# Gay Marriage



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Now, just to change tac a little and open another can of worms not specifically related to Al Qaeda - gay marrage.

Bob Brown was in parliament today arguing that gay marriage should be accepted because it is natural and just and should be a legitimate way for two loving, caring people to express their desire to live together for the rest of their lives, under the full legal auspices of the Australian constitution. 

Now, the religious and not so religious out there will have vastly different opinions on this and it will be interesting to see how each camp plants their feet. I have the feeling that those out there following the Good Book will say, Holy Sheet, that is just not playing darts! While the athiests and agnostics will be mixed. 

Me, I used to be homophobic because it is part of my cultural background but now I am more open minded. I am now leaning towards ANY relationship that is a permanement recognition of someones union with another to be judged as a 'marriage'. After all, marriage was not an invention of the church but it was an invention of the culture of the day. It was just a way of regulating society and making sure everything was ordered in some way. (Actaully, I am more cynical about marriage - I think men have used this as a way of 'capturing' virgin women). Somewhere along the way though, the church highjacked it and made it religiously ritualistic. 

I'm sure this is linked to Al Qaeda somehow.....

*Admin note: This thread was split off from 'Al Qaeda':* https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2913


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

*Re: Al Qaeda*

Hi kennas



> I'm sure this is linked to Al Qaeda somehow.....




I don't see how - imo we're way  :topic now

it's up to you, but imo your last post is a whole new thread.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Joe Blow (15 June 2006)

*Re: Al Qaeda*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Now, just to change tac a little and open another can of worms not specifically related to Al Qaeda - gay marrage.
> 
> I'm sure this is linked to Al Qaeda somehow.....




Well, only indirectly.


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Thanks Joe,

This is ALL intermingled isn't it? It's almost like you can't talk about one thing without it being related to another. 

It's an absolutley fascinating aspect of human existance. 

Religion.


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

I wonder how long before this turns into a discussion on reincarnation? 

Or, maybe let's stick to the topic for a moment. 

Surely, as animals, requiring to survive, we MUST procreate? Therefore, through logic, homosexuality is wrong.

Wrong. 

Because in the world today, we have enough humans to keep the world ticking over for years and years to come. Infact, there are too many of us. Therefore, we don't need to procreate as much, therefore homosexuality is normal. It's a natural response to the current place we finds ourselves in. 

Some may say homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Yes, that was just the start of the recognition that we were overpopulating the globe. 

Soon we will be totally androgenous.


----------



## mista200 (15 June 2006)

Why on earth would we grant marriage to two people of the same sex? The gay lobby is trying to hijack the word "marriage", marriage is between a man and a woman. 

However a gay civil union is fine with me as no one should be discriminated against on any basis... A civil union will give them all the rights a straight couple would have without them having to hijack the word marriage!


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Mista, I agree. Let's just change the word. I think that has been proposed however, and all the rights that 'married' couples have are not given to homosexuals. Happy to know if I'm wrong there.

I think where my argument will become snagged is gay couples who want to have children. Why would two people who though evolution have ended up gay, want to have kids? Other social pressures I think. Like defining your life through your offspring and, well, boredom. Not finding meaning in your own life...

Sorry, I have to run to The Black Cat for a wine or two. Back later.....


----------



## krisbarry (15 June 2006)

Well I say, good on them, if two people love each other that much, who is to stop them.

I was raised in a hetrosexual family, where the father beat his wife and his children (including myself).  

Now looking back at it, maybe I would have been better off being raised by a lesbian or gay couple.

I know plenty of gay and lesbian couples who would love to get married and raise a family.

Surely anything has to be better than the childhood I endured under a hetrosexual marriage


----------



## Bobby (15 June 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> Why on earth would we grant marriage to two people of the same sex? The gay lobby is trying to hijack the word "marriage", marriage is between a man and a woman.
> 
> However a gay civil union is fine with me as no one should be discriminated against on any basis... A civil union will give them all the rights a straight couple would have without them having to hijack the word marriage!



Well said mista,

What I don't like is the word *Gay* this was a nice name or feeling once, Lets use the term Homosexual !

Bob.


----------



## krisbarry (15 June 2006)

I think before passing judgement on the homosexual community we must look at the hetrosexual community and take note of the high divorce rate, the single parent families, the damaged children and the cost to the taxpayer of this result.

...Now can homosexuals do it better, I don't know, but maybe we should give them the right to choose.

To choose to get married, raise children, have equality in the legal system and to be recognised within the Australian community as a family unit.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 June 2006)

Leaving my own relationship out of the equation to avoid obvious bias, I know of only two "marriages" that I would describe as absolutely rock solid. One is a defacto heterosexual relationship whilst the other is a homosexual couple (female). 

Though it has no legal standing, the two women are "married" in so far as the superficial things are concerned - rings on fingers, one has (legally) adopted the other's surname etc. I really can't see what is wrong with people such as this being able to be legally married (or married by some other name) if they want to. Amongst other things, it makes it a lot simpler in the event of serious illness requiring the other to make medical decisions, death etc. At worst they end up like so many heterosexual couples and head off to the divorce courts.

So I really can't see a downside to gay "marriage" beyond that which exists with heterosexual marriages. At worst, nobody is forcing you or I to be gay or get married. Live and let live IMO - life is short enough without spreading hatred and discrimination.

That said, I'm not overly keen on the whole concept of marriage myself simply because it is now, in practice, little more than a formality. Divorce is so common...


----------



## markrmau (15 June 2006)

Your joking aren't you? It's 2006 and you people think it's ok to blow people up with missiles, shoot people and have a defacto slavery system where a portion of the world is kept in abject poverty.....

But if 2 people love each other and want to have a ceremonial and legally binding ceremony they can't....

I'll never understand you earthlings.


----------



## kgee (15 June 2006)

I just can't see what all the fuss is about...who are these people that get so upset about these things???...it really spins me out


----------



## crackaton (15 June 2006)

This would just be an excuse to gain tax advantages. I see no reason to have same sex marriages in this country. Also the situation will arise where lesbians will have kids homosexuals will adopts kids, etc. Essentially it will just farck up everything up, and result in a generation of missfits. That's my opinion anyway. 
To me marriage means family kids etc. If anyone wants to have a relationship then that's fine, as long as they don't do it with a neighbours goat or something. ROFLMHO.


----------



## professor_frink (15 June 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> This would just be an excuse to gain tax advantages. I see no reason to have same sex marriages in this country. Also the situation will arise where lesbians will have kids homosexuals will adopts kids, etc. Essentially it will just farck up everything up, and result in a generation of missfits. That's my opinion anyway.
> To me marriage means family kids etc. If anyone wants to have a relationship then that's fine, as long as they don't do it with a neighbours goat or something. ROFLMHO.



goats hey? what kind of neighbourhood do you live in crackaton? 

IMHO we already have a nation of youthful misfits! Having them raised by gay couples probably won't make it any worse, but what would I actually know? :silly: 

Having seen some of the redneck trash straight couples in my local area that have 6 kids so they can collect more dole money to buy beer with, whilst the kids walk around in the front yard amongst wrecked cars looking like they haven't showered in weeks, I wonder if they would be better off living in a household where they are provided for properly with 2 loving parents, regardless of the fact that there may be 2 mums or dads.


----------



## crackaton (15 June 2006)

bbc news, front page


Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat
A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.

The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

Mr Alifi, Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.

"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up".

Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.


----------



## Prospector (15 June 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> This would just be an excuse to gain tax advantages. I see no reason to have same sex marriages in this country. Also the situation will arise where lesbians will have kids homosexuals will adopts kids, etc. Essentially it will just farck up everything up, and result in a generation of missfits. That's my opinion anyway.
> To me marriage means family kids etc. If anyone wants to have a relationship then that's fine, as long as they don't do it with a neighbours goat or something. ROFLMHO.




OK, lets just extend your meaning of marriage then.  If a heterosexual couple marry knowing that they will not want to have children, are they truly married?  Isnt that somewhat similar to the Catholic Church saying that couples should not use contraceptives because the sex act is all about procreation?  Ringing any bells?

Give me a stable homosexual couple who truly commit to each other any day rather than a heterosexual couple whom are 'married' in the legal sense but not the moral sense -  ie they behave in ways totally destructive to themselves and their children.  The latter get all the 'tax havens' without deserving it, the gay couple get diddly squat.


----------



## visual (15 June 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> goats hey? what kind of neighbourhood do you live in crackaton?
> 
> IMHO we already have a nation of youthful misfits! Having them raised by gay couples probably won't make it any worse, but what would I actually know? :silly:
> 
> Having seen some of the redneck trash straight couples in my local area that have 6 kids so they can collect more dole money to buy beer with, whilst the kids walk around in the front yard amongst wrecked cars looking like they haven't showered in weeks, I wonder if they would be better off living in a household where they are provided for properly with 2 loving parents, regardless of the fact that there may be 2 mums or dads.




So professor,is this your learned opinion,that gay people would`nt be trash. Or on the dole.


----------



## crackaton (15 June 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> OK, lets just extend your meaning of marriage then.  If a heterosexual couple marry knowing that they will not want to have children, are they truly married?  Isnt that somewhat similar to the Catholic Church saying that couples should not use contraceptives because the sex act is all about procreation?  Ringing any bells?
> 
> Give me a stable homosexual couple who truly commit to each other any day rather than a heterosexual couple whom are 'married' in the legal sense but not the moral sense -  ie they behave in ways totally destructive to themselves and their children.  The latter get all the 'tax havens' without deserving it, the gay couple get diddly squat.




What possible advantage could a gay couple gain by being married ? What would they get that they do not already have? Please enlighten me.


----------



## professor_frink (15 June 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> bbc news, front page
> 
> 
> Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat
> ...




weird, weird people.


----------



## Prospector (15 June 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> What possible advantage could a gay couple gain by being married ? What would they get that they do not already have? Please enlighten me.




How about for a start - access to partners super on death/permanent disabilty, contribution to spouse's superannuation when one is a home maker; putting assets in lower income earner's name......get the idea?

They also have no say in things like organ donation, and family related issues like next of kin issues.

In SA, the gay partner of our former Premier Donald Dunston is currently fighting to get access to Don's Insurance and Super payout - but is being denied because it was a gay relationship, even though DOn had guaranteed this in his will.  They had been living together for many years. Not fair!

(PS - I am not gay - just believe in equity!)


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 June 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> What possible advantage could a gay couple gain by being married ? What would they get that they do not already have? Please enlighten me.



The right to have their own partner make critical decisions if they are unable to would be one key advantage. For example, medical decisions about treatment if one person is lying unconscious in hospital and there are options for treatment (or switching off life support). Heterosexual married couples have this right, gay couples can not get such rights.

For that matter, homosexual partners can't even get access to their partner under many such circumstances whereas for married heterosexual couples the partner walks straight in. Blatant discrimination against the wishes of the person in question.


----------



## crackaton (15 June 2006)

Which is exactly my point. I can see this being rorted big time. You'll have mum divorced from dad with 6 kiddies. Now gets married  with same sex partner who also has kiddies from another marriage. Think of all the benfits they will get from the governement. Likewise dad with kids marry another dad with kids possibly to avoid mainteneance or whatever. This could be a real can of worms.

Next you'll be able to marry a pet rock, claim it as your partner and split your income with it lol The mind boggles.

Encouraging same sex marriages essentially is saying that anyone can do what they like. We may as well marry our way into extiction.


----------



## professor_frink (15 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> So professor,is this your learned opinion,that gay people would`nt be trash. Or on the dole.




It was a rather broad generalisation I just made wasn't it  
I would have to say that is more than likely that there are trashy gay people(what would a gay bogan be called? Anyone care to comment??) I guess I'm trying to say that they won't breed irresponsibly because, well, they can't! Having a child for a gay couple is a conscious decision that they at least have to think about first. Hence it being more likely that any child would be brought up in a somewhat better household. Well  I hope anyway!


----------



## crackaton (15 June 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> It was a rather broad generalisation I just made wasn't it
> I would have to say that is more than likely that there are trashy gay people(what would a gay bogan be called? Anyone care to comment??) I guess I'm trying to say that they won't breed irresponsibly because, well, they can't! Having a child for a gay couple is a conscious decision that they at least have to think about first. Hence it being more likely that any child would be brought up in a somewhat better household. Well  I hope anyway!




I can not see how anyone can be brought up normally in a same sex relationship. I shudder to think what a boy with two female parents would end up like and conversely a girl brought up with two male parents. In my opinion there would be no balance and the child itself would be an outcast at school etc.
People can only act to an extent.
By granting gays the right to marry, you are essentially giving them the green light to bring up a child the way they think is fit, which can not possibly be the norm, otherwise humans would not have two sexes and we would all be asexual, like amoebas.
Besides which where are they going to get, in the case of woman, father sperm from, and in the case of males, a surrogate mother? Then there is all the legal technicalities, the physcological effects on the kids when they learn the fact of life etc etc etc.
All sorts of crazy **** will start happening.
Sorry I'm not anti-gay but I still don't see the need for gay marriages other than superficial legal technicalities  that could be solved by other means.


----------



## Julia (15 June 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> What possible advantage could a gay couple gain by being married ? What would they get that they do not already have? Please enlighten me.




Others have already pointed out the legal and medical reasons for a gay couple being married.

It's just possible that they would want to be married for the same reason as a lot of heterosexual couples, i.e. simply that they love each other and want to publicly record their commitment to the relationship.

It's a little out of date to suggest that heterosexual couples these days get married in order to procreate.  For one thing, they surely don't need to get married to do this as the huge number of single parents demonstrates, and for another, more and more couples are electing not to have children.

As far as I'm concerned, gay people should be able to get married just as easily as straight folk.  I'm really not interested in anyone's sexual preference but I am interested in fostering of loving, considered relationships.

Julia


----------



## Prospector (15 June 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> Which is exactly my point. I can see this being rorted big time. You'll have mum divorced from dad with 6 kiddies. Now gets married  with same sex partner who also has kiddies from another marriage. Think of all the benfits they will get from the governement. Likewise dad with kids marry another dad with kids possibly to avoid maintenance or whatever. This could be a real can of worms.
> 
> Next you'll be able to marry a pet rock, claim it as your partner and split your income with it lol The mind boggles.
> 
> Encouraging same sex marriages essentially is saying that anyone can do what they like. We may as well marry our way into extinction.




In your example, there won't be any change to the Government costs.  Whomever cares for the children will have access to Government benefits if they qualify under income tests.  You can't claim twice, and if care is evenly shared between original birth partner and then subsequent gay partner, then the payment is split 50/50!


----------



## crackaton (15 June 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Others have already pointed out the legal and medical reasons for a gay couple being married.
> 
> It's just possible that they would want to be married for the same reason as a lot of heterosexual couples, i.e. simply that they love each other and want to publicly record their commitment to the relationship.
> 
> ...





But you don't need marriage for that!! I know people who live together for years and never get married. The only possible reason for gays to get married is for financial gain. Heterosexuals get married to have a family. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Bobby (15 June 2006)

How about posters state their sexual preference.

Got the *Guts * ! :sheep: 

I'll start then, I'm heterosex'ual .

Bob.


----------



## visual (15 June 2006)

Bobby,I`m heterosexual,
but did claim to one of those annoying telemarkerters that I lived in a lesbian household


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 June 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Well said mista,
> 
> What I don't like is the word *Gay* this was a nice name or feeling once, Lets use the term Homosexual !
> 
> Bob.




I agree Bobby.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 June 2006)

I love women and their body parts. I also love their ways. Why? Because I am a man. It is natural for me to think that way. 

Marriage is for a man and a woman. The sooner we realise this we will be a better nation.

Two women having sex is good for visual stimulation, but should not be confused with unions or marriage. Two men having sex is pure disgusting and self degrading. Once men cross this line they have no soul left.

I have gay friends and show them consideration as a human, but thats where it stops. Beyond that they make me vomit with their cheek pecking and filth talk and straight bashing.

Snake


----------



## visual (16 June 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> How about for a start - access to partners super on death/permanent disabilty, contribution to spouse's superannuation when one is a home maker; putting assets in lower income earner's name......get the idea?
> 
> They also have no say in things like organ donation, and family related issues like next of kin issues.
> 
> ...




Prospector,
why is he fighting through the courts if it was left to him in Don`s will.And if the will can be argued over,what kind of legal advice did he get?Should`nt his lawyer have forseen these difficulties and advised accordingly.

P.S googled him and it says that he was married twice but only mentions a male friend in relation to a restaurant,is he the one?


----------



## Sean K (16 June 2006)

Shame you're not gay Prospector, I might have wanted to marry you.... 

This is a very difficult question. No?

The question we, here in the good old land of Oz need to answer is: 'what is the best for us right here, right now?'

I reckon we need to change the name of marriage to 'union' or something else that better reflects how we exist right now for a start. The traditional thought of 'marriage' is long gone. People are getting 'married' on the beach, or under water! Or, not at all. Or, 50% are doing it a second time! Like me. 

Let's just make it a legal agreement to some degree. Not very romantic, but the practicalities outweigh the fuss of whether someone is male or female.

The Government (particularly a Gov led by Abbott and Costello - how embassing that will be!) will certainly maintain the old Christain values, perpetuated through the centuries by men fearful of losing their dominance in the world!


----------



## Bobby (16 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Bobby,I`m heterosexual,
> but did claim to one of those annoying telemarkerters that I lived in a lesbian household




Good to hear Visual   

Bob.


----------



## visual (16 June 2006)

Bob i`m glad you approve :


----------



## Sean K (16 June 2006)

Well, Prospector will do for a start.....


----------



## visual (16 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Shame you're not gay Prospector, I might have wanted to marry you....
> 
> This is a very difficult question. No?
> 
> ...





Kennas,you not starting a harem are you?


----------



## Bobby (16 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Shame you're not gay Prospector, I might have wanted to marry you....
> 
> This is a very difficult question. No?
> 
> ...



Hey kennas,

Like your thoughts about religion    But what are you ? tell us please ?

Bob


----------



## Sean K (16 June 2006)

I'm unemployed, living off my girlfriend. 

Now, needing more Shiraz. Or my bed.  

I choose vino.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 June 2006)

Do you like trouser snakes Kennas?


----------



## Sean K (16 June 2006)

Snake, of course!


----------



## Bobby (16 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Bob i`m glad you approve :




I do Visual, but don't like your avitor (hate bad spelling ).
Bet your a spunk ! : 

Bob


----------



## Sean K (16 June 2006)

What are you saying Bobby? Oh, this is funny at 01.45hrs


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> What are you saying Bobby? Oh, this is funny at 01.45hrs




yes.


----------



## visual (16 June 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> I do Visual, but don't like your avitor (hate bad spelling ).
> Bet your a spunk ! :
> 
> Bob




Oh Bobby,not into that  
and you spell your as you`re


----------



## Bobby (16 June 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Do you like trouser snakes Kennas?




Snake,
He said he's got a woman, thats good  !

I bet those Jap chicks like the trouser snake, hope you are doing your duty  : 

Bob.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 June 2006)

Bob,

What`s the worst thing about having sex with a cow?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 June 2006)

anyone else?


----------



## Bobby (16 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Oh Bobby,not into that
> and you spell your as you`re




Hullo Visual,

So nice to be able to contact you again   
When I stated about how I hate bad spelling, that was about me ! not you .
Hope I have not upset you ?,

Please forgive me if that being the case'.

Regards Bob.


----------



## Bobby (16 June 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Bob,
> 
> What`s the worst thing about having sex with a cow?




Well Snake as I can't claim that   why not tell me your experience ?


Bob.


----------



## visual (16 June 2006)

Bobby,I was correcting your spelling mistake,but I know that I could do a better job of my spellin.
And what do you mean, I didnt know I was lost.  
Bob I wasnt upset,what made you think that?


----------



## Bobby (16 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Bobby,I was correcting your spelling mistake,but I know that I could do a better job of my spellin.
> And what do you mean, I didnt know I was lost.
> Bob I wasnt upset,what made you think that?




 Your Ok Visual,

Not lost at all , just a mis'hap of communication on my part.

Bob.


----------



## anon (16 June 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Bob,
> 
> What`s the worst thing about having sex with a cow?





To see a bull charging at you both.


----------



## crackaton (16 June 2006)

Imagine what happens when little freddy, who's parents are lesbian, has to talk about his mum and dum. Or little lisa has to refer to her parents and dad and mad. lol What a complete ****up that would be.


----------



## krisbarry (16 June 2006)

Far out...what a busy little thread this one is...plenty of members have much to say.  I was on this thread last night with only about 8 replies, now its over 50 replies, in less that 14 hours

Nice to see a thread with a good debate going on


----------



## krisbarry (16 June 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> This would just be an excuse to gain tax advantages. I see no reason to have same sex marriages in this country. Also the situation will arise where lesbians will have kids homosexuals will adopts kids, etc. Essentially it will just farck up everything up, and result in a generation of missfits. That's my opinion anyway.
> To me marriage means family kids etc. If anyone wants to have a relationship then that's fine, as long as they don't do it with a neighbours goat or something. ROFLMHO.




ahhh but is it fair that homosexual people pay the same tax as hetrosexual people, considering they do not usually take advatage of all the family tax benefits.  Neither do they usually have children, which cost considerable amounts of goverment money to educate etc.

Ummmm I like your missfits quote...don't we already have a generation of missfits born out of hetrosexual marriages?  Plenty of damaged goods coming out of broken homes


----------



## krisbarry (16 June 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> goats hey? what kind of neighbourhood do you live in crackaton?
> 
> IMHO we already have a nation of youthful misfits! Having them raised by gay couples probably won't make it any worse, but what would I actually know? :silly:
> 
> Having seen some of the redneck trash straight couples in my local area that have 6 kids so they can collect more dole money to buy beer with, whilst the kids walk around in the front yard amongst wrecked cars looking like they haven't showered in weeks, I wonder if they would be better off living in a household where they are provided for properly with 2 loving parents, regardless of the fact that there may be 2 mums or dads.





well said, 10 Points!


----------



## krisbarry (16 June 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> It was a rather broad generalisation I just made wasn't it
> I would have to say that is more than likely that there are trashy gay people(what would a gay bogan be called? Anyone care to comment??) I guess I'm trying to say that they won't breed irresponsibly because, well, they can't! Having a child for a gay couple is a conscious decision that they at least have to think about first. Hence it being more likely that any child would be brought up in a somewhat better household. Well  I hope anyway!




a gay bogan is called a bear.  Hairy chest, check shirt, beer gut and rides a Harley :


----------



## krisbarry (16 June 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> I can not see how anyone can be brought up normally in a same sex relationship. I shudder to think what a boy with two female parents would end up like and conversely a girl brought up with two male parents. In my opinion there would be no balance and the child itself would be an outcast at school etc.
> People can only act to an extent.
> By granting gays the right to marry, you are essentially giving them the green light to bring up a child the way they think is fit, which can not possibly be the norm, otherwise humans would not have two sexes and we would all be asexual, like amoebas.
> Besides which where are they going to get, in the case of woman, father sperm from, and in the case of males, a surrogate mother? Then there is all the legal technicalities, the physcological effects on the kids when they learn the fact of life etc etc etc.
> ...




What is the difference now with so many children born from hetrosexual couples living with one parent only.  Surely two parents is better than one, even if they are of the same sex.


----------



## krisbarry (16 June 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> I love women and their body parts. I also love their ways. Why? Because I am a man. It is natural for me to think that way.
> 
> Marriage is for a man and a woman. The sooner we realise this we will be a better nation.
> 
> ...





Ohhhh your outlook on life so 1984


----------



## Prospector (16 June 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> How about posters state their sexual preference.
> 
> Got the *Guts * ! :sheep:
> 
> ...




Already done that Bobby - but only because it makes my argument more objective and not because it concerns me greatly.....


----------



## Prospector (16 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Prospector,
> why is he fighting through the courts if it was left to him in Don`s will.And if the will can be argued over,what kind of legal advice did he get?Should`nt his lawyer have forseen these difficulties and advised accordingly.
> 
> P.S googled him and it says that he was married twice but only mentions a male friend in relation to a restaurant,is he the one?





Yep, he's the one visual!  Superannuation funds (and I believe this was his Government funded one) have these rules that you must be a dependant (ie non adult child) or spouse before you can claim them.  The will is irrelevant if the person's name hasnt been included in the super trust deed, and also, even if you are named in the trust deed then unless you are either a dependent or spouse, you also have to pay 15% tax on the lump sum when the person receives it.

Don also had adult children so this is where it gets complicated, but I believe they accepted their father's relationship.

The legal people should have seen that he was named on the super fund, but the 15% is a Tax and because he was never able to be called a 'spouse' then he will always have to pay the 15% tax bill.


----------



## Prospector (16 June 2006)

I have had two experiences of children growing in a gay household.

In both relationships, the two women started off their married life in a heterosexual relationship and there were children born.  Those heterosexual marriages ended, and in both cases a female homsexual relationship began.  

In the first relationship there were 2 female children growing up, in the second relationship there was a single male child.  In both cases, the children are now aged around 16 - 20 years of age, and they were around 6 years of age when the homsexual relationships started.

The kids are doing just fine - doing well at school/Uni.  Have a normal group of friends.  Not getting into trouble.

We all know children who come from 'normal' relationships that sour and the kids go off the rails.  Kids go off the rails in completely happy families too.

There is no rule for raising happy healthy kids other than love and lots of luck.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 June 2006)

I think however that it is important that there is a male influence somewhere, whether it be a grandparent, the father or a family friend, especially for a boy particuarly if they are single children. The situation for single mums is often worse than a lesbian couple.


----------



## Prospector (16 June 2006)

Knobby - couldn't agree with you more - the lack of male role models will have a dreadful effect on children raised in single female households - and I believe is a fundamental issue in why we have so many disenfranchised male youths at the moment.  Total generalisation but I believe that lesbian marriages understand this better than many single mothers, and try to involve male influences in their kids lives.


