The very next line was "Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them". The rest of the passage went on to talk about how power and control should not characterise a marriage relationship. TBH, I just googled it :S first year Christian here, still got a lot to learn :D thanks for the question :)
Ahhhh thanks for the clarification. It's not clear just from this video but I thought he might have been trying to say that & make a joke - he seemed to be being sarcastic at the end so I was a bit confused about where he stood. I'm impressed with Mr Turnbull. :)
Im Catholic and I support gay marriage. As long as it doesn't interfier negatevely in my life why should I care? Now come at me anyone who has the valor to reply!
Catholic and support gay marriage. Do you like children too? It was a Catholic priest that turned me gay. And the system failed me, the priest got off scott free. Yet I am still tormented. Im voting NO.
That pile of drivel makes less sense than what the 'pastors' featured in this video spew! Although THEY can probably spell, even though they clearly can't read the bible properly! Lol :p
Its surprisingly easy to find articles that question the impact on society, parenting and traditional values in one respect, in the last 8 years there have been quite a few special editions in reputable peer-review journals. However in the other respect, i have found they are usually in a edition with articles arguing for and against the different perspectives and articles that are neutral. The only 'journals' I found that didn't offer different perspectives were non-peer reviewed.
I'd really love to know if they interviewed real religious pastors, or got some friends to dress up as pastors and just pretend to be ignorant nitwits! :p
Sexuality is not a ‘chosen’ thing. It’s along the same lines as race or disability. You can’t help it, it wasn’t your decision. No one wakes up in the morning and decides to be straight, or gay, or bisexual (yes we exist). For the law to discriminate between people based on a factor they have no control over is completely ridiculous. If you replace a certain race or disability in place of a sexuality or gender in the wording of a law and it sounds abhorrent, it shouldn’t apply to LGBT+ people. For example, imagine a law stating “It is illegal for marriage between people of two different nationalities” or “Dyslexic people are allowed to be refused service” . That sounds ridiculous and highly discriminatory
the main argument that's used at the moment is "think of the children", and the consensus that biological parents are the best, which I would argue is not always the case
Citation generally envolves the names of said peer-reviewed journals. I can say the exact same...so long as I don't need to provide the actual names of the reviews, articles, or reports.
Its not distortion that people should have rights as humans. People marry far to easily without the commitment or understanding. I'm under 30 years old and I have friends that have been divorced three times. There are almost two different arguments whether people should have equal legal rights, in the case of a marriage equivalent or whether people should have equal social rights in terms of the marriage classification. Its a different form of relationship, so I tend to side with legal rights.
I fully agree. We should also prevent people with disabilities from getting married or otherwise being on equal standing with other people in society because they are not "usual, typical or expected".
That's not true, actually. Senate and House of Reps inquiries into the issue both received tens of thousands of submissions and came back with 60%+ majority support. Galaxy and Nielsen polling agencies corroborated these results, and they also do election polling. It's simply a matter of our pollies being gutless and our Prime Minister and Opposition Leader not being supportive. The Coalition were forced to vote according to party policy, so it was hardly a representative vote.
If you care about what someone does with there sexual feelings, man or women, you have way to much time on your hands. None the less, a friggen amazing start to a great series!
It is this same logic that generally championed the increasing establishment of gender and ethinic equality in the Western countries. So the question again comes back to the following thing: the principle of equality and inclusiveness implies equality of marriage. Now, we just need to evaluate the possible risks to the couples in question and the society as a whole to decide whether it should be implemented or not.
I agree. This is why the song Same Love by Macklemore has number 15 in Australia's top 100 songs of 2012. I think that in itself shows what Australia's youth of today thinks. Why should people between the ages of 20 to 30 still be governed by what feels like their parents rules.
Funny thing about that quote from Corey Bernadi, if you could have consensual sex between humans and animals, people would be fine with bestiality, it's the fact that bestiality is considered non-consensual that stops it from being considered okay.
