TOILETS Male or Female Simple choice well not anymore

[Quickstatus]

I should add to the toilet rules:

3) no looking at other people in the toilets

 

[blackcat20]

The single biggest issue is that they insist on it being a "marriage" and that they will be treated as second class citizens if it is a civil union and not entitled to all the rights and remedies, despite the fact defacto have all the same benefits as married people. If it is resolved legally that civil unions are the same in terms of rights, then it should be a fait accompli.

So if you remove the legal issue, it becomes purely a reason to upset the church, which is where the issues are. Why is it ok to discriminate against religion, purely for the sake of retaliation for "perceived" discrimination. The argument then goes on to perceived discrimination and that argument completely ignores all forms of religious freedom. So to prove discrimination, you have to support discrimination against religion. The whole purpose of this exercise is to perpetrate hatred against the church, so of it perceived, so of it very valid. I am just constantly surprised by the fact the people who campaign against discrimination and bigotry are usually the worst offenders.

And yes there are idiots at both ends of the spectrum. Can't everyone just find some middle ground and move on. I have my hand up for civil unions.

Plenty of straight couples get married without any religious/church involvement so why can't gay couples? Marriage isnt a word that is owned by any religion.

 

[drron]

One of the issues I find in these types of arguments is that there is always a cry for freedom of religion yet never any acknowledgement we need freedom from religion.

Sorry but isn't Freedom of Religion recognized as a basic human right?
Isn't it recognized under the ICCPR set out by the UN in 1966 and ratified by Australia?
And doesn't it also quarantee your right not to have a religion?

 

[drron]

Plenty of straight couples get married without any religious/church involvement so why can't gay couples? Marriage isnt a word that is owned by any religion.

Precisely.But even in the 70s we could get married by a celebrant in a civil service and receive from the state a Marriage Certificate.
So why now do some people not regard that as a marriage.
So you don't have to go attacking religions as a means to do that.If the proponents of same sex marriage were less confrontational there would be no problems.In my work I talk to a lot of older Australians and quite a few will vote against same sex marriage because the perceive it as an attack on their beliefs.That feeling is reinforced by some of the strident comments even in this forum.
So I support same sex marriages but I would not support a religion being forced to perform those marriages.There are churches that do perform such ceremonies if a church wedding is the desire.

 

[Hvr]

<snip>
So I support same sex marriages but I would not support a religion being forced to perform those marriages.There are churches that do perform such ceremonies if a church wedding is the desire.

I think we're in furious agreement. The people I know in same sex relationships don't want to get married in a church. They just want to get married.

 

[dajop]

The single biggest issue is that they insist on it being a "marriage" and that they will be treated as second class citizens if it is a civil union and not entitled to all the rights and remedies, despite the fact defacto have all the same benefits as married people. If it is resolved legally that civil unions are the same in terms of rights, then it should be a fait accompli.

This is where it is difficult, this is the case in Australia, for sure ... within Australia the civil union/defacto relationship does afford substantially the same rights as a marriage. However, this thread is discussing and issue an campaign based in the US. In the US, most states do not establish or recognise such relationships (between those of same or opposite sex), or definitely don't come with the same degree of rights that exist for marriages - so the argument is more complicated than in Australia. I suspect this is one reason there isn't quite the urgency around same sex marriage in Australia - because many are ambivalent and don't see the need if there are other protections under the law.

In any event I am happy to read and observe debates around these things. But the moment people start bringing out phrases like "lefties" and "right wing bigots", you know it's time to move on, play the issue not the person.

And besides, remind me what all this has to do with transgender people using toilets?

 

[chelzmalee]

I don't care who uses what toilet. Just don't pee on the seat.

And leave the seat down.

 

[Quickstatus]

I don't care who uses what toilet. Just don't pee on the seat.

And leave the seat down.

If the seat is UP there wont be pee on the seat:mrgreen:

 

[Cossie]

I don't care who uses what toilet. Just don't pee on the seat.

And leave the seat down.