Also, correcting myself here - Don's partner didnt have Superannuation issues (he died before Super was such a big deal) it was his Parliamentary Pension (and he was Premier so no doubt it is very generous!).  Because he was never regarded as a spouse he cant get access to the Pension that spouses are entitled to.  

OK, work to do I am outta here....


----------



## bullmarket (16 June 2006)

Hi kennas

I'll put my   thoughts in red fwiw   



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Now, just to change tac a little and open another can of worms not specifically related to Al Qaeda - gay marrage.
> 
> Bob Brown was in parliament today arguing that gay marriage should be accepted because it is natural and just and should be a legitimate way for two loving, caring people to express their desire to live together for the rest of their lives, under the full legal auspices of the Australian constitution.
> 
> ...


----------



## mit (16 June 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> I think however that it is important that there is a male influence somewhere, whether it be a grandparent, the father or a family friend, especially for a boy particuarly if they are single children. The situation for single mums is often worse than a lesbian couple.




I agree. I think the problem can exist in male-female marriages as well and don't discount the issues with girls either.

I think for girls a father can give them a greater sense of self-worth than their mothers can. 

For Boys I think that it is such things as "Joys of working the Shed". Why would you need to destroy public property if you can have fun making things. Also it is pushing the risk boundaries a little more than mothers would like (How many dads out there have ended a sentence with ".. but dont tell your mother". I think that a few scrapped knees and close calls can do a lot to push the message about risk limits than somebody saying don't do this or don't do that.

MIT

ps. Before I get in trouble please feel free to put quotes around Mother, Father, Son's and Daughters. I know that real people don't always match the traditional roles.


----------



## Sean K (16 June 2006)

Morning Bull,

Hey Prospector and Knobby, I agree with the male influence, but can't kids get that off Humphry B Bear and the Wiggles? he he

There are many ways to get the female and male influences in society, it doesn't have to be just in the household. Actually, think back to traditional single income families where the husband went out and slaved all day while the wife made house. Sometimes during the week, the kids would see Dad come in the door at night just in time to say goodbye. Some 'influence'. Although, I suppose he saw them on the weekends. And when the kids go to school, what's the % of made Primary teachers out there? Pretty darn low. Children in the past, and even the present, have less contact with men, even in hetrosexual relationships.


----------



## Sean K (16 June 2006)

Um, I did mean *male *primary school teachers!


----------



## Knobby22 (16 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Morning Bull,
> 
> Hey Prospector and Knobby, I agree with the male influence, but can't kids get that off Humphry B Bear and the Wiggles? he he
> 
> There are many ways to get the female and male influences in society, it doesn't have to be just in the household. Actually, think back to traditional single income families where the husband went out and slaved all day while the wife made house. Sometimes during the week, the kids would see Dad come in the door at night just in time to say goodbye. Some 'influence'. Although, I suppose he saw them on the weekends. And when the kids go to school, what's the % of made Primary teachers out there? Pretty darn low. Children in the past, and even the present, have less contact with men, even in hetrosexual relationships.




True, plenty of secondary male teachers though and as we can see in literature, plenty of influence.

Humphrey Bear is a typical male. Acts like a child half the time and can't put two words together :


----------



## The Mint Man (16 June 2006)

I dont care about what people do in regards to same sex relationships, its become more accepted these days as there are so many out there. Forinstance a couple of ladys that lived accross the road from me, they were in their 50's very successful, owned a restaurant that celebs used to go to etc.... the two blokes that run the canteen at my work... the list goes on.
Point is you dont have to look far these days to find em. I think the people that have the hardest time coming to terms with it are those that are either ignorant (couldnt even tell if their next door neighbour was gay) or those that live in places where it is unusual to see a gay couple.

marriage, hmm I dunno. Have to hav a think about that.
however if my above comment is anything to go off


> its become more accepted these days as there are so many out there



then we will probably see it in my lifetime and it will probably be accepted.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 June 2006)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Ohhhh your outlook on life so 1984




Not really, just natural.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 June 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Well Snake as I can't claim that   why not tell me your experience ?
> 
> 
> Bob.




Bob,

One has to run around the front to kiss it.

...and no it is not my experience.


----------



## stockGURU (8 November 2007)

I realize this is an old thread but I saw this on another forum and, even though its author is American and it refers to the gay marriage debate in America, thought it was worth repeating here:



> We Are Your Neighbors.
> 
> I was sitting here watching the news tonight as I always do, when I saw that it was starting to happen again. Commentators preaching about the need to "save marriage" and to "protect children", and condemning "activist judges". The replaying of campaign ads by some Republican Candidates, proclaiming that the Constitution of the United States needs amended to "defend traditional families", foreshadows what's in store between now and the next election.
> 
> ...


----------



## Logique (22 November 2010)

Back on the federal political agenda, thanks to the Greens. Looking forward to my local MP knocking on my door to ask my opinion, in line with Green MP Adam Bandt's legislated wishes.

I'm with Tony Windsor to this extent: as long as it's not compulsory.

One of those things that in a human sense, initially seems ok, but what does deeper consideration reveal? My fear that this, in the eyes of some, is yet another attempt to re-model our society, attacking our values in the process. 

Our society is based on man+woman = marriage. It's served us pretty well hasn't it. 

But baby bonuses have become paid maternity leave, and how long before IVF ends up being Medicare claimable? Reducing men to little more than sperm donors. With the perks of legalized marriage thrown in, father-less families will have it sown up. 

There are feminazis out there who will rejoice in the further marginalizing of men in our society.


----------



## sails (22 November 2010)

Logique said:


> ...Our society is based on man+woman = marriage. It's served us pretty well hasn't it....




How people choose to live is entirely their own choice.  

What concerns me is the fact that often same sex couples who seek marriage will then want to raise children with their new marriage status.  This brings a whole new element, IMO, as the children they either adopt or have by some other means may not be thrilled at being a child with same sex parents.  These children have no choice.  

Two of my grandkids have had a difficult family life since their dads left.  It doesn't matter how old they get, they yearn for their own Mum AND Dad in their life.  I know because the oldest one (11) talks to me about all sorts of things.  She gets on with life, but from time to time, she has her moments of sadness and just wishes with all her heart that things could be different in her family. 

The little one is three and so many of her imaginery games are about families (mum and dad being the foundation).  She becomes distraught for her Dad who doesn't seem interested at this point in time.  He comes and goes in her life which makes it emotionally difficult for her.  

It is amazing how, at such an early age, children seem to have a clear instinctive need for THEIR Mum and Dad.  IMO, it raises concerns for children lumped into gay families.  What happens to these natural instincts?  What sort of teasing would they have to endure at school?  

Just changing laws to suit the grown-ups doesn't necessarily mean that it is in the best interests of future children to gay couples.


----------



## explod (22 November 2010)

That last post of yours *sails* is spot on.  I left my wife and three children when the youngest was 18 years and had a job.  It has effected them and still does big time and with one I have no relationship though I work on it all the time.  Its 17 years now since.

Although I still feel I had to go I do regret not trying harder to stay and work something out.  Mid life crisis or wet behind the ears but huge damage that can never be made right.  

Gay mariage not problems on its own, in fact post 18 years the laws ought to allow total freedom to all consenting adults in this and many other issues.


----------



## drsmith (22 November 2010)

Logique said:


> Back on the federal political agenda, thanks to the Greens. Looking forward to my local MP knocking on my door to ask my opinion, in line with Green MP Adam Bandt's legislated wishes.



Should my local MP knocking on my door to ask my opinion, I might suggest he drop his strides and bend over.

Should he comply, it would be my right boot that would swing into action.

While people should have the right to live the lifestyle they choose, marriage is between a couple of opposite sex.


----------



## explod (22 November 2010)

drsmith said:


> Should my local MP knocking on my door to ask my opinion, I might suggest he drop his strides and bend over.
> 
> Should he comply, it would be my right boot that would swing into action.
> 
> While people should have the right to live the lifestyle they choose, marriage is between a couple of opposite sex.




Marriage is a promise backed up by a peice of paper.  Unless the heart is there it is no more than rubbish.   If people of the same sex want to have such a ceremony why not the right, they pay taxes and support the state the same as you do.

Dictating to others is totalitarianism.

Time to grow up and concentrate on things that really matter, education of women and controls on the worlds birthrate


----------



## drsmith (22 November 2010)

Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.

A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a broader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.

There should be no tax concessions for homosexual partners beyond what there is available for single people or two (or more) single people sharing a residence for the reasons given above.


----------



## nioka (22 November 2010)

explod said:


> Time to grow up and concentrate on things that really matter, education of women and controls on the worlds birthrate




Rubbish!. In our culture marrige is a union between a man and a woman. Why downgrade it because it doesn't suit some. Let "them" create their own "union". Why take over the true and original creation of marriage. Remember when to be gay meant to be happy. Don't do the same to "marriage" as was done to "gay". 

A piece of paper and a ceremony wont really legitimise what is contrary to normal in the evolution field.



drsmith said:


> Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.
> 
> A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a borader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.




Yes!!!!! Agree.
  Isn't it funny that those that use Darwin to knock religion aren't using his theories to back the cause of Gay marriage. Or "happy" marriage to use the right interpretation of the word.


----------



## explod (22 November 2010)

drsmith said:


> Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.
> 
> A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a broader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.
> 
> There should be no tax concessions for homosexual partners beyond what there is available for single people or two (or more) single people sharing a residence for the reasons given above.




Rubbish, more than half marriages end in divorce except in cummunities and cultures where men dominate.  

A bit less presevation of the species would be helpfull to the planet.

Not talking of consessions to couples but individuals pay taxes and ought to receive equal recognition as citizens.

Raising children, agree on that and only biological opposites ought to have and raise children.  However that has nothing to do with the right of all couples of all sexes to have equal *State rights *


----------



## pedalofogus (22 November 2010)

drsmith said:


> Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.
> 
> A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a broader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.
> 
> There should be no tax concessions for homosexual partners beyond what there is available for single people or two (or more) single people sharing a residence for the reasons given above.




I agree with drsmith 100% in relation to his comments about 'species preservation', and I believe that is the major reason why marriage should be restricted to hetrosexual relationships.

I would actually go a step further than drsmith (in relation to taxation) and say that hetrosexual marriages should be the only way to receive tax concessions for raising children.

ie - I believe that people having children out of wedlock is a side debate that needs to be considered when having a debate about tax concessions for homosexual couples.


----------



## ghotib (22 November 2010)

drsmith said:


> Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. It's our civilisation's most secure approach to the preservation and evolution of our species, raising children.
> 
> A homosexual relationship cannot be considered on the same level as a hetrosexual relationship as the former offers no biological means of species preservation (reproduction). It's nothing more than a friendship where there is a broader range of activities shared between two friends than what would be considered traditional.
> 
> There should be no tax concessions for homosexual partners beyond what there is available for single people or two (or more) single people sharing a residence for the reasons given above.



My husband and I married knowing that we could not have children. Are you suggesting that our marriage is in some way less valid or less real because of that? Are you suggesting that our marriage is "nothing more than a friendship"? 

My ninety-year old uncle married a 73-year old "child bride" early this year. The Anglican minister who presided in the traditional Anglican service (the bride even said "obey") said he'd had to get special permission to conduct the service outside a church. The service talks about children, but everyone including the archbishop knew that this marriage children were not an issue (pun intended - sorry).

Having and raising children cannot be the defining purpose of marriage. Too many marriages are childless, deliberately or otherwise, and too many children are born and raised outside marriage, for that to make sense. 

Ghoti


----------



## nioka (22 November 2010)

ghotib said:


> My husband and I married knowing that we could not have children. Are you suggesting that our marriage is in some way less valid or less real because of that? Are you suggesting that our marriage is "nothing more than a friendsh. Ghoti




I am sure that if you decided to have children via adoption that those children would still have the benefit of the normal Mother father relationship.


----------



## drsmith (22 November 2010)

explod said:


> Rubbish, more than half marriages end in divorce except in cummunities and cultures where men dominate.
> 
> A bit less presevation of the species would be helpfull to the planet.



These are seperate issues which in themselves do not justify the elevation of homosexual rights.



explod said:


> Not talking of consessions to couples but individuals pay taxes and ought to receive equal recognition as citizens.
> 
> Raising children, agree on that and only biological opposites ought to have and raise children.  However that has nothing to do with the right of all couples of all sexes to have equal *State rights *



Equal rights to do as they wish behind closed doors I have not disputed. 

I think you'll find though that "public awareness" of homosexuality is increasingly being changed from the above towards greater access to the public purse and other rights that extend beyond the biological status of their relationship. Rights to raise children could be a future example, either by surrogacy or adoption.


----------



## drsmith (22 November 2010)

ghotib said:


> Having and raising children cannot be the defining purpose of marriage. Too many marriages are childless, deliberately or otherwise, and too many children are born and raised outside marriage, for that to make sense.
> 
> Ghoti



I'm not attempting to define marriage as a hetrosexual relationship in which there must be children.

Rather, I limiting its definition to hetrosexual relationships as this is the only biological means from which we can produce children.


----------



## Julia (22 November 2010)

My instinctive response to this is that I don't care one way or the other.
Marriage as an institution seems to have lost much of its value for many reasons.   Couples choose to live together, share everything, have children, but don't see any need to have any sort of ceremony around this.
The divorce rate is hardly a testimony to marriage of itself being binding if discomforts arise within relationships.

One of the claims I've seen several times now in support of marriage for homosexual couples alleges it should be 'the right of any couple who love each other to get married, regardless of their gender or any other factor'.

OK, if we accept this (and I'm not at all sure I do), are we not then also obliged to allow people involved in incestuous relationships to marry if they believe they love each other?  Or a 60 year old paedophile to marry an 18 year old boy?

Why would there be any limits to what would become acceptable?

Homosexual people can, as far as I know, have a civil union ceremony.  What actually do they consider is so different in a marriage ceremony?  What would change for them?  They already have access to each other's Super etc as I understand it.

If the strength of otherwise of a relationship depends on it being registered somewhere as a 'marriage', then it would hardly appear to be made of very strong stuff in the first place.

I reckon the nation and the parliament could be spending its time much more productively than this.   Might be convenient for the government to deflect attention away from the non-scrutiny of the NBN.


----------



## explod (22 November 2010)

drsmith said:


> These are seperate issues which in themselves do not justify the elevation of homosexual rights.
> 
> 
> Equal rights to do as they wish behind closed doors I have not disputed.
> ...




I has nothing to do with homosexual rights, it is to do with equal rights for all persuasions. (all people are equal)

Traditions (and religion if you like) have no part to play in equality.


On the latter we are better served to forget that and unify ourselves in making sure that children are raised by a Mother and a Father. 

To achieve the best overall result it may be better to conceed some points.  Sure the marriage thing gives them leverage but once isolated I think the communiy will follow on the more important question.


----------



## drsmith (22 November 2010)

explod said:


> I has nothing to do with homosexual rights, it is to do with equal rights for all persuasions. (all people are equal)
> 
> Traditions (and religion if you like) have no part to play in equality.



It's not tradition or religion that determines that partnerships of the same sex cannot preserve the species. 

If that's an unacceptable inequality, you'll have to take that up with whatever process is responsible for our existence.



Julia said:


> I reckon the nation and the parliament could be spending its time much more productively than this.



Curse those Greens.

They've wasted a good portion of my day.


----------



## nomore4s (22 November 2010)

pedalofogus said:


> I would actually go a step further than drsmith (in relation to taxation) and say that hetrosexual marriages should be the only way to receive tax concessions for raising children.
> ie - I believe that people having children out of wedlock is a side debate that needs to be considered when having a debate about tax concessions for homosexual couples.




I don't believe in marriage, it is an out dated belief that I have no interest in wasting my time or money on, yet my family should be discriminated against because my kids were born out of wedlock?

Why anyone cares whether homosexuals can marry or not is beyond me seeing as it has absolutely no effect on any other person besides the couple in question. If people of any persuasion want to get married or not I really don't see why/how that has anything to do with any one else and I really don't see why they should be penalised or discriminated against because of it.


----------



## pedalofogus (22 November 2010)

nomore4s said:


> I don't believe in marriage, it is an out dated belief that I have no interest in wasting my time or money on, yet my family should be discriminated against because my kids were born out of wedlock?




I'm not saying you can't have children, I am just saying that the payment of support (such as baby bonus, FTB etc) should be restricted to married parents.  A scheme like this would make it more of a disincentive for people to have children in bad situations:

1. It is too easy these days for teenagers to get 'knocked up', because the hard working tax payers of Australia are financing their bad decisions.
2. If there were bigger financial disincentives for people to get divorced, then people would firstly, think harder before having children and secondly, be less likely to divorce for trivial reasons.

My wife and sister are both teachers, and both of them swear that 95% of the 'horror students' that they encounter daily come from the 2 backgrounds i have listed above.

More incentives need to be given for people to bring children up in a stable environment, and the fact is that a responsible mother and father are the only ones who can do this.  I agree that the 'old fashioned' marriage is a thing of the past, so I'm not saying you have to spend $20grand on a big hoohaa.  But i think that there should be a binding contract on parents before they bring a child into the world, so that the best interests of that child are always put first.

There is a reason that humans were created to produce with a male/female relationship, and that is why homosexual relationships can never expect exactly equal rights.


----------



## disarray (22 November 2010)

part of the problem is calling it "marriage". "marriage" has all these religious and cultural associations that have been around a lot longer than homosexuals have been prancing around in the streets in gay outfits making a spectacle of themselves. calling it "civil union" or something would probably ease some of the butthurt.

and on the topic of gays, the united nations has been massively trolled by an arab and african alliance to allow the persecution and execution of homosexuals. go democracy!



> For the last 10 years sexual orientation has been included in a list of discriminatory grounds for executions – gay rights activists say the vote to remove that listing is “dangerous and disturbing.”
> 
> The UN resolution urges countries to protect the right to life of all people, calling on them to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. Sexual orientation was previously listed as one of these forms of discrimination, alongside ethnicity, religious belief and linguistic minorities.
> 
> ...


----------



## pedalofogus (22 November 2010)

disarray said:


> part of the problem is calling it "marriage". "marriage" has all these religious and cultural associations that have been around a lot longer than homosexuals have been prancing around in the streets in gay outfits making a spectacle of themselves. calling it "civil union" or something would probably ease some of the butthurt.
> 
> and on the topic of gays, the united nations has been massively trolled by an arab and african alliance to allow the persecution and execution of homosexuals. go democracy!




butthurt ??  haha

I agree on the use of the word 'marriage'.  Marriage in its religious and cultural forms has a lot of flaws and problems.  However, the idea of a 'civil union' where people agree to 'honour and obey' is an excellent idea, but only if there are penalties for breaking the contract.  It is too easy for people in our society to come and go in the current format of marriages, without many penalties.

I don't know why the homosexual community want to be able to share in the heterosexual form of marriage anyway, why not just create their own union where they can form their own rules.  The fact is that they are two different types of relationships.


----------



## Calliope (22 November 2010)

And why should it be confined to Gays?


----------



## nunthewiser (22 November 2010)

Im all for it.

whatever floats ones boat.

I have a few friends that like to putt from the rough and they are topnotch partying assets to my circle.

Be a rockin party of a reception


----------



## pedalofogus (22 November 2010)

hahaha, love the cartoon calliope.

I have a few mates that are excited about these laws being passed.  They are hoping that it opens the door for them to start pushing for the law to be changed so they can marry their cousins.


----------



## drsmith (22 November 2010)

pedalofogus said:


> 2. If there were bigger financial disincentives for people to get divorced, then people would firstly, think harder before having children and secondly, be less likely to divorce for trivial reasons.



Couples seperate for a variety of reasons, in some cases physical violence. Once children enter this world, they can't exactly be put back in the womb.

Disincentives as such therefore need to be considered in this context.


----------



## Julia (22 November 2010)

pedalofogus said:


> However, the idea of a 'civil union' where people agree to 'honour and obey' is an excellent idea



What?    *Obey*???   Is this tongue in cheek or are you actually serious?



> , but only if there are penalties for breaking the contract.  It is too easy for people in our society to come and go in the current format of marriages, without many penalties.



The only result of this that should matter is the welfare of any children of the marriage.  AFIK, no one has definitively shown whether children emerge more emotionally healthy from an intact marriage where the partners continually fight and tension is rife, than from a single parent household where they regularly spend time with the other parent.

Whichever option a couple chooses, the kids are the casualties.



pedalofogus said:


> I have a few mates that are excited about these laws being passed.  They are hoping that it opens the door for them to start pushing for the law to be changed so they can marry their cousins.



That's actually a quite serious point that I brought up earlier, i.e. where will it all end if we do not confine 'marriage' to a man and a woman?
The likelihood of genetic defects in a union between first cousins is considerably increased.  And if that relationship were to be sanctioned, what would be next?  Siblings being allowed to marry?


----------



## roland (22 November 2010)

I was thinking that gay marriage would eventually bring on the demise of homosexuality through natural selection...

i.e. assuming that it was a genetic thing, it should eventually die out through non procreation of gay couples.

Seems it is a little more complicated having read this research item: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002282


----------



## sails (22 November 2010)

Calliope said:


> And why should it be confined to Gays?




Obviously the cartoonist sees the next possible thing is for people to want to marry their pets...

And with marriage comes the legal right to adopt children?  Paw prints on excursion permission slips???


----------



## nomore4s (23 November 2010)

pedalofogus said:


> I'm not saying you can't have children, I am just saying that the payment of support (such as baby bonus, FTB etc) should be restricted to married parents.  A scheme like this would make it more of a disincentive for people to have children in bad situations:
> 
> 1. It is too easy these days for teenagers to get 'knocked up', because the hard working tax payers of Australia are financing their bad decisions.
> 2. If there were bigger financial disincentives for people to get divorced, then people would firstly, think harder before having children and secondly, be less likely to divorce for trivial reasons.
> ...




lol, you're kidding yourself if you think making it so you have to be married to receive benefits will change any of the above points, in fact it will probably make it worse, the people who need it the most will suffer - meaning more kids will be put in bad situations & environments and it would not stop others from exploiting the system.

I pay my taxes (probably more then most), contribute to society in many different ways and am in a very strong and stable relationship that has been going for over 10 years but shouldn't be eligible for tax benefits for my kids because I'm not married? And a lot of my friends are in the same situation.

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a knot over gay marriage. These couples still have the same relationship all that changes is a piece of paper that says they are married. Big deal.


----------



## nomore4s (23 November 2010)

Julia said:


> That's actually a quite serious point that I brought up earlier, i.e. where will it all end if we do not confine 'marriage' to a man and a woman?
> The likelihood of genetic defects in a union between first cousins is considerably increased.  And if that relationship were to be sanctioned, what would be next?  Siblings being allowed to marry?




Allowing same sex marriage hardly opens the door for incestuous marriages. I think that even comparing the two is a bit over the top and a bit of a weak argument. It's a pretty big jump.


----------



## Tink (23 November 2010)

LOL sails at the paw prints - where does it end

I agree with drsmith


----------



## breaker (23 November 2010)

Dr smith is right
Roland how long would it take before there are no heterosexuals left then what? sperm banks


----------



## Logique (23 November 2010)

I remain suspicious. If gay and lesbian want to get married, go on ahead. But they shouldn't mess with the rule of law.  

Kids need a mother and a father. You can't legislate that away.

I think it's a wedge with a thin end, and a bit of a con job besides.


----------



## pixel (23 November 2010)

Logique said:


> I remain suspicious. If gay and lesbian want to get married, go on ahead. But they shouldn't mess with the rule of law.
> 
> Kids need a mother and a father. You can't legislate that away.
> 
> I think it's a wedge with a thin end, and a bit of a con job besides.




I'm 100% with you, Logique

Today's advanced media technology has stood the principles of democracy on its head. Whoever shouts loudest and gets a vocal group of "professional protesters" and social engineers behind themselve, gets away with new rules that slap in the faces of decency, common sense, and social stability. The majority may still be sensible enough to see the trainwreck coming, but they're silenced by mobs demanding "tolerance". 
So, patients, who would draw comfort from a cross in a hospital ward, have to "be tolerant" of the hypothetical discomfort some hypothetical non-Christian might feel looking at the same. Why not suggest the hypothetical person show tolerance and "get over it."

Or take "Gay Pride Parades": If hetero couples were to celebrate and consummate their convex-concave relationship in a public place, they'd be arrested for indecent behaviour. But it's OK to flaunt your Otherness and shove it in the faces of those who cringe with embarrassment. Tolerance? By whom??

Anyone who has studied History - especially the rise and fall of Athenian society - knows what happens when minorities force their demands on the population at large. Makes a mockery of democracy.


----------



## Julia (23 November 2010)

nomore4s said:


> I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a knot over gay marriage. These couples still have the same relationship all that changes is a piece of paper that says they are married. Big deal.




Exactly.  So why are the homosexual people making such a big fuss about wanting that piece of paper?
It's not heterosexuals who have brought on the discussion!


----------



## Julia (23 November 2010)

nomore4s said:


> Allowing same sex marriage hardly opens the door for incestuous marriages. I think that even comparing the two is a bit over the top and a bit of a weak argument. It's a pretty big jump.



Yes, it is indeed.  But a few generations ago, no one would have thought we'd have homosexuals wanting to marry.

And you have selectively quoted from what I have earlier said which was a passing on of a comment I had heard alleging that 'all that should be needed for two people to marry should be that they love each other'.

Plenty of people think they love each other, including those in incestuous relationships.


----------



## nomore4s (23 November 2010)

Julia said:


> Exactly.  So why are the homosexual people making such a big fuss about wanting that piece of paper?
> It's not heterosexuals who have brought on the discussion!




The same reason anyone wants equality I suppose. If they want to get married why shouldn't they be able to?

Do you think that allowing gay marriages is in any way going to affect our society? Considering these relationships are already happening in our society now as de facto relationship which as far as I'm aware provide all the same rights as a married couple.


----------



## c-unit (23 November 2010)

The government has no right to determine who can and can not get married in my opinion. I'm all for it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 November 2010)

With the divorce rate so high, I'm genuinely puzzled as to what "marriage" is supposedly about these days?

