Margaret Court.. were the project hosts disgraceful?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Its not about how good parents are.. above is completely irrelevant. I have no doubt that same sex couples can be good role models to kids. but that's a separate issue...
There's one problem here. The entire argument was about whether gay people were good parents. That was the argument raised, that gay people don't make good patents.

Its about the ability to naturally procreate and ensure continuation of the human race.
There's just two major problems with that:

A) many areas on the earth are currently suffering from overpopulation. If you wanted to protect the future of the human race then you'd stop people from breeding altogether

B) there is a massive surplus of children orphans due to a lack of good parents to adopt them. Gay marriage would actually help here

In the absence of science, if everyone was gay, would the human race be extinct?
Even without science, yes. Humans would see the dire problem and suck it up and take one for the team but this is also a flawed point. "in the absence of science", nope. Can't happen. Science exists just as we exist.

Sure science can help out but it should only be to assist people who fundamentally have the tools to conceive a child
Oddly enough there's an argument from the 1940s that is very similar when there was discussion of providing more rights to black people that goes, "Sure rights can help men but they should only be used to protect those who are God's children"

The funniest part about that argument is that God's children are more likely black or brown and they think that God is a white.

A man cannot carry a child, nor can a women produce sperm to fertilise. You need one of each, that is how humans are designed to procreate. Marriage is as I understand to fortify this.
Hundreds of years ago planes didn't exist, neither did computers, forums, sport, football teams, etc. Maybe we should ban those too.

Again, I have no issue with gay community, do what makes you happy, I have many friends that are gay, love em. But for the most part the gay lifestyle precludes them from having a child that belongs to both of them. No different to the german man who wants to represent Australia.. Marriage is just not for them.
Which brings us back to the simple question. Why is it not for them?

You can day "because they can't produce a child". But we don't ban sterile people from getting. Married so... M
 

Dogna88

Kennel Addict
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
7,553
Reaction score
6,701
The state should allow gay marriage.

If the religious institution doesnt want to, that's their belief/agenda.

Im sure gay people dont give a hoot about being religiously married.

I dont believe in organised religion. I am married heterosexually. I doubt religious institutions would agree with my marriage either because of my beliefs.
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,077
If a German born man wanted to compete in the olympics in the sport of weight lifting but for Australia, would it be permisable? Is Australia against this man for not letting him represent them? No matter how you twist or turn, the man cannot represent Australia, his heritage is from Germany, It has nothing to do with being disrespectful, there is a category for him to compete elsewhere.

Why do they not let women play in the NRL? there are also reasons for this, but it has nothing to do with being disrespectful. again there is a category to compete elsewhere

Is it the same with Marriage? This institution of marriage is defined as a man and a woman? There are actual reasons for this and its the law! If there is no man and women, it don't apply to you. If you turn up with a party of three, it dont apply to you, if you turn up to marry your pet, it dont apply to you. There are millions of people who have married on this basis and understanding the fundamentals. To change the definition can be seen to undermine every married persons decision.

Margaret Court might have stitched up the argument on this one.

THAT IS CORRECT, THAT IS EXACTLY 100000000% CORRECT, THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS THE UNITY OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, IT APPLIES TO A MAN MARRYING A WOMAN OR VICE VERSA,
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DISRESPECT, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE THE DEFINITIION OF THE WORD APPLYING TO YOU. THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE IS FFS.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
The state should allow gay marriage.

If the religious institution doesnt want to, that's their belief/agenda.

Im sure gay people dont give a hoot about being religiously married.

