1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Marriage Equality

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jets, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,469
    Yeah that's pretty dumb too. Ever hear the saying, "don't argue with a fool.etc"

    This debate could go on for ever and a day. So why doesn't the side that has the most to gain take the higher ground and say, you know what, we're better than that. Rise above the BS and give the babies their bottle?

    Rightly it wrongly, I don't think you'll win any arguments by simply telling the other side to "fuck right off". Hate for gay people is the same as hate for religious people. It's all hate and it's all stupid.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Well of course the easy answer is just 'let' them call their relationship a marriage. Honestly...the desire of some people to force their own beliefs and morals on the rest of a country should not even be a slight consideration for those who have the ability to change it when this is viewed with any kind of common sense or decency.

    Their are only 2 REAL reasons why politicians don't get quite an easy thing done:

    1. They share the same religious or conservative beliefs as those above.

    2. They don't share those beliefs but they want those votes.

    There really isn't any logical reason for denying these people the same rights and to 'compromise' by denying them the right to call their relationship the same thing as hero couples do simply shows a lack of real moral fibre and real back-bone.
    Braveheart81 and Ruggo like this.
  3. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    The difference is that Charger can hate religious people if he wants but that hate doesn't effect them in any way.

    Religious hate for gay couple has a meaningful and impacting effect on their everyday lives.

    And I'm a christian...albeit probably not one that other christians want to hope up as an example of christianity..LOL
  4. ChargerWA Mark Loane (55)

    Likes Received:
    3,562
    How do gay people take the higher ground by relenting. They are then giving tacit approval to be discriminated against.
  5. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,469
    That's not a difference. Hate on either side of the argument is just as destructive and equally abhorrent.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. ChargerWA Mark Loane (55)

    Likes Received:
    3,562
    Just for the record, I don't hate religious people. I do hate them trying to force their beliefs onto the majority. Oppression in any form must be resisted.
    Scoey and Bullrush like this.
  7. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in hate but if you don't see the difference then I can't show it to you...
    Scoey likes this.
  8. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,469

    That is precisely how one takes the higher ground. That is the only way it is done. My point is based on the premise that legal equality is gained as a result, which is a big step forward. Once the main battle is won, fight for the use of the word marriage forever and a day if it's that important.

    I think some people let their own prejudices cloud their judgement and take their eyes off the prize. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that legal equality is achieved. What does it matter what they call it? A rose by any other name, and all of that.
    Runner likes this.
  9. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,469
    There is a difference, granted. But in the context of the argument i don't think it makes a difference. You don't win an argument coming from a position of hate. Your judgement gets too clouded. Religion of all types has a lot of flaws, but it is a massive part of our society. If they aren't using reason, or logic, then you can't argue with that so all I'm saying is, how do we remove them from the argument? Can this be achieved by not using the word marriage? If it's that easy or even close to it, then I think a 'loss' there (if it is even a loss) could result in a massive win for those that count.

    I don't know if I'm making sense or not, but it frustrates me so much and I just think if both sides just keep butting heads then the one that wants to move forward should start thinking laterally or else they will just end up with a sore head and nothing more.
  10. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    But this isn't an argument of logic or sense. There is no good logic or sense to maintain the status quo. It is simply one side forcing it's own set of beliefs and values on the rest of the populace.

    Slaves hating their masters isn't a good reason for not abolishing slavery.
  11. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,469
    That's sort of my point BR. Is there a way of simply removing that side from the argument?

    The slaves were never going to abolish slavery by simply telling their masters that what they're doing is wrong and they actually have no right to do it.
  12. ChargerWA Mark Loane (55)

    Likes Received:
    3,562
    No, it will take moderates within the organisations resisting gay marriage to finally stand up and be counted to shift the critical mass.
  13. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,693
    Religion is one of the most blown out of context facets of society. Look at how many ways the bible can be interpreted. It is an easy avenue for any nutter or extremist to push his barrow. You can't throw all religious peoples into the same pot because it is a horribly inaccurate stereotype and a blight on some people who do fantastic charitable work as a function of their faith.
    Runner and Scoey like this.
  14. #1 Tah Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    824

    [IMG]
  15. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    22,843
    I think a huge amount of this issue is symbolic. It needs to be called a marriage because that is what it is. It is the commitment of two people to the exclusion of all others.

    The word is very important and I would say is just as important as the legal equality in this situation. When you're talking about equality and not discriminating, denying a group of people the right to use the word to mean exactly the same thing as it means for everyone else completely defeats the purpose.

    More old conservatives and those who are against it on religious grounds just need to get old and die. Many people have changed their opinion on the issue but some never will.

    Eventually both sides of politics will be in a position where they have more to lose by not supporting same sex marriage than by supporting it and they will then decide to change their stance.

    This is an absolutely inevitable thing in Australia. The only question is how much longer it takes to come to fruition.
    boyo and Scoey like this.
  16. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,469
    This is interesting. If this is the case (and I can see why it might be) then it's possibly a bit rich for one group to claim a symbolic importance whilst saying that the other side's claimed symbolic importance is absurd/wrong/bullshit or whatever else they might want to call it and dismissing it outright because it differs to their symbolic meaning.

    Your last sentence is the key point. The word doesn't mean the same thing thing to everyone.
  17. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    22,843
    The other side's claimed symbolic importance is bullshit though. The concept of marriage was neither invented nor owned by any one religion. It predates all of the Abrahamic religions.
  18. Scoey Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,469
    You're applying a literal meaning to a symbolic interpretation though. That's my point. You said that the word was just as important as the legal equality because of the symbolic nature of it but then ignore the relevance of other's symbolic significance.

    It's either semantics, in which case the pro-gay side could possibly advance their case significantly by forgoing (for now) the use of the word marriage, or it's symbolic, in which case the pro-gay side need to realise that other people place a symbolic significance on the same word that differs from theirs.
  19. Bullrush Jim Lenehan (48)

    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Can anyone give one logical reason as to why we shouldn't change the law to allow same-sex couples to call theur relationship marriage - to get married?

    Apart from the conservative and religious wanting to maintain the current laws to allow them to feel like their personal beliefs still hold some relevance today - is there any good reason to uphold this inequality?
    ChargerWA and yourmatesam like this.
  20. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    22,843
    It is rather convenient then that each religion ignores what the other religions' symbolic meanings of marriage are that differ to their own and only focus on preventing someone else joining in on the party.

    The symbolic nature for gay people is to have the exact same rights as everyone else. Not to have the same rights but then be told that they have to call it something else because they're different.

    The meaning of the word marriage is defined in Australia by our constitution and the marriage act and has changed over time. Groups of people (religions) are claiming ownership over this word which is completely incorrect.

Share This Page