Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 22
Send Topic Print
Marriages to be annulled (Read 17946 times)
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 34379
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #150 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:10pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:03pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:59pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:55pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:48pm:
I'll leave that to you karnal, you seem to have a grip on something......


Thanks, Ajax.

Watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show, Caesar. It's all in there. Transylvanian transexuals creating new breeds of humans to have sex with and take over the world.

Kunning, no?


Dammit ...



But isn't it nice.


It's not nice at all, Mother, it's sinister.

Not racist, of course.


Just close your eyes. You'll be alright.

Now, isn't that better?
Back to top
 

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #151 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:23pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:45pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.



You might not believe in them now but when they touch upon your nik of the woods you might.

Then again some people go through life without a clue.

Maybe you're one of them...................... Wink


You know there are psychological explanations for conspiracies. The main one is that it helps people to better understand the world by dividing the forces of light and darkness. It makes a complex world look simpler.

I understand the grey area. Do you?


Yes that first part is true.

Want to bury the truth, call it a conspiracy................. Grin


Like that JFK was assassinated by the CIA?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 130891
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #152 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:25pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:23pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:45pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.



You might not believe in them now but when they touch upon your nik of the woods you might.

Then again some people go through life without a clue.

Maybe you're one of them...................... Wink


You know there are psychological explanations for conspiracies. The main one is that it helps people to better understand the world by dividing the forces of light and darkness. It makes a complex world look simpler.

I understand the grey area. Do you?


Yes that first part is true.

Want to bury the truth, call it a conspiracy................. Grin


Like that JFK was assassinated by the CIA?


Watch the Zapruder film again.

There's a Muslim on the grassy knoll.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 34379
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #153 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:27pm
 
A Muslim Lizard.
Back to top
 

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 130891
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #154 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:29pm
 

Under the trees ... in the shadows.

...

She's wearing a burka, which makes it hard to see her.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 34379
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #155 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:38pm
 
I'll bet the burqa hides many a reptilian shape-shifter.
Back to top
 

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 39924
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #156 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 8:30am
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:58pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
Auggie wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.

Grin  Grin 'you are working with?' You, one of the most PC, group-think addled person for miles!


What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby ...


Nobody is saying anything to the contrary.

Ignorance is saying something like "which one is the wife?".



Well, in marriage there is a wife and a husband. So who is who in SSM?

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #157 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:21am
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 1:26pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:34am:
So Auggie how has the human race been sustained and continued to grow population wise?

Gays? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Bigger cabbage patches?
More Storks?

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


And it will continue to grow notwithstanding same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has no impact on procreation. The majority will continue to be heterosexual. We will still be a society of men and women.

You didn't answer the question Auggie.
Cant face the truth eh.
In countries where SSM has been implemented it has been reported that marriage rates in the heterosexual  majority have fallen.  Some have commented that marriage has been devalued and that they now see no reason to marry any more.
One minute you say everything effects society and the next you ignore the effects Auggie.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... 

Canada is more like us than any other SSM country and has had it in place long enough to start to see the broader effects.

The Impact on Human Rights

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.

A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.

When one sees opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations.  At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

The Right to Freedom of Expression

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.

Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.  Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers,  and ministers of small congregations of Christians.  A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.

Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’s affair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”

But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees,  none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent.
pt1
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #158 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:27am
 
pt2.

As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.

Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession.  Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.

Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students.  Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

Parental Rights in Public Education

Institutionalizing same-sex marriage has subtly but pervasively changed parental rights in public education. The debate over how to cast same-sex marriage in the classroom is much like the debate over the place of sex education in schools, and of governmental pretensions to exercise primary authority over children. But sex education has always been a discrete matter, in the sense that by its nature it cannot permeate the entirety of the curriculum. Same-sex marriage is on a different footing.

Since one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect that we give marriage, its proponents have been remarkably successful in demanding that same-sex marriage be depicted positively in the classroom. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices.

The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely. Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance”—they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.

The reforms, of course, were not sold to the public as a matter of enforcing the new orthodoxy. Instead, the stated rationale was to prevent bullying; that is, to promote the acceptance of gay and lesbian youth and the children of same-sex households.

It is a laudable goal to encourage acceptance of persons. But whatever can be said for the objective, the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children’s best interests. It frustrates the ability of parents to lead their children to an understanding of marriage that will be conducive to their flourishing as adults. At a very early age, it teaches children that the underlying rationale of marriage is nothing other than the satisfaction of changeable adult desires for companionship.

Religious Institutions’ Right to Autonomy

At first glance, clergy and houses of worship appeared largely immune from coercion to condone or perform same-sex marriages. Indeed, this was the grand bargain of the same-sex marriage legislation—clergy would retain the right not to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. Houses of worship could not be conscripted against the wishes of religious bodies.

