Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2017, 11:05 PM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 09:51 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Unfortunately, our prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull—who's a practising Catholic—has publicly supported the minister Steven North's refusal to marry the couple. This is another example of the insidious effects of the Christian minority here in Australia surreptitiously influencing our parliamentary decision-making processes.

Turnbull should've known better than to comment on a purely religious matter, just as I expect the church to refrain from commenting on politics. Both however have abrogated their intended duties many times in the recent past.

So Mal's voting yes to marriage equality but upholding a church's right to refuse to marry supporters of same sex marriage? So if Mal leaves Lucy for Michaela, he can't marry Micky in his church? Okie dokie. Of course he couldn't anyway- divorce isn't recognised by the Catholic church.

It might not be all bad, SYZ. One of the objections I've heard from people is they fear marriage equality laws would overturn the constitutional freedom of religion and force churches to marry same sex couples. Now I don't support that particular expression of religious freedom, but others do - and if the PM is actively championing constitutional religious freedom like this, perhaps it will calm some fears and sway some "no" voters to vote "yes".

That wasn't Mal's intention of course- he's just playing to the homophobiasaurs who have all the power in his coalition and base. Must be hard for moderate Mal - balancing on that razor blade. One slip...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sushisnake's post
16-09-2017, 11:37 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2017 12:14 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 10:43 PM)Sushisnake Wrote:  
(16-09-2017 03:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Google is actually pro-Net Neutrality, as is Facebook, and every other tech company that relies upon unfettered access to the internet. It is the Internet Service Providers (Comcast, Time-Warner Cable, etc.) who, having already carved up the US into noncompetitive monopolistic territories, now want to segregate the internet itself into separate speed categories in order to charge even more for faster access; as opposed to having a legitimate competitor offering better service/speed/price to drive down prices and up investment in costly infrastructure improvements. Google, Facebook, and Netflix are pro-Net Neutrality, because it prevents ISP's from using speed of access to their customers (and thus affecting their quality of service), allowing the ISP's to effectively extort them for more money using consumer dissatisfaction as leverage.

Net Neutrality is a separate, but related, issue from privacy on the net.

Unfettered access to the internet"? Laughat

When is net neutrality not net neutrality? When you control the content and your users accordingly. Massive tech companies are not net neutral, they just claim to be and mouth pieties to that effect. They have empires to protect.

" The Web as a freewheeling, democratic platform has been an illusory concept for the better part of a decade. Google has an 88 percent market share of the search-engine market. Facebook, a 77 percent share of mobile social media. Amazon, meanwhile, controls 70 percent of e-book sales, according to Jonathan Taplin, author of a new book on how these firms have “cornered” the Web.

In other words, if you are a typical consumer, your access to online content is already intermediated by the decisions made at a few companies to prioritize certain content based on their view of this information’s importance or its relevance to you. To make money, these firms sell targeted access to you based on data they’ve harvested from everything from your click patterns to the contents of your emails. By 2012, Google made more in ad revenue than all U.S. print media combined.

Google and Facebook are also the largest supporters of net neutrality, ostensible freedom fighters for the open Internet. Pull away the curtains on the high-minded rhetoric, though, and their corporate self-interest is plain. Well-capitalized Internet-service providers such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast are the only plausible rivals for their kind of dominance — and net neutrality applies only to ISPs, not to companies that run websites.

Where net-neutrality advocates have a point — sort of — is regarding the architecture of the system. You usually access the Internet through one entry point. Although you may have choices (the “cable” company or the “phone” company — now both broadband companies), you probably have at most two potential high-speed providers, and at any given time you are subscribed to only one. Meanwhile, you can always go to Yahoo if you don’t like Google, or replace Facebook with LinkedIn.