I think i get your jist, general polling will probably reveal that alot of people will simply accept gay marriage other than actively support it,depending how the question is framed, ie:does gay marriage bother you? or Would you vote for gay marriage? one carrys a certain apathy Then if you ran focus groups on say baby boomer woman around 65-75 you will find they are probably mostly against it.If you ran it demographically you might find these groups fill certain seats which could casue a swing
I have little information re the objectivity of any particular poll but the fact that 12 years ago equal marriage wasn't legal anywhere int he world, and in those twelve years quite a few countires have adopted such laws, and a lot of those rather recently, does indicate something. Also I'm judging by what I see in the community and wider society re the prominence of LGBT themes & people's reaction. The attitudes do APPEAR much more informed and accepting, & I doubt everyone is just pretending.
I'm in full support of gay marriage and let me say, our generation will achieve it. The argument that marriage is 'defined' as an institution between a man and a woman is on shaky ground at best. Laws change in accordance with society. Marriage used to be defined as an institution where women were chattels to men. Marriage used to be defined as an institution where only two people of the same race could live in union. My generation, Gen Y will stamp out this inequality.
"Each man's death diminishes me." I believe the quote was. The notion that gay marriage negatively effects society is still one which bears a burden of the proof, on the other hand the opposite can be shown that homosexual marriage is complimentary to heterosexual marriage as described in the book "Gay marriage, for better or for worse." which holds a case study for already legalised homosexual marriage. you can watch an interview with the authors here: watch?v=-9atnCSSFP8
Marriage predates Christianity and is not a strictly religious institution. Marriage in Australia is governed by the Marriage Act - a secular act. People can choose to marry in a church or with a secular celebrant. Also, not all religions or churches disapprove of gay relationships. Churches can choose to marry whomever they want (as they should.) No gay couple is trying to force churches to perform wedding ceremonies for them - it is the secular contract that matters.
True, but besides the point. If we know for a fact nothing gets worse by letting a man and a man or a woman and a woman marry, then why not just let them? Why would you deny people something they really want and can so easily be given, without any negative consequences for society, individuals or whatever else people come up with?
I think it is clear i am saying a slippery slope argument has alot of merit As long as the contingencies in a slippery slope argument are warranted (factual) it is not a fallacious argument. Maybe for someone to marry there pet is because the pet needs to give consent. But say for 1st cousins to marry it may be validas they can consent etc... How is it a human right for homosexuals to marry under government permission exactly??
Well if you ask Alan Jones, Tony Abbott or any other conservative in the country they would say Julia is something along the lines of "a threat to democracy" and the polls are enough to say that the peoples interests not are being represented. But in this one case of same sex marriage, Julia with the democratic process has come through. How do you know that if the government is so unpopular?
I'm not an Australian, and don't know what was the legal path in the country. If indeed no better reason was found for allowing Aboriginals ot vote other than that same provisions had been made for another discriminated group, it seems like a very a sad thing. In a great many countries, however, these changes came because of more sound arguments than "follow the trend". And the marry the pet thing is religious. Marriage requires consent, which a pet cannot give, the situations are incomparable.
You can have equal rights with civil unions though, at present the rights of same sex couples in regards to finance, legislation, inheritance and so forth are almost non-existent. If we are talking about whether the legal relationship should be called marriage or something else, there is a fair bit of debate that could be had in that area. Though outright denying the rights of people with different sexual preferences is generally homophobic. I'm very much straight, so its not really my movement.
I dont think those polls are correct representations. Labor Run Focus groups have most likely shown up a discrepancy, otherwise it would have been mandated last election. I think you will find it is quite the opposite to that polling. Also it is the kind of legislation that should be voted on at an election, rather than implemented on the grounds of equality outside of an election.
