Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 11:10pm:


I think this kind of thing has come up before.... and I suspect this is a pre-emptive move by that church to bring out into discussion the issues or 'morality' v 'rights', and how that may impinge upon the moral stance of that church.

I think the morals side of it is what they are considering - I mean - they would not accept someone married to a bridge... or a goat.... and altering the religious sanctity of marriage would appear to give them some ground on which to base their job requirements.

In their eyes, marriage is between man and woman... if that is a requirement of the job or that you entertain no other form of marriage .......... this is indeed an interesting issue to tax the minds of the courts and the public.

____ wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:17pm:


SSM is currently not legal..... you are reaching.....

Sackable offence... afraid I don't get that...
of course.. IMHO...?

anyone who wants to get married is in for a whole world of pain. If you want that, then go ahead.

I think the sex of the individual is irrelevant, whatever John Howard might believe.

There was no real marriage as we know it, before the LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY.


Claims it is an age old tradition that all men and women adhered to is just ludicrous.

Marriage?  should be one between equals.. Yes?

The suffragette movement starting  in the late 19th Century are alone, responsible for this notion. Prior to that? Women girls and children were chattel.

Only the nobility actually could claim to marriage. Peasants were allowed to co-habit, and things did improve, all over the world, as the poor and bonded were gradually emancipated.
Hey we still haven't achieved equality. On too many levels..

BUT  this garbage claim about marriage being the backbone of our society for millennia is just purely that. Rubbish.

First of all the issue is SSM - not marriage equality which is not a given since all currently enjoy precisely the same rights to marriage...

....  and secondly, the issue is whether or not an organisation, in this case a religious institution, may set standards that accord with its moral stance in the world.

This is a far bigger issue of separation of church and state than just whether or not gays can work there if married, and I believe that is the line on which the Catholic church has drawn its line (sic)... the real question at the bottom here is should a religious institution be compelled to employ certain people whose moral position it finds ambiguous.

I find it odd that gays may work there now, if this church is then going to draw the line at their being married - legally or religiously or whatever.

Don't worry your little head about red herrings.... plenty of meat in the ssm argument now.... but do try to understand an example.

____ wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 6:49am:


No - it's not.  Gays are equally entitled to marry under the existing rules.... there is nothing 'equal' about a special dispensation which only applies to a small group.

Once again - there is no specific right to marriage..the only Right that adheres to marriage is to not be compelled to marry against one's will...

It would be worse if, for instance, the Guv were to say that Reg has the right to marry Fred, but just can't do it.... like Reg having babies in Life of Brian... you can have the right but not the means...

Perhaps that is more of an argument re the Catholic church... and again I think they are pre-empting any demand that their church be forced to marry people it currently does not.

I don't believe they marry Muslims either, but I suppose they could.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 11:36pm:



again, no one is asking them to sanction anything.

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 2:44pm:


Excellent question.

Notice how the apologists refuse to respond or answer?