But most people don’t. The practical reality is that the dominant tech firms on the network’s “edge” loom as large in their control over customers as do the providers of the physical architecture through which consumers use the Internet."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...rnets-well

On Google's lack of net neutrality

http://www.netcompetition.org/conflict-o...ot-neutral


On Facebook's lack of net neutrality:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050...ternet-org


On Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon's lack of net neutrality :

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/net-n...ess-2017-7

On Google, Facebook and Amazon's lack of net neutrality :

https://hackernoon.com/facebook-google-a...0cf8c5920e


https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/07...ality_day/


https://www.axios.com/one-proposal-for-r...62034.html


On Google, Facebook and Amazon's lack of net neutrality ( paywalled)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/neutrality-...1500591612

Facepalm

Companies being monopolistic, controlling a large share of the market, is not anti-net neutrality. Anyone conflating net neutrality and anti-trust is being disingenuous. When Microsoft had that run-in with the federal government over the pervasiveness of their packed-in web browser Internet Explorer, it wasn't because it was anti-net neutrality, is was an anti-trust issue.


Look up what net neutrality actually means...

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality


Nothing in that definition is anti-trust.

If you take away net neutrality, then yes, Google or Facebook could conceivably pay Time Warner Cable or Comcast to slow down consumer access to their competitors. But Google and Facebook don't want to gamble that against TWC or Comcast acting on their own to extort money from them with the threat of slowing down their own services.

Net Neutrality is there to stop Comcast from slowing down consumer access to Netflix, in order to promote their own competing streaming video service. In that way it is tangentially anti-trust, but Netflix is not anti-net neutrality just because it's more popular than Hulu or CBS All Access.

Net Neutrality means that nobody can put an internet access strangle hold to prevent the-next-big-thing. That's why a whole slew of the previous next-big-things, like Google, Facebook, Netflix, Instagram, and Twitter, are pro net neutrality. Now the next-big-thing might get bought out or co-opted by established players (like Google buying YouTube), but that isn't anti-net neutrality. YouTube was allowed to start up and had the same access to people on the web that other competing platforms did (like Vimeo and BlipTV), they just happened to emerge as the most popular one. Being the most popular, or most successful, is a separate issue from non-discriminate data transfer.


[Image: chartoftheday_2255_Netflix_Comcast_Deal_n.jpg]

^ Netflix doesn't want Comcast to use the access speed to their consumers to extort money from them again, that's why Netflix is pro net neutrality. ^

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2017, 01:28 AM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 11:37 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(16-09-2017 10:43 PM)Sushisnake Wrote:  Unfettered access to the internet"? Laughat

When is net neutrality not net neutrality? When you control the content and your users accordingly. Massive tech companies are not net neutral, they just claim to be and mouth pieties to that effect. They have empires to protect.

" The Web as a freewheeling, democratic platform has been an illusory concept for the better part of a decade. Google has an 88 percent market share of the search-engine market. Facebook, a 77 percent share of mobile social media. Amazon, meanwhile, controls 70 percent of e-book sales, according to Jonathan Taplin, author of a new book on how these firms have “cornered” the Web.

In other words, if you are a typical consumer, your access to online content is already intermediated by the decisions made at a few companies to prioritize certain content based on their view of this information’s importance or its relevance to you. To make money, these firms sell targeted access to you based on data they’ve harvested from everything from your click patterns to the contents of your emails. By 2012, Google made more in ad revenue than all U.S. print media combined.

Google and Facebook are also the largest supporters of net neutrality, ostensible freedom fighters for the open Internet. Pull away the curtains on the high-minded rhetoric, though, and their corporate self-interest is plain. Well-capitalized Internet-service providers such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast are the only plausible rivals for their kind of dominance — and net neutrality applies only to ISPs, not to companies that run websites.

Where net-neutrality advocates have a point — sort of — is regarding the architecture of the system. You usually access the Internet through one entry point. Although you may have choices (the “cable” company or the “phone” company — now both broadband companies), you probably have at most two potential high-speed providers, and at any given time you are subscribed to only one. Meanwhile, you can always go to Yahoo if you don’t like Google, or replace Facebook with LinkedIn.