It should have been clear from the outset just how narrow this protection is. It only prevents clergy from being coerced into performing marriage ceremonies. It does not, as we have seen, shield sermons or pastoral letters from the scrutiny of human rights commissions. It leaves congregations vulnerable to legal challenges if they refuse to rent their auxiliary facilities to same-sex couples for their ceremony receptions, or to any other organization that will use the facility to promote a view of sexuality wholly at odds with their own.

Neither does it prevent provincial and municipal governments from withholding benefits to religious congregations because of their marriage doctrine. For example, Bill 13, the same Ontario statute that compels Catholic schools to host "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs (and to use that particular name), also prohibits public schools from renting their facilities to organizations that will not agree to a code of conduct premised on the new orthodoxy. Given that many small Christian congregations rent school auditoriums to conduct their worship services, it is easy to appreciate their vulnerability.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #159 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:27am
 
Oooh. So marriage rates have fallen?
That’s been happening for more than 50 years now, notwithstanding same sex marriage.

If people feel that marriage has been devalued then that’s their problem.

Finally the article you quoted talked about free speech and anti ssm. It had nothing to do with children becoming sodomites or with an increase in the homosexual population.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #160 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:32am
 
pt 3.

Changes to the Public Conception of Marriage

It has been argued that if same-sex marriage is institutionalized, new marital categories may be accepted, like polygamy. Once one abandons a conjugal conception of marriage, and replaces it with a conception of marriage that has adult companionship as its focus, there is no principled basis for resisting the extension of marriage licenses to polygamist and polyamorist unions.

In other words, if marriage is about satisfying adult desires for companionship, and if the desires of some adults extend to more novel arrangements, how can we deny them? I will not here evaluate this claim, but simply report how this scenario has played out in Canada.

One prominent polygamist community in British Columbia was greatly emboldened by the creation of same-sex marriage, and publicly proclaimed that there was now no principled basis for the state’s continued criminalization of polygamy. Of all the Canadian courts, only a trial court in British Columbia has addressed whether prohibiting polygamy is constitutional, and provided an advisory opinion to the province’s government.

The criminal prohibition of polygamy was upheld, but on a narrow basis that defined polygamy as multiple, concurrent civil marriages. The court did not address the phenomenon of multiple common-law marriages. So, thus far, the dominant forms of polygamy and polyamory practiced in Canada have not gained legal status, but neither have they faced practical impediments.

The lesson is this: a society that institutionalizes same-sex marriage needn’t necessarily institutionalize polygamy. But the example from British Columbia suggests that the only way to do so is to ignore principle. The polygamy case’s reasoning gave no convincing explanation why it would be discriminatory not to extend the marriage franchise to gays and lesbians, but not discriminatory to draw the line at polygamists and polyamorists. In fact, the judgment looks like it rests on animus toward polygamists and polyamorists, which is not a stable juridical foundation.

The Impact on the Practice of Marriage

As for the practice of marriage, it is too soon to say much. The 2011 census data establish that, first, marriage is in decline in Canada, as it is in much of the West; second, same-sex marriage is a statistically minor phenomenon; and third, there are very few same-sex couples (married or not) with children in the home.

There are approximately 21,000 married same-sex couples in Canada, out of 6.29 million married couples. Same-sex couples (married and unmarried) constitute 0.8% of all couples in Canada; 9.4% of the 64,575 same-sex couples (including common-law and married) have children in the home, and 80% of these are lesbian couples. By contrast, 47.2% of heterosexual couples have children in the home. Canada stopped tracking divorce after 2008, and has never provided data on same-sex divorce.

What we can gather from these data is that same-sex marriage has not, contrary to arguments that it would, powered a resurgent marriage culture in Canada. Nor are there any census data (one way or the other) for empirical arguments tying the institutionalization of same-sex marriage to marriage stability.

Without empirical data on divorce rates (which are not forthcoming in Canada), we are left with conceptual arguments that must be evaluated on their merits. Here, the Canadian experience cannot provide much information. We are left with the question, does the institutionalization of same-sex marriage rest on a conception of marriage that places a premium on stability, as does the conjugal conception? If it does not, then we can reasonably believe same-sex marriage will speed up cultural acceptance of a conception of marriage—the adult companionate model—that has done much social damage over the past fifty years.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #161 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am
 
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #162 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:34am
 
Let me ease your mind, G.

First, marriage is between two consenting adults, nothing more now thing less.

Second, churches should not be forced to do anything against their conscience.

Third, people who oppose ssm are not necessarily bigots.

Happy?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #163 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 130891
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #164 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:47am
 
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 8:30am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:58pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
Auggie wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.

Grin  Grin 'you are working with?' You, one of the most PC, group-think addled person for miles!


What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby ...


Nobody is saying anything to the contrary.

Ignorance is saying something like "which one is the wife?".



Well, in marriage there is a wife and a husband.


Not in SSM.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 22
Send Topic Print