like the French system; separate legal and ceremonial aspects of marriage; make it so that everyone has to go sign papers with a JP or what-have-you to be legally married, and make the ceremonial side of it completely separate and completely optional. (Ie. No more signing papers in church etc).

No legal definition of marriage certainly is hard to imagine, but I'm told Israel doesn't even have civil marriage, so it's not completely unheard of.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
36,068
20,331
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,770,905.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That's because Israel only has religious marriage. It's not even legal to have marriage between two people of different religious communities in Israel (not sure we want that system here...) But they do have a government department which registers marriages.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
25
Australia
✟119,205.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Quoting Paul Kelly... ultra right wing, anti gay, anti climate change, mysoginist. Great quoting him. I wish I was old enough to vote but there is at least a student body doing its best to dispel the rubbish NO campaigners myths... much of which youve quoted Ken

Take a step forward for equal rights for all Australians.
 
Upvote 0

ken777

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
Aug 6, 2007
2,245
661
Australia
✟63,308.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Quoting Paul Kelly... ultra right wing, anti gay, anti climate change, mysoginist. Great quoting him. I wish I was old enough to vote but there is at least a student body doing its best to dispel the rubbish NO campaigners myths... much of which youve quoted Ken

Take a step forward for equal rights for all Australians.
When you refer to a poster, etiquette requires you use the poster's ID - that way the person is notified.

Bashing opponents such as Paul Kelly does little for the yes campaign.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
25
Australia
✟119,205.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
When you refer to a poster, etiquette demands you use the poster's ID - that way the person is notified.

Bashing opponents such as Paul Kelly does little for the yes campaign.
Oh cmon... Bashing Paul Kelly, the master of bashers? I think its just we have a different slant on social policies. But youre in a lucky position and you can vote. I just wanted to say not all Christians think your way, especially in my generation.

As to post etiquette. .. point taken and apologies. I should have used @ken777
 
Upvote 0

ken777

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
Aug 6, 2007
2,245
661
Australia
✟63,308.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh cmon... Bashing Paul Kelly, the master of bashers? I think its just we have a different slant on social policies. But youre in a lucky position and you can vote. I just wanted to say not all Christians think your way, especially in my generation.

As to post etiquette. .. point taken and apologies. I should have used @ken777
A different slant is fine but you need to be aware that the doctrine of "tolerance" can be very intolerant.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
25
Australia
✟119,205.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
There are 3 "ken said"s in your post #40 that I did not say - would appreciate your editing the post.

This one I did say: "I have no problem with same sex couples having protection under the law but what you are proposing is that same sex couples have protection that overrides the rights of others."

And your reply was" A person openly supplying services for weddings:
MAY NOT refuse service because they disagree with the religion of the people getting married.
MAY NOT refuse service because they disagree with the races of the people getting married.
WHY do you think a special exception for homosexual people is reasonable?"

Do you really think a photographer should have to photograph a nudist wedding? Some photographers would, and some would object because it is contrary to their moral/religious beliefs.

People who support the use of legal penalties to try to force businesses to service ss weddings ignore that since the beginning of Christianity, the marriage of one man and one woman has had deep religious significance.

The awarding of a new legal right should not punish those who have established a business on rights that have existed for centuries. We recognize this principle when we allow hospitals not to perform abortions.
Ken your muddying the waters. All that is before australian voters is should a gay marriage be legally recognized. All the talk about provisions of service, churches being forced to marry etc is not whats on the table which the PM has repeatedly stated and im certain you know it. Laws will follow then about those matters but its not the question at hand. You can lobby that a church should have discretion about marrying gays and I know the student body here would support that.

The student body though will not support prejudice within the public services or non contracted services. A shop selling shoes must obey the laws of the country pertaining to equality. A girl buying shoes may not be refused service because its for her lesbian wedding. You may not refuse service on the basis of gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexuality.

The students regard contracted services differently. A photographer may elect to only photograph kids or women, as he has the discretion to identify his client base
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AntiCow

oom oom oom
Jun 24, 2003
65
0
47
Melbourne
Visit site
✟24,885.00
Faith
Christian
That's because Israel only has religious marriage. It's not even legal to have marriage between two people of different religious communities in Israel (not sure we want that system here...) But they do have a government department which registers marriages.

Interesting. I don't know enough about the Israeli system to comment further.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
36,068
20,331
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,770,905.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Let me clarify something about Australian marriage law, and the idea that churches will be "forced" to perform same-sex marriages.

Under the Marriage Act, a minister of religion has two limitations on his or her ability to solemnise weddings which don't apply to civil celebrants. 1) They may only marry "adherents of their own religion," and 2) they may only do so in accordance with the ceremonies/rites authorised by their religious institution.

So, if same-sex marriage were to become legal, the day after it becomes legal, it will still be illegal for me to perform a same-sex marriage. Why? Because I can only marry someone according to the rites authorised by my denomination... and my denomination has no authorised rites for a same-sex marriage.

