"Australians decisively support same-sex marriage"

[Deeje]

So, then despite your claims, you can't actually name any such things happening though you say they are happening.

I can only take the situation in Canada as an example....

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1073115159486535

When something is written into law, it is hard to reverse it once it becomes a fact. Unforeseen things happen as it did with the UN Charter on the International Rights of the Child, supposedly to stamp out child abuse and exploitation in developing nations. It did not achieve that goal but allowed kids in developed countries to get away with murder since no one was allowed to discipline them.

That is not what people thought they were signing off on.

The issue of the baker was settled decades ago when it was ruled those businesses of public accomadations cannot discriminate, for any reason, including religious. And, yes, the reasons given for keeping black people out and not serving were very similar, and also quoted from the Bible, just as they are today against homosexual couples.

Misapplying scripture is no excuse to discriminate, but following solidly based Bible standards should not be illegal. This is a moral issue. Immorality is immorality regardless of gender.

Kids become sexually curious during their pre-teen and teenaged years. It's not being "confronted" about it, but rather educated and taught about it. And it's not too early to teach them when they are sexually curious, because failing to teach them results in teenaged pregnancy, the spread of STIs, and it also doesn't help them to deal with peer pressure and being pressured into having sex even if they are not ready/willing themselves. It's not just "ok kids, this is how to have sex," but rather such programs teach about sexuality, including the fact that not everyone is heterosexual.

We believe that this kind of education belongs to parents at home, not in schools. We have many fine articles and books on the subject of appropriate sex education. We raise our children to be moral, not to be part of the immorality that they see their school friends engaged in. My granddaughter is home schooled and has been since year 7....she thought she might like to go back to public school for a while just to make a comparison. She lasted six weeks and just couldn't stand the climate of the school system. She had matured so much in her time away from that environment that she couldn't stand the 'boy crazy twitty girls' she once went to school with. Its a wonder to me that kids survive that "education" system.....its the wrong education they are getting.

Yet most people know their sexual orientation many years before they are an adult. And even many, many adults do not know what they want, nor fully comprehend the ramifications of their actions.

We had a story on one of our current affairs programs recently where a young teenage boy decided that he wanted to be a girl. His mother took it upon herself to get him some hormone treatment against doctor's advice because of his age. He developed beasts and his voice stayed high but as he matured, he grew quite tall. He made the decision that he didn't want to be a girl after all...but rather he decided that he just wanted to be a gay male. Now he has to have breasts removed and the whole thing has confused the heck out of him. How do we stop this from happening?

We have a transsexual amongst my sister's in laws. This man had been married with two kids but decided after his divorce that he wanted to be a woman. He looks like a man in drag. His kids now call him by his chosen name because they can't call him "Dad" anymore. How does this not damage kids? How can they not be embarrassed by the way he looks out in public? He is the ugliest woman I have ever seen. Why should his children have to suffer for his decision?

They do. And, even if they never did, it wouldn't be a problem since they don't even come close to making up half the population.

I guess we should be thankful for small mercies then.

There is no basis or grounds to assume those that didn't vote are against SSM. It's kind of like how in American elections, only a minority of eligible voters even bother to vote, meaning our elections here never capture the voice of the public, but only of those who do vote.

The Australian system is mandatory voting, though this was only a postal opinion poll virtually. I didn't vote because the laws of my country and its politics are none of my business. I don't believe that conscience issues should have anything to do with laws. You cannot force someone to accept what their conscience will not allow. No law can do that.

 

[midopafo]

Australians decisively back gay marriage

No surprise there, Australia is per cap the most homosexual country on the globe. Just wondered why it took so long.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Since I see no Biblical law that prohibits Negros or autistic or blind people from eating cake, I would draw the line where the Bible does.

Where's the Biblical law that prohibits gay people from eating cake?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No surprise there, Australia is per cap the most homosexual country on the globe. Just wondered why it took so long.

Got a citation for that claim?

 

[Deeje]

Where's the Biblical law that prohibits gay people from eating cake?

Perhaps you should have asked....."where's the Biblical law that prohibits gay people?"

Everyone eats cake.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Perhaps you should have asked....."where's the Biblical law that prohibits gay people?"

Everyone eats cake.

Perhaps you've twisted yourself into such knots over this you can't recognise your own words repeated back to you?

I get that it would thoroughly undermine your position to do so, but could you at least attempt to at least look like your trying to be consistent and intellectually honest?