Good on you, Netherlands. Wish we had the same in NZ. But we will. The progress is unstoppable :) And I will gladly bear a child for a gay couple once I'm done with my own kids. I see it as almost a kind of a civil duty :)
Not at all. Your argument stated that people who cannot provide the optimum child rearing environment sholdn't be allowed ot marry. So, since physically disabled parents obviously cannot provide the same things as healthy parents, and poor parents are limited in comparison to well-off parents, it means they too should not be allowed to marry and have families. No deflection. Should there mayve be some committee that decides which individual should be allowed to have children and which not? :)))
1. I made that account when I was 13 I recognise it's a stupid name but in case you haven't noticed youtube doesn't let you change it. 2. Who the hell are you to critisize other people's usernames ARQUITECTOSTAR 3. What are you trying say, I don't even understand could you please explain the point of this comment.
For the record I do support homosexual marriage/union, though your original statement relies on the laziness/stupidity of people that are homophobic, when its relatively easy if you have access to research databases to find research. If I was being cynical though editors allowed recent publications in 'respected', peer reviewed journals with a decent impact factor might have only done so because it generates a high number of citations arguing against the articles.
I don't get people think they have a valid point when they argue gay marriage will 'damage society'. I live in the Netherlands and our gays and lesbians can get married since april 2001, and I don't mean some sort of civil partnership crap. They can get an actual, 'real' marriage, like men and women everywhere in the world. It's been over eleven years, and so far, society here has not fallen apart, nor has everyone suddenly turned gay. No apocalypse, either, just happily married couples.
Funny you mention that Womans & aboriginal rights, because both of these came about because of slippery slope arguments...ie: if woman can vote...i suppose next abo's can vote. Its same slip slope arguments people use against gay marriage like marrying your pet.So i find it strange how these rights can be a argument for gay marriage if it dosnt work in reverese I think the Slippery slope arguments are valid becasue they did bring about the rights of woman and others.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Malcolm Turnbull's sarcasm at the end is fantastic :)
"I'm sorry, I just assumed you'd actually read the bible"
Best. Ever.
"did you consider becoming a lesbian then "
"i can't"
"i considered becoming asian when i saw that"
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
At least Malcolm Turnbull could take a fucking joke. Unlike Abbott.
And now Malcolm Turnbull *is* a joke
Abbott did take The Mal Award
I can think of a few former modern politicians that can't take a joke.
So many mic drop moments. True journalism heroes
the only time its appropriate to laugh at the phrase "un-rapeable wives? Pfft!"
Every time it gets me
The very next line was "Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them". The rest of the passage went on to talk about how power and control should not characterise a marriage relationship.
TBH, I just googled it :S first year Christian here, still got a lot to learn :D thanks for the question :)
This is good, funny, harder-hitting than previous stuff. Great work!
Ahhhh thanks for the clarification. It's not clear just from this video but I thought he might have been trying to say that & make a joke - he seemed to be being sarcastic at the end so I was a bit confused about where he stood. I'm impressed with Mr Turnbull. :)
Damn Malcolm was a funny lad 🤣
Im Catholic and I support gay marriage. As long as it doesn't interfier negatevely in my life why should I care?
Now come at me anyone who has the valor to reply!
Whatever, what if it does interfere in your life then you will care
then you're not a catholic.
"I'm gay but I only fuck women" LOL
Catholic and support gay marriage. Do you like children too? It was a Catholic priest that turned me gay. And the system failed me, the priest got off scott free. Yet I am still tormented. Im voting NO.
That pile of drivel makes less sense than what the 'pastors' featured in this video spew!
Although THEY can probably spell, even though they clearly can't read the bible properly! Lol :p
This is beautiful. Politicians before the fear of being cliped out of context
So glad the Chasers are back :)
That dog is such a good actor!!
AMAZING AND SO FREAKING HILARIOUS! :D I agree with you so much! I love how you questioned them and they had the most stupid answers :')
Its surprisingly easy to find articles that question the impact on society, parenting and traditional values in one respect, in the last 8 years there have been quite a few special editions in reputable peer-review journals. However in the other respect, i have found they are usually in a edition with articles arguing for and against the different perspectives and articles that are neutral. The only 'journals' I found that didn't offer different perspectives were non-peer reviewed.
just a friendly reminder that that man at the end now runs Australia
You guys fucked up there, mate.
he actually supported gay marriage last year, but then the christian lobby groups threatened to stop backing him during the election.