I dont believe in organised religion. I am married heterosexually. I doubt religious institutions would agree with my marriage either because of my beliefs.
That's pretty much my beliefs. I support gay marriage hut I also support the right of the church to choose not to marry a couple.
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,077
That's pretty much my beliefs. I support gay marriage hut I also support the right of the church to choose not to marry a couple.
I can tolerate that, however, people must continue to realise, marriage is the unity of a man and a woman - that is the definition. If gay people wanted to be united by something it cannot be referred to as marriage.
 

speedy2460

Kennel Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
5,180
Reaction score
4,563
What happens between two consenting adults is nobodies business but theirs. But I absolutely disagree with the proposal to call it marriage.
Marriage has been defined in history and should not be changed. I wont watch the project because I dislike the main presenter.
I am of the opinion that Margaret Court should be named as Australian of the Year.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
I can tolerate that, however, people must continue to realise, marriage is the unity of a man and a woman - that is the definition. If gay people wanted to be united by something it cannot be referred to as marriage.
This is where the problem arises. The current dictionary definition is, "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship"

So the question is, who's definition of marriage are we discussing?
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,734
This is where the problem arises. The current dictionary definition is, "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship"

So the question is, who's definition of marriage are we discussing?
We go back far enough the definition of marriage was paying dowry for the rights of a female virgin

Such bullshit in defending the "definition"

Definitions come and go and change all the time, It's the nature of human communication

Bigots just being bigots and hiding behind bullshit explanations
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
What happens between two consenting adults is nobodies business but theirs. But I absolutely disagree with the proposal to call it marriage.
Marriage has been defined in history and should not be changed. I wont watch the project because I dislike the main presenter.
I am of the opinion that Margaret Court should be named as Australian of the Year.
As raised many times is this discussion, why is it important to protect definition over rights?

If we're protecting the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman, and not the many other definitions though history, why dont we also support the freedom for the Southern
US to own slaves?
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,734
The first wedding rings came from ancient Egypt BEFORE Christianity.

So our religious brethren can forget about their ownership of marriage
 

Blue_boost

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
4,012
Reaction score
2,210
The definition is the definition, the law is the law. Margaret Court at the moment has the correct position until it is legislated otherwise. That doesn't seem to be the case anytime soon so the gay community should probably just move on instead of pushing it in every ones face every year..

I don't have anything against the gay community, But where do you stop?

Why not have three or 4 people in one marriage? Does a marriage need to be between two people?

You could bring all sorts of circumstances and scenarios in, but ultimately, its a man and a women. that's the definition, thats the law. Anything else should be called something else.
 
Last edited:

Shanked

U been Shanked
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
11,523
Reaction score
2,526
As raised many times is this discussion, why is it important to protect definition over rights?

If we're protecting the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman, and not the many other definitions though history, why dont we also support the freedom for the Southern
US to own slaves?
but how far do you go with that? do you stop at same sex? I think i saw on facebook a woman marrying a train station(or claiming to), should that be legal?
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,077
What happens between two consenting adults is nobodies business but theirs. But I absolutely disagree with the proposal to call it marriage.
Marriage has been defined in history and should not be changed. I wont watch the project because I dislike the main presenter.
I am of the opinion that Margaret Court should be named as Australian of the Year.
Correct.
The definition is the definition, the law is the law. Margaret Court at the moment has the correct position until it is legislated otherwise. That doesn't seem to be the case anytime soon so the gay community should probably just move on instead of pushing it in every ones face every year..

I don't have anything against the gay community, But where do you stop?

Why not have three or 4 people in one marriage? Does a marriage need to be between two people?

You could bring all sorts of circumstances and scenarios in, but ultimately, its a man and a women. that's the definition, thats the law. Anything else should be called something else.
Also correct.
 

Blue_boost

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
4,012
Reaction score
2,210
As raised many times is this discussion, why is it important to protect definition over rights?

If we're protecting the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman, and not the many other definitions though history, why don't we also support the freedom for the Southern
US to own slaves?
Is holding onto the definition of marriage, precluding the gay community from anything? If so.... what?

(good discussion by the way, I think everyone is being respectful to each other whilst debating the issue)
 
Last edited:

Blue_boost

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
4,012
Reaction score
2,210
if this country had the plebisite, it would prove the overwelming majority support Margaret Court.

