Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:19 pm  

Dally wrote:

So he believes that same sex relationships are wrong. That is a statement of his view. I see nothing evil about that. He's not advocating beating homosexuals up so far as I can tell. So, what is the problem?

Let's try rephrasing that a little:

"So he believes being black is wrong. That is a statement of his view. I see nothing evil about that. He's not advocating beating black people up so far as I can tell. So, what is the problem?"

Do you get it now?

And whilst he's not advocating beating homosexual people up, he is suggesting that we should deny them the same rights afforded to heterosexual people. Because he's a bigot. Like you.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:21 pm  

Dally wrote:

... So, what I would say that provided the OP is simply expressing his views and not advocating violence then his views are valid and indeed more valid than a vociferous minority who are overly repsrented on this thread.

"indeed more valid" ... why?

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:22 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

"indeed more valid" ... why?

because they echo Dally's own, silly.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:23 pm  

Dally wrote:

So he believes that same sex relationships are wrong. That is a statement of his view. I see nothing evil about that. He's not advocating beating homosexuals up so far as I can tell. So, what is the problem? He has a different view to others on here?

The one thing that can't be got away from is the facts. The norm for humanity is heterosexuality (that's why the world is so overpopulated and we have two sexes in the first place!) and homosexuals are very much in the minority. Moving away from religion for a moment, in a democracy there views should not be heard above the mainstream nor over-represented. Nearly all stable human societies ever seem to have had spirituality / religion as key component. So, religion is mainstream irrespective or whether or not that is reflected in formalised church-going at this particular moment in our particular country's history.

So, what I would say that provided the OP is simply expressing his views and not advocating violence then his views are valid and indeed more valid than a vociferous minority who are overly repsrented on this thread.

You remind me of the Australian politician Bill Shorten who said "I haven't seen what she said but let me say, I support what it is that she said. My view is what the prime minister's view is."

You are backing up the OP without actually being bothered to read the thread. Without wanting to write your precis homework for you. Blatant sexism in parts and the entire thread isn't about one persons view of same-sex relationships, it's about pushing that view on other more tolerant people et voila homophobic bigotry.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:29 pm  

Dally wrote:

The one thing that can't be got away from is the facts. The norm for humanity is heterosexuality (that's why the world is so overpopulated and we have two sexes in the first place!) and homosexuals are very much in the minority. Moving away from religion for a moment, in a democracy there views should not be heard above the mainstream nor over-represented. Nearly all stable human societies ever seem to have had spirituality / religion as key component. So, religion is mainstream irrespective or whether or not that is reflected in formalised church-going at this particular moment in our particular country's history.

What a massive amount of crap. Of course most human societies were founded under the influence of some sort of religion. When we started to become civilised as a species, we didn't have access to the vast amounts of scientific knowledge that are at our disposal today. That doesn't mean to say that religion is still relevant in modern society, which has altered immeasurably from its early form. The majority of people in this country are not religious (at least not in anything other than a box-ticking sense), and the majority do agree with same sex marriage being legalised.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:32 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

What a massive amount of crap. Of course most human societies were founded under the influence of some sort of religion. When we started to become civilised as a species, we didn't have access to the vast amounts of scientific knowledge that are at our disposal today. That doesn't mean to say that religion is still relevant in modern society, which has altered immeasurably from its early form. The majority of people in this country are not religious (at least not in anything other than a box-ticking sense), and the majority do agree with same sex marriage being legalised.

I tend to find 99% of the people I meet are not religous, until they want a fancy pants wedding/christening, at which point they become all "interested", oh, and on Christmas Eve for mass.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:34 pm  

Dally wrote:

So he believes that same sex relationships are wrong. That is a statement of his view. I see nothing evil about that. He's not advocating beating homosexuals up so far as I can tell. So, what is the problem? He has a different view to others on here?

He advocates denying gay people the same rights as others based on his religious beliefs. He also compared homosexuals to rapists and murderers earlier in this thread. Such a comparison which does nothing other than dehumanise gay people and it is such language which contributes to the situations in which young gay people take their own lives and in which other people think it is okay to bully people and discriminate against other for being gay.

It is also completely untrue that you have to advocate violence against a group of people yourself to be intolerant of that group of people.

The one thing that can't be got away from is the facts. The norm for humanity is heterosexuality (that's why the world is so overpopulated and we have two sexes in the first place!) and homosexuals are very much in the minority.

This is a red herring nobody has mentioned anything about what is the norm and what isn't. I'd also like to add that it isn't for instance the norm to have ginger hair, that however does no mean that we should discriminate against people who have ginger hair.

If you wish to use the fact that homosexuality isn't the norm as an argument against allowing rights to gay people then you fall into serious problems in other areas as a large number of people have something about them (ie skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, handedness) which isn't the "norm".

Moving away from religion for a moment, in a democracy there views should not be heard above the mainstream nor over-represented. Nearly all stable human societies ever seem to have had spirituality / religion as key component. So, religion is a mainstream irrespective or whether or not that is reflected in formalised church-going at this particular moment in our particular country's history.

Once again this is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. The success of societies such as Sweden, Norway & Denmark etc however should show that we do not require religion to form a stable society, these countries seem to be getting along just fine despite having high levels of non belief.

So, what I would say that provided the OP is simply expressing his views and not advocating violence then his views are valid and indeed more valid than a vociferous minority who are overly repsrented on this thread.

So the validty of a belief now falls on whether such a belief advocates violence? Given that no one else has expressed violence towards the OP I faill to see how your particular train of "logic" could arrive at the conclusion that his views are more valid than those of us who disagree.

Given that many of us have been willing to support our position with the use of reasonl and logically sound arguments (and admittedly some insults) and the OP has demonstrated a clear rejection of reason and has resorted to using his particular interpretation of religious doctrine for support as well as ignoring many posts, I would suggest that it is the OP's views which are less valid than others expressed in this thread.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:50 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

What a massive amount of crap. Of course most human societies were founded under the influence of some sort of religion. When we started to become civilised as a species, we didn't have access to the vast amounts of scientific knowledge that are at our disposal today. That doesn't mean to say that religion is still relevant in modern society, which has altered immeasurably from its early form. The majority of people in this country are not religious (at least not in anything other than a box-ticking sense), and the majority do agree with same sex marriage being legalised.

So religion is not relevant today to the world's most advanced country (the USA)?

You talk nonsense.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:52 pm  

In fact, kirkstaller's views have no validity, at all. He won't engage in any discussion or debate, because he has not thought any of it through, and is afraid to think about the points being made. And so while we write, he has his metaphorical fingers in his ears, while chanting "na, na, na, not listening".

All we seem left with is Dally feigning mock offence on the OP's behalf, and a thread going nowhere any more. The OP has been shown up to be an empty, brainwashed, unthinking vessel who wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it came up and poked him in the eye, and anyone can see that in fact he cannot come up with one word of reasoned support for the proposition in his beloved petition.

He may have spoken personally to Jesus Christ, but if he did, that has clearly not equipped him for reasoned debate. Faced with the hill of reason and logic that is the Sin Bin, kirkstaller appears to have stalled.

Thread job done.

_________________________________________________________________

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:55 pm  

Dally wrote:

So religion is not relevant today to the world's most advanced country (the USA)?

You talk nonsense.

'advanced country' in your opinion. In some aspects I agree, in others it is behind many other nations including ourselves.