The sum of us: Rugby league hero Steve Mortimer proud of his son's gay union

[lsz]

Maybe it's a budget requirement?

I really need to sort out my auto correct...understanding...understanding...

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Interesting thread indeed!!

I don't give a toss who wants to marry who, and I don't see why a bunch of politicians even needs to be involved, what the world needs now, is love sweet love ( good words for a song there).

Good luck @Budgewoi Eagle and you'll love the Big Apple

 

[Top End Eagle]

The incredibly ironic sideshow to this whole marriage thing is that marriage is a construct of the Church/religion and was solely administered by the Church for a milenium. I think it was in the early 1800's that Governments decided to regulate marriage and so it was essentially taken from the Church.

No one wants a civil union, they want a marriage, but the simple fact is there is absolutely no difference other than a name. I think Cameron is right about large numbers of people turning their back on marriage and just being happy with defacto status.

Each to their own I guess, the reality is married, not married it just doesn't matter one way or the other.

Which church is that mate. There have been a fair few organised civilisations and religions that acknowledged marriage before Christianity came along.

 

[Shoe1]

Which church is that mate. There have been a fair few organised civilisations and religions that acknowledged marriage before Christianity came along.

True, if you're of Anglo Saxon descent, your ancestors had a thing called hand-fasting, which was how couples pledged to one another. Christianity is of course a middle-eastern religion that was forcibly imported to Northern Europe via the Romans about 1700 years ago. The first Saxon king in England didn't convert until about 600 AD.

 

[Technical Coach]

What I do not understand is why we need to be accosting of someone's intolerance?

I've accepted Gay behaviour, rights and staging an event to represent their sexuality so how is that intolerant.

What i wont tolerate is the lewd acts on display.

There is a difference between representing ones sexuality in a dignified manner that promotes acceptance and thrusting around or pointing your arse in the direction of onlookers passed off as a "celebration".

 

[HappilyManly]

I've accepted Gay behaviour, rights and staging an event to represent their sexuality so how is that intolerant.

What i wont tolerate is the lewd acts on display.

There is a difference between representing ones sexuality in a dignified manner that promotes acceptance and thrusting around or pointing your arse in the direction of onlookers passed off as a "celebration".

It's burlesque and everyone who attends wants to see their 'fabulousness'

Oxford Street is booked out by people who enjoy just such a show. Families are not accosted in the street by semi clad glitterati 🙂

Just on the news that a father shot and killed his gay son in the UK, due to 'loss of status' in his comunity Too sad

 

[Ralphie]

Which church is that mate. There have been a fair few organised civilisations and religions that acknowledged marriage before Christianity came along.

This is the best I could find.

Marriage has always been at the center of politics. In most of the world, it is used to solve problems—to settle dynastic disputes, to distribute property, or to join one family to another. Within this construct, women in many countries still have no legal right or choice as to whom or when they marry. Historically, the struggle to control marriage has initiated civil wars, deposed monarchs, and even created churches. Today, the issue of marriage bitterly divides Americans, most of whom misunderstand the First Amendment and the oft-misappropriated phrase “separation between church and state.”

It was not until the 16th century that the government began to oversee marriage. It never had previously—only churches and synagogues recorded and regulated birth, marriage, sex, and death.

After 16th century protestant reformers overhauled the existing quasi- church-state relationship, marriage ordinances previously overseen by the Roman church were transferred to the secular state. Martin Luther, the German Catholic priest who initiated the first Protestant Reformation, said marriage was a “worldly thing … that belongs to the realm of government.” John Calvin, his Swiss counterpart, reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed “The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage” as valid.

In the early 1600s, English Puritans immigrated to America in part because they rejected the Church of England’s position on marriage. The Puritans asserted marriage was a civil contract, not a religious ceremony. The law they instituted—which became the customary model for marriage throughout New England—required marriages to be “agreed” or “executed” (not “performed” or “solemnized”) by a magistrate, not a minister. They also legalized divorce if the terms of the marriage covenant were broken. Other colonial regions followed different traditions: Virginian law modeled the Anglican position on marriage; Quakers brought their version to Delaware, and Catholics in Maryland and other states.

 

[Technical Coach]

It's burlesque and everyone who attends wants to see their 'fabulousness'

Oxford Street is booked out by people who enjoy just such a show. Families are not accosted in the street by semi clad glitterati 🙂

Just on the news that a father shot and killed his gay son in the UK, due to 'loss of status' in his comunity Too sad

"Burlesque" yeah that should defeat the censors and brainwash acceptance into the sheep mentality.