You get married because, supposedly, you will be spending the rest of your life together. That it so often fails strongly suggests that the "committment" is essentially worthless - couples either stay together or split, whether or not they are legally married having very little to do with it.


----------



## pedalofogus (23 November 2010)

nomore4s said:


> lol, you're kidding yourself if you think making it so you have to be married to receive benefits will change any of the above points, in fact it will probably make it worse, the people who need it the most will suffer - meaning more kids will be put in bad situations & environments and it would not stop others from exploiting the system.
> 
> I pay my taxes (probably more then most), contribute to society in many different ways and am in a very strong and stable relationship that has been going for over 10 years but shouldn't be eligible for tax benefits for my kids because I'm not married? And a lot of my friends are in the same situation.
> 
> I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a knot over gay marriage. These couples still have the same relationship all that changes is a piece of paper that says they are married. Big deal.




I'm not saying that you have to get 'married', i am just saying that there should be a commitment to each other and to the eventual children, before you can actually have children and claim tax and other benefits for them.

In your case, you and your partner have very obviously committed yourselves to eachother through 10 years of stable relationship.  So if the government said you had to go down to the courthouse and sign a piece of paper (a sort of contract) otherwise you wont be able to get tax benefits, are you saying you wouldn't do it?

The fact is, eventually we need to start preventing bad parents from having kids.  'Chuck a bit of chlorine in the gene pool' so to speak.  The world is filling up with dropkicks!



In relation to the discussion of gay marriage opening the way for other 'out-there' forms of marriage.  I think this is a very big concern.  As a previous poster said, 20 years ago people would have laughed at you if you said some gay people would want to get married.  Its the same now with marrying relatives etc.  If we keep relaxing the rules then it opens the door for anything to happen.  Any Seinfeld watchers here will be very aware of the 'PigMan' problems!!!!


----------



## professor_frink (23 November 2010)

pedalofogus said:


> The fact is, eventually we need to start preventing bad parents from having kids.  'Chuck a bit of chlorine in the gene pool' so to speak.  The world is filling up with dropkicks!




LOL!

Idiocracy here we come


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (23 November 2010)

If you believe that a human being's purpose in life is to recreate and the idea of marriage is to provide a stable home for life then gays should never be allowed to marry. Simple as that. Let them have partnerships etc.. but the exchange of rings, vows ie: the typical marriage is a disgrace.

Im not homophobic but that's just the way it is. I hope I never see the day of this being legalized in Australia.


----------



## Happy (23 November 2010)

BrightGreenGlow said:


> ... I hope I never see the day of this being legalized in Australia.




Me too.

However, cannot stop thinking about picture posted few pages back: “They don’t go far enough”

Fair dinkum, if our genes are 80% identical to pigs and 98% identical to great apes, why stop at same sex?


----------



## Tink (24 November 2010)

Julia said:


> Yes, it is indeed.  But a few generations ago, no one would have thought we'd have homosexuals wanting to marry.
> 
> And you have selectively quoted from what I have earlier said which was a passing on of a comment I had heard alleging that 'all that should be needed for two people to marry should be that they love each other'.
> 
> Plenty of people think they love each other, including those in incestuous relationships.




Yep Julia I agree

Off topic -- A few years ago there was a couple from Adelaide on the TV and newspapers, father and daughter. Made me question why they were getting so much air time. 

As I have stated, I dont really care what people do but, were they expecting us to start accepting that?

What were they hoping for to go public.


----------



## Dangerous (28 November 2010)

I certainly accept the challenges/bullying faced by gay people in their younger years as being difficult.  I used to be far more sympathetic to their trials.  I have come to the realization, however, that they seem to be a group who do not "get over it".  Many people face difficulties and the challenge of life is to get to a point where you have faced difficulties, overcome difficulties and have become content with who you are and what life has thrown at you.  Overcoming any  bitterness is the hardest part, but the secret.

A lot of the gay people i have met are the most obnoxious, judgemental, know-alls you could possibly know.  I say to them, "Why should I be tolerant of gay people when they are tolerant of nothing".

Many of these "obnoxious, judgemental, know-alls" are such because of bitterness.  My message to gay people is "get over yourselves".  If you choose not to and continue the constant whinging about intolerance that is fine.... but I am not listening any longer, you have lost me.


----------



## gordon2007 (10 December 2010)

Calliope said:


> And why should it be confined to Gays?




We're too late;

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/puppy-love-man-marries-pet-dog/story-e6freol3-1225969020502

'A YOUNG Toowoomba man yesterday tied the knot with his best friend - a five-year-old labrador named Honey. 
In perhaps a first for the Garden City, Laurel Bank Park hosted the wedding of Joseph Guiso and Honey, a labrador he adopted five years ago.

Thirty of the couple's closest friends and family were in attendance for the emotional ceremony, held at dusk.'


----------



## Calliope (10 December 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> We're too late;
> 
> http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/puppy-love-man-marries-pet-dog/story-e6freol3-1225969020502
> 
> ...




I thought that marrying your adopted daughter was considered bad form. I guess we are now a very tolerant society.


----------



## Julia (10 December 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> We're too late;
> 
> http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/puppy-love-man-marries-pet-dog/story-e6freol3-1225969020502
> 
> ...



Hah!  And a few pages ago, when I passed on a comment I'd heard that "all that's required for marriage is that the two people (dogs?) concerned should love each other", thus laying the way open to incestuous marriages etc, I was widely ridiculed.


----------



## ScottyfromAussie (10 December 2010)

If gays want to get married as be as miserable as other married couples then let em.

No skin off my nose :


----------



## LifeChoices (4 December 2011)

I'm sure everyone has an opinion.

For me, it's an odd issue.

For years and years I grew up around Oxford St, Sydney seeing the rise of the gay movement and the Mardi Gras and the decline of the "Orange people". The persecution of homosexuals become less and less, the orange people disappeared - tough titties. Throughout the 80's I thought the gay message was, we are different, please just accept us for who we are.

Now I see their message as, we want to be just like you.

I couldn't care less if they want to get married, I'm just confused by this issue.

I would think this is more of a church thing rather than a government thing.

Is the concept of gay marriage, just the next step towards having access to kids?

The only benefit I can see out of being married is the option of getting divorced. I just don't get it.


----------



## pixel (4 December 2011)

I'm 100% with Alston in this Weekend West:
"...surely there are more pressing matters to discuss at a National Conference..."




... and say Kevin's last words in a hurry : harder than any Peter's Pickled Peppers LOL


----------



## sptrawler (4 December 2011)

I don't give a rats ar$e about gay marriage, it means jack $hit to anything.
 What the hell is this Government doing, they are cranking electricity prices wasting our money, giving themselves obscene payrises and I have got to listen to his $hit about gay marriage.
Sorry about the long paragraph I'm just venting, on these absolute FFFwitts oh hang on the pressure is building up again.
I HATE THESE FOOLS.
UUUMM   UMMMM UMMM, I am starting to centre myself.


----------



## nomore4s (4 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> I'm sure everyone has an opinion.
> 
> For me, it's an odd issue.
> 
> ...




Lifechoices,

As there is already an extensive thread with the same title I have merged the 2 threads.


----------



## todster (4 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I don't give a rats ar$e about gay marriage, it means jack $hit to anything.
> What the hell is this Government doing, they are cranking electricity prices wasting our money, giving themselves obscene payrises and I have got to listen to his $hit about gay marriage.
> Sorry about the long paragraph I'm just venting, on these absolute FFFwitts oh hang on the pressure is building up again.
> I HATE THESE FOOLS.
> UUUMM   UMMMM UMMM, I am starting to centre myself.




mate we have had some obscene electtrickery price rises in WA that lay at the feet of the current libs not the feds


----------



## Julia (4 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> I'm sure everyone has an opinion.
> 
> For me, it's an odd issue.
> 
> ...






sptrawler said:


> I don't give a rats ar$e about gay marriage, it means jack $hit to anything.
> What the hell is this Government doing, they are cranking electricity prices wasting our money, giving themselves obscene payrises and I have got to listen to his $hit about gay marriage.



Totally agree with both the above.
It's pretty insulting to the great majority of the electorate which is so worried about way more important issues, that the Labor Party has become so hung up about something most of us don't give a stuff about.

Heavens, it isn't as if the institution of marriage has a great track record, fergawdsake!
I'd say heterosexual couples might be better off adopting the perfectly practical Civil Unions approach which is currently available to homosexuals in most states.  

Can anyone actually say what "marriage" actually means?  i.e. what is it about such a convention that really means anything in today's world where divorce is so commonplace and the once rigid loyalties of marriage are now laughable?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 December 2011)

It seems that homosexuality is becoming much more prevalent. 
If it is, then that would rule out genetic causation.


----------



## sptrawler (4 December 2011)

Well Julia, I think gay marriage is about gay people wanting to feel more mainstream.
Well unfortunately it isn't mainstream and if all creatures take it onboard, creatures will die out.
That's it get over it.
What if all wombats decided to become gay or all red kangaroos thought this is a good idea.
All of a sudden Penny and Peter would be saying, christ there a catastrophe in the wombat and kangaroo population, they aren't r@@ting. 
Must be a problem, maybe global warming. No its ok they are just gay, give them a break cut a bit of slack, they won't be a problem in a couple of generations. 
I think some may see this as a rant and I can sympathise with that.LOL


----------



## sptrawler (4 December 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> It seems that homosexuality is becoming much more prevalent.
> If it is, then that would rule out genetic causation.




Well I don't think it's becomming more prevalent in the muslim population.
Maybe we are just losing our moral compass. It is starting to look very similar to the fall of the Roman empire.


----------



## bellenuit (5 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well I don't think it's becomming more prevalent in the muslim population.
> Maybe we are just losing our moral compass. It is starting to look very similar to the fall of the Roman empire.




Surely you must understand that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but just the way one is. I think it was the Kyte Report that concluded we are not either homosexual or heterosexual, but all of us are somewhere on a scale between the two extremes.

The reason it is becoming more prevalent is because in most of the Western world, people no longer get beaten up or ostracized for coming out. The fact that few come out in Islamic societies is more to do with the barbarism they perpetrate on homosexuals, rather than having a better moral compass that the West. You would have to be very brave indeed to declare your homosexuality in Saudi Arabia or most other Islamic societies. Didn't Nigeria just make it a criminal offense.

As regards to the Romans, it existed long before they were in the ascendancy. I think it was Stephen Fry who said: "Although the Greeks invented sex for pleasure, it was the Romans who decided that it should be with the opposite sex", or words to that effect.

As regards to gay marriage, I too don't understand their need for wanting a marriage ceremony to prove their commitment to each other. I would have thought that equal rights with married people would be the most important issue and I think they have that. Someone said recently: "the only people that want to marry nowadays are gays and priests". in my opinion a marriage ceremony no more proves you are committed to one another than a baptismal certificate proves you are a Christian.


----------



## sptrawler (5 December 2011)

That is all very true. However if you get a group of any other creatures and put them together you will find the males and females will mate.
If you have 10 male dogs and 1 female dog on heat, you don't see two of the males heading off to a seclued corner to get it on.LOL
This is brought about by the need for the species to multiply, to exist.
I think you will find it is only humans that have this underlying desire to explore the sexual extremes?
Probably the reason we don't publish penthouse for dogs and cats, not a big demand.


----------



## PinguPingu (5 December 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals


----------



## Logique (5 December 2011)

It's based on political opportunistism, given the favourable climate in Canberra. The lesbians can income split on their tax, and adopt kids. The male gays are along for the ride. Also it's no coincidence that nurses are becoming more militant, and womens lobby groups are receiving grants.

As for the ALP National Conference, this is how involved everyday party members are allowed to be - on the fringe, as an observer. That is, you don't get to speak or vote.



> http://www.alp.org.au/australian-labor/national-conference-2011/
> ALP members and nationally affiliated trade unions can register for National Conference. The conference is a great opportunity for Party members to watch the conference proceedings as an observer, socialise with other members and to atttend the Conference Fringe program.
> 
> For a fee non-affiliated trade union members, diplomatic representatives, organisations and individuals may attend as a Conference Observer as well.


----------



## Logique (5 December 2011)

Or, 
there'll be no gay marriage under a government I lead?

http://www.international.to/index.p...-promise-under-threat&catid=36:news&Itemid=74

Monday, 20 June 2011

"The Marriage Act will stay unchanged, so marriage will be defined as it is in our current Marriage Act as between a man and a woman, and we have also said that the Labor Party policy is we do not want to see the development of ceremonies that mimic marriage ceremonies. 

And so that’s the party policy, and as Prime Minister, as the leader of the parliamentary Labor Party that’s obviously my policy, and that’s what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor Government if we’re re-elected." .. Julia Gillard.


----------



## dutchie (5 December 2011)

Logique said:


> Or,
> there'll be no gay marriage under a government I lead?
> 
> http://www.international.to/index.p...-promise-under-threat&catid=36:news&Itemid=74
> ...




Unspoken rider to all her statements:

But I have the right and ability to change my mind if it suits me (i.e. keeps *me* in power)!


----------



## Tink (5 December 2011)

Probably off topic - I watched a show a while ago about a gay couple, 2 guys that had 3 children, and they were on the internet looking for a lady to have another child. They involved their children in the process of who to pick.

To cut a long story short, they found a lady and the pregnancy was having problems mid term, and they told the children, we can always just adopt the baby out.
They had 2 sons and a daughter
I thought - what exactly is this teaching these children?
They have a daughter sitting there listening to all this 

I dont know, I just found it really sad.


----------



## Calliope (5 December 2011)

Logique said:


> It's based on political opportunistism, given the favourable climate in Canberra. The lesbians can income split on their tax, and adopt kids. The male gays are along for the ride.




A lesbian couple doesn't have to adopt. All they need is a sperm donor, providing one of them is fertile. Society is very unfair. I think male couples should be paid the baby bonus to compensate for the children they cannot have. It's not for the want of trying.


----------



## Glen48 (5 December 2011)

Think there was some man in Melbourne who donated sperm to a lesbian and now pay CSA.
 As  long as it is not compulsorily to be gay I will be happy


----------



## bellenuit (5 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I think you will find it is only humans that have this underlying desire to explore the sexual extremes?




Tell that to my neighbour's dog, who seems to want to hump my leg every time I go to their house.


----------



## sptrawler (5 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Tell that to my neighbour's dog, who seems to want to hump my leg every time I go to their house.




That tells you that your leg smells like a dogs A___se.


----------



## Whiskers (5 December 2011)

It's probably already been said, but worth reiterating... isn't 'marriage' is a term defined in social and legal jurisdictions for the relationship between a man and a woman. The connotations cover everything from property rights to paternity and custody and child support issues.

For all practical purposes the various notions and laws of defacto relationships and civil union has the same effect as marriage.

What seems to be missing for me in the whole gay marriage agenda is the primary and fundamental right of the child, ie to know their paternity, ie that they came from the union of a man and a woman, and to know this man and woman as their true (paternal) parents for numerous psychological development and medical reasons later in life.

For gay (or lesbian) couples to insist that one partner is called husband and the other wife and raise children from at least one paternal parent in this culture calling one mum, the other dad, is so full of fantasy even fanatical, that I find it hard to see where they are thinking more of the childs welfare than their own, let alone the best interests of the child in terms of 'normal' first impressions and subsequent interactions with other children and people as they get older.

... and don't give me the often used line that all that really matters is a loving relationship! Loving means different things to different people. A single teenage mother might say she loves her child so much that she left her at an orphanage door so she could get a better life. A pedophile says they love their 'victims', and so on.

Why isn't defacto relationship which is sufficient for many heterosexual couples, or civil union if they want a formal relationship, sufficient to identify themselves as gay? Why do they want a historic and practical term for heterosexuals, ie marriage, to some how mean the same to gays? 

They sprout the term 'equality' a lot in their so called justification for legally being identified as married. But with 'equality' (in marriage) comes the notion of all parts and functions being equal. This is a contradiction in the extreme gay movement. They plain and simply are not Ã©qual (the same) sexual identifies of a marriage... let alone the same contribution to the child of the 'marriage'.

If they want to live together what's wrong or deficient with the defacto relationship laws and civil union concept if they want to formalise the arrangement. I just don't get it, if they are so proud to be gay, why they wouldn't want to be differentiated from heterosexuals, ie why they wouldn't want to be called some thing different such as civil union to specifically differentiate their so called proud homosexuality form heterosexual.


----------



## Julia (5 December 2011)

Great post, Whiskers.  I've been thinking the same but have lacked the capacity to put it into coherent words.
About time someone pointed out how all this self indulgent posturing is likely to affect any children involved.

And I'm still finding it incomprehensible that the government is so focused on this issue!


----------



## Logique (5 December 2011)

Whiskers said:


> It's probably already been said, but worth reiterating... isn't 'marriage' is a term defined in social and legal jurisdictions for the relationship between a man and a woman. The connotations cover everything from property rights to paternity and custody and child support issues...............



Good post, exactly the sort of rational discussion required.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (5 December 2011)

Whiskers said:


> ... I just don't get it, if they are so proud to be gay, why they wouldn't want to be differentiated from heterosexuals, ie why they wouldn't want to be called some thing different such as civil union to specifically differentiate their so called proud homosexuality form heterosexual.




Because they're not proud to be gay, they are ashamed (though they would never admit it).  Being able to use the word 'marriage' infers acceptance into the broader community.  Allow them that much.  It won't hurt you.  Be thankful you're not gay yourself; I can't imagine it would be easy.

The children debate is a separate thing.  Kids need both male and female parents in order to grow up normally, IMO.


----------



## Calliope (5 December 2011)

Cardinal George Pell puts it in a nutshell;

"Marriage is about man, woman and children, as it has always been. Any Australia-wide political party which repudiates this does not want to govern, and rejects both tradition and the working class."

Gringotts Bank gets it wrong;



> Because they're not proud to be gay, they are ashamed (though they would never admit it). Being able to use the word 'marriage' infers acceptance into the broader community.




 It does not "infer" acceptance. All it does is invite ridicule.


----------



## Sean K (5 December 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The children debate is a separate thing.  Kids need both male and female parents in order to grow up normally, IMO.



I agree that they need different role models or the complete picture as to sexuality and gender. They can get it from various sources; parents, relations, teachers. I assume your statement is that two same gendered parents can't give both sides of the story and that is detrimental to their development in some way.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (5 December 2011)

kennas said:


> I agree that they need different role models or the complete picture as to sexuality and gender. They can get it from various sources; parents, relations, teachers. I assume your statement is that two same gendered parents can't give both sides of the story and that is detrimental to their development in some way.




Yes, sort of.  In the case of a boy, he learns what it is to be masculine by having a close relationship with his father.  Masculine traits include strength, ambition, competitiveness, dominance, etc.  Without that relationship, the boy is unlikely to build a sky scraper or a bridge, run a large company or captain a football club.  That's not a huge loss in itself, however what might be more damaging is that he may seek this male role model in the form of a partner later in life (ie. become gay himself).  I know the research doesn't support this claim, but my observations suggest that poor same sex relationships with parent figures could be a potential cause of homosexuality.


----------



## Macquack (5 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> Cardinal George Pell puts it in a nutshell;
> 
> "Marriage is about man, woman and children, as it has always been. Any Australia-wide political party which repudiates this does not want to govern, and rejects both tradition and the working class."
> 
> ...




What next, catholic priests being able to marry? 

What's the big deal?

I say, let them get married if they want. It does not affect me, so it is none of my business.


----------



## PinguPingu (5 December 2011)

I don't get what the big deal is either. However I can see why they would want the same term and definition to heterosexual couples.

 Some liken it to previous terms that stated marriage was a union between only a white man and woman or only between a black man and woman. Say you were a person of African descent who was only granted a 'civil union' between yourself and another person of the same race - would you not feel unequal? 

However I agree with posters that have stated that bigger issues should be debated and focused on at the moment.


----------



## gav (5 December 2011)

A huge success by the ALP, this announcement did exactly what was intended: divert a large portion of attention away from the 30% pollie-payrise...


----------



## drsmith (5 December 2011)

I'm not sure whether I've commented on this before.

Marriage is between a couple of opposite sex.

Whatever one wants to call a relationship between a couple of the same sex, it's not marriage.


----------



## Tink (6 December 2011)

Excellent post Whiskas, well said



Calliope said:


> Cardinal George Pell puts it in a nutshell;
> 
> "Marriage is about man, woman and children, as it has always been. Any Australia-wide political party which repudiates this does not want to govern, and rejects both tradition and the working class."




Agree, has to be some boundaries for our children and future children.


----------



## nomore4s (6 December 2011)

Tink said:


> Agree, has to be some boundaries for our children and future children.




Yeah hetrosexual families are all perfect loving environments with no abuse or poor parenting issues.


----------



## Calliope (6 December 2011)

nomore4s said:


> Yeah hetrosexual families are all perfect loving environments with no abuse or poor parenting issues.




And how does that affect your thinking on gay marriage as a " perfect loving environment" for kids?


----------



## overhang (6 December 2011)

There is nothing to debate, this has no negative effect on anyone but bigots so just give them their gay marriage already so we can move onto more compelling social issues such as euthanasia.  This is further evidence that church and state are anything but separated in Australia, keep your religious ideology's out of politics.


----------



## nomore4s (6 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> And how does that affect your thinking on gay marriage as a " perfect loving environment" for kids?




It doesn't, I don't care one way or the other. Just pointing out plenty of gay couples would actually make better parents then lots of hetro couples or even single parents out there.

As far as I know gay couples can have children anyway either through adoption or surrogacy, so I'm not sure what allowing them to get married has to do with parenthood, separate issue.


----------



## Calliope (6 December 2011)

overhang said:


> There is nothing to debate, this has no negative effect on anyone but bigots so just give them their gay marriage already so we can move onto more compelling social issues such as euthanasia.  This is further evidence that church and state are anything but separated in Australia, keep your religious ideology's out of politics.




So you think that anyone who accepts this definition is a religious bigot. I think we know who are the bigots.



> mar·riage/ˈmarij/
> Noun:
> The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
> A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.


----------



## overhang (6 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> So you think that anyone who accepts this definition is a religious bigot. I think we know who are the bigots.




No I think anyone that opposes this definition "Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship" is a bigot as what logical reason could you have to object to gay marriage?


----------



## Whiskers (6 December 2011)

overhang said:


> This is further evidence that church and state are anything but separated in Australia, keep your religious ideology's out of politics.




First things first... religious ideology, or at least some sort of faith (as in basic principles of living) ideology, is the cornerstone of every civilization whether it's Christian, Muslim, Hindu, communism etc. It's that basic faith that formulated the early common and statute law of the land.

So, to be clear, the gay marriage movement is all about 'Law'. There is nothing to stop gay people living together defacto atm, sharing property or even adopting children. 

What I think many people don't understand is the complexity of changing (if at all possible) the marriage act to recognise and protect the child's rights, which would necessitate changes to a number of other statutes not the least of which would be the child support act [the financial liability on the paternal parents] and flowing through the child welfare laws and inheritance, because paternity does factor into custodial issues and estate [Last Will and Testament] law despite some attempts to override paternal rights. 



> There is nothing to debate, this has no negative effect on anyone but bigots so
> just give them their gay marriage




So, give me an example of how the laws would be framed and changed to preserve and protect the paternal legal rights and best interests of the child and paternal parent. 

I emphasis this has nothing to do with the quality of individual people or the care (or lack of) they demonstrate toward children, BUT the inherent systemic rights, the LAW that would preserve and protect the child's paternal as well as personal comfort and support interests in a gay marriage if it were deemed to be equal [the same thing] (which in fact it can never be) to a heterosexual marriage. 

How are the children brought into the 'Gay Marriage' to be treated by law? 

For example some have children via illegal (or overseas) surrogate mothers which have an egg of one of the gay couple fertilised by the surrogate, or someone else and carried by the surrogate, may still have child support payment claims against the paternal parents when the gay 'marriage' breaks down, ie the Child Support Agency usually seeks out the 'PATERNAL' parents to pay for the support of the child in a broken relationship.



> already so we can move onto more compelling social issues such as
> euthanasia.




WHAT!!!... are you advocating legalising euthanasia is more important than promoting and protecting the best interests of our children to grow into well adjusted and by default more healthy adults with good family support units that by definition won't ever or at least far less frequently will need to even consider euthanasia.

If I may throw a bit of a thorn in the works here... too many people advocate for more rights, such as (legalised) gay marriage, abortion, open all hours pubs/clubs and euthanasia etc, without considering or accepting the responsibilities and consequences that go by 'natural' law with their so passionately sought 'rights'. 

Have a look at the overall social and economic health of some of the so called leading free rights countries/states and tell me what you see.


----------



## Calliope (6 December 2011)

Thanks Whiskers. An excellent response to some of the thoughtless drivel that has appeared on these pages.


----------



## gav (6 December 2011)

So Whiskers, because it would be "hard" to change the law, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry?  If it was  "hard" to change the law to allow women to vote, or to allow black people to work, does this mean we should not bother?

You are right that religion and government are very similar.  Both aim for more control over people, and neither want an individual to think for himself/herself (or act for his/her own interests).



Whiskers said:


> If I may throw a bit of a thorn in the works here... too many people advocate for more rights, such as (legalised) gay marriage, abortion, open all hours pubs/clubs and euthanasia etc, without considering or accepting the responsibilities and consequences that go by 'natural' law with their so passionately sought 'rights'.
> 
> Have a look at the overall social and economic health of some of the so called leading free rights countries/states and tell me what you see.




I suppose you support the plain packaging of cigarettes, and limiting the amount people can gamble too?  Thousands of people are assaulted/injured every year due to drunken violence, so I guess we should ban everyone from drinking more than 2 drinks per day...  Let those who do not consider the responsibilities suffer the consequences.  Why should those (who do consider the consequences) be punished because some people are dumb? 

If giving people more "rights" is such a bad thing, then why don't we just take all "rights" away?


----------



## sails (6 December 2011)

Tink said:


> Excellent post Whiskas, well said
> 
> Agree, has to be some boundaries for our children and future children.