Since "Everyone eats cake." (your words) I guess we can put this stupid "but the poor bakers!" gibberish to bed now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unforeseen things happen as it did with the UN Charter on the International Rights of the Child

UN charters are non-binding.

It did not achieve that goal but allowed kids in developed countries to get away with murder since no one was allowed to discipline them.

Rubbish. Hitting a child is not an effective means of "disciplining" a child. If it's illegal in Australia (it's unfortunately still legal in many American states), it's because of Australian law, not UN, and UN charters are non-binding.

Misapplying scripture is no excuse to discriminate, but following solidly based Bible standards should not be illegal. This is a moral issue. Immorality is immorality regardless of gender.

If something could potentially jeopardize your own personal sense of morality, then don't put yourself in that situation. Really, it's not much different than Christians who whine about how anti-God/pro-Satan metal bands like Slayer are because they want to listen to them guilt free.

We believe that this kind of education belongs to parents at home,

That is what you believe. The facts are most parents do not educate their children about sex. And sex ed isn't just about sex, as has been previously pointed out to you.

His mother took it upon herself to get him some hormone treatment against doctor's advice because of his age.[/QUOTE
Medically, the proper procedure is to use puberty-blocking medication until the child is an adult. The mother should have listened to the doctor.

How does this not damage kids?

It doesn't, and there is a utter lack of scientific evidence to suggest it does. Especially with today's generation, who are even more accepting of LBGT people than those generations who came before. Gen X is way more accepting than Boomers, and Millennials are even more accepting, and the iGen will likely be even more accepting.

You cannot force someone to accept what their conscience will not allow. No law can do that.

No one is forcing you to agree with homosexuals. No one is forcing you to even personally recognize their marriage as a marriage. You are still free to believe as you will.

 

[Altfish]

Since I see no Biblical law that prohibits Negros or autistic or blind people from eating cake, I would draw the line where the Bible does.

In a world that has lost all sense of morality, I don't think we can really expect things to go in any other direction. Such is life.

I doubt there is any Biblical law that bans homosexuals from eating cake either. There wouldn't be many Caucasians around in biblical times in bible lands either.
Which just goes on to prove beyond doubt that morality based on the Bible is not relevant in the 21st century.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since I see no Biblical law that prohibits Negros or autistic or blind people from eating cake, I would draw the line where the Bible does.

So would you make cakes for divorcees? People wearing mixed fabrics? People who eat shellfish? Why just cherry pick homosexuality?

If I was to put up a sign that said "no gay wedding cakes available here" what do you think would happen? The protests would be loud and ugly. Yet if someone else was to put up a sign that said "gay wedding cakes made to order", that would be seen as OK. You see, all I want is the choice. If my conscience will not allow me to condone a certain behavior, then I want a choice to say "I can't do that because it is a violation of my conscience."

Of course people would be upset if you put up a sign stating “no gay wedding cakes available here” because you’d be discriminating against a group of people. What do you think would happen if a Muslim-owned bakery put up a sign saying “no cakes will be sold to infidels?” Would that be okay with you?

Putting up a sign that says “gay wedding cakes made to order” probably wouldn’t cause much of a fuss because you’re a bakery – of course you make cakes! It would be the same if you put up a sign that said “birthday cakes made to order.” That sign would just be redundant. And there’s nothing discriminatory about it.

Maybe if you only want to make cakes for certain groups of people, you shouldn’t be in the cake business. Or you should just make cakes at home for your friends or something.

Since other bakeries will gladly comply, why make a big deal out of it? If gays take their business elsewhere, then that is my loss. I'll accept it. If the issue gets out of hand, then its time to opt for a new way to earn a living...or else just bake cookies and cupcakes.

And if there are no other bakeries around? Should they have to drive 100 miles out of town because the lone baker in town engages in discriminatory practices? Why would you want to get into business if you’re planning on limiting your potential number of customers in the first place?

No one should be forced into a religion against their will. But if parents decide to tech their children the religion that they follow, then when kids are old enough to make their own decisions they will either validate what they have been taught or they will go in another direction. It is their choice and they should be free to make it. The same can be said for indoctrinating kids with the theory of evolution as if it were established fact. By the time they leave High School, they do not question it.....but they should. We should question everything. I wasn't born into my religion, I chose it after a very thorough investigation taking two years to check it out thoroughly. I have never regretted my decision after 45 years.