But most people don’t. The practical reality is that the dominant tech firms on the network’s “edge” loom as large in their control over customers as do the providers of the physical architecture through which consumers use the Internet."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...rnets-well

On Google's lack of net neutrality

http://www.netcompetition.org/conflict-o...ot-neutral


On Facebook's lack of net neutrality:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050...ternet-org


On Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon's lack of net neutrality :

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/net-n...ess-2017-7

On Google, Facebook and Amazon's lack of net neutrality :

https://hackernoon.com/facebook-google-a...0cf8c5920e


https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/07...ality_day/


https://www.axios.com/one-proposal-for-r...62034.html


On Google, Facebook and Amazon's lack of net neutrality ( paywalled)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/neutrality-...1500591612

Facepalm

Companies being monopolistic, controlling a large share of the market, is not anti-net neutrality. Anyone conflating net neutrality and anti-trust is being disingenuous. When Microsoft had that run-in with the federal government over the pervasiveness of their packed-in web browser Internet Explorer, it wasn't because it was anti-net neutrality, is was an anti-trust issue.


Look up what net neutrality actually means...

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality


Nothing in that definition is anti-trust.

If you take away net neutrality, then yes, Google or Facebook could conceivably pay Time Warner Cable or Comcast to slow down consumer access to their competitors. But Google and Facebook don't want to gamble that against TWC or Comcast acting on their own to extort money from them with the threat of slowing down their own services.

Net Neutrality is there to stop Comcast from slowing down consumer access to Netflix, in order to promote their own competing streaming video service. In that way it is tangentially anti-trust, but Netflix is not anti-net neutrality just because it's more popular than Hulu or CBS All Access.

Net Neutrality means that nobody can put an internet access strangle hold to prevent the-next-big-thing. That's why a whole slew of the previous next-big-things, like Google, Facebook, Netflix, Instagram, and Twitter, are pro net neutrality. Now the next-big-thing might get bought out or co-opted by established players (like Google buying YouTube), but that isn't anti-net neutrality. YouTube was allowed to start up and had the same access to people on the web that other competing platforms did (like Vimeo and BlipTV), they just happened to emerge as the most popular one. Being the most popular, or most successful, is a separate issue from non-discriminate data transfer.


[Image: chartoftheday_2255_Netflix_Comcast_Deal_n.jpg]

^ Netflix doesn't want Comcast to use the access speed to their consumers to extort money from them again, that's why Netflix is pro net neutrality. ^



" Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, ..."

If Facebook, Google and Amazon aren't internet service providers, what the hell are they? Restaurants? And if they are directing their users to the content, websites and platforms that Facebook, Google and Amazon make the most money from - and they are- how the hell is that neutral? By your own provided definition, they are not neutral. They discriminate. They push you to their preferred content: they play pick any card, pick my card. They're up front about doing this. It's how they make their money. They already are throttling data transfers- you just don't notice it.

The net neutrality debate is about a lot more than access speeds- this is just the latest episode. That's why the debate's been raging for the past decade. That's why net neutrality is an illusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2017, 01:43 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2017 11:11 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  If Facebook, Google and Amazon aren't internet service providers, what the hell are they?

They are internet companies. They do their business on the web, but they are not the ones controlling your access to the web, nor do they have control over the quality of access to their services or to those of their competitors. The data that travels between you and Google or Facebook, is handled by your Internet Service Provider; the one you pay for internet access every month. Unless you pay Google for internet access because you're in one of the tiny handful of test cities where Google has rolled out their Fiber-Optic internet service, then Google is not your ISP (and neither is Facebook or Netflix).


(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  Restaurants? And if they are directing their users to the content, websites and platforms that Facebook, Google and Amazon make the most money from - and they are- how the hell is that neutral?

That is a separate issue. Monopolistic practices are separate from discrimination-free data transfer. Sure, Google adverts can direct you towards Google controlled sites like YouTube, but they can't stop you from going to a competitor (Vimeo, Imgur), nor can they make your experience worse by interfering with your use of a competitor.

Google cannot throttle (slow down) your internet speed when you use Bing.