Agree Tink.  I worry about the kids in this situation.  There seems to be something instinctive in kids to need a mum and a dad.  




nomore4s said:


> Yeah hetrosexual families are all perfect loving environments with no abuse or poor parenting issues.




Couldn't agree more and I would think that not all gay 'parents' will offer children a perfectly stable homelife either.  

Interesting take on the gay issue found on Andrew Bolt's blog:



> *A friend, “Wilde Oscar”, writes*:
> 
> As a Gay man in a long term relationship (20 years) neither I, my partner and our friends in similar relationship agree with this marriage nonsense. Civil partnerships, yes, “Marriage” no. However, I will tell you how they will attack churches who refuse to “marry:” Gays. First, a same sex couple will go to a church and ask if they can be married in the church, when they are refused they will then go to the media and there will be stories with TV pictures or photos of them looking dejected and standing outside the church. The story will be about how much they love each other and want to have their union blessed. Then there will be a demonstration by Gays and Gay marriage supporters outside the church with attacks on the “intolerant” attitudes of Christians who will be describes as homophobic bigots. Just you wait to see​




Read more: Gay, but not happy about this “reform”

I think there will be ripple effects from this.  What about churches who don't agree with homosexuality?  Will they be forced to marry people like this?  Will marriage celebrants who are uncomfortable be forced to do so?  Will there be penalties?

And then will those wanting more than one wife want laws changed for them?  Maybe women will want more than one husband?  Where will this end?

Link found on Bolt's blog: Plural Marriage is Waiting in the Wings


----------



## sails (6 December 2011)

Whiskers, great posts...


----------



## Whiskers (6 December 2011)

gav said:


> So Whiskers, because it would be "hard" to change the law, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry?  If it was  "hard" to change the law to allow women to vote, or to allow black people to work, does this mean we should not bother?




Allowing women and 'black' people equal rights to work and vote was hard for some people philosophically, but it was not hard for the law to accommodate it.

I have no problem with gay relationships per se, my problem is in properly overcoming all the 'legal' framework (some of the main sections mentioned in previous post) so that especially the full rights of the child are not compromised by superficial attempts to fudge certain parts of the law, usually the marriage act, to allow gay 'marriage'... but also that there is no come back on the paternal parents for the likes of child support if the gay relationship breaks down, but at the same time protecting the child's birth right to sooner or later know their paternal parents for social family history, medical diagnosis of hereditary disease reasons etc that they would ordinarily have the right too. 

Often when surrogate mothers in particular are involved ( but sometimes in adoption) there is an initial overwhelming desire for one's own desire to have a child, a very possessive feeling. This often involves various legal instruments across international boundaries to try to disenfranchise the paternal parents and the child.

Research of children, teens and even adults who have been adopted or conceived from 'outside' relationships, shows large numbers of them are left shattered to find their 'parents' are not really their paternal parents, that they have been living a lie for the convenience of other 'adults'.




> I suppose you support the plain packaging of cigarettes, and limiting the
> amount people can gamble too?  Thousands of people are assaulted/injured every
> year due to drunken violence, so I guess we should ban everyone from drinking
> more than 2 drinks per day...  Let those who do not consider the
> ...




I think you are focusing too much on the wrong end of the cause and effect equation. 
The politicians who make the law and the licensee's who serve the alcohol have responsibilities to go with the rights to trade long hours. Many a case law has found the licensee wanting in terms of limiting alcohol to over indulgent drinkers. In fact many licensees provide the 'fun' atmosphere to get you in, then keep you hooked on the tap once you start losing sobriety to plough more cash out of your pocket. Just a few nights ago I went out for tea with some people to a rather upmarket restaurant and we were surprised how much this one 'pushed' alcohol consumption.

The same story with gambling. Many establishments run sophisticated schemes to 'entice' people to open their wallets as opposed to promoting responsible gambling habits.

The parents in the alcohol, gambling issue are the licensees and politicans. Some of them abuse their responsibilities to the law and their patronage. If they kept their house in order perfectly, the children, the future potential drunken and broke patrons you mention, would tend to learn better socioeconomic behavior.



> If giving people more "rights" is such a bad thing, then why don't we just
> 
> take all "rights" away?




Basically we are born with the right to do numerous things as per the Common Law of the land. That is we basically have the right to do anything that does not intentionally or negligently cause harm to anyone else. Statute law is more about providing consequences for the lack of responsibility in excessing your rights.

*To get back on track with the gay marriage issue*, it's not so much about denying gays the right to live together in a formal relationship, but the responsibilities and consequences of being treated equal to heterosexual 'marriage', that come with those rights. Remembering this agenda is all about changing the Law.

We hear a lot about wanting the right to be treated equal' to heterosexual 'marriage', but again I ask, *where is the detail about the change in 'legal' responsibilities and consequences with the children that come into gay relationships always from at least one outside paternal parent, that some want to equate to a heterosexual marriage?*


----------



## Julia (6 December 2011)

gav said:


> I suppose you support the plain packaging of cigarettes, and limiting the amount people can gamble too?  Thousands of people are assaulted/injured every year due to drunken violence, so I guess we should ban everyone from drinking more than 2 drinks per day...  Let those who do not consider the responsibilities suffer the consequences.  Why should those (who do consider the consequences) be punished because some people are dumb?



Good lord, that's a peculiar extension of the argument!



> If giving people more "rights" is such a bad thing, then why don't we just take all "rights" away?



Gav, that's not worthy of you.  Just silly.

If homosexuals already have access to Civil Unions which confer all the rights of a married relationship in financial and legal terms, why is it imperative that they also demand 'marriage' which in the eyes of many people will never mean anything other than that union between a male and female, primarily designed to provide a stable environment for children?


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 December 2011)

From original post in 2006 ....


> Bob Brown was in parliament today arguing that gay marriage should be accepted because it is natural and just and should be a legitimate way for two loving, caring people to express their desire to live together for the rest of their lives, under the full legal auspices of the Australian constitution.



 So another promise Julia made to Bob Brown.  I was wondering who brought this stupid talk up in government. I mean why even discuss this stuff when there are thousands of more important matters to deal with. 
Let those who prefer fondling the same genitals do so and drop the marriage stuff because it is simply an "immoral victory" (for Bob & Co.) rather than an important or responsible piece of governance.


----------



## Tink (7 December 2011)

Again great posts Whiskas

Children need a mother and father and thats the way it is. Two gays cant have children without help.

People seem to be becoming very selfish about their own rights that they forget about the children.

We have the laws in the state as a standard otherwise where does it stop, and we owe it to our children and all future children to keep it that way.  

I dont have a problem with gays being together and adopting and whatever else they choose to do, which they have already, but we need to keep the standard for all future generations that all children need a mother and father and thats the way it should always be.


----------



## nomore4s (7 December 2011)

Tink said:


> I dont have a problem with gays being together and adopting and whatever else they choose to do, which they have already, but we need to keep the standard for all future generations that all children need a mother and father and thats the way it should always be.




This paragraph confuses me a bit.

You have no problem with gays being together and adopting children but you don't want to grant them the right to get married because of the children? TBH I'm not sure what the difference is, according to your statement above the children still need a mother and father but in either case they don't have that.

How is being married or not have any effect on the children if they are being raised in the same family by the same people? This question also applies to hetro couples.

What about all the couples that don't want to have children but want to get married?

Also what about the thousands of children out there that are born of heterosexual relationships/marriages without either a mother or father for whatever reason, the majority seem to cope okay.

To me marriage is an outdated concept being upheld by outdated views from outdated churches and I really don't know what all the fuss is about, if they want to get married let them get married. It's not as though they don't have access to everything marriage provides already so why not let them have their bit of paper it's not going to hurt or affect anyone else, so why worry about it.


----------



## PinguPingu (7 December 2011)

Tink said:


> Again great posts Whiskas
> 
> Children need a mother and father and thats the way it is....
> 
> ...





I suppose then we should just confiscate the children of single parents and widows.


----------



## Tink (7 December 2011)

Nomore4s, what happens behind closed doors and probably has for years, there is not much you can do about it, but doesnt mean you have to change the law. 
I am not even sure if they can adopt here in Australia, I was just saying. 

If you see marraige as an outdated Churchy thing, then good, leave it alone.
The standard should stay the same for our children and all future generations.


----------



## overhang (7 December 2011)

Whiskers said:


> So, to be clear, the gay marriage movement is all about 'Law'. There is nothing to stop gay people living together defacto atm, sharing property or even adopting children.
> 
> What I think many people don't understand is the complexity of changing (if at all possible) the marriage act to recognise and protect the child's rights, which would necessitate changes to a number of other statutes not the least of which would be the child support act [the financial liability on the paternal parents] and flowing through the child welfare laws and inheritance, because paternity does factor into custodial issues and estate [Last Will and Testament] law despite some attempts to override paternal rights.
> 
> How are the children brought into the 'Gay Marriage' to be treated by law?



Whiskers this is absolute nonsense, it's a bit of misdirection to try and change the issue from marriage equality to children's rights.  There are legal issues regarding adoption and children from previous relationships, but this is true for all unmarried couples so why single out same sex couples?

Gay couples can already adopt children in several states so I don’t see how marriage will exacerbate children’s rights.  By your logic all single parents, widows, unmarried couples should have their children removed from their care.  Children with married parents have no additional rights that unmarried couples children obtain.  The "children" issue is a simple smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact that there is no solid argument against gay marriage.




Whiskers said:


> WHAT!!!... are you advocating legalising euthanasia is more important than promoting and protecting the best interests of our children to grow into well adjusted and by default more healthy adults with good family support units that by definition won't ever or at least far less frequently will need to even consider euthanasia.
> 
> If I may throw a bit of a thorn in the works here... too many people advocate for more rights, such as (legalised) gay marriage, abortion, open all hours pubs/clubs and euthanasia etc, without considering or accepting the responsibilities and consequences that go by 'natural' law with their so passionately sought 'rights'.
> 
> Have a look at the overall social and economic health of some of the so called leading free rights countries/states and tell me what you see.




Well you completely misconstrued what I said,  how exactly did I imply that euthanasia is more important than children's rights?  But since you must obviously read the ACL newsletter you would know that children's rights are always prevalent issue and always will be.  Children's rights will never be perfect and are generally a subjective nature so does that mean we should sweep every other social issue under the carpet as to appease the religious nutjobs?


----------



## Miss Hale (7 December 2011)

PinguPingu said:


> I suppose then we should just confiscate the children of single parents and widows.




Of course not, just because there are circumstances where the ideal situation doesn't prevail doesn't mean we should set out to create less than ideal circumstances. Children of single parents had a mother and a father at some point as did children of widows (or widowers for that matter).  Children brought up by gay couples are denied a mother and a father right from the start.


----------



## gav (7 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Good lord, that's a peculiar extension of the argument!




Not really.  Whiskers stumbled down the path of people wanting "too many rights", and claiming those rights were not given because they could not handle the responsibilities/consequences.  My comment was merely to illustrate that by preventing those who cannot handle the responsibilities/consequences, you unjustly punish everyone else.




Julia said:


> If homosexuals already have access to Civil Unions which confer all the rights of a married relationship in financial and legal terms, why is it imperative that they also demand 'marriage' which in the eyes of many people will never mean anything other than that union between a male and female, primarily designed to provide a stable environment for children?




Well if they already have all the financial and legal terms, why is it imperative that you deny them a piece of paper that states they are married?

As for the second part, are you claiming that a homosexual couple cannot provide a stable environment for children?


----------



## wayneL (7 December 2011)

I don't give a fat rat's @ss either way.

I don't understand it, but don't pretend to understand the issues either.

As a libertarian, as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's liberties, I say let 'em have their piece of paper.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> I don't give a fat rat's @ss either way.
> 
> I don't understand it, but don't pretend to understand the issues either.
> 
> As a libertarian, as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's liberties, I say let 'em have their piece of paper.




Agree totally Wayne,

The argument amongst the proletariat is what it detracts from "Marriage". 

Most would agree with Gays having equal rights.

And this will destroy the ALP in the coming election, whenever it comes.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (7 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree totally Wayne,
> 
> The argument amongst the proletariat is what it detracts from "Marriage".
> 
> ...




I don't know why the gays are chasing marriage. 
Half the blokes I know say it isn't everything it's crapped up to be.


----------



## Julia (7 December 2011)

gav said:


> Well if they already have all the financial and legal terms, why is it imperative that you deny them a piece of paper that states they are married?
> 
> As for the second part, are you claiming that a homosexual couple cannot provide a stable environment for children?



I honestly don't know, gav.  I've never known a homosexual couple who have brought up children so I'm not in a position to comment.

What I'm conscious of is the way children are discriminated against in school and generally as they're growing up if they're 'different'.  But perhaps being in a family where both your mother and your father are female or both male is no longer unusual and the kid will not be bullied and laughed at as a result.  I simply don't know.

I couldn't give a stuff one way or the other re homosexuals being married, but I can see that the ramifications (e.g. churches suddenly obliged to marry people of the same sex totally against all they believe in) might be far reaching and cause much angst to those who feel strongly that marriage is between a male and female.

My main point in all this is that imo it's a totally minor issue and I'm immensely irritated that the Labor Party - in the face of global financial chaos and so much that needs to be fixed like border protection - is so utterly focused on this issue.
I find such a focus to be a gross dereliction of their duty to the country.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

Julia said:


> I honestly don't know, gav.  I've never known a homosexual couple who have brought up children so I'm not in a position to comment.
> 
> What I'm conscious of is the way children are discriminated against in school and generally as they're growing up if they're 'different'.  But perhaps being in a family where both your mother and your father are female or both male is no longer unusual and the kid will not be bullied and laughed at as a result.  I simply don't know.
> 
> ...




A good summary Julia.

Agree.

gg


----------



## Sean K (7 December 2011)

Seems to be a consistent thread of thought here that we just need to have an officially governmentally sanctioned union between same gender people that is of equal social and legal significance to that of the religious folk and we'd all be happy. The issue is choosing a word other than 'marriage' to identify it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

kennas said:


> Seems to be a consistent thread of thought here that we just need to have an officially governmentally sanctioned union between same gender people that is of equal social and legal significance to that of the religious folk and we'd all be happy. The issue is choosing a word other than 'marriage' to identify it.




Union.

gg


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 December 2011)

Why is a minority group getting government attention to the extent of changing the normal family unit acceptance of male and female marriage? Has Bob docked the odd stink pipe?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

I have some mates who are gay, and there is no way they wanted this sort of politically correct claptrap.

gg


----------



## Whiskers (8 December 2011)

overhang said:


> Well you completely misconstrued what I said,  how exactly did I imply that euthanasia is more important than children's rights?




Maybe it was the way you phrased it!



overhang said:


> There is nothing to debate, this has no negative effect on anyone but bigots so just give them their gay marriage already* so we can **move onto more compelling social issues such as euthanasia.* This is further evidence that church and state are anything but separated in Australia, keep your religious ideology's out of politics.






> Whiskers this is absolute nonsense, it's a bit of misdirection to try and change the issue from marriage equality to children's rights.  There are legal issues regarding adoption and children from previous relationships, but this is true for all unmarried couples so why single out same sex couples?
> 
> Gay couples can already adopt children in several states so* I don’t see how marriage will exacerbate children’s **rights.*  By your logic all single parents, widows, unmarried couples should have their children removed from their care.  Children with married parents have no additional rights that unmarried couples children obtain.  The "children" issue is a simple smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact that there is no solid argument against gay marriage.




By definition marriage implies the right to have and raise children.

Don't children have the basic human right to their biological mother and father in the first instance? 



nomore4s said:


> ...so why not let them have their bit of paper* it's not going to hurt or affect anyone else*, so why worry about it.




I presume you meant if it's not going to hurt or affect anyone else.


Here's a few questions for you all?

*1.* Given the push for gay marriage relies heavily on their use of "equality" and their perceived "fundamental human Right"... what about 'equality' for the child coming into their relationship without the particular comfort and developmental support to learn the sociological skills to grow up and reproduce a 'naturally' sustaining family by their (the child's) fundamental human right?

*2.* Is the new marriage act going to limit children to gay marriage to be adopted, ie not allowing surrogate children for gays? Gays can't even adopt in all states.

*3.* While the law and a court can deem a child, a child of the marriage or the custody of a person for legal purposes, what are you going to raise the children to call the gay parents... mother and father!? Think about their, the gay's profound use of equality and fundamental human rights in their arguably self centered preoccupation, but in the context of the child's rights and future welfare.

*4.* This one may be a bit below the belt... but what will the position be regarding incest/sodomy where the child is no (especially) blood relation? Is there law changes to ensure that any child brought into the relationship from non blood relations (esp illegal surrogacy) is to be legally treated and protected as a child of the marriage.

I did have another significant question... but lost it atm. it'll come to me later.

But, maybe this whole 'liberalism' of relationships and everything else in some quarters is meant to be and natures way of population control.


----------



## Calliope (8 December 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I did have another significant question... but lost it atm. it'll come to me later.




I have one. Will gay "parents" be allowed to take their "children" along with them to cavort in the Mardi Gras?


----------



## nomore4s (8 December 2011)

Whiskers said:


> By definition marriage implies the right to have and raise children.




Since when did you have to be married to have the "right" to have and raise children?

A lot of the arguments being put forward against gay marriage seem to be based around children being raised in these marriages. To me that is a totally separate issue especially as gay couples already have the ability and "right" to raise children. So don't all the issues being raised in regards to gay couples raising children apply now to gay couples that have children?

Being married isn't going to automatically allow gay couples to adopt just as not all hetro couples meet the requirements for adoption.

Point 4 is surely starting to clutch at straws, doesn't the same question apply to adopted, foster or step children of any marriage? It's called child abuse!


----------



## gav (8 December 2011)

Julia said:


> My main point in all this is that imo it's a totally minor issue and I'm immensely irritated that the Labor Party - in the face of global financial chaos and so much that needs to be fixed like border protection - is so utterly focused on this issue.
> I find such a focus to be a gross dereliction of their duty to the country.




I totally agree - hence my earlier comment about the great "timing" of this announcement, takes a bit of heat off the pollie pay rise issue (as well as many other issues)...


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 December 2011)

Transvestites can go either way in this debate.


----------



## Whiskers (8 December 2011)

nomore4s said:


> Since when did you have to be married to have the "right" to have and raise children?
> 
> A lot of the arguments being put forward against gay marriage seem to be based around children being raised in these marriages. To me that is a totally separate issue especially as gay couples already have the ability and "right" to raise children. So don't all the issues being raised in regards to gay couples raising children apply now to gay couples that have children?
> 
> Being married isn't going to automatically allow gay couples to adopt just as not all hetro couples meet the requirements for adoption.




But 'Marriage' in the traditional sense, that gays want to be recognised as equal to, has no limitations whatsoever on the hetrosexual couple bearing and/or raising children. 

Sure some gays can adopt legally in some states, but not Australia wide.

But since they want to be given 'equal' marriage rights to hetrosexuals, the right to have children is intrinsic in that marriage. You miss my point... I haven't seen any mention of children in the proposed marriage law change I saw. Since the right to have children is intrinsic in marriage, how are they proposing to adjust the law to ensure non blood related children brought into the gay male marriage are given the same rights and protection as blood/family members are at present.

For example a Gay male may have a child via a surrogate mother, and that male seems to be legally considered the father sooner or later. When that gay relationship breaks down and he gets married to another male, his child seems to likely to be considered a step child of the new male partner, but if the new male partner has sex with the step child after 16 yo, is that still to be considered incest as in a hetrosexual marriage until the child reaches the legal age of adult?



> Point 4 is surely starting to clutch at straws, doesn't the same question apply
> to adopted, foster or step children of any marriage? It's called child abuse!




Adopted, foster and step children are well covered under the current law. My point is, to turn my previous question around a bit, what are the chidren brought into a gay male 'Marriage' going to be called legally, children of the marriage, adopted, step children or something else and where is the proposed changes in child status laws???

As far as I know the law recognises the paternal mother, even in lesbian partnership and the lesbian partner as a 'parent', with the child protection laws giving the same protection, but where is the law or proposed law changes to child protection laws to consider the child of two male partners? 

I'd like to see some detailed law ammendments, (specifically relating to children) more than the few paragaph bill proposed by the greens that completely focused on substituting/including the words gay with parent in the marriage act. 

Wouldn't a child in a gay male marriage be more inclined, if not indoctrinated, to believe that same sex, sex is normal and be at least vulnerable to abuse, especially if there are no specific laws for the safety of the child. 

I just want to be sure all bases are covered before I go willy nilly giving them a marriage certificate.


----------



## nulla nulla (9 December 2011)

My son says "let the Gays get married, they have the right to be miserable like everyone else".


----------



## nomore4s (9 December 2011)

Whiskers said:


> But 'Marriage' in the traditional sense, that gays want to be recognised as equal to, has no limitations whatsoever on the hetrosexual couple bearing and/or raising children.




But there is a limitation on gay couples having children isn't there? Gay couples can't have children in the traditional sense because it isn't possible. So your whole argument is null and void and I really see no need to change any other laws. 

If they can already adopt children in certain states surely adoption laws already cover a lot of the points you raise.

And like I said before letting gay couples get married is a totally different issue to gay couples having and raising children.




Whiskers said:


> Sure some gays can adopt legally in some states, but not Australia wide.




And being able to get married isn't going to change that. They will still have to jump through all the same hoops as they do now.



Whiskers said:


> Wouldn't a child in a gay male marriage be more inclined, if not indoctrinated, to believe that same sex, sex is normal and be at least vulnerable to abuse, especially if there are no specific laws for the safety of the child.




Maybe the true issues you have with gay marriage are buried within this paragraph. So are you saying gay couples are more likely to abuse children, purely because of their sexual preferences? Or maybe because of the parents sexual preferences the child would be more likely to accept abuse as a normal part of life? And does this apply to lesbian couples or just gay male couples?

I would have thought every child is vulnerable to abuse, no matter who is raising them, aren't most abused children abused by a family member? 
And I'm pretty sure there are laws that protect children from abuse no matter who brings them up or what environment they are brought up in.

If you want to go down the whole protecting children path, there are plenty of arguments to restrict the ability to have children in plenty of  "traditional marriages".


----------



## Whiskers (9 December 2011)

*I'll try to highlight that what I'm concerned about is this government's ability to make sound practical and legal decisions to implement most things it touches from pink bats to school halls and offshore processing of asylum seekers.*



nomore4s said:


> But there is a limitation on gay couples having children isn't there? Gay couples can't have children in the traditional sense because it isn't possible. So your whole argument is null and void and I really see no need to change any other laws.




If you go back to the example I mentioned, it specifically dealt with a (blood) child from one gay male brought into a (proposed) gay marriage. That example related to a surrogate mother for the child, but equally there are plenty of hetrosexual adults with children turning gay later in life. 

I've perused a few child protection, family and marriage laws, including proposed changes to the marriage act, but as mentioned this is one hole I see in the proposed law change that makes children vulnerable. Show me the proposed law changes needed to ensure this child gets the same protection as a conventional hetrosexual marriage.



> If they can already adopt children in certain states surely adoption laws
> already cover a lot of the points you raise.




I've read a few laws and no they don't.



> And like I said before letting gay couples get married is a totally different
> issue to gay couples having and raising children.




On the contrary! Refer to my point above.



> Maybe the true issues you have with gay marriage are buried within
> this paragraph. So are you saying gay couples are more likely to abuse children,
> purely because of their sexual preferences? Or maybe because of the parents
> sexual preferences the child would be more likely to accept abuse as a normal
> part of life?




That's the logical progression isn't it. Just as a child brought up in a violent relationship is more likely to posses violent behavioral tendencies and I child brought up in a strict religous relationship is more likely to be more religious... Gay rape etc does happen.



> And does this apply to lesbian couples or just gay male couples?




Refer back to earlier post. I specifically spelled out how the current laws catch children of lesbian relationships.


----------



## nomore4s (9 December 2011)

Whiskers said:


> *I'll try to highlight that what I'm concerned about is this government's ability to make sound practical and legal decisions to implement most things it touches from pink bats to school halls and offshore processing of asylum seekers.*




So if and when the liberals are in power you'll be quite happy for them to legalise gay marriage?



Whiskers said:


> If you go back to the example I mentioned, it specifically dealt with a (blood) child from one gay male brought into a (proposed) gay marriage. That example related to a surrogate mother for the child, but equally there are plenty of hetrosexual adults with children turning gay later in life.
> 
> I've perused a few child protection, family and marriage laws, including proposed changes to the marriage act, but as mentioned this is one hole I see in the proposed law change that makes children vulnerable. Show me the proposed law changes needed to ensure this child gets the same protection as a conventional hetrosexual marriage.




Again, what are the current laws protecting children currently being raised by gay couples now that aren't married? And why wouldn't these current laws apply whether the gay couple is married or not? And why wouldn't the current laws that apply to hetro couples apply to gay couples?

If there are children being raised by gay couples now I really don't see how that gay couple being married or not has any effect on the laws and vulnerability of children in those relationships, surely the laws will be applied the same way whether the couple is married or not just the same way it is with hetro couples whether they are married or not. 



> That's the logical progression isn't it. Just as a child brought up in a violent relationship is more likely to posses violent behavioral tendencies and I child brought up in a strict religous relationship is more likely to be more religious... Gay rape etc does happen.




Wow, I think I'm going to have to leave the debate with you here as it is becoming increasingly obvious your views are somewhat homophobic and bigoted.

I have no doubt there would be cases of child abuse in gay families just as there are plenty of cases of abuse in hetro families but to suggest there would be more purely because they are gay amazes me and then to suggest the laws wouldn't protect these kids amazes me more.

Maybe you should read this - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35824.html


----------



## Whiskers (9 December 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Transvestites can go either way in this debate.




Actually that not as silly as it may sound.




Calliope said:


> I have one. Will gay "parents" be allowed to take their "children" along with them to cavort in the Mardi Gras?