And don't use your mobile phone

 

[drron]

And don't use your mobile phone

The only problem with that is when I am oncall the hospital obviously somehow fit me with a tracking device so that I am only called when on the toilet,in a bath or driving a car.:shock:

 

[Princess Fiona]

The only problem with that is when I am oncall the hospital obviously somehow fit me with a tracking device so that I am only called when on the toilet,in a bath or driving a car.:shock:

Haha!! I have that problem too and when I'm actually at work I carry a DECT phone that rings at least every 5 minutes including during a trip to the toilet

 

[PLANT]

My toilet is being replaced now as the new one was chipped in installation..... As I read this thread!

 

[get me outta here]

All these mentions of toilets is quite gauche, I think we should start referring to them as restrooms, that is so much more discreet.

 

[chelzmalee]

If the seat is UP there wont be pee on the seat:mrgreen:

... oh no he di'nt!

 

[russ]

Once we get to the politics and religion, the thread is doomed.

Not quite yet... we have yet to discuss the dress standards in heaven! I assume Jesus wore sandals, but did he have a toe divider?

 

[drron]

I thought they needed a back strap.

 

[Pushka]

The single biggest issue is that they insist on it being a "marriage" and that they will be treated as second class citizens if it is a civil union and not entitled to all the rights and remedies, despite the fact defacto have all the same benefits as married people. If it is resolved legally that civil unions are the same in terms of rights, then it should be a fait accompli.

So if you remove the legal issue, it becomes purely a reason to upset the church, which is where the issues are. Why is it ok to discriminate against religion, purely for the sake of retaliation for "perceived" discrimination. The argument then goes on to perceived discrimination and that argument completely ignores all forms of religious freedom. So to prove discrimination, you have to support discrimination against religion. The whole purpose of this exercise is to perpetrate hatred against the church, so of it perceived, so of it very valid. I am just constantly surprised by the fact the people who campaign against discrimination and bigotry are usually the worst offenders.

And yes there are idiots at both ends of the spectrum. Can't everyone just find some middle ground and move on. I have my hand up for civil unions.

Are you saying therefore, that same sex couples do not believe in God? Whatever form that takes?

I am pretty sure that the motivation of same sex couples has NOTHING to do with upsetting anyone else and everything to do with proclaiming their commitment to each other to the world. What kind of a world do we live in if that concept should not be cherished?

I think my position is exactly middle ground.

If the seat is UP there wont be pee on the seat:mrgreen:

Correct, it will be on the rim of the toilet and on the floor

 

[Pushka]

All these mentions of toilets is quite gauche, I think we should start referring to them as restrooms, that is so much more discreet.

Actually, the word should be Lavatory according to HM QEII

 

[harvyk]

The single biggest issue is that they insist on it being a "marriage" and that they will be treated as second class citizens if it is a civil union and not entitled to all the rights and remedies, despite the fact defacto have all the same benefits as married people. If it is resolved legally that civil unions are the same in terms of rights, then it should be a fait accompli.

So if you remove the legal issue, it becomes purely a reason to upset the church, which is where the issues are. Why is it ok to discriminate against religion, purely for the sake of retaliation for "perceived" discrimination. The argument then goes on to perceived discrimination and that argument completely ignores all forms of religious freedom. So to prove discrimination, you have to support discrimination against religion. The whole purpose of this exercise is to perpetrate hatred against the church, so of it perceived, so of it very valid. I am just constantly surprised by the fact the people who campaign against discrimination and bigotry are usually the worst offenders.

And yes there are idiots at both ends of the spectrum. Can't everyone just find some middle ground and move on. I have my hand up for civil unions.

OK, so we've gone from issues around transgendered people using the restroom of their chosen gender rather than their physical gesture through to marriage equality = direct attack on "the church".
I'm going to restrain myself on arguing why marriage equality has nothing to do with "the church", but instead ask that the moderators close this thread before things are said (from either side) which will equal a holiday from AFF, or at the very least move this thread into the playground.

 

[Quickstatus]

Correct, it will be on the rim of the toilet and on the floor

But importantly not on the seat. Thats also why passengers should wear shoes when going to the Loo on an airplane