The Israel Folau Bill

[Alan79]

It's not about them choosing to be gay or straight, it's about them as gay people choosing to get married - that's the difference. We don't have something against people because they are gay. There are a lot of gay people who I work with who I respect and vice versa. There are gay people involved in their religious institutions who chose not to get married because it's against their religion.

If anyone chooses to have a religious wedding they're effectively doing so to ask for God's blessings. As a religious person how do you feel justified in saying they shouldn't ask for God's blessings if they're gay? I think that somewhere in the Bible it mentions that it shouldn't be you casting judgement. If it's God's will that they don't get his blessing he won't give it. Your disapproval based on a book written by humans won't alter his decisions.

 

[Caveman]

A Christ centred wedding is upward focused not downward focused - a man should leave his mother and father to cleave to his wife and they become one flesh. Christians get married to glorify and honour God with an upward focus and subsequently downward focus comes from from Christ as a result - the blessing.

Christians do not get married to be blessed, they get married because it's a requirement of our creator.

We have been created to find joy in Glorifying our creator - God, and joy is found in Glorifying God.

If anyone chooses to have a religious wedding they're effectively doing so to ask for God's blessings. As a religious person how do you feel justified in saying they shouldn't ask for God's blessings if they're gay? I think that somewhere in the Bible it mentions that it shouldn't be you casting judgement. If it's God's will that they don't get his blessing he won't give it. Your disapproval based on a book written by humans won't alter his decisions.

 

[Alan79]

A Christ centred wedding is upward focused not downward focused - a man should leave his mother and father to cleave to his wife and they become one flesh. Christians get married to glorify and honour God with an upward focus and subsequently downward focus comes from from Christ as a result - the blessing.

Christians do not get married to be blessed, they get married because it's a requirement of our creator.

We have been created to find joy in Glorifying our creator - God, and joy is found in Glorifying God.

That still doesn't explain why humans feel justified in denying a couple the right to do that. The Bible is a book written by humans. Humans are immensely faulted and it stands to reason that an ancient book can have lost something in translation. How do you personally justify denying anyone who wants to, the right to glorify God based on a book written by humans.

 

[Freakzilla]

That still doesn't explain why humans feel justified in denying a couple the right to do that. The Bible is a book written by humans. Humans are immensely faulted and it stands to reason that an ancient book can have lost something in translation. How do you personally justify denying anyone who wants to, the right to glorify God based on a book written by humans.

Who is denying the right of a couple to do anything? Do whatever you want but don't force others to be involved if they don't want to be.

I don't drink, smoke or do pot but I think all 3 should be legal.

As long as you don't harm others or force others to participate do whatever you want.

 

[Alan79]

Who is denying the right of a couple to do anything? Do whatever you want but don't force others to be involved if they don't want to be.

I don't drink, smoke or do pot but I think all 3 should be legal.

As long as you don't harm others or force others to participate do whatever you want.

Up until recently every church in Australia was denying them. And I get the feeling that with the religious freedom bill, it will be used to deny them once again in many cases.

I think the fact that the only example raised of SSM causing anyone an issue in the denial of a wedding cake is a bit encouraging really. But it's quite clear that people are still very judgemental about the issue.

I still look at a show like married at first sight as more of a blight against the institution of marriage than SSM. Given that actors are being used to make money off the idea is more of an insult and without a doubt some of the participants are only involved to create careers in the public eye. I don't see any religious people/groups up in arms about it. But same sex couples that are genuinely in love and wanting it recognised in the eyes of God are apparently bigger sinners than actors and companies seeking financial benefit from it. Just doesn't make sense to me that the outcry isn't there about things in equal measure.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It's not about them choosing to be gay or straight, it's about them as gay people choosing to get married - that's the difference. We don't have something against people because they are gay. There are a lot of gay people who I work with who I respect and vice versa. There are gay people involved in their religious institutions who chose not to get married because it's against their religion.

That also doesn't make sense though. Marriage originally operated outside of Abrahamic religion so it's not like Christians can claim it to be theirs.

I fully understand churches refusing to marry people, and that's why we have civil celebrants. But being against them marrying at all seems a little odd.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Who is denying the right of a couple to do anything? Do whatever you want but don't force others to be involved if they don't want to be.

I don't drink, smoke or do pot but I think all 3 should be legal.

As long as you don't harm others or force others to participate do whatever you want.

And personally I find that attitude to be great. But I think Alan was talking to Wahesh who said he was against gay people getting married.

Personally I think if someone refuses to make you a cake then you should boycott the business and take your business elsewhere. But saying that they shouldn't be allowed to marry is another thing altogether.