As many have mentioned, and I know myself, many gay and lesbian couples are happy to be pretty modest in their promoting of their relationship.

But as with all law changes it's the radical minority that stretch the boundaries and often break of the literal (statute) law not to mention the intent or at least public ally perceived intent of the law.

It's one thing to recognise gay relationships, but quite another to expect that the extreme element won't exploit any change in law to further their much freer sexuality and sexual relation ambitions.

Don't peadophiles actually practise gay and or bisexual behaviour!

Gay rape does happen like heterosexual rape.

*How many gays have only ever been and devoutly pledge to only be homosexual.* 

How many (I knew a few) have practiced heterosexual and later converted to homosexual. Strictly they are bisexual. Conversely, I've heard of people growing up feeling/being gay and converted to heterosexuality. 

transvestite *:* a person and especially a male who adopts the dress and often the behavior typical of the opposite sex especially for purposes of emotional or sexual gratification 

*For those with a rather blase attitude... *

*Isn't it all about sexual gratification!*

*I say, beware the children in any situation where sexual gratification is concerned.*



nomore4s said:


> And why wouldn't the current laws that apply to hetro couples apply to gay
> couples?




I spelled out a specific situation where it doesn't with regard to the Qld Child Protection Act. 

It's in the meaning in the definition of current laws and the apparent lack of ammendments in new legislation to extend the meaning of relative, child of the marriage and the like.

Don't beat around the bush by labelling me homophobic and bigoted.

I asked a simple question about the law regarding the welfare of children in the proposed new marriage act changes. 

In an eye for an eye, I'll suggest you are taking a rather blase attitude to all this.

Surely there is some gay marriage activist who has the precise legal answer for me/us.

But as I say, this government is proven to be pretty bad at thinking through the detail and successfully implementing new laws and schemes. 

Surely that is a warning sign!!!


----------



## Whiskers (9 December 2011)

Further to...



nomore4s said:


> Wow, I think I'm going to have to leave the debate with you here as it is becoming increasingly obvious your views are somewhat homophobic and bigoted.




Before you go labelling me the villian in this debate...

What are the gay rights and proposed gay marriage law changes about?

Isn't it primiarly to give gay and lesbian couples the same protection against other gay and lesbian's in property and relationship breakups as hetrosexual couples do!

That is to protect themselves from other 'gay' villans when things go pear shaped.

So, when there is a growing concern by gays for the integrity of other gays, why should we not pay particular attention to children exploitation by the radical villan minority in any law changes by the probably majority of self centered (as in not wanting or even considering children) in their proposed law changes!


----------



## Julia (9 December 2011)

nomore4s said:


> I would have thought every child is vulnerable to abuse, no matter who is raising them, aren't most abused children abused by a family member?



Yes.



> And I'm pretty sure there are laws that protect children from abuse no matter who brings them up or what environment they are brought up in.



Laws that protect children from abuse?   Maybe you could explain how this works for the 6 year old who is being abused by a family member who threatens the child with dire consequences if he/she does not co-operate or tells anyone.

The power imbalance between the abusing adult and the child is huge.
Further, a young child is totally susceptible to being assured by the paedophile that what he is doing is "right" because he loves the child so much.  
Children in such a situation have no protection.



> If you want to go down the whole protecting children path, there are plenty of arguments to restrict the ability to have children in plenty of  "traditional marriages".



Agree.  




Whiskers said:


> Don't peadophiles actually practise gay and or bisexual behaviour!



Can you clarify what you're saying here?  Do you mean that paedophilia occurs only amongst homosexuals and bisexuals?



> *How many gays have only ever been and devoutly pledge to only be homosexual.*
> 
> How many (I knew a few) have practiced heterosexual and later converted to homosexual. Strictly they are bisexual. Conversely, I've heard of people growing up feeling/being gay and converted to heterosexuality.



I don't understand what this has to do with objecting to gay marriage.
Human beings can experience various points on a continuum of sexuality, including homosexuality, heterosexuality and everything in between.  As far as I'm aware, there's no justification for taking a position that during a lifetime any person must remain within the bounds of a single sexual orientation.



> *Isn't it all about sexual gratification!*
> 
> *I say, beware the children in any situation where sexual gratification is concerned.*



Again, I don't quite understand your point here.  Sexual gratification is a driving force in most human beings.  That doesn't make it some sort of perversion or necessarily result in sex of a deviant nature such as the abuse of small children.


----------



## Whiskers (9 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Can you clarify what you're saying here?  Do you mean that paedophilia occurs only amongst homosexuals and bisexuals?




No, just trying to highlight that with sexual liberation (whether legal or not) there is always a minority villan. It was an attempt to shock into reality, the rather blase image and attitude some appear to have regarding people whose sexual orientation changes, in the context of the proposed gay marriage law changes. 



> I don't understand what this has to do with objecting to gay marriage.
> Human beings can experience various points on a continuum of sexuality,
> including homosexuality, heterosexuality and everything in between.  As far as
> I'm aware, there's no justification for taking a position that during a lifetime
> any person must remain within the bounds of a single sexual orientation.




I agree the sexual orientation of a person is a 'legal' free right. 

The point I'm trying to emphasise is, how many people who go under the 'gay' label are actually historically bisexual, not historically true homosexual, but converted to 'gay'.



> Again, I don't quite understand your point here.  Sexual gratification is a
> driving force in most human beings.  That doesn't make it some sort of
> perversion or necessarily result in sex of a deviant nature such as the abuse of
> small children.




True, sexual gratification doesn't necessairly mean perversion or abuse of children.

I'm simply saying beware of the children in the minority, probably especially bisexual, ie where there sexual preferance changes in life, in any changes to the marriage act... and the particular gay male example earlier.

As far as I'm aware we only have peoples word for their sexual orientation in the first instance. If their sexual orientation is prone to change, it opens the door for condideration whether it may now involve children.

I'll see if I can abbreviate the main parts of the Qld child prottection act that seems to be silent on gay male parents and children of a gay male marriage/defacto relationship or deemed under the care of.


----------



## nomore4s (9 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Laws that protect children from abuse?   Maybe you could explain how this works for the 6 year old who is being abused by a family member who threatens the child with dire consequences if he/she does not co-operate or tells anyone.
> 
> The power imbalance between the abusing adult and the child is huge.
> Further, a young child is totally susceptible to being assured by the paedophile that what he is doing is "right" because he loves the child so much.
> Children in such a situation have no protection.




Come on Julia, you knew what I meant.

Maybe I should have put "designed to protect children" but as we all know laws do not stop bad people from doing bad things.

Whiskers, you're arguments are getting so far off the subject of gay marriage it's not worth debating it with you anymore.


----------



## Julia (9 December 2011)

nomore4s said:


> Come on Julia, you knew what I meant.



No, I did not.   You stated that we have laws that protect children.
I know this not to be so.
I still don't understand what you mean if you genuinely think there are valid protections in our society for abused children.
Just last week a child was found dead.  She had been tortured and abused over a long period of time.  What protection did she have?

You absolutely cannot blithely dismiss the horrendous abuse of children with an airy assertion that we have laws to prevent this.

Please explain just how the little girl in the example above could have protected herself against ongoing torture and eventual death.

Or the children of both sexes who are sexually abused by deviant adults.  What recourse has a little kid got?



> Whiskers, you're arguments are getting so far off the subject of gay marriage it's not worth debating it with you anymore.




You may not agree with Whiskers.  I don't either in some of what he says.  But he's at least trying to take the subject seriously instead of just assuming all will be just okey dokey if we rewrite the Marriage Act.  You, on the other hand, appear totally unwilling to even think about some of the possible ramifications.


----------



## Tink (10 December 2011)

Good point Julia

I actually think it has got worse through the years, once upon a time people would involve themselves with what was happening in the neighbourhood, today, people dont involve themselves at all, turn a blind eye with -- none of my business or its got nothing to do with me or I dont want to be involved.

Just like this debate


----------



## Logique (10 December 2011)

From the Greens 'marriage equality spokesperson' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young - Saturday 3rd December 2011


> http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps...lease/greens-seize-momentum-marriage-equality
> "Marriage equality and fairness for all is about love and should be above politics," the Greens' marriage equality spokesperson said.
> "With support from members from all sides, I believe these bills can pass in time for the spring wedding season."
> "Cupid doesn't discriminate and neither should the law."



It's all about love, apparently, and should be above politics. Important that it passes in time for the Spring wedding season.


----------



## nomore4s (10 December 2011)

Julia said:


> No, I did not. You stated that we have laws that protect children.
> I know this not to be so.
> I still don't understand what you mean if you genuinely think there are valid protections in our society for abused children.
> Just last week a child was found dead.  She had been tortured and abused over a long period of time.  What protection did she have?
> ...




Julia, there are laws designed to offer protection to children from this abuse. Does that stop children from being abused? No of course it doesn't because there are sick individuals around that will do the wrong thing no matter what protections are in place. If you want to start a debate about child abuse that is fine and I'll agree with you that the laws don't stop children from being abused or that the penalties are not heavy enough but that is not what we are talking about.
What do you suggest is done? And how exactly does this relate to not letting same-sex couples get married?

You have taken my original statement and like Whiskers taken it off on a totally different tangent


> And I'm pretty sure there are laws that_{are designed to}_ protect children from abuse *no matter who brings them up or what environment they are brought up in*.



My original statement above was in response to Whiskers about there being no laws protecting children from abuse in gay marriages but you have somehow taken that to mean that I don't care about abused children and I think the laws are enough to protect them. The bold text is actually the point I was trying to make. 



> You may not agree with Whiskers.  I don't either in some of what he says.  But he's at least trying to take the subject seriously instead of just assuming all will be just okey dokey if we rewrite the Marriage Act.  You, on the other hand, appear totally unwilling to even think about some of the possible ramifications.




What possible ramifications Julia? 
The same ramifications we have now when we let hetro-sexual couples get married?
These relationships with or without children already exist in our society and I really fail to see what possible difference is going to be made by granting them the legal right to get married. I'm yet to see one decent, valid argument from anyone on this thread to why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Some of the views in this thread make it seem like same-sex couples especially gay male couples are a danger to our children and are a blight on our community and I'm sorry but I don't agree with those views.

Whiskers keeps banging on about children being affected and there not being enough laws to protect children in same sex marriages and my argument has been that same-sex couple can already adopt and/or raise children in various states so there must already be laws applying to these situations. 
I have also tried to make the point same-sex couples can not have children as easily has hetro couples and I fail to see how allowing them to get married makes it any easier for them to adopt etc etc under the current laws. But these points have tended to be overlooked in favour of the abuse of children which to me is taking the debate away from the topic gay marriage especially since all the research suggests most child abuse is done by white hetro males.


----------



## Whiskers (10 December 2011)

nomore4s said:


> Whiskers keeps banging on about children being affected and there not being enough laws to protect children in same sex marriages and my argument has been that same-sex couple can already adopt and/or raise children in various states *so there must already be laws applying to these situations.*




A dangerous and often wrong assumption!



> I have also tried to make the point same-sex couples can not have children as
> easily has hetro couples and I fail to see how allowing them to get married
> makes it any easier for them to adopt etc etc under the current laws.




Children can come into a (new) gay marriage by other than adoption as the example  (from post 191) and a number of permeations of it, and my questions highlight.

[Example from post 191]
_For example a Gay male may have a child via a surrogate mother (or a heterosual partner before going gay), and that male seems to be legally considered the father sooner or later. When that gay (or heterosexual) relationship breaks down and he gets married to another male, his child seems to likely to be considered a step child of the new male partner, but if the new male partner has sex with the step child after 16 yo, is that still to be considered incest as in a heterosexual marriage until the child reaches the legal age of adult?_
​I have spelled out that changes to the gay (male) marriage act directly affects assets and property distribution in the event of the gay relationship going bad. That entails Family law and child support laws. 

The point you still don't get is that a child can be brought into a gay relationship as per my above example.

*But the main point you still don't get is that the Child Protection Act* (Qld, that I refer to) *seems silent on gay male 'parents'* because it has not been possible legally for two males to be married and called parents of a child or other similar terms that hold them legally accountable for the welfare of the child, equivalent to heterosexual parents and blood relatives.

If the child is legally adopted the adoption laws automatically bind the parents to the child protection laws... but the example I refer to has no similar binding protection for the child by virtue of the proposed gay marriage act changes.


----------



## Julia (10 December 2011)

Logique said:


> From the Greens 'marriage equality spokesperson' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young - Saturday 3rd December 2011
> It's all about love, apparently, and should be above politics. Important that it passes in time for the Spring wedding season.



Cupid?
Spring weddings?
Dear God!



nomore4s said:


> Julia, there are laws designed to offer protection to children from this abuse. Does that stop children from being abused? No of course it doesn't because there are sick individuals around that will do the wrong thing no matter what protections are in place. If you want to start a debate about child abuse that is fine and I'll agree with you that the laws don't stop children from being abused or that the penalties are not heavy enough but that is not what we are talking about.
> What do you suggest is done? And how exactly does this relate to not letting same-sex couples get married?



It doesn't.   I just couldn't let your statement that we have laws in place to protect children go unchallenged.  It wasn't my intention to turn this into a thread about abused children.



> You have taken my original statement and like Whiskers taken it off on a totally different tangent



Have I?  I think I just gave an example of how the law does not actually protect children.  If you'd not raised the suggestion that our laws ensured the safety of children, I wouldn't have commented.  Again, I have no wish to derail the thread.



> My original statement above was in response to Whiskers about there being no laws protecting children from abuse in gay marriages but you have somehow taken that to mean that I don't care about abused children



No, I wouldn't think for a moment that you don't care about abused children and have not at all suggested that.  
I'm not taking any stand re Whiskers' concerns about children in gay marriages.
I've never known any homosexuals with children so I can't comment.

Have, however, seen plenty of abused children in heterosexual relationships and with single parents.  I don't think it's either the sexual orientation of the 'parents' concerned, or their status (ie married, de facto, single) that matters as much as the individual capacity of any human being to understand how to properly raise a child.

But at the same time, I have some reservations about children growing up with the assumption that having homosexual 'parents' is the norm.
If asked to clarify these reservations, I honestly can't.  It's perhaps just my innate conservatism in a social sense.



> What possible ramifications Julia?



Again, I honestly don't know.  Homosexual people with children haven't been part of our society for long enough for much assessment to be made about the success or otherwise of such a family structure.  

I just get a bit alarmed when I hear advocates of gay marriage say that 'it's all about love' and 'if people love each other' then they should be able to get married.
I don't want to invoke the slippery slope cliche, but if that's all that matters, should the Marriage Act also be altered to include those who find love in group sexual relationships?    Just one example.

I've said before that I couldn't care less what adults do in their private lives.  I have no sense that any sexual activity that's acceptable to both adult parties or multiple parties is out of bounds.  Just stay away from little children and animals.

Perhaps I'm just a bit off how the sexual orientation of some people has to be thrust in our faces these days.  I really don't want to stand in a queue at the supermarket and see the lesbian couple in front of me all but masturbating each other.
Heterosexual people don't do this (at least I've never seen it) but some gay people seem to feel obliged to be publicly demonstrative presumably as a way of making their point about being "out".

Just seems unnecessary and a bit offensive to me.


> The same ramifications we have now when we let hetro-sexual couples get married?
> These relationships with or without children already exist in our society and I really fail to see what possible difference is going to be made by granting them the legal right to get married. I'm yet to see one decent, valid argument from anyone on this thread to why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.



That's a perfectly fair comment.  As above, I can't coherently say to you exactly why homosexual marriage seems not OK to me.  I also can't really understand why there's so much attraction to being married.  It's not as if the institution of marriage has a great track record!



> Some of the views in this thread make it seem like same-sex couples especially gay male couples are a danger to our children and are a blight on our community and I'm sorry but I don't agree with those views.



I don't either.  As above I don't think sexual orientation is the arbiter of abuse of children.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 December 2011)

Logique said:


> From the Greens 'marriage equality spokesperson' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young - Saturday 3rd December 2011
> 
> http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps....riage-equality
> "Marriage equality and fairness for all is about love and should be above politics," the Greens' marriage equality spokesperson said.
> ...




Ah, dear ole Sarah.

As Menzies would have said.



> I did but see her **** pass me by.






> A not so `S.H.Y’ Sarah Hanson-Young touched off a `cheeky’ exchange with a `crack’ at Nationals senator, John “Wacka” Williams.
> 
> The latter had complained by point of order that Greens’ leader Bob Brown routinely failed to “bow” to the Senate President when coming and going from the chamber.
> 
> ...




http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/arsegate-and-other-upper-house-shenanigans/

gg


----------



## awg (10 December 2011)

Ultimately, I support gay marriage.

When you have children of your own, you ask yourself what you would do if they presented themselves in that situation, and sometimes you have to be prepared to give some ground to prejudices from an earlier time.

nonetheless, I cant help but thinking of an SBS doco, I have seen a couple of times
( friday at 9.30 is sex night on SBS)...where dudes REALLY love their sex dolls.

Their rationalisations were fascinating...talking of slippery slopes..Piers Ackermans had some rather sick observations


----------



## nomore4s (10 December 2011)

Julia,

Thanks for your honest reply and I understand your views and some of the reservations you have.

Whiskers,

A parent is a parent no matter what sex, race or sexual orientation.
A step parent is a step parent no matter what sex, race or sexual orientation.
They all have legal & moral obligations and responsibilities towards the children in their care. So why does the law need to differentiate based on the sexual preference of the offender?




> [Example from post 191]
> For example a Gay male may have a child via a surrogate mother (or a heterosual partner before going gay), and that male seems to be legally considered the father sooner or later. When that gay (or heterosexual) relationship breaks down and he gets married to another male, his child seems to likely to be considered a step child of the new male partner, but if the new male partner has sex with the step child after 16 yo, is that still to be considered incest as in a heterosexual marriage until the child reaches the legal age of adult?




Why would there need to be a difference between a male step father in a traditional heterosexual marriage and a male step father in a same-sex marriage? Aren't they both considered step parents with all the same legal and moral obligations to the child? I really fail to see how your above example is any different when it is a male step father in a traditional marriage or a male step father in a same-sex marriage.

All of your objections so far have been happening for generations in traditional heterosexual marriages and family units but apparently same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights to get married because of these same issues.

I'm not saying that same-sex marriages won't have their problems or issues but the fact is heterosexual marriages have been having the same problems or issues for a very long time.
Don't you find it somewhat unfair that we continue to deny same-sex couples the right to get married if they choose too, but have no objection to traditional marriages when exactly the same problems exist for both unions?


----------



## bellenuit (11 December 2011)

Julia said:


> But at the same time, I have some reservations about children growing up with the assumption that having homosexual 'parents' is the norm.
> If asked to clarify these reservations, I honestly can't.  It's perhaps just my innate conservatism in a social sense.




Julia. I agree on that point. I have reservations too. It seems in all other cases protection of the child is uppermost. For example, fathers are often denied any contact with their child when there is a suggestion of interference with the child, even though there is often no proof or the allegation is based on statements by the child that may have been encouraged by an aggrieved spouse or social worker. Society deems protection of the child in these cases is more important than any rights of the father. Whilst I don't necessarily say that is wrong, in the case of gay adopters, we seem to be putting the rights of the gays ahead of the children. There simply isn't enough data available to assume that having same sex parents has no adverse consequences on the children. I am not talking about abuse, but simple the psychological effect on the child. It seems we are willing in this case to risk damaging the kids in order to protect the rights of same sex couples.

That being said I don't know how we can ever get such data without allowing the practice to take place. A bit of a Catch 22.

However, I do think that if same sex couples are allowed to adopt, that until the psychological consequences are known, hetrosexual couples should have preference over same sex couples ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.


----------



## Tink (11 December 2011)

Well here is hoping that Abbott stands his ground.

Marraige is man, woman, child --  and should stay that way for all future generations.


----------



## Macquack (11 December 2011)

I agree 100% with nomore4s position on this issue.

Whiskers keeps bleating on about the risks of gay marriage, when all the negative scenarios he refers to *already exist*. 

Short of rounding up all gays and shooting them, Whiskers should move with the times.


----------



## Whiskers (11 December 2011)

Macquack said:


> Whiskers keeps bleating on about the risks of gay marriage, when all the negative scenarios he refers to *already exist*.




Do they!?

Read on.



nomore4s said:


> I really fail to see how your above example is any different when it is a male step father in a traditional marriage or a male step father in a same-sex marriage.




It really would be helpful if you read the legislation rather than presume all has or will be ok.

The proposed gay marriage act basically entails a redefining of the "Spouse" in the marriage. Currently; *s5(1)*_*marriage*_ means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered intofor life. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010C00189

The recent failed proposal involved;
_s2.4 ...amending the definition of 'marriage', contained in subsection 5(1) of the Act, so as to read 'the union of two people, regardless of sex, sexuality orgender identity, voluntarily entered into.' The Bill also makes consequential amendments to remove references to 'a man and a woman'. _http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/marriage_equality/report/report.pdf​This is the senate committee report summary. I cannot put my hand on the gay marriage ammendment bill that I was referring to previously, that was a very short bill that specificallly entailed the above... redefining of spouse... not parent.



> Whiskers,
> 
> A *parent* is a parent no matter what sex, race or sexual orientation.
> A step parent is a step parent no matter what sex, race or sexual orientation.
> ...




That's true to a point. But to assume the moral obligation = a statutory legal one is folley, because a Spouse/partner under the marriage act proposals I've seen does not to equate to a parent for the purpose of the child protection act. The Qld Child Protect Act says;


s11   Who is a parent
A parent of a child is the child's mother or someone else having or exercising parental responsibility for the child.
However, a person standing in the place of a parent of a child on a tempory basis is not a parent of the child.
As mention earlier, the Qld Child Protection Act iseems silent on gay male parents. There is some reference to step parents in which I suggest (maybe too generously) may catch gay male parents, up to the child becoming of age 16, ie where sexual relations is no longer 'carnal knowledge', but in a hetrosexual marriage and child protection law, sexual abuse includes to a sibling or child of the parent full stop. 
The age of consent and what constitutes carnal knowledge varies across state laws. In Qld the age of consent for carnal knowledge is 16yo. Apparently Qld is the only state that has an exception for sodomy laws, it's 18yo. But obviously child abuse does not need to involve sodomy. http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs16/rs16.html

*Presumption and the law:* You may be familiar with a very recent law change (I think it was in Vic) where it was illegal to have more than .05 blood alcohol while driving... and was assumed, but was not illegal to drive while drinking alcohol even though you may not necessarily be over the .05 limit. The law was hastily amended.

This is the sort of legal loophole than people often leave open in their haste or blase attitude to law changes and the implications of that change.

I emphasise, changing the definition of 'spouse' will enter a new dynamic into 'parental' relationships with a child, but the proposed spouse doesn't necessairly equate to 'parent' in terms of child welfare laws.


----------



## Eager (11 December 2011)

From the Gillard thread, this is a portion of what Julia posted from what she heard on the radio (although I suspect the content looks like a junk email going around):

_If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a left winger is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
_ 

Legislated respect. Ha! Gillard will allow a conscience vote on the issue of gay marriage, as she should. If the vote doesn't get up, then bad luck, move on.

By comparison it is now apparent that Abbott will direct his mob to tow the party (his) line. 

Tell me, who is being the most demanding there?


----------



## Calliope (11 December 2011)

Eager said:


> Tell me, who is being the most demanding there?




Bob Brown and Doug Cameron?


----------



## burglar (12 December 2011)

(tongue-in-cheek)
I say, let them have same sex marriage!!

Then they can have infidelity, mistrust, divorce, property settlement, custody battles, etc.

Why should we be the only ones having fun?!
lol


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2011)

burglar said:


> (tongue-in-cheek)
> I say, let them have same sex marriage!!
> 
> Then they can have infidelity, mistrust, divorce, property settlement, custody battles, etc.
> ...




And when they have a knock-down-drag-out fight they will be more evenly matched. There used to be two bull-dykes living down the street from me and they frequently battled for supremacy, no holds barred.


----------



## fatmango (12 December 2011)

Marriage between two people, regardless of sex discriminates against those relationships of a greater number than two. If we are going to change the Marriage Act, let's go all the way and include polyamorous relationships.

As for children.....as a schoolteacher of 31 years (and counting unless the stockmarket picks up rapidly) it is amazing how many disengaged students I have come across who are from families who are split up and the father is hardly involved, if at all. As for children of same sex couples I have only come across one - a complete mess. But one is obviously not enough to make any conclusions. Hopefully I will meet some  who are well-balanced.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 December 2011)

fatmango said:


> Marriage between two people, regardless of sex discriminates against those relationships of a greater number than two. If we are going to change the Marriage Act, let's go all the way and include polyamorous relationships.
> 
> As for children.....as a schoolteacher of 31 years (and counting unless the stockmarket picks up rapidly) it is amazing how many disengaged students I have come across who are from families who are split up and the father is hardly involved, if at all. As for children of same sex couples I have only come across one - a complete mess. But one is obviously not enough to make any conclusions. Hopefully I will meet some  who are well-balanced.




It is good to have a schoolteachers view on this difficult topic.

What you are saying is that in your experience there is no net benefit for children in this legislation and that the existing social dysfunction of absent fathers is prejudicial to a child's well-being.

gg


----------



## Logique (13 December 2011)

Tink said:


> Well here is hoping that Abbott stands his ground.
> Marraige is man, woman, child --  and should stay that way for all future generations.



Must agree Tink. I'm happy for gays and lesbians to arrange their lives anyway they choose. I don't judge them, they'll get no discrimination here. Their current civil unions are fine by me.

But gays and lesbians, don't touch the Marriage Act, that goes to our core values as a nation.


----------



## bellenuit (13 December 2011)

Logique said:


> Must agree Tink. I'm happy for gays and lesbians to arrange their lives anyway they choose. I don't judge them, they'll get no discrimination here. Their current civil unions are fine by me.
> 
> But gays and lesbians, don't touch the Marriage Act, that goes to our core values as a nation.