 

[Rex]

Do you agree or disagree that people have the right to disapprove?

There is the difference in a nutshell, . You see discrimination against gays and lesbians in terms of the discriminator’s “right to disapprove”. I see it in terms of consequences – harm inflicted. This shows our difference in priorities. You value theoretical rights.

Rights are an ephemeral and constructed. There are no absolute rights. Different people, and different countries have different cultures and different views about rights. If you want to live in a country where discrimination against gays is legally and culturally desired, then maybe try another country – maybe the middle east might suit you?

“Our Australian society – as a group - has decided – in law - that there was so much harm being inflicted on people based on their sexual orientation that we’ve been forced to legislate to make it an offence to discriminate. See the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Federal discrimination laws are also supplemented by discrimination laws in each State and Territory. That is how seriously it is being taken.

Compassionate, thoughtful people don’t try to get around these laws by inflicting the same harm in ways where they won’t be caught. They look behind why our Australian culture has moved to distinguish ourselves from many other countries by promoting tolerance of sexual orientation.

You’ve taken a stance which supports harmful discrimination as a right of the individual. You’ve been silent about the harm inflicted as if it doesn’t count in your world.

What I’d like to hear – from the heart – is the really important question in this thread. What compassion do you have for the harm inflicted on those with a different sexual orientation? Or are you afraid to openly reveal who you really are – at a heart level – i.e. beyond your jokes and outrage about your view of everyone’s right to discriminate against gays and lesbians?

 

[Woodsie]

G'day @Rex, Didn't read past your first ridiculous sentence.

I don't approve of any discrimination at all, and have never even hinted at any in all my posts, I didn't even link my assertion that people have a right to disapprove to any specific topic.

You are becoming hysterical again, and making wild unfounded accusations in your desperation to justify your childish position. Please stay with the program.

Do you or do you not agree that people have a right to disapprove?

 

[Budgie]

We are not the thought control police. Thankfully, there can never be such a thing.

As a society, all we can ever hope to do is decide, collectively, what we think is right and wrong and lobby accordingly for attitude and eventually, law changes. We decide together and thus, we don't all get our own way.
Every democratic society is constantly changing its ideas of right and wrong. Seems like a good thing

 

[Chip and Chase]

Do you or do you not agree that people have a right to disapprove?

I guess it comes down to your definition of disapproval. If disapproval means vilifying, prejudging, or discriminating against those of whom you don't approve of then I'd say that isn't a "right" that should be afforded anyone.

 

[Pittwater Legend]

I've accepted Gay behaviour, rights and staging an event to represent their sexuality so how is that intolerant.

What i wont tolerate is the lewd acts on display.

There is a difference between representing ones sexuality in a dignified manner that promotes acceptance and thrusting around or pointing your arse in the direction of onlookers passed off as a "celebration".

I can see that the way Mardi Gra is celebrated would be confronting for some people who are conservative but the event (and the nature of it) was born out of severe oppression towards homosexuality. If homosexuality was widely accepted before Mardi Gra ever existed then I don't think the event itself would have been created.

 

[Ralphie]

I guess it comes down to your definition of disapproval. If disapproval means vilifying, prejudging, or discriminating against those of whom you don't approve of then I'd say that isn't a "right" that should be afforded anyone.

The problem is in the context of this debate, some posters have made the quantum leap that disapproval = vilification, abuse and who knows what else. For the record I disapprove of lots of people.

I disapprove of people who speed
I disapprove of people who publicly mimic sex acts
I disapprove of people who are sexist
I disapprove of people who are liars
I could go on but you get the idea, and not once EVER have I vilified any of them and nor would I, yet I have been labelled as judgmental and homophobic.

The problem with this type of debate are the self appointed self righteous who see more than is there and seize upon it with the zeal of evangelical preachers.

I challenge anyone to find a post on here from anyone that even comes close to vilifying, prejudging, or discriminating against anyone.

 

[Rex]

G'day @Rex, Didn't read past your first ridiculous sentence.

lol. You only read 7 words then? "There is the difference in a nutshell".
And that put you off? I assumed you'd be capable of reading the 32 words needed to grasp a wider context in my response. I'm sorry, I assumed as a teacher you'd have an attention span longer than my goldfish.