 

[Freakzilla]

Up until recently every church in Australia was denying them. And I get the feeling that with the religious freedom bill, it will be used to deny them once again in many cases.

I think the fact that the only example raised of SSM causing anyone an issue in the denial of a wedding cake is a bit encouraging really. But it's quite clear that people are still very judgemental about the issue.

I still look at a show like married at first sight as more of a blight against the institution of marriage than SSM. Given that actors are being used to make money off the idea is more of an insult and without a doubt some of the participants are only involved to create careers in the public eye. I don't see any religious people/groups up in arms about it. But same sex couples that are genuinely in love and wanting it recognised in the eyes of God are apparently bigger sinners than actors and companies seeking financial benefit from it. Just doesn't make sense to me that the outcry isn't there about things in equal measure.

They aren't really married on the that show.

If a church is against gay marriage then they shouldn't have to perform the cermony there. Like I said, you can't force people to go against their religious beliefs just to appease others. You can get married in other places as evident by so many gay people getting married.

 

[Freakzilla]

And personally I find that attitude to be great. But I think Alan was talking to Wahesh who said he was against gay people getting married.

Personally I think if someone refuses to make you a cake then you should boycott the business and take your business elsewhere. But saying that they shouldn't be allowed to marry is another thing altogether.

Yeah if someone doesn't want my business for any reason I'll just go to someone that does.

I just hate when people force others to do something against their will because of religion or beliefs or anything.

Like I said, if someone isn't forcing others to join in or hurting people then do whatever you want. I honestly don't care what others do with their own life.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Up until recently every church in Australia was denying them. And I get the feeling that with the religious freedom bill, it will be used to deny them once again in many cases.

I think the fact that the only example raised of SSM causing anyone an issue in the denial of a wedding cake is a bit encouraging really. But it's quite clear that people are still very judgemental about the issue.

I still look at a show like married at first sight as more of a blight against the institution of marriage than SSM. Given that actors are being used to make money off the idea is more of an insult and without a doubt some of the participants are only involved to create careers in the public eye. I don't see any religious people/groups up in arms about it. But same sex couples that are genuinely in love and wanting it recognised in the eyes of God are apparently bigger sinners than actors and companies seeking financial benefit from it. Just doesn't make sense to me that the outcry isn't there about things in equal measure.

I see it as the right of the one supplying the service. If a church refuses to marry a gay couple then that's their right. If a church chooses to marry a gay couple 'cause they interpreted the scriptures differently, then that's also their right.

There is much I disagree with as far as the freedom of religion bill goes. I'm fine with people being able to choose who they do business with, but I don't believe that you should be able to breach your company policy and claim freedom of religion to protect yourself, and I certainly don't believe you should be free to use your religion to attack others.

 

[Alan79]

I think I'll step out of this debate after this post. My main concern with the religious freedom bill is that it just seems like it's only purpose is to allow people to push moral judgement on others without fear of retribution. And the proclivity for religious people to push moral judgement on others is partly why I have come to feel churches have corrupted their ideals and tenets.

They aren't really married on the that show.

If a church is against gay marriage then they shouldn't have to perform the cermony there. Like I said, you can't force people to go against their religious beliefs just to appease others. You can get married in other places as evident by so many gay people getting married.

I just see a lot of hypocrisy around the whole situation of SSM compared to things I think should be more relevant. Ideally I think religion would be better off just trying to offer guidance rather than judgement. I think some religious people enjoy having a feeling of moral superiority and want their right to judge out loud legally protected.

I see it as the right of the one supplying the service. If a church refuses to marry a gay couple then that's their right. If a church chooses to marry a gay couple 'cause they interpreted the scriptures differently, then that's also their right.

There is much I disagree with as far as the freedom of religion bill goes. I'm fine with people being able to choose who they do business with, but I don't believe that you should be able to breach your company policy and claim freedom of religion to protect yourself, and I certainly don't believe you should be free to use your religion to attack others.

I mostly agree with your second paragraph. But I still think that churches denying anyone the right to opt for a religious wedding is the church making a judgement that they're theoretically making in opposition to the idea that it's God's right to judge.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I think I'll step out of this debate after this post. My main concern with the religious freedom bill is that it just seems like it's only purpose is to allow people to push moral judgement on others without fear of retribution.

Yep. Agree 100%. That's all the Freedom of Religion bill is. It's a right to villify without repercussion.

I mostly agree with your second paragraph. But I still think that churches denying anyone the right to opt for a religious wedding is the church making a judgement that they're theoretically making in opposition to the idea that it's God's right to judge.