Core value of our nation? Logique, I doubt that even 1 in 10,000 people know what is in the marriage act or what it is about.


----------



## Tink (13 December 2011)

Bellenuit, you mentioned in one of your posts about how you had reservations, how usually the children were put first in these scenarios, yet in this case, they are putting the rights of the adults before the children, I agree with that. Something I was trying to say in a post.

The Marraige Act is all about 'the family unit' - mother, father, child, agree or not, thats the way it is and should be. 
There is a reason that they all should be included -- why would we want to discourage that?

Thats what I see as a core value and should stay that way for all future generations.


----------



## sptrawler (13 December 2011)

Tink said:


> Bellenuit, you mentioned in one of your posts about how you had reservations, how usually the children were put first in these scenarios, yet in this case, they are putting the rights of the adults before the children, I agree with that. Something I was trying to say in a post.
> 
> The Marraige Act is all about 'the family unit' - mother, father, child, agree or not, thats the way it is and should be.
> There is a reason that they all should be included -- why would we want to discourage that?
> ...




Tinks I think mainstream agrees with you, also I feel it will be reflected further, in future opinion polls. 
The biggest stuff up yet by Gillard, and that is saying something.
Actually I would go further and say she, single handedly, has set back the Republican cause decades.LOL
Just imagine if she was the President, God forbid, what a joke.


----------



## Tink (14 December 2011)

Yep sptrawler, they have lost me...


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2011)

Penny Wong is now the proud "father" of baby Alexandra.


----------



## sptrawler (14 December 2011)

Actually the baby does look like Penny. So all should work out well.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (14 December 2011)

I can't resist a little bit of Family Guy hilarity at this point.  

Quagmire: Oh yeah, I'm very in touch with my Asian roots. You notice I take my shoes off whenever I enter my house? I do five hours of math homework every night even though I'm not longer in school. Sometimes, I drink out of a wood box. I was a very cute baby and now I'm a joyless adult.


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2011)

An ad promoting safe sex for gays was the most complained about ad in 2011.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/safe-sex-ad-tops-complaints-list/story-e6frg996-1226221684799


----------



## Calliope (16 December 2011)

Children of gay marriage need to be thick skinned' to face up to the prejudice.



> It has never made sense that gay parents complain of prejudice and exclusion and in the same breath propose their children are suffering no adverse consequences. In fact, in recent years the research allegedly supporting these rosy claims has come under scrutiny and found to be sorely lacking.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...same-sex-parents/story-e6frgd0x-1226223351222


----------



## joea (16 December 2011)

This just about sums it up.

Two roosters don't make a chicken.

.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqK1rF99k68

joea


----------



## Julia (16 December 2011)

The grandson of a friend came home from school a few days ago with a cut lip.
Finally disclosed to his mother that he had been bashed for sticking up for a little girl who was being teased because she had 'two mummies'.

The defending five year old was jeered at for being a  "poofter supporter".

His mother was glad her child tried to defend an innocent classmate but doesn't really want her son to be attacked.

And homosexuals demanding their rights say there are no ramifications of these 'rights"?


----------



## LifeChoices (16 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> Penny Wong is now the proud "father" of baby Alexandra.




Looks like the kid will grow up with plenty of support. May grow up to be a leader. Good luck to them and baby Alexandra.

I'd rather be a baby growing up with them than with any of the drug/alcohol addicted fuktards I've seen traveling on public transport on the Frankston line I catch home from work each day.

So far there is no licence to be a parent. Maybe there should be - but Penny and her husband/wife look like good parents to me.


----------



## nomore4s (17 December 2011)

Julia said:


> The grandson of a friend came home from school a few days ago with a cut lip.
> Finally disclosed to his mother that he had been bashed for sticking up for a little girl who was being teased because she had 'two mummies'.
> 
> The defending five year old was jeered at for being a  "poofter supporter".
> ...




The prejudices in this thread are very surprising, I honestly thought we had progressed a lot further then what has been shown in this thread.

What do you suggest we do Julia? Remove the rights of homosexuals because their kids might get bullied? Go back to the "good old days" where homosexuals were too scared to make their lifestyle known? Seems to me we really haven't progressed far from those days anyway.

I would say that most homosexuals are well aware of the ramifications of their "rights" as they have probably being putting up with those "ramifications" most of their lives.

Kids can be very cruel and will find nearly any excuse to bully kids that are different in any way. I was bullied because my Mum was ultra religious, and I have seen kids bullied for many various reasons. But to now use that as an argument against giving homosexuals rights is scraping the bottom of the barrel imo.


----------



## Julia (17 December 2011)

Nomore4s, it's not up to me to suggest what anyone should do about anything.

I simply related an anecdote.  I've previously stated that I don't know any homosexual couples with children so I have nothing on which to base any opinion.

I do think it's tough on kids to be made fun of for whatever reason.  Difficult enough growing up without that additional worry.

You're entitled to your opinion.   I haven't tried to change it.  Kindly accord me the same respect.

I don't know what the long term outcomes might be for children in 'different' situations.  Let's wait and see.


----------



## Macquack (17 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Nomore4s, it's not up to me to suggest what anyone should do about anything.
> 
> I simply related an anecdote.  I've previously stated that I don't know any homosexual couples with children so I have nothing on which to base any opinion.
> 
> ...




I rate Julia as one of the most objective posters on ASF. However, on this issue I find you being rather prejudical. 

Using your logic of "wait and see" is no better than reverting to the "White Australia" policy because children of "non-whites" might be victimised.

I agree with this statement  from noremore4s
"Kids can be very cruel and will find nearly *any excuse *to bully kids that are *different in any way.*"


----------



## Julia (17 December 2011)

Macquack said:


> I rate Julia as one of the most objective posters on ASF. However, on this issue I find you being rather prejudical.



Macquack, back a bit in this thread I think I said I found it difficult to coherently explain my reservations here.  Also suggested it might just be my innate social conservatism.

You may be right, but I'm not talented in tailoring how I feel so that it's in line with what someone else wants me to think.  



> Using your logic of "wait and see" is no better than reverting to the "White Australia" policy because children of "non-whites" might be victimised.



Probably a fair enough analogy.  I just don't feel able to make an assessment that it all be just okey dokey when we have no longitudinal experience of the sort of family structures being discussed.



> I agree with this statement  from noremore4s
> "Kids can be very cruel and will find nearly *any excuse *to bully kids that are different in any way."



 Sure.  We'll all agree with that.  However, having spent about ten years mentoring kids in schools, I'm less than enthusiastic about giving the little sods yet another reason to torture their fellow students.


----------



## Tink (17 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> Penny Wong is now the proud "father" of baby Alexandra.




They should have put a photo of the father in the top right hand corner, since the article said the father was going to be involved with the child.

Family of 4


----------



## nomore4s (17 December 2011)

Julia,

I have no intention of trying to change your opinion. I like Macquack just found that post to be somewhat out of character for you.
Mainly this bit:


> And homosexuals demanding their rights say there are no ramifications of these 'rights"?




Maybe it is just poorly worded and you are having trouble expressing your feelings on this matter, but to me at least that line just reads very badly.

There is plenty of research around on children of same sex couples from a quick search of google.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/11/09/children-of-gay-parents/
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf

I'm sure some of the research will support both sides of the argument.

I haven't read any of it and I have no intention of reading any of it because my view is simple. There will be good and bad same-sex parents just as there is now with the traditional family structure. Children of both these family structures will range from one end of the scale to the other end, I don't need studies to tell me that. 

Like I said before every argument I've heard used against same-sex marriage or same-sex couples having children can be used against traditional hetro couples as well.


----------



## Julia (17 December 2011)

nomore4s said:


> Julia,
> I have no intention of trying to change your opinion. I like Macquack just found that post to be somewhat out of character for you.
> Mainly this bit:





> And homosexuals demanding their rights say there are no ramifications of these 'rights"?






> Maybe it is just poorly worded and you are having trouble expressing your feelings on this matter, but to me at least that line just reads very badly.



If you think it's poorly worded then you're welcome to such a view.  I do not think it's poorly worded.  I stand by what I said.  It accurately says what I wanted to say.
To suggest there will be no ramifications of either same sex marriage or children being raised in homosexual relationships is imo naive.
But I'm happy for you to believe what you want.
Will you be equally happy for marriage to occur in multiple relationships where the criteria (as with same sex relationships) is simply that the people involved all love each other?   So if five or six people all get off on having a sexual relationship which is a free for all amongst all of them, we should also be happy for them also to be married?



> I haven't read any of it and I have no intention of reading any of it because my view is simple. There will be good and bad same-sex parents just as there is now with the traditional family structure. Children of both these family structures will range from one end of the scale to the other end, I don't need studies to tell me that.



I have already agreed about this.  That argument has nothing to do with whether or not there will be hitherto unrealised ramifications of everything you are so in favour of.

I don't know.  But I do not discount the possibilities.  



> Like I said before every argument I've heard used against same-sex marriage or same-sex couples having children can be used against traditional hetro couples as well.



I disagree.  But nothing I say to this end will apparently allow you to consider a different view.


----------



## Calliope (17 June 2012)

*Churches 'scaremongering' on same-sex marriage, say Greens*.



> THE Greens have accused church leaders of blatant scaremongering after congregations across Sydney were warned against same-sex marriage.
> 
> Top Anglican and Catholic clergy have penned statements to be read out or distributed at Sunday services, warning a change to the Marriage Act allowing gay or lesbian couples to wed would be inconsistent with religious teachings.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...riage-say-greens/story-e6frg6nf-1226397808679

God seems upset at some of their practices too.


----------



## Sean K (17 June 2012)

I still find in incredible how religion cherry picks what's morally right and wrong according to God's word.

One of the fundamental stories of the bible is how Abraham took his slave girl Hagar to bare him a child because Sarah was barren. 

Now let's discuss the morals of that. 

In the end it's not God's word at all but what supports the prevailing cultural social sentiment of the day, and what wins votes.

There's almost enough votes in gay marriage now. Almost.


----------



## drsmith (17 June 2012)

Whetever a gay union is, it's not marriage.

That's between two people of opposite sex.


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2012)

Not trying to be controversial, i am only going off memory, so could be wrong. But wasn't it the gay community that demanded the right to donate blood, that caused a few issues?
Sometimes, if it isn't broke why try to mend it?
It is a bit off topic but does indicate that just because a group demand something is right doesn't mean it is so.
That goes for a lot of things in life, as the labor party is proving.


----------



## MrBurns (17 June 2012)

I cant see any problem with Gay marriage, they cant get married in Churches because of religious beliefs but Ã¡part from that cant see any reason why they shouldnt be ably to marry..
Gays aren't exactly a minoruty hiding from public view any more.


----------



## explod (17 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> Whetever a gay union is, it's not marriage.
> 
> That's between two people of opposite sex.




Rubbish, care to elaborate on that?

Marriage is just a *word* and means a union.

And anyway, who cares.  I am heterosexual and could not care less.  

However a proper and legal union would probably protect society more through identification and the legal binding itself.

And if they are married and retired their total pension is less which is a win win for all of us too.


----------



## Julia (17 June 2012)

explod said:


> And anyway, who cares.  I am heterosexual and could not care less.



Me too.  So why is 'marriage' so important to homosexual couples?
In most states they already have equal rights with married heterosexual couples in terms of Super etc, so what difference does engaging in some ceremony make?

Most Australians couldn't care less.
 But I have some sympathy for those to whom marriage absolutely means, perhaps on a religious basis, a union between man and woman.  For those people, it's apparently deeply offensive for homosexuals to marry.

I'm honestly a bit sick of the whole fuss.  There are much more important matters for Australians and our government to be thinking about imo.



> However a proper and legal union would probably protect society more through identification and the legal binding itself.



What?  Each person already has, or should have, appropriate identification documents, and the civil unions as above confer legal rights to the same extent as marriage.
So what exactly are you talking about here?



> And it they are married and retired their total pension is less which is a win win too.



Interesting point.   As far as I'm aware the civil union legislation confers this also.  Someone might know differently.


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Me too.  So why is 'marriage' so important to homosexual couples?
> In most states they already have equal rights with married heterosexual couples in terms of Super etc, so what difference does engaging in some ceremony make?
> 
> Most Australians couldn't care less.
> ...




Agree absolutely Julia, It does my head in, why we have to have a national and government debate to make people feel better about themselves.
Lots of people feel disadvantaged over their financial position, yet can't get the air play this issue gets.


----------



## explod (17 June 2012)

> What? Each person already has, or should have, appropriate identification documents, and the civil unions as above confer legal rights to the same extent as marriage.
> So what exactly are you talking about here?




Its just the *vibe thing* in my view Julia, people would then get over the whole issue and perhaps move on.


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2012)

explod said:


> Its just the *vibe thing* in my view Julia, people would then get over the whole issue and perhaps move on.




Well maybe that in itself is the problem. Why not just give in to all minority group requests and move on. Jeez
That's why we have the carbon tax, what a way to address issues.


----------



## McLovin (17 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Most Australians couldn't care less.
> But I have some sympathy for those to whom marriage absolutely means, perhaps on a religious basis, a union between man and woman.  For those people, it's apparently deeply offensive for homosexuals to marry.




What I don't get is why religion seems to think it has some sort of ownership over marriage. It's not like it didn't exist before Christianity or that it doesn't exist outside of the Abrahamic religions.

As far as I'm concerned, I could care less what two consenting adults want to do with or to eachother. If no one is getting hurt then its none of my business. If they want to express their commitment to eachother through marriage then I can see no reason why they should be stopped.


----------



## bellenuit (18 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> What I don't get is why religion seems to think it has some sort of ownership over marriage. It's not like it didn't exist before Christianity or that it doesn't exist outside of the Abrahamic religions.




+1

The reason the churches oppose gay marriage is not because they see it as undermining the institute of marriage. It is because they simply hate gay people. They will make claims that they really 'love' gay people like Jesus has directed Christians to "love" one another. But deep down inside, they are simply bigots.


----------



## MACCA350 (18 June 2012)

Well if you want to go back to the origins of marriage to understand it's original intent, the first recorded marriage was around 2350 B.C. in Mesopotamia. It was intended "to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.”

Doesn't sound like it had any meaning in gay and lesbian unions.......at least as it was originally intended.

Cheers


----------



## Tink (18 June 2012)

I have already said what I think in here numerous times 
Bellenuit that is so wrong. 
Religion hates no one.

Every child has a right to be with their mother AND father.
That should be what marraige is about.
What we teach our children.

We are so quick to throw away traditions arent we? 
Nothing is valued anymore.


----------



## nomore4s (18 June 2012)

Tink said:


> I have already said what I think in here numerous times
> Bellenuit that is so wrong.
> Religion hates no one.
> 
> ...




Sorry Tink, I strongly disagree with this post.

Being raised by a strictly Christian mother who took her religion way too seriously, I can tell you from experience religion does hate. You only need to look through the history of Religion throughout mankind for proof of this. IMO Bellenuit is correct. 

Christianity is nothing more then excuse for people to enforce their beliefs on others, again you only have to look through the history of the Church to see to how far the church will take that if given the chance. The church has a strong history of being a corrupt and sometimes vile organisation, and I for one am glad it doesn't wield the power it used to in our society - even if I think it still has too much influence.

Traditions being thrown away is hardly a new concept. If you think about it mankind has been throwing away traditions since the beginning of time, if we didn't we would still be living like we were back when "Jesus" was around. I for one am glad we challenge and change our outdated traditions especially religious ones otherwise mankind would not progress. Women and various races are probably glad the "traditions" of women's rights and racial equality where challenged and changed and even though gay rights have improved considerably over the last few decades it appears there is still a way to go imo.

I for one am glad I live in this era and not anytime in the past, our choices and lifestyle in this country are the best they have ever been imo because outdated beliefs and traditions have been challenged and changed. While people may delude themselves into thinking things were better back in the day, I disagree. Not saying things are perfect now, far from it in-fact there are plenty of issues that need addressing in our current society but there always is, was and will be.

To say we don't value anything any more is wrong, we just don't value what we valued 20 years ago. Is this for the better or the worse? Who knows, some will argue yes and some will argue no - it is what it is.


----------



## nomore4s (18 June 2012)

Tink said:


> Every child has a right to be with their mother AND father.
> That should be what marraige is about.
> What we teach our children.




That's a nice view to have and say but in reality this does not happen in our society.


----------



## Calliope (18 June 2012)

nomore4s said:


> That's a nice view to have and say but in reality this does not happen in our society.




An you think men marrying men and women marrying women will help the interests of children? How?


----------



## nomore4s (18 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> An you think men marrying men and women marrying women will help the interests of children? How?




Did I say that? I just commented on the reality children are removed or denied access and the right to be with both a mother and father in our society as it is and has nothing to do with gay or heterosexual marriage.

Gay couples already have the ability to "start a family" and have children without being married. So if society already allows this why the big uproar over letting them get married?


----------



## Calliope (18 June 2012)

nomore4s said:


> Gay couples already have the ability to "start a family" and have children without being married. So if society already allows this why the big uproar over letting them get married?




So why the big uproar about them *not* getting married.:dunno: They claim they are being  discriminated against. It reminds me of the story of the lesbian who felt discriminated against because she wasn't allowed to be a sperm donor.


----------



## basilio (18 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> So why the big uproar about them *not* getting married.:dunno: They claim they are being  discriminated against. *It reminds me of the story of the lesbian who felt discriminated against because she wasn't allowed to be a sperm donor*.




That is  a very compelling story Calliope.. Lesbian not allowed to be a sperm donor.. Who would have guessed.
Would you like to  share the source of that particular gem with us  ?


----------



## Calliope (18 June 2012)

basilio said:


> That is  a very compelling story Calliope.. Lesbian not allowed to be a sperm donor.. Who would have guessed.
> Would you like to  share the source of that particular gem with us  ?




Yes it's ridiculous isn't it? Just like a man complaining discrimination because he can't marry another man. What s joke.

As Nomore pointed they have the same rights as any other couple.


----------



## basilio (18 June 2012)

> Quote Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
> 
> So why the big uproar about them not getting married. They claim they are being discriminated against. *It reminds me of the story of the lesbian who felt discriminated against because she wasn't allowed to be a sperm donor*.
> 
> ...




I think I understand you better now calliope. You simply have NFI - and don't have the faintest clue about that situation . 

It certainly makes  it easier to spout absolute certainty when you don't have to let reality get in the way.


----------



## nomore4s (18 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> As Nomore pointed they have the same rights as any other couple.




Except they can't get married if they choose too.


----------



## bellenuit (18 June 2012)

Tink said:


> I have already said what I think in here numerous times
> Bellenuit that is so wrong.
> Religion hates no one.




Unless you limit the definition of religion to the beliefs of some obscure sect living in the Amazon rain forest, I would not agree that religion hates no one. One has only to look at some of the placards of the religious Right in the US to see otherwise. "Jesus hates gays" signs are not uncommon.

There are numerous examples of hate from the main stream Churches that I could drag up, but they have already been done to death on other threads. 



> Every child has a right to be with their mother AND father.
> That should be what marraige is about.
> What we teach our children.




Gay marriage and the right of gays to adopt children are two different matters. Personally, and I have expressed this earlier in this thread, I think gays should be allowed adopt. However, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, preference should be given to a heterosexual couple over a gay couple, for the very reason that I think it is preferable to have both a mother and father than to have just two of the same sex. It could turn out that having mixed sex parents is no better for the child than having same sex parents, but I don't think society has enough data on the latter to make a judgement yet.


----------



## Calliope (18 June 2012)

basilio said:


> It certainly makes  it easier to spout absolute certainty when you don't have to let reality get in the way.




Good one bas. Just like you on on the GW thread.



> Except they can't get married if they choose too



 from Nomore.  

Why the hell would they want to get married?


----------



## Julia (18 June 2012)

explod said:


> Its just the *vibe thing* in my view Julia,



I have no idea what "the vibe thing" is.



McLovin said:


> What I don't get is why religion seems to think it has some sort of ownership over marriage. It's not like it didn't exist before Christianity or that it doesn't exist outside of the Abrahamic religions.



True, of course, but isn't marriage for many people tied up with their religious beliefs?   Doesn't the Catholic Church still suggest people should not have sex outside of marriage?  No artificial contraception?

There's no way I can find religion defensible personally, especially nonsense like the above.  But it's an important feature of some people's existence and I don't quite see why their attitudes shouldn't be respected as much as those of homosexual people.   



> As far as I'm concerned, I could care less what two consenting adults want to do with or to eachother. If no one is getting hurt then its none of my business. If they want to express their commitment to eachother through marriage then I can see no reason why they should be stopped.



Totally reasonable.  I don't care either, but don't particularly want to see those to whom religious faith matters getting trampled too much in the process.

I can just envisage the next step being that churches will face allegations of discrimination if they don't agree to marry gay couples.  

Then, if people who choose to have multiple partners at the same time decide they also should have the right to marry, are we going to agree with that also?  Wouldn't that also be 'marriage equality'?

Ditto incestuous relationships?  

The gay community say that because they love each other that should be the only reason necessary for allowing them to get married.  So why wouldn't the same criteria apply to multiple partners and incestuous relationships?






nomore4s said:


> Christianity is nothing more then excuse for people to enforce their beliefs on others, again you only have to look through the history of the Church to see to how far the church will take that if given the chance. The church has a strong history of being a corrupt and sometimes vile organisation, and I for one am glad it doesn't wield the power it used to in our society - even if I think it still has too much influence.



I agree entirely.   But you're not going to get religious people to accept that.  And surely they're as entitled to their beliefs as any of the rest of us?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (18 June 2012)

Julia said:


> There's no way I can find religion defensible personally, especially nonsense like the above.  But it's an important feature of some people's existence and I don't quite see why their attitudes shouldn't be respected as much as those of homosexual people.




Exactly.  Most people are sheep.  Currently, the herd is moving in the direction of "pro homosexuality", so you better make sure you're on the bandwagon, ok?  No alternate views allowed.

It's ok to hate, so long as the hate is directed at religious people!  :  A gay person who hates religious people would be ok in the current herd movement. lol.

This may change however.  If the herd moves to a pro-religious stance in 50 years time, just make sure you are "on board" that band wagon too.

The whole thing is insane.  Being human is insane!

No independent thought, please.


----------



## Calliope (18 June 2012)

I have no agenda on this issue and I couldn't care about the outcome of the Bill. I am just playing devil's advocate. But I have this nagging feeling that when Sarah Hanson-Young is so vocally in favour of it, then it can't be good.


----------



## McLovin (18 June 2012)

Julia said:


> True, of course, but isn't marriage for many people tied up with their religious beliefs?   Doesn't the Catholic Church still suggest people should not have sex outside of marriage?  No artificial contraception?




How someone interprets what marriage should be is not for me to judge. The issue is when a group decides that they own marriage and should be able to dictate who can and can't get married. 

After everything we know about the RCC and the systemic abuse of children, which it at best turned a blind eye to and at worse condoned, it's amazing that it is paid any attention whatsoever. Their pre-Cupernican views on contraception have done a wonderful job at spreading HIV through Africa.



Julia said:


> There's no way I can find religion defensible personally, especially nonsense like the above.  But it's an important feature of some people's existence and I don't quite see why their attitudes shouldn't be respected as much as those of homosexual people.




I think the key difference is people are born gay, whereas people chose religion. 



> I can just envisage the next step being that churches will face allegations of discrimination if they don't agree to marry gay couples.
> 
> Then, if people who choose to have multiple partners at the same time decide they also should have the right to marry, are we going to agree with that also?  Wouldn't that also be 'marriage equality'?
> 
> ...




At various times, Christianity has accepted polygamy. Some cultures still do, notably the Mormons. 

Incest is a different kettle of fish, IMO and I don't believe it belongs in the same boat as gay marriage or even polygamy. 

Although, the Bible is pretty open minded about it. If Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman and they had multiple sons and daughters who all got married...Who exactly were they marrying if not their brother or sister?

FWIW, I don't believe churches should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.


----------



## drsmith (18 June 2012)

explod said:


> Rubbish, care to elaborate on that?



No. It's quiet straight forward really.



explod said:


> Marriage is just a *word* and means a union.
> 
> And anyway, who cares.  I am heterosexual and could not care less.



You do care, otherwise you wouldn't have responded.


----------



## MrBurns (18 June 2012)

I think I see the difference between my view and others now, I don't see marriage as a religious act, I see it as a personal commitment and legal act.
Therefore I don't really have an objection.


----------



## Glen48 (18 June 2012)

Only concern I have is gay couples in particular men raising kids more concerned the abuse the kids will get at school etc but the kids most likely will come from a better home than 90% of straight couples.
As long as it is not compulsory to be gay they can do what they like.


----------



## MrBurns (18 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> Only concern I have is gay couples in particular men raising kids more concerned the abuse the kids will get at school etc but the kids most likely will come from a better home than 90% of straight couples.
> As long as it is not compulsory to be gay they can do what they like.




I also don't thnk gays should have the "right" to bring up kids , the gays can do what they like but they shouldn't have the right to subject kids to a homosexual homelife.


----------



## Eager (18 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> No. It's quiet straight forward really.



Quite, even.


----------



## Sean K (18 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> As long as it is not compulsory to be gay they can do what they like.



This discussion has reached new heights.


----------



## Julia (18 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> How someone interprets what marriage should be is not for me to judge. The issue is when a group decides that they own marriage and should be able to dictate who can and can't get married.



Isn't this what the gay community is attempting to do? 



> After everything we know about the RCC and the systemic abuse of children, which it at best turned a blind eye to and at worse condoned, it's amazing that it is paid any attention whatsoever. Their pre-Cupernican views on contraception have done a wonderful job at spreading HIV through Africa.



100% agree.



> I think the key difference is people are born gay, whereas people chose religion.



I'm not sure that's entirely true.  Many people are so indoctrinated with religion that it isn't really a conscious choice.
Where do you place bisexual people?  Are they 'born bisexual' or are they just people who like to experiment with sex?



> At various times, Christianity has accepted polygamy. Some cultures still do, notably the Mormons.