Its only the pro same sex marriage argument that comes out publicly and try to shame anyone that speaks against, such is what happened to margaret court.. bullied and shamed. But i suspect margaret courts view is the overwelming majority. Malcolm turnbull would not publicly reject same sex marriage but he knew very well a plebiscite would.

Publicly people will not say they are against same sex marriage for fear they will be labelled a homophobe but in a secret ballot would vote against any change to marriage no doubt. Thats how donald trump got in. Noone would admit to supporting him, polls said he had no chance but he wins the election.
 
Last edited:

CroydonDog

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
19,531
Reaction score
16,530
if this country had the plebisite, it would prove the overwelming majority support Margaret Court.

Its only the pro same sex marriage argument that comes out publicly and try to shame anyone that speaks against, such is what happened to margaret court.. bullied and shamed. But i suspect margaret courts view is the overwelming majority. Malcolm turnbull would not publicly reject same sex marriage but he knew very well a plebiscite would.

Publicly people will not say they are against same sex marriage for fear they will be labelled a homophobe but in a secret ballot would vote against any change to marriage no doubt. Thats how donald trump got in. Noone would admit to supporting him, polls said he had no chance but he wins the election.
"Overwhelming majority"?

Yeah, nah.
 

bulldogsfan_88

Left Right Out
2 x Gilded
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
1,299
The first wedding rings came from ancient Egypt BEFORE Christianity.

So our religious brethren can forget about their ownership of marriage
What a load of crock... rings aren't what make the marriage!! They are a sign that I am married but I could still be married & not wear a ring. Marriage is the promises that a man & woman make to each other & that was instituted by God. So yes we can actually still claim ownership of marriage!!

Me personally, as a Christian, do not agree with gay marriage!! The bible is very clear that marriage is between a man & a woman & that is the basis for my beliefs!! If that makes me a bigot then fine I can live with that!! I am not going to force my beliefs down anyone's throat!

I think good on Margaret Court for standing up for what she believes!! She has a right to her opinion & I think the project was just disrespectful & dismissive & so one sided it's not funny!! They have their agenda & they mock anyone who is against it & for that reason I won't watch the show!! Debate is healthy & it is good to be discussing things but not the way they "claim" to
 

FreshSoulL

Faith
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
2,949
Reaction score
368
1. John Howard changed the law so SSM couldn't happen

2. The bible also says women shouldn't be heard, why is Margaret Court picking and choosing which verses of the bible she believes in? She shouldn't be heard according to the nonsense she believes in

3. Does this mean we should also sit down and have a discussion with "flat earthers" and hear their view points? Or how about people who believe in leprechauns? Or how about those that believe in fairies?

4. You have NO EVIDENCE to say that gay people do not have a life long union, that's just baseless homophobic garbage

5. There are many people, approximately 40% of the Australian population according to the last statistics bureau performed in 2009, that don't believe in the fairy tales she believes in. If she takes a book, which 40% of the population don't believe in, as her "evidence" then by all means she deserves to be mocked, she entertains no actual REAL EVIDENCE OR FACTS
You have no idea about the Bible mate. So unless you actually sit down hours per week studying it then you have every right to comment. Don't just pick out and throw bible verses. WOMEN can speak and be heard and if you know how to read in the very same chapter Paul talks about women prophesying in the Church and that their heads should be covered when doing so.

Read the Bible in context, place and time. Don't just take a verse out and throw it out like its the truth. Ignorant fool.
 

FreshSoulL

Faith
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
2,949
Reaction score
368
The first wedding rings came from ancient Egypt BEFORE Christianity.

So our religious brethren can forget about their ownership of marriage
Again, you have absolutely no idea about Christianity.

There is not one scripture in the Bible that says you are to use a ring. The Ring was an introduced tradition into the church to symbolise the union between two people.

The ring does come from paganism AND is not a fundamental Christian teaching.

GOD established Marriage at the beginning of Creation.

BEFORE your ancient Egyptians existed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top