I like to see it from a freedom perspective. Freedom from persecution but also freedom to have ones own religion. The scriptures are pretty anti-homosexual. They don't villify homosexuals like some religious do, but they do say things like "Gay people can't get into heaven" (technically there is some debate about that but I'll leave it at that)

So I figure if religious want to be able to say, "hey, this is what we believe God wants" then I see no issue with that. And it's not like God is going to appear to correct them.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Here is what you need to understand.

The cake will be part of a ceremony, of which as Christians/Muslims/Jews, this is against their respective faiths. By you involving yourself with it (ie - making a cake), you are condoning the action, of which they believe is a sin. You may not understand religion, you may detest it - but they believe it. For example - I may disagree with ones stance that they, even though born a man, they believe that they are a woman. But they can choose to believe so, and I will continue to disagree - but I am not stopping them from living there life. We can all be against someones lifestyle choices (and I am not saying sexual preference is a choice - but the freedom to marry is a choice), and that also means we do not need to celebrate them.

If you are morally against something, and you stand to lose from it (these people are losing sales), then they have every right to conscientiously object. At the end of the day, either someones' feelings will be hurt, or one's morals trampled. I will never allow my morals to be trampled if it is something I am passionate about.

I hope that clarifies if to for you

Scenario

Christian baker

Bakes a cake for a muslim/Hindu/buddhist/ atheist wedding

QUITE CLEARLY they're are false gods, false prophets, non believers who are using Christian bakers cake for a Christian non sanctioned wedding

But of course we never hear of bakers wanting o deny other faiths, just gays.

It's plain simple bigotry

 

[no1bulldog]

why can gay people abuse straight people for their thoughts and beliefs but straight people have to shut up and say nothing bad against gays..... we should all be able to abuse each other equally

 

[JayBee]

Scenario

Christian baker

Bakes a cake for a muslim/Hindu/buddhist/ atheist wedding

QUITE CLEARLY they're are false gods, false prophets, non believers who are using Christian bakers cake for a Christian non sanctioned wedding

But of course we never hear of bakers wanting o deny other faiths, just gays.

It's plain simple bigotry

Ah.

No. The vast majority of Christians (and for that matter, the catholic church) recognize other marriages from other religions, as they do with civil marriages.

You could argue about the false god element, but that would need to come down to the individual.

 

[JayBee]

1950s

White man: hi baker I'd like a cake for my wedding

Baker: ok what would you like?

White man: I'll take this type of cake and can you please make the bride black

Baker: why?

White man: I'm marrying a black woman

Baker: I won't do inter racial couples, how dare you soil your white race

Today: swap inter racial couples for homosexual couples


How a normal transaction should proceed.

Hi baker I need a cake for my wedding

Baker: which cake do you want?

I'll choose that one thanks and this is the date I need it.

END OF!!!!!!!!!

A baker is paid to bake a fucking cake from a selection of displays a baker already has there.

If that baker has a problem with same sex couples because of religious reasons then that baker better damn sure make sure he doesn't make cakes for people entering their 2nd/3rd/4th etc marriage because divorce is fucking sin too.

Let them bring in this religious freedom bill, I'll take great joy in telling religious people they're fucking cuckoo and belong in mental hospital and that I only tell them because I'm worried for their well being and it's just my way showing I love them.

Not if they were annulled or widowed.

And not with some denominations of Christianity. I cannot comment on other major sects.

And it's okay - you can feel free to call us cuckoo. Ill pray for you anyway

 

[Wahesh]

That also doesn't make sense though. Marriage originally operated outside of Abrahamic religion so it's not like Christians can claim it to be theirs.

I fully understand churches refusing to marry people, and that's why we have civil celebrants. But being against them marrying at all seems a little odd.

Christian's don't claim it, we're not against other religions marriages are we? No, it's about gay people marrying.

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses:

• "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
• "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13

 

[Wahesh]

Scenario

Christian baker

Bakes a cake for a muslim/Hindu/buddhist/ atheist wedding

QUITE CLEARLY they're are false gods, false prophets, non believers who are using Christian bakers cake for a Christian non sanctioned wedding

But of course we never hear of bakers wanting o deny other faiths, just gays.

It's plain simple bigotry

I'm not going to bother flogging a dead horse...

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Christian's don't claim it, we're not against other religions marriages are we? No, it's about gay people marrying.

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses:

• "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
• "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13

If Christianity doesn't claim marriage as its own, then how can Christians be against gay marriage?

I can fully understand that the Christian culture disagrees with homosexual acts. But actually opposing gay marriage is taking a step further and saying, "no, marriage belongs to us"

 

[KambahOne]

Oh this is going to be JUICY. I am LOVING this. ScoMo for PM. Oh... wait a minute... HE ALREADY IS

My friends, Good ALWAYS conquers evil. ALWAYS!

Good and Evil are perspective and subjective. One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.