(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  By your own provided definition, they are not neutral.

You don't even understand the definition, as demonstrated by you fundamentally not knowing what distinguishes them from Internet Service Providers.


(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  They discriminate. They push you to their preferred content: they play pick any card, pick my card. They're up front about doing this. It's how they make their money. They already are throttling data transfers- you just don't notice it.

GOOGLE CANNOT THROTTLE (SLOW DOWN) YOUR INTERNET IF YOU USE BING OR YAHOO.

Goggle can attempt to direct your attention to preferred sites (such as the clearly marked paid for advert results on some of their searches), but if you skip their paid for advert and click on another link, Google does not (and can not) slow the speed at which you access that other site. Because Google cannot throttle your data as you access another site, they are not violating the principle of net neutrality.

Stop lying.


(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  The net neutrality debate is about a lot more than access speeds- this is just the latest episode. That's why the debate's been raging for the past decade. That's why net neutrality is an illusion.

Facepalm

Fucking hell, if you're going to create your own definition of net neutrality and conflate it with anti-trust, privacy, and other tangential issues instead of using the actual definition as described by the guy who fucking coined the term back in 2003, then this conversation is over. I am talking about net-neutrality according to the actual definition of net neutrality, while you're using it as an ambiguous catch-all phrase for a laundry list of ideas. Words have meanings, and you are misusing the term 'net neutrality', and we cannot have an intelligent conversation when you don't know what the core term of the debate even means.

I mean, come one, you tried to quote back the definition I supplied for you thinking that you 'got me', utterly ignorant of the own-goal that was you illustrating you have no idea what an ISP is...

I am not pro-monopoly, I think healthy market competition is a good thing; however that is separate issue. But when you called Google and Facebook anti-net neutrality, that was a categorically false accusation.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-09-2017, 11:33 AM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(17-09-2017 01:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  If Facebook, Google and Amazon aren't internet service providers, what the hell are they?

They are internet companies. They do their business on the web, but they are not the ones controlling your access to the web, nor do they have control over the quality of access to their services or to those of their competitors. The data that travels between you and Google or Facebook, is handled by your Internet Service Provider; the one you pay for internet access every month. Unless you pay Google for internet access because you're in one of the tiny handful of test cities where Google has rolled out their Fiber-Optic internet service, then Google is not your ISP (and neither is Facebook or Netflix).


(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  Restaurants? And if they are directing their users to the content, websites and platforms that Facebook, Google and Amazon make the most money from - and they are- how the hell is that neutral?

That is a separate issue. Monopolistic practices are separate from discrimination free data transfer. Sure, Google adverts can direct you towards Google controlled sites like YouTube, but they can't stop you from going to a competitor (Vimeo, Imgur), nor can they make your experience worse by interfering with your use of a competitor.

Google cannot throttle (slow down) your internet speed when you use Bing.


(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  By your own provided definition, they are not neutral.

You don't even understand the definition, as demonstrated by you fundamentally not knowing what distinguishes them from Internet Service Providers.


(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  They discriminate. They push you to their preferred content: they play pick any card, pick my card. They're up front about doing this. It's how they make their money. They already are throttling data transfers- you just don't notice it.

GOOGLE CANNOT THROTTLE (SLOW DOWN) YOUR INTERNET IF YOU USE BING OR YAHOO.

Goggle can attempt to direct you to preferred sites (such as the clearly marked paid for advert results on some of their searches), but if you skip their paid for advert and click on another link, Google does not (and can not) slow the speed at which you access that other site. Because Google cannot throttle your data as you access another site, they are not violating the principle of net neutrality.

Stop lying.


(17-09-2017 01:28 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  The net neutrality debate is about a lot more than access speeds- this is just the latest episode. That's why the debate's been raging for the past decade. That's why net neutrality is an illusion.