DaFailWhale1997 And I assume he folded?
yup. now he supports a 200 million dollar opinion poll, that has no effect on the law. mainly just to postpone gay marriage.
DaFailWhale1997 God, that blows. I'm sorry for everyone in Australia now.
That poor guy at 1:11 ! Cringefest
PS Good on ya Malcolm T.
Didnt gay marriage get legalized under Turnbull?
"Because my religion says that being gay is bad, you can't get married." I can't believe that this is the extent of the argument people present.
I'd really love to know if they interviewed real religious pastors, or got some friends to dress up as pastors and just pretend to be ignorant nitwits! :p
Thanks chasers! This is awesome~
Oh Malcolm, I want to like you, I really do. Your opinions on so many topics are great, but MY GOD MAN!
Has anyone got that (3:14) episode of Q&A??
I couldn't agree more.
thanks buddy.
Honestly I think I've gotten to know them too well! My views still stands as they are, it's what i feel is right. :)
Sexuality is not a ‘chosen’ thing. It’s along the same lines as race or disability. You can’t help it, it wasn’t your decision. No one wakes up in the morning and decides to be straight, or gay, or bisexual (yes we exist). For the law to discriminate between people based on a factor they have no control over is completely ridiculous. If you replace a certain race or disability in place of a sexuality or gender in the wording of a law and it sounds abhorrent, it shouldn’t apply to LGBT+ people. For example, imagine a law stating “It is illegal for marriage between people of two different nationalities” or “Dyslexic people
are allowed to be refused service” . That sounds ridiculous and highly discriminatory
lol, I kinda agree with what you're saying... Let them do what they want, it doesn't effect you, so why would you care? is... is that it?
the main argument that's used at the moment is "think of the children", and the consensus that biological parents are the best, which I would argue is not always the case
Craig is probably best popular journalist in Australia.
Where this video was made in! Australia
Citation generally envolves the names of said peer-reviewed journals. I can say the exact same...so long as I don't need to provide the actual names of the reviews, articles, or reports.
O.O the last bit with turnbull :P
Its not distortion that people should have rights as humans. People marry far to easily without the commitment or understanding. I'm under 30 years old and I have friends that have been divorced three times. There are almost two different arguments whether people should have equal legal rights, in the case of a marriage equivalent or whether people should have equal social rights in terms of the marriage classification. Its a different form of relationship, so I tend to side with legal rights.
Wow, we got a genius over here!
I fully agree. We should also prevent people with disabilities from getting married or otherwise being on equal standing with other people in society because they are not "usual, typical or expected".
SAME! WE SHOULD BE FRIENDS!
fair call
Which special and unique benefit to society, exacty, do they provide?
That's not true, actually. Senate and House of Reps inquiries into the issue both received tens of thousands of submissions and came back with 60%+ majority support. Galaxy and Nielsen polling agencies corroborated these results, and they also do election polling. It's simply a matter of our pollies being gutless and our Prime Minister and Opposition Leader not being supportive. The Coalition were forced to vote according to party policy, so it was hardly a representative vote.
GO HAMSTER WHEEL!!!!!!!! Good on them!!!
Three blokes and two dogs? He just gave me an idea....
Ah, champion stuff. Good intelligent laughs are back. :D
If you care about what someone does with there sexual feelings, man or women, you have way to much time on your hands. None the less, a friggen amazing start to a great series!
Macly Malc and Rudd should join forces!
Malcolm Turnbull for PM!
haha :) good on ya chasers! been watching you guys since I was 10 haha
Gotta love malcolm
ROFL oh why isn't this video longer?? xD xD
yes
Words of wisdom.