That's quite wrong.  Polygamy is only practised in very isolated small groups of Mormons and is entirely discredited by the Mormon Church as part of their doctrine.



> Incest is a different kettle of fish, IMO and I don't believe it belongs in the same boat as gay marriage or even polygamy.



Why not?  The participants avow their love for each other.  According to the gay lobby, this is the only reason they are seeking what they term 'marriage equality'.



> Although, the Bible is pretty open minded about it. If Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman and they had multiple sons and daughters who all got married...Who exactly were they marrying if not their brother or sister?



Please don't let's indulge in rubbishing religion on the one hand and then quoting that book of silly fairy tales.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (19 June 2012)

I've never actually worked out if it's just the word 'marriage' that they want to use or the legal entitlements that come with it? 

If it's just the word, then why can't they just appropriate another perfectly good word, like the way they 'disinfected' the word 'homosexual' with 'gay', and use it for the legal union between 2 homosexuals or lesbians?

I think the word 'marriage' should be reserved for heterosexuals. If homosexuals & lesbians want a civil union the by all means go for it - just don't use the word 'marriage'.

What annoys me is the hi jacking of the discussion by the bobble heads on TV, usually the 'not wanting to offend the gay movement in case we are seen to be un-cool' mob of inner city socialites and 'social commentators' they drag out for the panel discussions on morning TV etc.

And why is there always an effeminate partner and a butch partner - doesn't that defeat the purpose of being homosexual or lesbian  ie acting like hetero's??


----------



## moXJO (19 June 2012)

Uncle Festivus said:


> I've never actually worked out if it's just the word 'marriage' that they want to use or the legal entitlements that come with it?
> 
> If it's just the word, then why can't they just appropriate another perfectly good word, like the way they 'disinfected' the word 'homosexual' with 'gay', and use it for the legal union between 2 homosexuals or lesbians?




Howard brought in the 'civil union' under which they had the above. But they are pushing for marriage, which is fine as far as I am concerned as I don't have much of an opinion either way. 
 I'm not up to speed on the whole issue, but will the churches be forced to marry homosexuals or be charged with hate crimes if they don't?


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2012)

moXJO said:


> but will the churches be forced to marry homosexuals or be charged with hate crimes if they don't?




The marriage ceremony will be revised so that the last line is;

"I now declare you :dunno:  and :dunno:


----------



## McLovin (19 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Isn't this what the gay community is attempting to do?




I don't see them telling anyone else whether they can or cannot get married, they just want to be able to. Religion on the other hand seems to take the view that it should be allowed to decide who can and can't marry. While they are entitled to voice their opinion, we live in a secular society and the opinion of any religion is just that.




Julia said:


> I'm not sure that's entirely true.  Many people are so indoctrinated with religion that it isn't really a conscious choice.
> Where do you place bisexual people?  Are they 'born bisexual' or are they just people who like to experiment with sex?




From what I've read true bisexualism is actually very rare. It is true that society takes a very different view of female bisexuality than it does of male (there's a whole industry built on female bisexualism). The point I'm making though is that someone can still make the conscious decision to not be religious, but someone who is gay will always be gay whether they are in the closet or not. 

Question: If someone was convinced that the Sun went round the Earth, would you be as accomodating of their views? 




Julia said:


> That's quite wrong.  Polygamy is only practised in very isolated small groups of Mormons and is entirely discredited by the Mormon Church as part of their doctrine.




My apologies, you are entirely correct.



Julia said:


> Why not?  The participants avow their love for each other.  According to the gay lobby, this is the only reason they are seeking what they term 'marriage equality'.




That's a fair question. One I don't have the answer to although I don't think the two are comparable. Let me think about it and get back to you.




Julia said:


> Please don't let's indulge in rubbishing religion on the one hand and then quoting that book of silly fairy tales.




I guess it was more trying to highlight how if you parse the Bible enough you can pretty much get whatever answer you want.


----------



## Tink (19 June 2012)

Marraige and having children go hand in hand in the religious sense. 
Pro life.

Thats the reason alot of churches are against marrying gays - I dont care what others say the reason is.
It has always been about families.
Whether you choose to have children or not is your choice.

I still think they should pick another word.


----------



## Glen48 (19 June 2012)

Maybe F&^%Kee and F(&^Kor is a better and legal choice of words..
Cars get married when the marry up the engine to the body not sure about a pink Cadillac.


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2012)

Tink said:


> Marraige and having children go hand in hand in the religious sense.
> Pro life.
> 
> Thats the reason alot of churches are against marrying gays - I dont care what others say the reason is.
> ...




Tink, the whole concept of "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron It is an indication of the standard of government, that our Federal parliament is debating such ridiculous nonsense, while the world economy could be in free fall. I am an atheist, but consider your views represent the interests of families as opposed to those of the gay lobbyists here, who seek to devalue marriage and families, by degrading the concept.


----------



## CanOz (19 June 2012)

Interesting debate, err discussion.

I once was having this discussion with a woman from the US and her home state was considering whether or not to allow gay marriage. I think they had actually moved away from their state so they could get married. Anyway, what really struck me is how much she loved her partner, her eyes filled with tears and she said she 'just wanted to marry to the person she loved in her hometown'...it was her dream...and then i realized that of course, they think just like straight couples when it comes to love, with the one major difference being that their partner is the same sex. I was amazed at the emotion...i guess i had some preconceived idea that the way they loved each other was not the same...silly really.

I now believe that you should be able to marry the person you love, no matter what sex they are as that part really doesn't concern me.

CanOz


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2012)

CanOz said:


> I was amazed at the emotion...i guess i had some preconceived idea that the way they loved each other was not the same...silly really.




I see, they had the hots for each other and wanted to get married so they could consummate their union by pretending this gave them some status.

No, not silly - ridiculous!


----------



## CanOz (19 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> I see, they had the hots for each other and wanted to get married so they could consummate their union by pretending this gave them some status.
> 
> No, not silly - ridiculous!







> I see



 - No you didn't see, you weren't there....so you now base your loose opinion and decide...



> they had the hots for each other



and that they want to.....







> pretend...




You fail to understand this because you obviously are not gay...

I'm guessing you also fail or have failed to even understand the opposite sex at _one time or another_...You assume because you feel or think think a certain way, then it should be that way...we all are guilty of this _one time or another. _

Its one thing to hold an opinion, but its another to actually believe that your opinion is absolute. 

This is about your beliefs vs the beliefs of others. 

I don't fully understand how its possible for people of the same sex to love each other like husband and wife as i am not gay. I do however accept that they must feel the same as non-gay couples feel about each other, from a personal experience as i stated above and that its their business. In a free country i do believe they have the right to marry.

It took a long time for me to change my beliefs. I think it was more a issue of my maturity, self awareness and emotional intelligence than anything else.

CanOz


----------



## McLovin (19 June 2012)

CanOz said:


> I don't fully understand how its possible for people of the same sex to love each other like husband and wife as i am not gay. I do however accept that they must feel the same as non-gay couples feel about each other and that its their business. In a free country i do believe they have the right to marry.




I agree with this...



CanOz said:


> It took a long time for me to change my beliefs. I think it was more a issue of my maturity, self awareness and emotional intelligence than anything else.
> 
> CanOz




And with this...I was exactly the same.


----------



## Joules MM1 (19 June 2012)

CanOz said:


> I think it was more a issue of ... emotional intelligence than anything else.




ditto for most, i think

top post, Can.


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2012)

CanOz said:


> I don't fully understand how its possible for people of the same sex to love each other like husband and wife as i am not gay. I do however accept that they must feel the same as non-gay couples feel about each other, from a personal experience as i stated above and that its their business. *In a free country i do believe they have the right to marry.*



*

Since I was married and that was many decades ago, the institution of marriage has been continually degraded by divorce and  de facto marriage, until it has become almost meaningless. While your heart goes out to gay lovers, mine goes out to people like Tink who cherish their marriages as a sacrament.  

Now gay lobbyists want to further degrade the institution of marriage and turn it into a meaningless joke. My plea to you and Mc Lovin, is to to leave people, who value their state of matrimony, in peace.

Let them devise their own "marriage" instead of coveting what others have.*


----------



## CanOz (19 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Since I was married and that was many decades ago, the institution of marriage has been continually degraded by divorce and  de facto marriage, until it has become almost meaningless. While your heart goes out to gay lovers, mine goes out to people like Tink who cherish their marriages as a sacrament.
> 
> Now gay lobbyists want to further degrade the institution of marriage and turn it into a meaningless joke. My plea to you and Mc Lovin, is to to leave people, who value their state of matrimony, in peace.
> 
> Let them devise their own "marriage" instead of coveting what others have.




Actually Calliope, i too cherish my marriage. I made a mistake with my first marriage, but i was faithful and tried my best to honor the vows i took. I just could not love the person for the rest of my life. Possibly due to my lack of maturity at the time. I have since met my true soul-mate.

Wedding vows are sacred to me and i believe there is nothing more worth honoring on this planet than these words, pledged in front of whomever we deem as appropriate.

We share some views, and differ on others. 



> I may not agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death...for your right to express it.





Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## Julia (19 June 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Exactly.  Most people are sheep.  Currently, the herd is moving in the direction of "pro homosexuality", so you better make sure you're on the bandwagon, ok?  No alternate views allowed.
> 
> It's ok to hate, so long as the hate is directed at religious people!  :  A gay person who hates religious people would be ok in the current herd movement.



There's a lot of truth in that.   The Church, however, has provided plenty of reason for such dislike with its repeated covering up of sexual abuse.



> This may change however.  If the herd moves to a pro-religious stance in 50 years time, just make sure you are "on board" that band wagon too.



That won't be a problem for the fashionistas whose passion is easily adaptable.
They're a bit like the catastrophisers who are happy to latch on to various doom scenarios.



Uncle Festivus said:


> I've never actually worked out if it's just the word 'marriage' that they want to use or the legal entitlements that come with it?



Apparently the word 'marriage' has some magic attached to it.  They already have the legal entitlements.



> If it's just the word, then why can't they just appropriate another perfectly good word, like the way they 'disinfected' the word 'homosexual' with 'gay', and use it for the legal union between 2 homosexuals or lesbians?



I share this dislike.   "Gay" was a great descriptive word until it was so appropriated.  What is the matter with saying homosexual?  We talk about heterosexuals, don't we.



> And why is there always an effeminate partner and a butch partner - doesn't that defeat the purpose of being homosexual or lesbian  ie acting like hetero's??



No idea.  I do find it peculiar hearing a lesbian referring to "my wife" and a homosexual male to his 'husband'.



moXJO said:


> Howard brought in the 'civil union' under which they had the above. But they are pushing for marriage, which is fine as far as I am concerned as I don't have much of an opinion either way.
> I'm not up to speed on the whole issue, but will the churches be forced to marry homosexuals or be charged with hate crimes if they don't?



This is my concern about the whole idea.  Surely the next step after achieving 'marriage equality' will be an allegation of at least discrimination if a church refuses to marry them.




McLovin said:


> I don't see them telling anyone else whether they can or cannot get married, they just want to be able to. Religion on the other hand seems to take the view that it should be allowed to decide who can and can't marry. While they are entitled to voice their opinion, we live in a secular society and the opinion of any religion is just that.



Fair enough.



> From what I've read true bisexualism is actually very rare. It is true that society takes a very different view of female bisexuality than it does of male (there's a whole industry built on female bisexualism). The point I'm making though is that someone can still make the conscious decision to not be religious, but someone who is gay will always be gay whether they are in the closet or not.



OK, accepted.  But what we do not know is whether e.g. people in incestuous relationships may equally have no capacity to choose how they feel.  I know the question of whether they should also be allowed to marry seems bizarre, but so would homosexuals marrying a couple of generations ago, or even less than that.



> Question: If someone was convinced that the Sun went round the Earth, would you be as accomodating of their views?



I'm not sure that's really a valid analogy, McLovin.  I take your point, though.
I'm thinking about perfectly genuine people like Tink on this forum whose religion obviously means a lot to her, and I just have some concerns about ignoring and dismissing views of such people as unimportant and irrelevant.
Such people have a strong sense of what constitutes a family and are genuinely disturbed at the idea that the sacrament of marriage (which it is to them) would be violated by homosexual marriage.

No one has yet been able to explain to me just what difference having a marriage ceremony would make.
If it were necessary to confer equal legal rights, then I'd totally get it.  But that's not an issue.



> That's a fair question. One I don't have the answer to although I don't think the two are comparable. Let me think about it and get back to you.



Thanks, McLovin.  Your thoughtful approach is appreciated.


----------



## bellenuit (19 June 2012)

Julia said:


> I share this dislike.   "Gay" was a great descriptive word until it was so appropriated.  What is the matter with saying homosexual?  We talk about heterosexuals, don't we.




I too disliked the hijacking of the word "gay". However, my attitude has changed on that point. There is nothing the matter with saying "homosexual" or "hetrosexual", just as there is nothing the matter with saying "sexual intercourse". The problem is is that these words tend to be used only in a formal context and are rarely used in colloquial speech or street talk. The words used to describe homosexuals in colloquial speech were invariable offensive or used in an offensive manner - dyke, poofter, queer etc. Even apparently inoffensive expressions like "batting for the other side" suggested that they were somehow different to other people and that it is impolite to refer to their sexual orientation directly as if it were some unmentionable disease.

I don't know why they adopted the word "gay" and perhaps there were a lot of other words that they could have used instead, but it certainly allows one, whether one be gay or straight, to openly describe a homosexual's sexual orientation in circumstances where such a topic is relevant, without being offensive or having to resort to formal speech.


----------



## bellenuit (19 June 2012)

> Surely the next step after achieving 'marriage equality' will be an allegation of at least discrimination if a church refuses to marry them.




I agree that some will raise that as an issue, but I think the vast majority will be happy to have the right to marry in a civil union.

However, although churches have the right to set their own policies, it doesn't mean that the policies aren't discriminatory. The RC church and several other christian denominations discriminate against women by prohibiting them being ordained as priests.

I don't think homosexuals, or women for that matter, should be able to use civil law to overturn such discriminatory practices. These are issues peculiar to that particular church and need to be changed from within the church. It is only when one's civil rights are being infringed that civil action should be an option. These are church rights, not civil rights.


----------



## Julia (19 June 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I agree that some will raise that as an issue, but I think the vast majority will be happy to have the right to marry in a civil union.



Perhaps.  Alternatively, I think there will be that same cohort who just has to push boundaries who will want to push churches into holding marriage ceremonies for them.



> I don't think homosexuals, or women for that matter, should be able to use civil law to overturn such discriminatory practices.




I'm a bit confused by the above.  Are you suggesting the word 'homosexual' only refers to males?
What do you mean by "or women for that matter"?


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

I am thinking bellenuit meant the discriminatory practices that exist in some churches that prevent women becoming priests.


----------



## sptrawler (19 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I am thinking bellenuit meant the discriminatory practices that exist in some churches that prevent women becoming priests.




I think we spend way too much time on this thread.


----------



## bellenuit (19 June 2012)

Julia said:
			
		

> I'm a bit confused by the above.  Are you suggesting the word 'homosexual' only refers to males?
> What do you mean by "or women for that matter"?




Sorry if it was a bit ambiguous. I meant in relation to the two discriminatory issues I mentioned. Homosexuals shouldn't be able to use civil law to force the churches to allow them to marry in church endorsed marriages and women for that matter should not be able to use civil law to force churches to allow women priests.


----------



## Tink (20 June 2012)

Great post Calliope, agree, and thanks Julia, appreciate your thoughful posts in this debate. 

CanOz, agree with your quote.


----------



## Julia (20 June 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Sorry if it was a bit ambiguous. I meant in relation to the two discriminatory issues I mentioned. Homosexuals shouldn't be able to use civil law to force the churches to allow them to marry in church endorsed marriages and women for that matter should not be able to use civil law to force churches to allow women priests.



OK, thanks for explaining.  Agree.


----------



## Glen48 (20 June 2012)

So the church's think women are inferior and therefore can't do the job of a Male priest guess the little boys would like to see Women priests.


----------



## McLovin (20 June 2012)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure that's really a valid analogy, McLovin.  I take your point, though.
> I'm thinking about perfectly genuine people like Tink on this forum whose religion obviously means a lot to her, and I just have some concerns about ignoring and dismissing views of such people as unimportant and irrelevant.
> Such people have a strong sense of what constitutes a family and are genuinely disturbed at the idea that the sacrament of marriage (which it is to them) would be violated by homosexual marriage.




I don't consider their views any less important or relevant than any other Australian's. Where I draw the line is when someone feels that their own view usurps everyone elses and should be enforced through legislation. There are plenty of Muslims who would like to see the dress code for women in this country changed, I'm sure they're genuinely disturbed when they walk on a beach and see women half naked in front of strange men. Would you treat their views as important and relevant? My grandmother used to believe (and probably still does) that inter-racial relationships are wrong because God wouldn't have created seperate races if he had intended them to mix.  Same question again, should her view be considered relevant and important.



Julia said:


> No one has yet been able to explain to me just what difference having a marriage ceremony would make.
> If it were necessary to confer equal legal rights, then I'd totally get it.  But that's not an issue.




From reading your posts, I understand you were once married. How would you have reacted if at the time of you getting married you were told you could have all the same legal rights but you could not be married or have a ceremony? I'd personally feel pretty disenfranchised.




Julia said:


> Thanks, McLovin.  Your thoughtful approach is appreciated.




I'm still working on this...


----------



## Calliope (20 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> Where I draw the line is when someone feels that their own view usurps everyone elses and should be enforced through legislation.




I agree. Like the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, presently before parliament, attempts to do.


----------



## McLovin (20 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> I agree. Like the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, presently before parliament, attempts to do.




That was poorly worded by me, but it was supposed to just be the same as I had said several times in this thread already. No religion controls the keys to marriage.


----------



## Julia (20 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> I don't consider their views any less important or relevant than any other Australian's. Where I draw the line is when someone feels that their own view usurps everyone elses and should be enforced through legislation.



Isn't this what the gay lobby is doing?



> There are plenty of Muslims who would like to see the dress code for women in this country changed, I'm sure they're genuinely disturbed when they walk on a beach and see women half naked in front of strange men. Would you treat their views as important and relevant?



I would say that they have chosen to come to live in Australia and should therefore have no problem tolerating the customs and norms of this country.   Personally I dislike seeing women covered up in the Muslim style, but I don't have any idea of preventing them from doing it.
I'm much more concerned about their growing numbers suggesting e.g. sharia law should apply in this country.

I can't be responsible for your grandmother's peculiar view.  To compare that with mainstream churches believing marriage should be between heterosexuals is a bit silly and unworthy of you imo.



> From reading your posts, I understand you were once married. How would you have reacted if at the time of you getting married you were told you could have all the same legal rights but you could not be married or have a ceremony? I'd personally feel pretty disenfranchised.



Would have been fine with me.  Considering the later divorce it would have saved some money on legal fees.

Again, by raising such an example you are not comparing like with like.  Heterosexual marriage has been around for ever.   I'm a bit disappointed that - instead of your usual intelligent and sensible discussion - you're throwing out red herrings like the above, viz especially your grandmother's weird notion.



> I'm still working on this...



Good.


----------



## McLovin (20 June 2012)

OK, let me get back on track, I seem to have drifted.

Let me ask you Julia, do you think homosexuals should be allowed to be married? I'd be interested to hear your opinion and reasoning either way.

On incestous relationships. First of all we need to seperate incest with inbreeding. Incest (and I'm talking about between two consenting adults), doesn't seem on the face of it to raise any serious issues, social taboos aside. I personally see no issues with two cousins or even a brother and sister being in a relationship, it's not my thing but if they're consenting adults it's not for me to say. Inbreeding does, however, raise some serious ethical issues. The more closely related the two parents are the higher the chance of mental or physical disabilities, or death of the child (for brother-sister relations the mortality can be as high as 30%). Inbreeding, IMO, should remain illegal. The problem then is how can you allow someone to have sex but make it illegal for them to become pregnant because of that intercourse? 

I don't know the answer to the question. I have thought about it but can't reach a logical conclusion. If for example you made incest illegal because of the reason I gave above, then how would you argue that homosexual incestous relations should also be illegal? And then you'd be back at the same point of creating a double standard, no? I don't know the answer I'm afraid. Good question though.


----------



## young-gun (20 June 2012)

Julia said:


> To compare that with mainstream churches believing marriage should be between heterosexuals is a bit silly and unworthy of you imo.




I haven't read back all the way, but is anyone in here religious, and are you able to shed some light on the churches take on what causes someone to be born with homosexual tendencies to begin with? It's something that is hard wired, it's not a choice (if it were you would think a man or women would be nuts to choose this path given the social implications). 

So is it simply the work of the 'devil'? I am failing to see how someone that 'god' created with some incorrect connections upstairs(and i mean that in the nicest possible way) can then be condemned by religion. After all it is not meant to be, however it still occurs, so it needs to be catered for.

Do we tell disabled people that they can't get married because the heavenly father above didn't throw in the necessary chromosome?

1. They are not hurting anyone, any gay men or women I come across are usually more friendly than 50% of the other idiots I've endured.
2. They would probably be better parents than a lot that call themselves parents today, who will most likely end up divorced, custody battles carried out, leaving the child with one parent(wouldn't two of the same sex be better?)
3. If i was gay I'd tell the church to cram it, why would you wanna get married somewhere that doesn't accept you anyway. Discriminate away.


----------



## Calliope (20 June 2012)

young-gun said:


> 2. They would probably be better parents than a lot that call themselves parents today, who will most likely end up divorced, custody battles carried out, leaving the child with one parent(wouldn't two of the same sex be better?)




So gay "parents" wouldn't get divorced? A custody battle by two male gays over an adopted son does not bear thinking of. I doubt that a court could award custody to either one.


----------



## Tink (20 June 2012)

What an absolute schmozzle -- and of course, the children are always the innocent ones.


----------



## young-gun (20 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> So gay "parents" wouldn't get divorced?




did i say that?



> A custody battle by two male gays over an adopted son does not bear thinking of. I doubt that a court could award custody to either one.




why.


----------



## young-gun (20 June 2012)

Tink said:


> What an absolute schmozzle -- and of course, the children are always the innocent ones.





bad parenting has a hell of a lot to answer for imo.


----------



## jersey10 (20 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> I don't consider their views any less important or relevant than any other Australian's. Where I draw the line is when someone feels that their own view usurps everyone elses and should be enforced through legislation. There are plenty of Muslims who would like to see the dress code for women in this country changed, I'm sure they're genuinely disturbed when they walk on a beach and see women half naked in front of strange men. Would you treat their views as important and relevant? My grandmother used to believe (and probably still does) that inter-racial relationships are wrong because God wouldn't have created seperate races if he had intended them to mix.  Same question again, should her view be considered relevant and important.




It doesn't matter what anyone believes.  What happens should only ever be determined through reason, logic and evidence.


----------



## jersey10 (20 June 2012)

I am no evolutionary biologist, however, if gay people are given the exact same rights as heterosexual people (which they should be) won't gay people become extinct?


----------



## Julia (20 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> Let me ask you Julia, do you think homosexuals should be allowed to be married? I'd be interested to hear your opinion and reasoning either way.



I've already said that I don't care.  I'd be entirely happy for the whole institution of marriage to be abolished.  Then we wouldn't have this stupid hysterical fuss.

To suggest that any loving relationship stands or falls on whether or not it has occurred via some pretty ceremony just makes no sense to me.

From a legal point of view, as I've repeated ad infinitum, homosexuals already have the same rights as any other pairing.

No one has been able to explain to me what difference being 'married' makes.
Why can't they - and heterosexual couples too for that matter - just decide that they are deliriously in love, and that they want all their friends to say 'Fantastic, good luck to you' while they dress in expensive stuff and pay thousands for a fancy meal, at the end of which they can say "Well, whacko, now we're married".

What on earth difference does it make to how much they will love and support each other, how much loyalty they will provide in sickness and health etc etc whether they have any or all of the following:

1. no ceremony, just a mutual agreement that they wish to commit their lives to each other

2. a ceremony anywhere with friends and family to congratulate them on the immense wisdom of their choice

3. a $50,000 extravaganza where everyone drinks a lot of alcohol, the bride and groom (how does this work out in homosexual marriage?) get photographed a lot with big smiles, and everyone goes home poorer but thrilled.

It's all meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.  So I'm just bored with all the fuss and herewith resign the role of trying to apply a little objectivity to the debate in terms of recognising the real distress that is apparently felt by religious people (and undoubtedly others) who strongly regard marriage as a union between a heterosexual couple for the purpose of creating a family, as an extension to the long ago reason of combining between families land and other interests.

I'm anti religion:  think it's more a force for harm than good.
But I do understand that some perfectly decent people have grown up with what to them is the cornerstone of their existence and I've therefore simply tried to present this point of view as something to reasonably be considered.

That said, I will not be answering any further questions about my own circumstances, for example.  It's none of anyone's business why I wanted to get married a very long time ago.


----------



## jersey10 (20 June 2012)

Julia said:


> No one has been able to explain to me what difference being 'married' makes.




I agree with a lot of what Julia says about the irrelevance of marriage.

According to the Relationships Indicators Survey conducted by Relationships Australia and CUA in 2008, the reasons why people get married are:

Love 91% 
Companionship 88%
To signify a life-long commitment 82%
Security for children 79%
To make a public commitment to each other 77%
For legal status or for financial security 66%
Because of religious beliefs 62%
Response to Family pressure 50%
Desire for a special occasion 45%

http://www.relationships.org.au/relationship-advice/faqs/why-do-people-get-married

I have thoughts on the above "reasons" that i may comment on later.

Seems to me many people's desire for marriage may be due to psychological reasons more than anything else.