I do wonder why you bother asking if you have no interest in hearing a response. But each to their own.

If you had read my answer, you'd understand the same answer I gave obviously applies to all of your "right to disapprove" questions. But despite the apparent inanity of your stance, I'm enjoying your questions because they are helping clarify my thinking. Your stance has encouraged me to develop and shift my current perceptions:

1. The emotionally young (ethical followers) focus on their "rights". They need the certainty of externally imposed rules to run their life, tend to prefer conservatism and non-change, and have difficulty dealing with ambiguity.

2. The emotionally developed (ethical leaders) focus instead on outcomes and opportunities. They back their considered judgement, work equally happily with or without society's rules, tend to progressiveness, and love ambiguity and change.

Now you say you don't approve of any discrimination at all. As for all of us, conscious declarations can say nothing about our unknown, subconscious drivers. Given that same-sex discrimination was the whole basis of this thread, could you perhaps have overtly said that from the start - and made that your consistent theme? - Rather than starting by derogatorily slurring the character of the most famous outed sportsman in the country in a thread on sexual orientation discrimination - and then remaining silent on your conscious stance towards discrimination in all of your postings until now.

 

[Rex]

The problem is in the context of this debate, some posters have made the quantum leap that disapproval = vilification, abuse and who knows what else. For the record I disapprove of lots of people.

I disapprove of people who speed
I disapprove of people who publicly mimic sex acts
I disapprove of people who are sexist
I disapprove of people who are liars
I could go on but you get the idea, and not once EVER have I vilified any of them and nor would I, yet I have been labelled as judgmental and homophobic.

The problem with this type of debate are the self appointed self righteous who see more than is there and seize upon it with the zeal of evangelical preachers.

I challenge anyone to find a post on here from anyone that even comes close to vilifying, prejudging, or discriminating against anyone.

Vilify in a legal context obviously has a different meaning/context to vilify in a social context.

Can you not see that some/many of these synonyms of vilify can easily apply to your stance on the immorality of gay and lesbian relationships? If you can't see that, put yourself in their shoes and imagine something which seems natural and moral that you do (maybe going to Church?). Now imagine that natural and moral behaviour (to you) being widely targeted as immoral by a (self-righteous) group - to the extent that everyone realises it is not safe to reveal the truth about yourself.

Can you see any qualitative difference between adjusting your own behaviour and moralising about others' behaviour?

Synonyms of vilify:
disparage, denigrate, defame, run down, revile, berate, belittle, abuse,insult, slight, attack, speak ill of, speak evil of, pour scorn on, cast aspersions on, criticize, censure, condemn, decry, denounce, pillory,lambaste;
fulminate against, rail against, inveigh against, malign, slander,libel, conduct a smear campaign against, spread lies about, blacken the name/reputation of, sully the reputation of, give someone a bad name,bring someone into disrepute, discredit, stigmatize, traduce, calumniate,impugn;
slur;
informaldo down, do a hatchet job on, take to pieces, pull apart, throw mud at, drag through the mud, slate, have a go at, hit out at,jump on, lay into, tear into, knock, slam, pan, bash, hammer, roast,skewer, bad-mouth, throw brickbats at;
informalrubbish, slag off,monster;
informalpummel, dump on;
informalbag;
archaiccontemn;
rarederogate, vituperate, asperse, vilipend
"the media vilified several of the election candidates"

 

[mave]

Some people want to get married.
Some people want to stay single and root around.
Some people are happy being in a relstionship and not get married.

Each to their own.

Why do people care so much about other people's choices ?

 

[Budgie]

And then

Some people want to get married.
Some people want to stay single and root around.
Some people are happy being in a relstionship and not get married.

Each to their own.

Why do people care so much about other people's choices ?

Oops. You forgot the ones who want to get married AND "root around". 😱

 

[Technical Coach]

I can see that the way Mardi Gra is celebrated would be confronting for some people who are conservative but the event (and the nature of it) was born out of severe oppression towards homosexuality. If homosexuality was widely accepted before Mardi Gra ever existed then I don't think the event itself would have been created.

We all know why the event was created and it has been mentioned previously several times in Silvertails.

 

[Woodsie]

I guess it comes down to your definition of disapproval. If disapproval means vilifying, prejudging, or discriminating against those of whom you don't approve of then I'd say that isn't a "right" that should be afforded anyone.

You are talking about actions resulting from disapproval. The act of disapproval itself is an internal mental process.