No booze on Good Friday (2 Viewers)

[SylviaB]

its shadowdude

 

[ohexploitable]

what

me and maturelamb had beeries at a bar yesterday

 

[Rixon]

what

me and maturelamb had beeries at a bar yesterday

yeee
just not takeaway

 

[Annihilist]

Don't laws such as "It is illegal to steal" and "It is illegal to murder" originate in religious texts and teachings...?

Don't laws such as "it's illegal for homosexuals to marry" originate in religious texts?

 

[SylviaB]

Don't laws such as "it's illegal for homosexuals to marry" originate in religious texts?

Sigh...there is no law that says "it is illegal for homosexuals to get married".

 

[that bloke]

i bought a carton/case of berieires on friday and drank them

then i went to a pub and drank delicious berieres

delicious perth freedom

 

[that bloke]

oh wait i'm still in melbourne

 

[Lentern]

Sigh...there is no law that says "it is illegal for homosexuals to get married".

So they can get married?

 

[SylviaB]

Marriage is a legal arrangment with the government

Government doesn't enter into arrangment with gays.

 

[ohexploitable]

yeee
just not takeaway

oh so that explains why no liquor store was open

we spent like an hour trekking through the city looking for one

 

[funkshen]

Marriage is a legal arrangment with the government

Government doesn't enter into arrangment with gays.

yes, but if the government (or rather, its agents) did enter into an arrangement with gays (i.e. married two gays), it would be contravening the law, i.e. illegal

one can deduce that non-theft is legal, given that theft is illegal.

clearly a semantic argument

 

[Lentern]

Marriage is a legal arrangment with the government

Government doesn't enter into arrangment with gays.

So when it comes to actual tangible differences between "gay marriage is illegal" and what you said there more or less aren't any and you were being a pedantic little grump?

 

[funkshen]

there is a distinction between illegality in terms of breaking the law (i.e. a crime against the state), and being prevented by law from making certain associations (i.e. marriage)

 

[Lentern]

there is a distinction between illegality in terms of breaking the law (i.e. a crime against the state), and being prevented by law from making certain associations (i.e. marriage)

There is but the distinction is even smaller than your making out. Illegal does not equate to criminal.

 

[funkshen]

There is but the distinction is even smaller than your making out. Illegal does not equate to criminal.

i think you'll find that solemnizing an unlawful marriage is a criminal offence (protip: it has to be, because marriage is not a civil affair). that's one of the many reasons we have common law marriages (i.e. when there is no civil marriage contract or registration), which gays are not excluded from.

 

[SylviaB]

there isn't a law that says homosexual marriage is legal

saying there is and that it comes from religion is to imply that marriage was previously available to same and opposite sex couples, but religious influence resulted in a deviation from the norm

when clearly, marriage (in the 'government legal arrangment' sense of the word) , has always been between a man and a woman and the fact that it would be unlawful for the state to grant marriage to a same-sex couples isn't because there was a law passed saying that it would be illegal

ie. marriage has had a specific meaning from the start, one which precludes same-sex couples. The reason they are precluded has nothing to do with religiously-influenced laws that regulate marriage, but because of the inherent legal definition of marriage

 

[funkshen]

the marriage act was only defined in terms of an association between a man and a woman through amendment in 2004, which inserted into subsection 5(1) "marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.". its meaning was not actually well defined in the act, so they also had to add at the end of section 88B " marriage has the meaning given by subsection 5(1)." before this, the meaning of marriage was determined by the prevailing socio-political winds; the marriage of man and man, or woman and woman, was not precluded because of inherent legal definition (there was none).

 

[Riproot]

what about the jewish problem?

I thought Germany and the Islams were working on it…?

 

[Lolsmith]

Government knows best. Booze is very bad for us especially on Good Friday.

mate

 

[Lentern]

there isn't a law that says homosexual marriage is legal

saying there is and that it comes from religion is to imply that marriage was previously available to same and opposite sex couples, but religious influence resulted in a deviation from the norm

when clearly, marriage (in the 'government legal arrangment' sense of the word) , has always been between a man and a woman and the fact that it would be unlawful for the state to grant marriage to a same-sex couples isn't because there was a law passed saying that it would be illegal

ie. marriage has had a specific meaning from the start, one which precludes same-sex couples. The reason they are precluded has nothing to do with religiously-influenced laws that regulate marriage, but because of the inherent legal definition of marriage

Poppycock.