It is this same logic that generally championed the increasing establishment of gender and ethinic equality in the Western countries. So the question again comes back to the following thing: the principle of equality and inclusiveness implies equality of marriage. Now, we just need to evaluate the possible risks to the couples in question and the society as a whole to decide whether it should be implemented or not.
Amen to that
What a BS issue this was. What was it diverting from at the time?
I would support that.
I agree. This is why the song Same Love by Macklemore has number 15 in Australia's top 100 songs of 2012. I think that in itself shows what Australia's youth of today thinks. Why should people between the ages of 20 to 30 still be governed by what feels like their parents rules.
The question has not been answered. So, again, how exactly will it affect you, in any way?
Flippin funny!
Funny thing about that quote from Corey Bernadi, if you could have consensual sex between humans and animals, people would be fine with bestiality, it's the fact that bestiality is considered non-consensual that stops it from being considered okay.
what a freak you are
I laughed silly at the "Un-rapeable wives!?! PAAH!"
i'm a greens voter but god i love malcolm turnbull sometimes A+ sir
Dude I can't help but plead above everything else that you're being sarcastic here.
I think i get your jist, general polling will probably reveal that alot of people will simply accept gay marriage other than actively support it,depending how the question is framed, ie:does gay marriage bother you? or Would you vote for gay marriage? one carrys a certain apathy
Then if you ran focus groups on say baby boomer woman around 65-75 you will find they are probably mostly against it.If you ran it demographically you might find these groups fill certain seats which could casue a swing
I miss the Hamster Wheel :(.
I have little information re the objectivity of any particular poll but the fact that 12 years ago equal marriage wasn't legal anywhere int he world, and in those twelve years quite a few countires have adopted such laws, and a lot of those rather recently, does indicate something. Also I'm judging by what I see in the community and wider society re the prominence of LGBT themes & people's reaction. The attitudes do APPEAR much more informed and accepting, & I doubt everyone is just pretending.
I'm in full support of gay marriage and let me say, our generation will achieve it. The argument that marriage is 'defined' as an institution between a man and a woman is on shaky ground at best. Laws change in accordance with society. Marriage used to be defined as an institution where women were chattels to men. Marriage used to be defined as an institution where only two people of the same race could live in union. My generation, Gen Y will stamp out this inequality.
I've heard some pretty weird analogies from ssm advocates.
"Each man's death diminishes me." I believe the quote was.
The notion that gay marriage negatively effects society is still one which bears a burden of the proof, on the other hand the opposite can be shown that homosexual marriage is complimentary to heterosexual marriage as described in the book "Gay marriage, for better or for worse." which holds a case study for already legalised homosexual marriage. you can watch an interview with the authors here: watch?v=-9atnCSSFP8
Marriage predates Christianity and is not a strictly religious institution. Marriage in Australia is governed by the Marriage Act - a secular act. People can choose to marry in a church or with a secular celebrant. Also, not all religions or churches disapprove of gay relationships. Churches can choose to marry whomever they want (as they should.) No gay couple is trying to force churches to perform wedding ceremonies for them - it is the secular contract that matters.
Trololol... what a derp.
Submit to me woman and make me a bacon sammich - STAT!
That's because they are the ones with the power in this country
True, but besides the point. If we know for a fact nothing gets worse by letting a man and a man or a woman and a woman marry, then why not just let them? Why would you deny people something they really want and can so easily be given, without any negative consequences for society, individuals or whatever else people come up with?
hahahahaha!! Amen to that! :) PERFECT
Oh my god this is fucking hilarious :')
Haha, it's a nice change to see :)
I think it is clear i am saying a slippery slope argument has alot of merit
As long as the contingencies in a slippery slope argument are warranted (factual) it is not a fallacious argument.
Maybe for someone to marry there pet is because the pet needs to give consent.
But say for 1st cousins to marry it may be validas they can consent etc...
How is it a human right for homosexuals to marry under government permission exactly??