The theory of evolution is science, and will be taught in science classrooms alongside gravitational theory, plate tectonic theory, germ theory, etc. It will be taught alongside the same science that tells us that it takes Pluto 247.9 years to orbit the sun, even though nobody has directly observed that happening.

By the way, I didn’t learn all that much about evolution until I voluntarily took some courses on it in college. Even then, there was still no indoctrination.

I am pleased for you. Many gay relationships are very loving and monogamous. The ones I had contact with were not.

Maybe you need to get out more. If you met a dysfunctional heterosexual couple, would you assume all heterosexual relationships are dysfunctional?

Why would their children be anything different to any other kids? Its only when forming their own relationships in adulthood that unexpected problems might occur. Role modeling is important to a child's healthy mental development. Gender roles have always been clearly separate, but now they are blurred.

Perhaps that’s a good thing. What’s wrong with men spending more time raising the kids or cooking or cleaning or any other tasks that are “traditionally” carried out by women? What's wrong with a woman taking out the garbage or mowing the lawn or paying the bills or any other "traditionally" male roles? How does that harm children?

I have nothing against gay people at all personally....except when they try to force me to accept their lifestyle as something that should be acceptable to everyone.

In what way do you think they do this?

As a Christian, it will never be acceptable to me but I have no desire to lobby a government to ban it. All I can do is follow the Bible's teachings in my own life. If I am as offended by their lifestyle as they are offended by my refusal to accept it, then whose offense is more important? Isn't it better to just live and let live? Stay out of each other's way?

Treat people as the equal human beings that they are; don’t discriminate against them, and you should be fine.

And if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a person of the same sex as yourself. Easy!

I have known gay women to use the sperm of gay male donors in their friendship circle because the clinic route is expensive. I have to wonder about the gene pool in such circumstances.

Why?

In a world that has lost all sense of morality, I don't think we can really expect things to go in any other direction. Such is life.

Well, I don’t find anything particularly moral about ancient Biblical values so I’m encouraged when we move away from that type of thinking. I think we’ve come a long way since all that, and we’ve grown and learned as a civilization, though we’re still far from perfect.

 

[Deeje]

Since "Everyone eats cake." (your words) I guess we can put this stupid "but the poor bakers!" gibberish to bed now

Did the baker refuse to serve gay customers? No he did not.

Could the gay couple buy a cake and put their own decorations on it without implicating the baker in their celebrations? Yes, many people already do that. The decorations for all occasions are pre-made....all they have to do is put them on. They can personalise it as much as they wish. No one is offended.

There is so much garbage attached to this issue that could easily be averted.

If we value our free will then we will not impose our will on others. This works both ways.

 

[Jesster]

Did the baker refuse to serve gay customers? No he did not.

Could the gay couple buy a cake and put their own decorations on it without implicating the baker in their celebrations? Yes, many people already do that. The decorations for all occasions are pre-made....all they have to do is put them on. They can personalise it as much as they wish. No one is offended.

There is so much garbage attached to this issue that could easily be averted.

If we value our free will then we will not impose our will on others. This works both ways.

Actually, the baker didn't want to sell them any cake at all. They never got that far in the order. It had nothing to do with the cake and everything to do with the customers. It was clearly discrimination.

 

[Deeje]

Actually, the baker didn't want to sell them any cake at all. They never got that far in the order. It had nothing to do with the cake and everything to do with the customers. It was clearly discrimination.

I have seen a video interview with the man himself. He does not refuse to serve gay customers. His objection was in making a cake and decorating it specifically for a gay wedding. As a Christian I agree with his position. It violated his conscience.

If a drug addict came into my bakery and wanted me to include their drug of choice in the ingredients of a cake made especially for him/her, I would object to that as well.

 

[Jesster]

I have seen a video interview with the man himself. He does not refuse to serve gay customers. His objection was in making a cake and decorating it specifically for a gay wedding. As a Christian I agree with his position. It violated his conscience.

If a drug addict came into my bakery and wanted me to include their drug of choice in the ingredients of a cake made especially for him/her, I would object to that as well.

I would like to see this interview. Every news report I've seen about the supreme court case notes that he refuses service to any gay customers. Please supply your evidence.

Also, where did the drug comment come from? Slippery slope much? Drugs are illegal and homosexuality is not.