Facepalm

Fucking hell, if you're going to create your own definition of net neutrality and conflate it with anti-trust, privacy, and other tangential issues instead of using the actual definition as described by the guy who fucking coined the term back in 2003, then this conversation is over. I am talking about net-neutrality according to the actual definition of net neutrality, while you're using it as an ambiguous catch-all phrase for a laundry list of ideas. Words have meanings, and you are misusing the term 'net neutrality', and we cannot have an intelligent conversation when you don't know what the core term of the debate even means.

I mean, come one, you tried to quote back the definition I supplied for you thinking that you 'got me', utterly ignorant of the own-goal that was you illustrating you have no idea what an ISP is...

I am not pro-monopoly, I think healthy market competition is a good thing; however that is separate issue. But when you called Google and Facebook anti-net neutrality, that was a categorically false accusation.

The question I asked you was what kind of services Facebook, Amazon and Google are providing if not internet services. I did not call call them ISPs.

I do know what an ISP is, EK, but I also know 30 companies produce over half of all internet content worldwide. I know 70% of bandwith is sucked up by video streaming - over 30% by Netflix alone. I know these content creators and providers have extremely deep pockets and no wish to pay for the bandwith they tie up. I know they had negotiated deals with ISPs to pay them to deliver their services and that the Net Neutrality legislation meant they didn't have to. I know they pay bugger all tax anywhere in the world, yet lobby governments extensively. I know that the ones currently subsidising Netflix's streaming speed are all the internet users who don't have Netflix subscriptions.

I don't think the Frighful Five leave much room for start ups, I think they squeeze small players out of the market and I - and many others- think that affects net neutrality, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2017, 01:01 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2017 01:24 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(17-09-2017 11:33 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  The question I asked you was what kind of services Facebook, Amazon and Google are providing if not internet services. I did not call call them ISPs.

Oh, so your confusion about Net Neutrality wasn't borne out of simply not knowing, but rather purposefully choosing to misuse the term? That does not speak well for you. It looked better when I thought you were simply unaware, rather than being purposefully ignorant.


(17-09-2017 11:33 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  I do know what an ISP is...

Could have fuckin' fooled me... Drinking Beverage

Seriously, if you know what an ISP is, and I give you a definition of Net Neutrality which clearly defines how it's talking about ISP's control of data transfer, then you fire back with 'what are they if not internet service providers'? Seriously, how in the fuck else was I or anyone else supposed to interpret that other than 'you have no clue what an ISP is, or else your entire attempted point falls completely flat and is utterly meaningless because they are not ISP's'. That's why I read it that way, it was the only reading that made sense. Never assume maliciousness when ignorance or apathy provides a sufficient explanation. Ignorance was a far simpler, and far more generous to you, assumption than purposeful ignorance. But it looks like I was wrong. Mea culpa, I guess?


(17-09-2017 11:33 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  ...EK, but I also know 30 companies produce over half of all internet content worldwide. I know 70% of bandwith is sucked up by video streaming - over 30% by Netflix alone. I know these content creators and providers have extremely deep pockets and no wish to pay for the bandwith they tie up. I know they had negotiated deals with ISPs to pay them to deliver their services and that the Net Neutrality legislation meant they didn't have to. I know they pay bugger all tax anywhere in the world, yet lobby governments extensively. I know that the ones currently subsidising Netflix's streaming speed are all the internet users who don't have Netflix subscriptions.

None of that has to do with discrimination of data transfer, and thus, is immaterial to Net Neutrality (according to the actual definition, not your imaginary one).

Seriously, you're don't have a fuckin' clue.

'30 companies produce over half of all internet content worldwide' - Does not violate Net Neutrality.

'70% of bandwith[sic] is sucked up by video streaming' - Does not violate Net Neutrality, it just shows where the consumer demand is.

'content creators and providers have extremely deep pockets and no wish to pay for the bandwith they tie up' - Being popular or successful does not violate Net Neutrality. Consumers using the bandwidth and the access speed they paid ISP's for (even if used exclusively for video streaming) does not violate Net Neutrality.