Any church which does not produce such rites will not have any legal process by which to conduct a same-sex marriage, and therefore, there will be no way that they can be forced to conduct such weddings. This whole "we'll be forced to conduct gay weddings" thing is a furphy which reflects profound ignorance of how the Marriage Act actually works.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Zoii
Upvote 0

ken777

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
Aug 6, 2007
2,245
661
Australia
✟63,308.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ken your muddying the waters. All that is before australian voters is should a gay marriage be legally recognized. All the talk about provisions of service, churches being forced to marry etc is not whats on the table which the PM has repeatedly stated and im certain you know it. Laws will follow then about those matters but its not the question at hand. You can lobby that a church should have discretion about marrying gays and I know the student body here would support that.

The student body though will not support prejudice within the public services or non contracted services. A shop selling shoes must obey the laws of the country pertaining to equality. A girl buying shoes may not be refused service because its for her lesbian wedding. You may not refuse service on the basis of gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexuality.

The students regard contracted services differently. A photographer may elect to only photograph kids or women, as he has the discretion to identify his client base
The ramifications of same sex marriage have become very plain in other countries. To deliberately avoid discussing these consequences is to mislead the public on what they are voting about. Some polls have shown support for ssm falls below 50% when all the facts are made available.

No one is arguing that a person should be denied service because of their sexuality. All of the businesses prosecuted in the high profile ssm cases in the US welcomed homosexual clients.

In the clash of rights over religion & ssm, it seems that your side is determined to punish those who are unwilling to violate their faith, even when alternate services are easily available in the community. As I said, the Left's doctrine of tolerance has become very intolerant.
 
Upvote 0

ken777

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
Aug 6, 2007
2,245
661
Australia
✟63,308.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think everyone is aware that clergy and church sanctuaries will be exempt from ssm laws. What is also clear is that church auxiliary buildings, church charities & church schools will be targeted by proponents of change to the marriage laws as they have been in other countries.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
36,068
20,331
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,770,905.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure that it is "clear" to me how any of those groups are going to be "targeted." I expect people will expect them to be law-abiding when it comes to matters of employment, enrolment, and so on, but then, so do I.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
25
Australia
✟119,205.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The ramifications of same sex marriage have become very plain in other countries. To deliberately avoid discussing these consequences is to mislead the public on what they are voting about. Some polls have shown support for ssm falls below 50% when all the facts are made available.

No one is arguing that a person should be denied service because of their sexuality. All of the businesses prosecuted in the high profile ssm cases in the US welcomed homosexual clients.

In the clash of rights over religion & ssm, it seems that your side is determined to punish those who are unwilling to violate their faith, even when alternate services are easily available in the community. As I said, the Left's doctrine of tolerance has become very intolerant.
Ken please. That's not very respectful. I imagine the number of times a limosine driver who is antiSSM will be prevailed on will be close to zero. In any case contracted services wont be affected. Non contracted services also are unlikely to be prevailed on and I imagine the gay community would prefer to take their business elsewhere. The No Case is conjuring examples where this hasnt even got to matters of law. You know this yet your citing examples that the Prime minister has repeatedly repudiated.

As for the church, i know noone who supports the church being forced to conduct gay marriages
 
Upvote 0

ken777

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
Aug 6, 2007
2,245
661
Australia
✟63,308.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ken please. That's not very respectful. I imagine the number of times a limosine driver who is antiSSM will be prevailed on. In any case contracted services wont be affected. Non contracted services also are unlikely to be prevailed on and I imagine the gay community would prefer to take their business elsewhere. The No Case is conjuring examples where this hasnt even got to matters of law. You know this yet your citing examples that the Prime minister has repeatedly repudiated
If you are saying it is not respectful to prosecute a person because of their religious beliefs, then I agree with you.

It seems you are not aware of what has happened in other countries ... or you think it won't happen here. I would call that naive.

Paidiske speaks for many when she says she would rather see businesses prosecuted, fined and even put out of business rather than grant a religious exemption for ss weddings. It seems from her last post that she would even accept the closure of church charities & schools. So you see the fear of conservative Christians is not exaggerated.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
36,068
20,331
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,770,905.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I wish I could dissolve the fears by the No case. I just hope they are basing their vote on honest intentions n beliefs n not prejudice.

I think their fears are real, but I think many of them are ill-founded.

Paidiske speaks for many when she says she would rather see businesses prosecuted, fined and even put out of business rather than grant a religious exemption for ss weddings. It seems from her last post that she would even accept the closure of church charities & schools. So you see the fear of conservative Christians is not exaggerated.

It depends what you mean by exemptions. I'll go to the wall for freedom of religion every time, but I don't believe the supplying a non-same-sex specific cake (for example) is a conscience issue. I don't believe it actually implicates you in the wedding; you're just selling a product.

And charities - what exactly is the issue here? I've seen, for example, a document prepared by Amnesty International in which they raise issues such as (for example) that a charity which provides Auslan interpreters might refuse to supply an interpreter for a same-sex wedding. But should people with disabilities lose their access to much needed supports on this basis?
 
Upvote 0