 

[Deeje]

I would like to see this interview. Every news report I've seen about the supreme court case notes that he refuses service to any gay customers. Please supply your evidence.

I will stress the difference between hearing from the person concerned and listening to those who want to support a popular agenda.
This man is an artist, not just a cake decorator. Should an artist be forced to waste his talent on something that violates their conscience?
Listen to the man and his lawyer....not just to those who want to make him out to be a bigot. He is not a bigot, he has a firm conviction that is Bible based. The law cannot violate someone's conscience. Please watch the two videos.....

Also, where did the drug comment come from? Slippery slope much? Drugs are illegal and homosexuality is not.

Not a slippery slope at all. To ask someone to incorporate something into an activity that is against the law is not right. The law in this case is the Law of God, which overrides any law made by men.

 

[Jesster]

I will stress the difference between hearing from the person concerned and listening to those who want to support a popular agenda.
This man is an artist, not just a cake decorator. Should an artist be forced to waste his talent on something that violates their conscience?
Listen to the man and his lawyer....not just to those who want to make him out to be a bigot. He is not a bigot, he has a firm conviction that is Bible based. The law cannot violate someone's conscience. Please watch the two videos.....

Not a slippery slope at all. To ask someone to incorporate something into an activity that is against the law is not right. The law in this case is the Law of God, which overrides any law made by men.

I just listened to the first video (about to move onto the 2nd). I'll quote back to you how the baker himself described the encounter.

1st gay partner:"We're here to look at wedding cakes."
2nd gay partner: "Yeah, it's for our wedding."
Baker: "I'm sorry guys. I don't do cakes for same-sex weddings."

Did you even listen to your own source before accusing me of all that? This is by-the-book discrimination. Go back and listen to it again. It's exactly how I described it in my last post. They didn't even get to the cake design itself. He didn't want to prepare any wedding cake for them no matter how it looked.

Edit: I watched the part of the 2nd video that went over the same part. It tells the same story.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If a drug addict came into my bakery and wanted me to include their drug of choice in the ingredients of a cake made especially for him/her, I would object to that as well.

Assuming you mean an illegal drug, the baker could refuse because such a thing would violate the law. This isn't a valid comparison, as using illegal drugs is not considered a right.

Should an artist be forced to waste his talent on something that violates their conscience?

If an artist accepts commissioned work from the general public, they've got to take what they get. You serve the public, you serve the public. If your conscience could potentially be violated, then don't serve the public.

 

[Olinda]

Can't imagine why those 17 million folk haven't got their names on the electoral role....can you? Nothing to do with having no one worth voting for I suppose?

It was 17 million on the electoral roll, not off it, hope that helps.
Sadly, I must agree with you about no-one worth voting for, though!

That said, much as I deplore the waste of money on the postal vote, it did achieve the objective. Given the very narrow margin and the opposing elements within the Coalition, quite a feat.

You might want to do the math again....eh?

Covered above.

 

[sayak83]

I have seen a video interview with the man himself. He does not refuse to serve gay customers. His objection was in making a cake and decorating it specifically for a gay wedding. As a Christian I agree with his position. It violated his conscience.

If a drug addict came into my bakery and wanted me to include their drug of choice in the ingredients of a cake made especially for him/her, I would object to that as well.

And he was telling the truth? The court looked at the evidence and decided in accordance with it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Did the baker refuse to serve gay customers? No he did not.

Could the gay couple buy a cake and put their own decorations on it without implicating the baker in their celebrations? Yes, many people already do that. The decorations for all occasions are pre-made....all they have to do is put them on. They can personalise it as much as they wish. No one is offended.

There is so much garbage attached to this issue that could easily be averted.

If we value our free will then we will not impose our will on others. This works both ways.

Um, yes, the baker refused to serve them. That's rather the point.

Soooo sick of the *euphemism* baker

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I have seen a video interview with the man himself. He does not refuse to serve gay customers. His objection was in making a cake and decorating it specifically for a gay wedding. As a Christian I agree with his position. It violated his conscience.

If a drug addict came into my bakery and wanted me to include their drug of choice in the ingredients of a cake made especially for him/her, I would object to that as well.

They wanted to buy a wedding cake. That he already sold. They didn't ask him to provide them anything he didn't already provide to others. If they had asked him to provide a cake with decoration s he didn't already provide, or drugs (?) he would be within his rights to decline service, but that's not what happened. By misrepresenting the facts of the case, you are essentially bearing false witness.