'know they had negotiated deals with ISPs to pay them to deliver their services and that the Net Neutrality legislation meant they didn't have to' - Yes, because the ISP's slowed down access to those services, to upset their customers, for the express purpose of extorting them for money. This is the only instance of a violation of Net Neutrality, and your strawmen were the victims.

'I know they pay bugger all tax anywhere in the world, yet lobby governments extensively' - Tax code violations, evasion, government lobbying, and general scum-baggary does not violate Net Neutrality.

'I know that the ones currently subsidising[sic] Netflix's streaming speed are all the internet users who don't have Netflix subscriptions. ' - Unequivocally false. The ones 'subsidizing' Netflix are the people who pay for it, they're called 'customers'. The problem isn't that Netflix uses bandwidth, because they do pay for that (video hosting is the worst of both worlds, requiring both massive storage space and high bandwidth); the problem is that when using their service, regular consumers are sometimes not getting all of the internet bandwidth that they pay for. When an ISP throttles Netflix, you are suffering a worse experience than you should otherwise have given the speed of service you already pay for, and that is the anti-consumer nugget at the core of Net Neutrality. It's meant to protect consumers who want to binge watch an entire season of Breaking Bad, without the ISP shutting off the tap to Netflix specifically (i.e. discriminating against Netflix's data transfer), and demanding more money from both ends.

Once again, Net Neutrality already has a specific meaning, and almost none of your laundry list there has anything at all to do with its definition. That you continue to bang your head against the wall saying that it is, simply does not make it so; you do not get to redefine words by personal fiat.

I'm not sure if you've noticed this yet, but pedantry is the great pastime of this forum. I'm no more going to let you unilaterally redefine Net Neutrality than I will tolerate our next drive-by Liar for Jesus dictating to us all the definition of 'atheism'.


(17-09-2017 11:33 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  I don't think the Frighful Five leave much room for start ups, I think they squeeze small players out of the market and I - and many others- think that affects net neutrality, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Frightful Five? Please, leave your clearly biased bullshit at the door (if you even can).

Except being a monopoly or acting monopolistic is a separate and distinct issue from discrimination of data transfer (i.e. fuckin' Net Neutrality). They are not equivalent, and that you continue to conflate them in the face of repeated efforts to inform you of your misapprehension, speaks only to your purposeful ignorance.

Sure, you can choose to just disagree rather than learn; but you're still going to remain wrong, and ignoring that fact does you no favors.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-09-2017, 09:20 AM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(15-09-2017 06:50 PM)SYZ Wrote:  This is yet another example of the severely outdated dogmatism and hypocrisy of the Presbyterian Church (and other protestant denominations) here in Australia...

Church cancels wedding because bride and groom supported gay marriage on Facebook

The couple was summoned to minister Steven North's office and was told he would no longer marry them, nor would they be allowed to hold their ceremony at the church. In a letter to the bride, provided to Fairfax Media, North said the views expressed in her Facebook post had "practical consequences" for the wedding.

"After the pre-marital counselling that you attended and the sermons delivered at Ebenezer St John's on this subject, you must surely appreciate that your commitment to same-sex marriage opposes the teaching of Christ Jesus and the scriptural position practiced by the Presbyterian Church of Australia and by me," he wrote.

This is the smug, hypocritical arsehole Steven North...


[Image: 1505437461624.jpg]
So let me try to understand from North's point of view. The couple supports gay marriage which is against Jesus' teachings. Therefore, the church refuses to perform the marriage ceremony. So this should mean anyone who sins opposes Jesus' teachings and therefore shouldn't be married by the church. Consider It looks like this church is done performing marriages. So no more Presbyterian little ones to pay future church dues. I guess they didn't think that one through. Yeah no, I'm pretty sure they're going to be hypocrites instead. Dodgy

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
18-09-2017, 09:24 AM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 09:34 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  All well, good, and true, but does not take away in the least SS's contention that it is seriously freaking creepy. FB posts mined by the person you want to conduct your own marriage for the purpose of determining your opinion of gay marriage?
Disgusting and reprehensible.
Except we don't know that the minister wasn't in their friends list. It's quite possible.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: