-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Polygamy (Split from Christianity thread)
- Thread starter Liverpool
- Start date
Liverpool said:
If two gay people love each other, I couldn't care less if they get married or not.
I can't see what the big deal is?
There's a heap of straight people who don't respect 'the sacredness of marriage'.
What's important is a couple commitment to each other, not their sex.
Liverpool said:
On the first point, our country's laws on marriage were dictated by those of a Christian society. Its only in recent years that the issue of marriage has moved from being a religious one to a secular one.
On the second point, you really don't read the Christianity thread much do you
The people you are arguing with here on this issue are the same ones who have questioned the Bible's credibility on the issues of allowance of slavery, marriage at young ages, genocide and so on. I think the issues of Mohammed and his young missus would attract similar criticism from this audience.On your final point, so what? As I mentioned before any Australian is entitled to ask for a law to be changed. I can ask for the law to be changed to make it illegal for idiots to barrack for a tosser team like Liverpool. Whether the legislature agree to the demand is another thing. As of now, not a single poli in the country (to my knowledge) has supported this request. As such, why are you getting your knickers in a knot over Australian citizens asking for a law to be reviewed?
Just to add to that..
If this 'marriage law' is so important, do you think people should be punished harder if they break the law(commitment)?
Divorce is rampant these days and the 'marriage law' has little effect whatsoever in the modern day.
Divorce rates would suggest it one of the most commonly broken laws there is.
The fallout from failed marriages causes a heap of pain and suffering but it's pretty easy to do considering it's a law.
Does marriage still have the 'sacredness' it once did re commitment?
Not from where I am sitting.
Society would be better off enforcing it harder or abolishing it all together but to hold it up as some sort of moral fabric these days is a bit of a joke.
I'm certainly more for people straight or gay committing themselves to their chosen partners, than I am worried about whether they are gay or straight.
If this 'marriage law' is so important, do you think people should be punished harder if they break the law(commitment)?
Divorce is rampant these days and the 'marriage law' has little effect whatsoever in the modern day.
Divorce rates would suggest it one of the most commonly broken laws there is.
The fallout from failed marriages causes a heap of pain and suffering but it's pretty easy to do considering it's a law.
Does marriage still have the 'sacredness' it once did re commitment?
Not from where I am sitting.
Society would be better off enforcing it harder or abolishing it all together but to hold it up as some sort of moral fabric these days is a bit of a joke.
I'm certainly more for people straight or gay committing themselves to their chosen partners, than I am worried about whether they are gay or straight.
I find it interesting the Livers can't even answer the original question posed by 6P. Looking at his responses thus far, I don't even know if he understood the original question.
So, Livers, what is your moral position on the topic of polygamy.
As it seems you consider it wrong...would you share with us why? In the homosexuality discussion you basically argued that it was wrong because it was 'unnatural' because it didn't lead to childbirth. If that is the basis of your moral position polygamy would be the ultimate solution! Don't cite the law either, because if you rely on the law for your morals I worry for you. The law generally reflects the morality of the people and they are subject to change as views of morality change. People don't get their sense of right or wrong from the law (or the bible for that matter >)
So, Livers, what is your moral position on the topic of polygamy.
As it seems you consider it wrong...would you share with us why? In the homosexuality discussion you basically argued that it was wrong because it was 'unnatural' because it didn't lead to childbirth. If that is the basis of your moral position polygamy would be the ultimate solution! Don't cite the law either, because if you rely on the law for your morals I worry for you. The law generally reflects the morality of the people and they are subject to change as views of morality change. People don't get their sense of right or wrong from the law (or the bible for that matter >
)
Liverpool said:
Not a man and a goat?
What's wrong with a man giving his heart to a goat? Some might see goats as quite fetching, quite a catch!
And lets face it - people have been doing it with dogs and cats for years.
Dogs and cats get shouted trips to beauty salons, get wined and dined, enjoy surprise birthday parties and even get taken to resorts which accommodate such goings ons.
Fortunes are often left to dogs and cats.
Don’t tell me there isn’t a bit of late night nooky behind all that wooing.
As president of ‘Goats Trapped in Men’s Bodies Secret Society ’ I say get off goats' backs and get back on em' - the time has come for all men and women to come out and demand the right to marry and procreate (in public) with the contradictory species of their choice, especially goats.
Naaa Baaa Woof!
Tiger74 said:
Yes, I agree...and why the law has been involved in this topic, much to SuxPack's constant chagrin.
Tiger74 said:On the second point, you really don't read the Christianity thread much do you
No, I don't.
As I said earlier in the thread, I am not an overtly religious person...but because I am not a devout religious person doesn't mean that I disagree with religion.
I think there are many good morals within all types of religion that people can learn from or gain some guidance from.
I find it sad that people on here try and discredit religion when in fact, even if Jesus, God, and the Bible is all fabricated...so what?
If people can gain something from religion to help them and by believing in a faith helps them in their personal lives....then I think that's great and good on them.
It is just a shame that extremists (of all religions) decide to twist portions of the Bible/Koran,etc to suit their personal agendas.
Tiger74 said:
What annoys me Tiger74 is if you have the money to buy a Ferrari....you don't go and buy a Porsche and then try and rebuild it into a Ferrari, do you?
You just go ahead and buy the Ferrari to begin with!
My point being.....why come to a country that they wish to live in....and obviously, if they think a lot of our culture, customs, and lifestyle to go and become citizens of this country....then why try and change it? Wasn't it good enough to begin with for them to travel all the way here and then become Australian citizens, raise a family, etc...?
If being Islam is so important....and the Islamic religion is deemed more important than the laws of this country....then why come here...why not go to a country that already has the laws in place to suit their religious beliefs?
Panthera tigris FC said:
Do I type in 'invisible ink' on this forum...or am I in a movie like 'Groundhog Day' where I have to answer the same question over and over again? :hihi
It actually reminds me of the Republicans and their aim of another referendum.....I guess if you keep asking the question you'll get the answer you wish for... :spin
Panthera tigris FC said:
My moral position is that I am against polygamy because I think marriage is a vow that A MAN and A WOMAN take with each other.
Panthera tigris FC said:As it seems you consider it wrong...would you share with us why? In the homosexuality discussion you basically argued that it was wrong because it was 'unnatural' because it didn't lead to childbirth. If that is the basis of your moral position polygamy would be the ultimate solution! Don't cite the law either, because if you rely on the law for your morals I worry for you. The law generally reflects the morality of the people and they are subject to change as views of morality change. People don't get their sense of right or wrong from the law (or the bible for that matter >
...and you ask why I think it is wrong?
As I said....to me, marriage is a vow and a commitment between one man and one woman.
That is my moral, my belief, and my opinion.
Funnily enough, even though Disco accused me of having 'skewed views' on the topic....the law and the Bible agree with me, so maybe my views are not as skewed as people are trying to make out...
As for polygamy being the 'ultimate solution'.....no, having sex with plenty of girls and not getting married would be the perfect solution if you want to use "childbirth" as a way to try and push the agenda.
In this case, I think you are mixing polygamy up with philandery....and there is a difference...
Liverpool said:
And what informs that position....what is the basis for that moral stance?
I accept that is your opinion...you've made that clear. My question is about the basis of your moral stance on the issue. You seem to be unaware that such a question could be asked.
Liverpool said:
You make three fatal assumptions here:
1) Everyone who wants to change the law is from another country. Muslims are not just Arab guys who fit your 9/11 stereotype. There are plenty of white Muslims out there too, and Muslims whos parents were born here. Also Mormons are in support of this move, and last time I checked the majority of Mormons were more white bred conservate than you.
2) The vote of someone who was here first is more valuable than the earlier guy. This "you liked it enough to come here so don't change a bloody thing" implies only those who have been here for x generations have the right to be involved in the legislative debates of our nation. This goes against every democratic principle we believe in. As I said before WHO CARES!!!! I can ask for my law banning Liverpool supporters (and that is a Law I would support), but regardless of my family being here 5 minutes or 100 years, if its a nonsense NOONE WILL SUPPORT IT. This is the filter of democracy. Laws are made by our representitives, and the representives are chosen by the majority.
3) Our Laws are perfect. This is completely ignorant. Australia is continually issuing new laws as regulations, and the world, society, and technology are adapting faster than the Law does. If we had your "it ain't broke so don't touch a bloody thing" attitude, we would have no laws against stalking (used to be you had to perform an assault first before cops could act), no laws against dumping of chemicals (used to be legal to dump most stuff in landfill or creeks, with massive long term issues), and a whole bunch of gay people in jail (because homosexuality would still be illegal).
Lol Livers. You used the fact that it's what nature intended to support your view that only members of opposite sexes should be allowed to marry. Your argument was that this was clearly in the best interests of promoting the species, but when it's pointed out that polygamy would achieve this aim far more efficiently somehow you dismiss that notion entirely. Why?
You spent many posts complaining about this law or that, or the justice system in general, but now you're going to use it to point out how you have to be right because it agrees with your view? Funny stuff. You do realise that there are more than a few countries which allow same sex marriage, even more that give equal rights without offering marriage and even more again that are moving towards this position?
The Bible agress with you. Well that ends the argument doesn't it? :-X
Liverpool said:Funnily enough, even though Disco accused me of having 'skewed views' on the topic....the law and the Bible agree with me, so maybe my views are not as skewed as people are trying to make out...
You spent many posts complaining about this law or that, or the justice system in general, but now you're going to use it to point out how you have to be right because it agrees with your view? Funny stuff. You do realise that there are more than a few countries which allow same sex marriage, even more that give equal rights without offering marriage and even more again that are moving towards this position?
The Bible agress with you. Well that ends the argument doesn't it? :-X
Panthera tigris FC said:
I think a moral is a belief...or something that you live your life by.
Many of our morals are in us from the way we are brought up, our environment, our society, and what we believe in as an individual. You don't have to be 'informed' by someone or have someone tell you what you should think....you make up your own mind on what you see and hear around you and what sort of society you want to live in.
My moral on this topic I have made as clear as I can for you and others yet you seem to keep asking the same question over and over again.....and therefore I will state it again, that I think society as a whole needs to have some sort of morals or benchmark as to what is acceptable and what isn't, otherwise there would be chaos.
That is my moral stance. I can't make it any simpler or clearer for you.
Tiger74 said:
That is true and I am not arguing with you on this.
I'll put it this way then...if "Australians" feel that their Islamic religion is more important than the laws of this country then maybe they should think seriously about relocating to a country that already has laws more in line with their religious beliefs?
Last time I looked they do have the democratic right to leave this country and migrate to a country of their choice.
Tiger74 said:
*smile* Tiger74!
I don't think the majority of people voted for an alcopop tax yet the Chairman is going to push that through.....so please don't waste my time with the 'if it is crap nobody will support it' rubbish.
If/When we become a republic and the new 'President', (who could be a 2nd or 4rd generation Islamic Australian) says, "polygamy is legal" then who gives a crap whether you or I support it or not?
As for the banning of LIverpool supporters....well, last time I looked, Australia was not holding people here against their will and if people feel so strongly against something that is deemed so important in their lives, then quite simply, go to somewhere that is more suitable to your lifestyle and beliefs.
That may sound harsh.....and I have no problem with people having a whinge and moan about certain aspects of our society....hell, we all do it....but when a group that has a history of violence across the globe want to push an agenda that is totally against the fabric of our society, then I think we all have a right to really question their motives and the outcomes of what would happen here if we relented to their wishes and religious beliefs.
Polygamy laws changing may just be the tip of the iceberg:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1834944.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/09/1039379788932.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/local-push-for-islamic-state/2007/01/08/1168104922239.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21133176-2702,00.html
Tiger74 said:
That is a totally fabricated statement, Tiger74.
I have never said our laws are perfect and I think numerous posts on the 'justice thread' have proven that.
However, on the Marriage Act and the law of stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then I totally agree with it.
Stalking laws, dumping of chemicals, and jailing gay people are all laws out in place to protect people in our society.
The Marriage Act is in place to protect the fabric of our society and the morals that the majority of people in Australia feel are acceptable for us to live in. Polygamy is deemed not acceptable and I agree with it.
Disco08 said:
I think there is a difference between promoting a species and polygamy though.
You don't have to get married to keep a race going....you just become a philanderer....and have sex with multiple women.
That way you can still promote the species without becoming polygamous.
If you want to commit to one woman then you get married.
It is quite a simple comcept that the majority of society has accepted for centuries now...so let me ask you a question....what has changed in our society that polygamy should now become legal?
Liverpool said:
On the first point, if Australia because 90% Islamic, then its "you" who has the choice to leave. This is my point, what the majority want/are/believe in changes. Just 50 years ago Australia considered itself a white Christian society, yet now were are more secular. A country changes, and who knows what we will be in 200 years (although I doubt it will be the same as the country is today, or was 200 years before).
On the second point, of course you get a say, its called an election. If the alco-pop thing annoys enough people, Labour will be booted, just as the Libs were with Work Choices. So under your society does this mean that anyone who disagreed with Work Choices should have left Australia, or now who disagrees with Alcopops should do likewise? Personally I prefer to stay and let my vote say its piece in 2 years time.
On the final point, I'm glad you concede laws do need to change, but why is the Marriage Act immune to this? I'm pretty sure it has been amended over the years (off memory minimums ages were changed to match changes in social views - but I could be confusing this with age of consent), and this is a process that will continue.
Liverpool said:
I didn't ask you 'who' informed you...I asked you 'what' informed your moral stance....ie. why do you consider polygamy wrong? What I am asking for is some introspection on your moral stance, further than saying, well that is the way it is, so it must be right. If you take that stance than any two individuals from different societies have no hope of ever seeing eye to eye on different views of morality. Moral principles are informed by the factors that you mentioned, but it can be useful to ask yourself why you hold such moral principles. Your responses suggest that you haven't subjected your moral beliefs to such analyses.
I don't know where this came from. I am pretty sure that no one will disagree with you on the fact that there are moral boundaries that are essential for a cohesive and harmonious society. The question is why do we consider certain actions right and wrong. That can generate healthy debate on the grey areas.
oh dear oh dear just another nail in the coffin of democracy . its not the enemy without but the enemy within that you really have to fear. just ask the brits. theres a good chance that in 20 30 yrs time gb will be under sharia law
i really dont get these muslims if they really want to live under their customs and lets face it most are offensive to us the inhabitants, why do they come here to live.
one thing all immigrants should learn it should be written in stone our laws take precedence over all else. if you dont like it dont come here.
i really dont get these muslims if they really want to live under their customs and lets face it most are offensive to us the inhabitants, why do they come here to live.
one thing all immigrants should learn it should be written in stone our laws take precedence over all else. if you dont like it dont come here.
the claw said:
Yes, but as T74 points out, that is the nature of living in a democracy - our laws are not written in stone, but can change as the will of the people dictate.
This is where a good constitution and a bill of rights protecting the inalienable rights of all is central.
It is also important to continue to speak out against irrationality in all its guises. It doesn't help when your leaders openly profess their own irrational beliefs. Sam Harris' ideas on this matter I think are very relevant. The sacrosanct postion of irrational faith in our society provides shelter to other's irrational beliefs (even the more extreme ones) - look at the unassailable position that religious faith holds in much of the modern world. Even the United Nations Human Rights Council has recently outlawed the defamation of religion, specifically Islam - even when some of these religions and their sects have abominable human rights records.