Fucking good work Reu-y
What's your country called?
Well if you ask Alan Jones, Tony Abbott or any other conservative in the country they would say Julia is something along the lines of "a threat to democracy" and the polls are enough to say that the peoples interests not are being represented. But in this one case of same sex marriage, Julia with the democratic process has come through. How do you know that if the government is so unpopular?
"UNRAPEABLE WIVES?!? PEHH!"
Malcolm Turnbull's alright! Who woulda thunk
And what the difnition of marrage dosnt it mean when 2 people love eachother?
How was it out context
Pretty good continuation from Malcolm T this time.
I'm not an Australian, and don't know what was the legal path in the country. If indeed no better reason was found for allowing Aboriginals ot vote other than that same provisions had been made for another discriminated group, it seems like a very a sad thing. In a great many countries, however, these changes came because of more sound arguments than "follow the trend".
And the marry the pet thing is religious. Marriage requires consent, which a pet cannot give, the situations are incomparable.
You can have equal rights with civil unions though, at present the rights of same sex couples in regards to finance, legislation, inheritance and so forth are almost non-existent. If we are talking about whether the legal relationship should be called marriage or something else, there is a fair bit of debate that could be had in that area. Though outright denying the rights of people with different sexual preferences is generally homophobic. I'm very much straight, so its not really my movement.
I think the percentage is higher than that...
Either way, it doesn't mean we shouldn't let them get married.
I dont think those polls are correct representations.
Labor Run Focus groups have most likely shown up a discrepancy, otherwise it would have been mandated last election.
I think you will find it is quite the opposite to that polling.
Also it is the kind of legislation that should be voted on at an election, rather than implemented on the grounds of equality outside of an election.
Good on you, Netherlands. Wish we had the same in NZ.
But we will. The progress is unstoppable :) And I will gladly bear a child for a gay couple once I'm done with my own kids. I see it as almost a kind of a civil duty :)
Not at all. Your argument stated that people who cannot provide the optimum child rearing environment sholdn't be allowed ot marry. So, since physically disabled parents obviously cannot provide the same things as healthy parents, and poor parents are limited in comparison to well-off parents, it means they too should not be allowed to marry and have families. No deflection.
Should there mayve be some committee that decides which individual should be allowed to have children and which not? :)))
1. I made that account when I was 13 I recognise it's a stupid name but in case you haven't noticed youtube doesn't let you change it.
2. Who the hell are you to critisize other people's usernames ARQUITECTOSTAR
3. What are you trying say, I don't even understand could you please explain the point of this comment.
Good an ya Thurston son! Take the Cowboys to the title this year and I'll be liable to marry you!
Hahaha. This is hilarious!
For the record I do support homosexual marriage/union, though your original statement relies on the laziness/stupidity of people that are homophobic, when its relatively easy if you have access to research databases to find research. If I was being cynical though editors allowed recent publications in 'respected', peer reviewed journals with a decent impact factor might have only done so because it generates a high number of citations arguing against the articles.
I don't get people think they have a valid point when they argue gay marriage will 'damage society'. I live in the Netherlands and our gays and lesbians can get married since april 2001, and I don't mean some sort of civil partnership crap. They can get an actual, 'real' marriage, like men and women everywhere in the world. It's been over eleven years, and so far, society here has not fallen apart, nor has everyone suddenly turned gay. No apocalypse, either, just happily married couples.
OMG ITS TONY ABBOTT
You can be my king of the jungle any day malcolm
This guy, Craig Reucassel reminds me of (Jeremy Kyle) the host from the Jeremy Kyle Show
Funny you mention that Womans & aboriginal rights, because both of these came about because of slippery slope arguments...ie: if woman can vote...i suppose next abo's can vote.
Its same slip slope arguments people use against gay marriage like marrying your pet.So i find it strange how these rights can be a argument for gay marriage if it dosnt work in reverese
I think the Slippery slope arguments are valid becasue they did bring about the rights of woman and others.