----------



## sptrawler (20 June 2012)

young-gun said:


> I haven't read back all the way, but is anyone in here religious, and are you able to shed some light on the churches take on what causes someone to be born with homosexual tendencies to begin with? It's something that is hard wired, it's not a choice (if it were you would think a man or women would be nuts to choose this path given the social implications).
> 
> So is it simply the work of the 'devil'? I am failing to see how someone that 'god' created with some incorrect connections upstairs(and i mean that in the nicest possible way) can then be condemned by religion. After all it is not meant to be, however it still occurs, so it needs to be catered for.
> 
> ...




So how many unusual or socially irregular behaviours that are hard wired, do you cater for? 
Can all irregular human behaviour, just be catered for and if so where is the line drawn between tolerance, promiscuity and decadence?
Not that I have a strong belief about the issue, just sick of being hijacked by minorities deciding what is best.


----------



## CanOz (20 June 2012)

jersey10 said:


> I agree with a lot of what Julia says about the irrelevance of marriage.
> 
> According to the Relationships Indicators Survey conducted by Relationships Australia and CUA in 2008, the reasons why people get married are:
> 
> ...




No, you can start another thread on that subject, thank you!

There are plenty of us that would be happy to debate the value of marriage, and other traditions such as Christmas if you like!

CanOz


----------



## bellenuit (21 June 2012)

Julia, 

I agree 100% with your statements about the significance of marriage and the actual relevance of going through the procedure probably means as little to me as it apparently does to you. But not all feel like us.



Julia said:


> But I do understand that some perfectly decent people have grown up with what to them is the cornerstone of their existence and I've therefore simply tried to present this point of view as something to reasonably be considered.




And this could be the crux of why gays also want to marry. If religious types and perhaps some heterosexual secularists want to put the institute of marriage on some sort of pedestal because it is the embodiment of their love and commitment to their spouses and is the cornerstone of their existence then why should they say to gays that their (the gays') relationships with their partners are somehow less special that they do not deserve the same recognition. I cannot see how homosexuals marrying could in any way demean the marriages of heterosexual couples, unless heterosexual couples believe that gays cannot have the same love and commitment to their partners that they do and by marrying are making a mockery of the institution. If they believe gays cannot love and want to be loved as they do, then they need to learn more about gays.  

It's time to listen to what this brave girl below is saying: _"that we want a chance to live our life and fall in love without being discriminated against, because that's what's right and you know in your heart that's what right. It's time..._"


----------



## Tink (21 June 2012)

young-gun said:


> bad parenting has a hell of a lot to answer for imo.




So if you think its due to bad parenting that this has all come about, how are the next generations going to understand about families, mummy daddy and children.
The children have no choice but to always be in broken homes.
Is this what we want children to grow up with?

As for the religious side of things, I have already said that its about procreating.
Its not about sitting there googly eyeing each other.

I can understand what you are saying that gays should have the right to marry, but I dont think they should hijack the word marraige.
Marraige and children go hand in hand
Marraige is a word about families and thats how it should stay for future generations.

Interesting how many have said they dont care if they marry, just no children.
Well, sorry they go hand in hand.

I am thinking of the children here, not the adults.


----------



## explod (21 June 2012)

I know a gay couple who have two foster children in their care.

The Brother (of one of the gays) and wife were killed in a car accident 11 years ago and the two boys taken in by him.  His partner of 9 years and he have done a very good job, the eldest is doing HSC the other is in year nine.  The two lads play football and from my observation are macho and heterosexual.

I did a unit at uni years ago called  "Sex gender and society".  In that I learned that homosexuality is something genetic so is stamped in before birth.

I do have no doubt from observations in my former career that the homosexual side has become more prominent due to the open way society has become.   It is well recorded in Ancient Greece that the upper classes of married men kept boys for the purposes of alternate sex.

We can stomp around the issues all that we like but at the end of the day some men and women just like to indulge in sex regardless of gender.  

Any or all being in a proper union and married would be much safer for society as a whole in my view.


----------



## Calliope (21 June 2012)

explod said:


> Any or all being in a proper union and married would be much safer for society as a whole in my view.




That's a new twist Mr Plod. It would make society safer. For whom? Children perhaps? Fabulous!


----------



## MrBurns (21 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> That's a new twist Mr Plod. It would make society safer. For whom? Children perhaps? Fabulous!




Well it would be safer, I for one am terrified of marauding gangs of unmarried Gays.


----------



## young-gun (21 June 2012)

jersey10 said:


> I am no evolutionary biologist, however, if gay people are given the exact same rights as heterosexual people (which they should be) won't gay people become extinct?




It would entirely depend on the genetic code that causes homo-sexuality. Given your theory, there should already be no gay people? It would appear they are increasing in numbers.



sptrawler said:


> So how many unusual or socially irregular behaviours that are hard wired, do you cater for?
> Can all irregular human behaviour, just be catered for and if so where is the line drawn between tolerance, promiscuity and decadence?
> Not that I have a strong belief about the issue, just sick of being hijacked by minorities deciding what is best.




Naturally it would be determined by what affects certain 'irregular human behaviours' have on society, to how they are approached. For example, how do you cater for the gene that seems to run in Ivan Milats' family that causes people to carry out brutal murder, and enjoy it? You don't, you throw them in jail(or even better the death penalty), as this type of behaviour is simply unacceptable, regardless of whether it is hard-wired or not.

I'm unsure if this is the path you were heading down^^ please feel free to clarify if you wish.

There doesn't need to be a line drawn, just a different approach to every outcome genetics throws at society.



Tink said:


> So if you think its due to bad parenting that this has all come about, how are the next generations going to understand about families, mummy daddy and children.
> The children have no choice but to always be in broken homes.
> Is this what we want children to grow up with?




I'm unsure where you got the idea that I believe homosexuality is caused by bad parents, in fact it is probably the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. I don't believe same sex couples should be able to 'create new life' through use of IVF or things of this nature. 

But if they are willing to put a roof over a childs head and care for them and raise them, when the child was either in a third world country, or foster care, then I think you will find that kid is going to have a far better chance at life than he/she would have otherwise. Being brought up by gay parents does not insert the gay gene into your blood stream, the child will be raised happy, healthy, straight, and god forbid with an open mind.



> As for the religious side of things, I have already said that its about procreating.
> Its not about sitting there googly eyeing each other.




I agree, but the fact is it still happens.



> I can understand what you are saying that gays should have the right to marry, but I dont think they should hijack the word marraige.
> Marraige and children go hand in hand
> Marraige is a word about families and thats how it should stay for future generations.




who cares, it's just a word, and if that is your biggest beef with it, then you need to look past it.


----------



## jersey10 (21 June 2012)

young-gun said:


> Given your theory, there should already be no gay people? It would appear they are increasing in numbers.




I disagree.  Due to society's ignorance, homosexuals have been forced into heterosexual relationships which has led to a greater chance of homosexuals reproducing and passing on their genes to the next generation.  Society's decreasing ignorance and slowly increasing acceptance of homosexuality, is why "it would appear they are increasing in numbers."


----------



## young-gun (21 June 2012)

jersey10 said:


> I disagree.  Due to society's ignorance, homosexuals have been forced into heterosexual relationships which has led to a greater chance of homosexuals reproducing and passing on their genes to the next generation.  Society's decreasing ignorance and slowly increasing acceptance of homosexuality, is why "it would appear they are increasing in numbers."




fair assumption, and good point, shame there is no numbers to know for sure. would be interesting to see what homo-sexual couple divorce rates are once they are able to get married.


----------



## Glen48 (21 June 2012)

What if a gay couple have a _wedding_ is that hijacking the name as well.

Homosexuality is a gene malfunction and is most likely heredity in most cases things like emotions are also heredity that's why Milat and others can kill with out remorse and then you get the other extreme were the person is so in love with their victim they stalk them a lot in prison have a mental disorder  and throwing them in jail is not the answer finding out were the brain went wrong and finding a cure is the answer.


----------



## CanOz (21 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> What if a gay couple have a _wedding_ is that hijacking the name as well.
> 
> Homosexuality is a gene malfunction and is most likely heredity in most cases things like emotions are also heredity that's why Milat and others can kill with out remorse and then you get the other extreme were the person is so in love with their victim they stalk them a lot in prison have a mental disorder  and throwing them in jail is not the answer finding out were the brain went wrong and finding a cure is the answer.




Glen, *P-U-N-C-T-U-A-T-I-O-N*..........


CanOz


----------



## young-gun (21 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> What if a gay couple have a _wedding_ is that hijacking the name as well.
> 
> Homosexuality is a gene malfunction and is most likely heredity in most cases things like emotions are also heredity that's why Milat and others can kill with out remorse and then you get the other extreme were the person is so in love with their victim they stalk them a lot in prison have a mental disorder  and throwing them in jail is not the answer finding out were the brain went wrong and finding a cure is the answer.




I think you will find that identifying such genetic codes, not to mention being able to change/alter/remove them is decades if not centuries away, for now society is safer with them dead or in jail.

I wonder how many homosexuals would take the option of being converted from gay to straight given the opportunity.


----------



## Glen48 (21 June 2012)

Canoz just when an gotanewkeyboard was in a hurry


----------



## Sean K (21 June 2012)

If the last two humans on Earth were a man and a woman, and they were both gay/lesbian, would they fall in love? 

Hm


----------



## Julia (21 June 2012)

jersey10 said:


> I disagree.  Due to society's ignorance, homosexuals have been forced into heterosexual relationships which has led to a greater chance of homosexuals reproducing and passing on their genes to the next generation.  Society's decreasing ignorance and slowly increasing acceptance of homosexuality, is why "it would appear they are increasing in numbers."



Great summary.   Though homosexuals marrying the opposite sex in order to cover up their true sexuality is imo much less common than it was several decades ago.  Back then, many young women were cruelly used by male homosexuals in their quest to creat a facade of 'normality'.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 June 2012)

kennas said:


> If the last two humans on Earth were a man and a woman, and they were both gay/lesbian, would they fall in love?
> 
> Hm




Define " fall in love "

gg


----------



## drsmith (19 September 2012)

A marriage (of sorts) that has come to an end.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/controversy-over-cory-bernardi-bestiality-comments/4269604


----------



## Calliope (19 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> A marriage (of sorts) that has come to an end.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/controversy-over-cory-bernardi-bestiality-comments/4269604




Why all the fuss. Nothing new here.


----------



## Julia (19 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Why all the fuss. Nothing new here.




So funny.


----------



## Calliope (19 September 2012)

How they voted:

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL 2012  

AYES, 42 

Mr Albanese Mr Dreyfus Mr S. P. Jones Ms Roxon 
Mr Bandt Mrs Elliot Dr M. J. Kelly Ms Saffin* 
Ms Bird Ms Ellis Ms King Mr Shorten 
Ms Brodtmann Mr Garrett Ms Livermore Mr Sidebottom 
Mr Butler Mr Georganas Ms Macklin Mr S. F. Smith 
Mr Champion Mr Gibbons Mr Marles Ms Smyth 
Mr Cheeseman Mr Gray Mr Oakeshott Mr Snowdon 
Mr Clare Ms Grierson Ms Parke Mr C. R. Thomson 
Ms Collins Mr Griffin Mr Perrett Mr Wilkie 
Mr Combet Ms Hall* Ms Plibersek   
Mr Crean Mr Jenkins Ms Rishworth   

NOES, 98 

Mr Abbott Mr Entsch Mr McCormack Mr Rudd 
Mr Adams Mr Fitzgibbon Mr Macfarlane Mr Ruddock 
Mr Alexander Mr Fletcher Ms Marino Mr Schultz 
Mr K. J. Andrews Mr Forrest Mrs Markus Mr Scott 
Mrs K. L. Andrews Mr Frydenberg Mr Matheson Mr Secker*
Mr Baldwin Ms Gambaro Mr Melham Mr A. D. H. Smith 
Mr Billson Mrs Gash Mrs Mirabella Mr Somlyay 
Mrs B. K. Bishop Ms Gillard Mr Morrison Dr Southcott 
Ms J. I. Bishop Mrs Griggs Mrs Moylan Dr Stone 
Mr Bowen Mr Hartsuyker Mr Murphy Mr Swan 
Mr Bradbury Mr A. G. Hawke Mr Neumann Mr Symon 
Mr Briggs Mr Hayes Mr Neville Mr Tehan 
Mr Broadbent Mr Hockey Mr O'Dowd Mr K. J. Thomson 
Mr Buchholz Mr Hunt Ms O'Dwyer Mr Truss 
Mr A. S. Burke Mr Husic Ms O'Neill Mr Tudge 
Mr Byrne Mr Irons Ms Owens Mr Turnbull 
Mr Chester Dr Jensen Mrs Prentice Ms Vamvakinou 
Mr Christensen Mr E. T. Jones Mr Pyne Mr van Manen 
Mr Ciobo Mr Katter Mr Ramsey Mr Vasta 
Mr Cobb Mr Keenan Mr Randall Dr Washer 
Mr Coulton* Mr C. Kelly Mr Ripoll Mr Windsor 
Mr Crook Mr Laming Mr Robb Mr Wyatt 
Mrs D'Ath Ms Ley Mr Robert Mr Zappia 
Mr Dutton Mr Lyons Ms Rowland   
Dr Emerson Mr McClelland Mr Wyatt Roy


----------



## Macquack (19 September 2012)

Considering Julia Gillard is the first woman to hold the office of Prime Minister, is an athiest, is unmarried and living in sin who may have been burnt at the stake as a witch in medieval times, I can not believe she votes against gay marriage.

*Julia Gillard should thank the Australian people for not being as backward as she is*, otherwise she would not be where she is today.


----------



## JTLP (19 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> How they voted:
> 
> MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL 2012
> 
> ...




No P.Wong? Thoought she'd be right up there.


----------



## Julia (19 September 2012)

JTLP said:


> No P.Wong? Thoought she'd be right up there.




It was a vote in the House of Reps, wasn't it?  Ms Wong is in the Senate.


----------



## pilots (19 September 2012)

Saw Bob Brown on the 7 30 report tonight,what a waste of space he is, what surprise he is going to get at the next election.


----------



## JTLP (20 September 2012)

Julia said:


> It was a vote in the House of Reps, wasn't it?  Ms Wong is in the Senate.




Well that makes sense! Ta


----------



## Tink (21 September 2012)

LOL Calliope



drsmith said:


> A marriage (of sorts) that has come to an end.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/controversy-over-cory-bernardi-bestiality-comments/4269604




Agree with Nick Minchin


> But former South Australian senator Nick Minchin has defended the controversial Liberal, saying he cannot see why Senator Bernardi had to resign.
> "His remarks have been quite mischievously and deviously conflated and misrepresented, and I think any fair and objective reading of what he was actually saying would lead the reasonable person to conclude that his was a perfectly proper defence of the traditional definition of marriage," Mr Minchin told ABC Radio.
> "I certainly... see no reason for him to resign."
> 
> Mr Minchin says the speech was a "proper and appropriate" defence of the Liberal Party's long-standing support for the traditional definition of marriage.


----------



## Sean K (21 September 2012)

Macquack said:


> Considering Julia Gillard is the first woman to hold the office of Prime Minister, is an athiest, is unmarried and living in sin who may have been burnt at the stake as a witch in medieval times, I can not believe she votes against gay marriage.
> 
> *Julia Gillard should thank the Australian people for not being as backward as she is*, otherwise she would not be where she is today.



Not enough votes in it yet.


----------



## Happy (21 September 2012)

Why don’t we call it something else?

Marriage and its meaning has been taken and it means: 

Union between Man and Woman, or should I be more politically correct and say Union between Woman and Man.

Maybe bit simplified logic:
 Car is just that : CAR and motorbike can provide transport means too, but will not be called car.


----------



## Duckman#72 (21 September 2012)

Macquack said:


> Considering Julia Gillard is the first woman to hold the office of Prime Minister, is an athiest, is unmarried and living in sin who may have been burnt at the stake as a witch in medieval times, I can not believe she votes against gay marriage.




You can't be serious Macquack. 

I could be flippant and say that she has flip-flopped on most major policy positions over the past three years why shouldn't she be non-committed to the minor issues as well. At least she is being consistent with her spineless approach.

However that is not the reason for her position. The reason she hasn't taken a stance is that she knows it would mean an election meltdown. 

It amazes me how the loudly chattering minority groups honestly believe they are part of the "silent majority".  

Duckman


----------



## white_goodman (21 September 2012)

isnt the term marriage a religious rite?

are we to rename all naming ceremonies, christenings?


----------



## Miss Hale (21 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> isnt the term marriage a religious rite?
> 
> are we to rename all naming ceremonies, christenings?




Marriage isn't and hasn't been for eons a purely religious thing, it's a legal thing as well.  I think that's part of the problem, it's not just a nice to have ceremonial thing, it's an important part of our societel framework and should not be treated lightly.

Christenings _are _purely religious although there is a secular version of them these days as well called naming ceremonies carried out by marriage celerants usually but they have no legal status (nor does a Christening).


----------



## shag (22 September 2012)

kennas said:


> Not enough votes in it yet.




i rather like the idea of burning rughead at the stake. she bats for the other team anyway i thought or maybe shes just a bit asexual like crud.

over the ditch aunty-clark, had a fictional settup for the public, ie token quiet man? who she rolled out come election year. she works for the un now so will b settup. it was like the states navys nuclear policy, ie no ask, no tell. it seemed to work, but you needed a real dopey populace and user friendly media. all a bit backward really.

tho i do really like the idea of burning rughead n co. maybe put them in a fed funded freshly insulated house....


----------



## Tink (22 September 2012)

I wasnt sure where to put this but, is this over the top?
A 'Gay Pride' Football Game?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-gay-pride-match/story-fnca0u4y-1226479150673


----------



## jancha (22 September 2012)

Tink said:


> I wasnt sure where to put this but, is this over the top?
> A 'Gay Pride' Football Game?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-gay-pride-match/story-fnca0u4y-1226479150673




What's the world coming to


----------



## sptrawler (22 September 2012)

jancha said:


> What's the world coming to




My other half, who says very little about anything, lost it today and said "why do they keep going on about this gay $hit"
Well I was taken back, normally she doesn't swear.


----------



## Tink (23 September 2012)

Yep, agree with your wife, sptrawler. The Gay Lobby is pushing in every direction.


----------



## CanOz (23 September 2012)

Well, I tell ya what....AFL has got to be the blokiest sport in the world IMO, certainly amongst the fans. It's got to be the last frontier lol!

Good luck to them!

CanOz


----------



## McLovin (23 September 2012)

Tink said:


> I wasnt sure where to put this but, is this over the top?
> A 'Gay Pride' Football Game?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-gay-pride-match/story-fnca0u4y-1226479150673




Hahaha...I had to have a chuckle at that. Seriously, seems way over the top. Considering the vast majority of players are not gay, it seems a little strange that they should have to play in a "gay pride match" anymore than making them play in an "black pride match".


----------



## gav (23 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Hahaha...I had to have a chuckle at that. Seriously, seems way over the top. Considering the vast majority of players are not gay, it seems a little strange that they should have to play in a "gay pride match" anymore than making them play in an "black pride match".




The AFL have an "Indigenous Round" each year, with the focus on the Essendon vs Richmond game, called "Dreamtime at the G"

Note: 2.5% of the population of Aus are indigenous. 11% of AFL players are indigenous


----------



## McLovin (24 September 2012)

gav said:


> The AFL have an "Indigenous Round" each year, with the focus on the Essendon vs Richmond game, called "Dreamtime at the G"
> 
> Note: 2.5% of the population of Aus are indigenous. 11% of AFL players are indigenous




Sure but an "indigenous round" is a bit different to an "indigenous pride round". Maybe it's just semantics. The NRL has a "women in league round"...It would sound pretty odd to call it a "women's pride" game.


----------



## Miss Hale (24 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Sure but an "indigenous round" is a bit different to an "indigenous pride round". Maybe it's just semantics. The NRL has a "women in league round"...It would sound pretty odd to call it a "women's pride" game.




The AFL also has a women in AFL round too.  It's all rubbish as far as I'm concerned.  I don't go tot the footy to have PC messages rammed down my throat - footy is my escape from all that!  The biggest joke is indigenous round - it's indeigenous round every week in the AFL and we are all mighty grateful for that  (thank you Buddy and Cyril in particular  ).


----------



## Sean K (10 March 2013)

Seems like Queenie is on board.

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/queen-one-does-support-gay-rights/story-fndir2ev-1226594158648


----------



## explod (10 March 2013)

kennas said:


> Seems like Queenie is on board.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/world-news/queen-one-does-support-gay-rights/story-fndir2ev-1226594158648




Why the expression "Queenie"




> Tink
> 
> Yep, agree with your wife, sptrawler. The Gay Lobby is pushing in every direction.




Not too sure it is the gay lobby but perhaps the homo phobic press.


----------



## Sean K (10 March 2013)

explod said:


> Why the expression "Queenie"
> 
> Not too sure it is the gay lobby but perhaps the homo phobic press.



I've always called her Queenie, just a coincidence.


----------



## Sean K (17 April 2013)

Enough votes in it in NZ.

We're behind NZ!!?!

http://www.theage.com.au/world/new-zealand-passes-gay-marriage-bill-20130417-2i0l4.html


----------



## Julia (17 April 2013)

kennas said:


> We're behind NZ!!?!



As usual.  Little NZ has always been very socially to the forefront.  First country in the world to give women the vote.


----------



## stewiejp (18 April 2013)

Just stumbled on this thread and read the whole thing <sigh> and for the life of me, I cannot see how the whole Gay Marriage thing is an issue. Can't see how it affects anyone other than the couple getting married.

It seems people who are against it, are more against the use of the word "marriage" than against the relationship between the two people. Is it that big a deal? Do the people against gays' use of the "M" word protest when two companies "marry", or when a carpenter "married up" two pieces of wood to make a shelf? Surely all this protesting/arguments can't just be because of one word. If I decided to call myself a unicorn, would there be ramifications? 

Marriage = making babies? So people (straight) over a certain age shouldn't marry? What about couples who are not interested in having kids?
Kids will get picked on? Of course they will. They will be picked on because of their height, weight, footy team, hair colour, ethnic background, religion, and yes - their parents. That's life, and a part of growing up in this country.

If two *people* are lucky enough to find each other, fall in love and decide they want to declare their love publicly - to their friends, family and whoever else they choose - who has the right to stop them? Good on em I say.


----------



## Logique (18 April 2013)

It's been represented as a human rights issue, but really it goes far beyond that. It's social engineering. 

It's about our constitution, our family and societal values, privilege and and the creeping entitlement mentality. 

What about the human rights of the children that married gays in NZ will now be entitled to adopt. Two same-sex parents is better than no parents, I'll concede that, but children are entitled to a mother and a father, and this should take priority. 

When gay marriage advocates come clean on their full agenda, that's when I'll think about supporting them.


----------



## Tink (18 April 2013)

Logique said:


> It's been represented as a human rights issue, but really it goes far beyond that. It's social engineering.
> 
> It's about our constitution, our family and societal values, privilege and and the creeping entitlement mentality.
> 
> ...



Excellent post Logique 
The children are my concern, why dont they ask their opinion.
A mother and a father are both important.


----------



## pavilion103 (18 April 2013)

Tink said:


> Excellent post Logique
> The children are my concern, why dont they ask their opinion.
> A mother and a father are both important.




+1

Many won't see the implications of this until many years down the track.


----------



## stewiejp (18 April 2013)

As far as kids are concerned, yes they must take priority over *anything or anyone* else, including the parents' to be's wishes, and it opens up a whole new argument.

I would argue the hurdles of going through the adoption process for any couple (which can take years) should show how determined they are to do a good job parenting. 
I fail to see how a child would be worse off than some single parent children, or children from less than ideal circumstances. Eg alcohol/drug taking parents, parents who can't afford to look after them, parents who don't know how to look after a child, abusive families... the list goes on. We can't legislate against "bad parenting" couples, and I think the usual checks which go with adoption could sort the good from the bad to some extent.

At times I work with some pretty disturbed kids, and more often than not they come from dysfunctional families, against a backdrop of alcohol, drugs and/or abuse. One would hope the adoption  process aims to address this problem.

Having said that, a lot of single parents do an excellent job - my mother being one of them.


----------



## Julia (18 April 2013)

stewiejp said:


> Just stumbled on this thread and read the whole thing <sigh> and for the life of me, I cannot see how the whole Gay Marriage thing is an issue. Can't see how it affects anyone other than the couple getting married.
> 
> It seems people who are against it, are more against the use of the word "marriage" than against the relationship between the two people. Is it that big a deal? Do the people against gays' use of the "M" word protest when two companies "marry", or when a carpenter "married up" two pieces of wood to make a shelf? Surely all this protesting/arguments can't just be because of one word. If I decided to call myself a unicorn, would there be ramifications?
> 
> ...



A couple of decades ago anyone suggesting homosexuals would marry would be laughed at.  Never happen, it was declared.  Now, at least in NZ, they can, on the basis *that they are two people who love each other.*  It's not all that unusual for three or more people to be involved in a consensual relationship where they all profess to love one another.  Are we going to be equally sanguine about endorsing marriage for this?

If the loving one another is the basis for it - and there is no legal implication because homosexual couples already have full legal equality in their civil unions in most instances - then presumably relationships between multiple people should be legitimate.

I'm not surprised to learn that these married homosexuals in NZ now have full rights to adopt children.
Given the taxpayer has already been funding IVF for lesbians, adoption would seem inevitable.

Whenever there are discussions about voluntary euthanasia, people raise the notion of 'the slippery slope'.
Imo there's scope for that same principle to be considered here.

PS  On Lateline last night, in the story about the passing of the marriage law in NZ, there was brief photo footage of a bunch of blokes cavorting around in long, white dresses.  What a joke!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (18 April 2013)

When the kids of gay parents become adults, they might sue the government that permitted them to be raised without a mother or father.  "How could they have permitted such an abuse on my rights!" they will say.  That would be awkward.  

On another tack, I have noticed a big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality. So big that one might be tempted to rule out heredity as the cause.  Learned perhaps?


----------



## banco (18 April 2013)

Logique said:


> It's been represented as a human rights issue, but really it goes far beyond that. It's social engineering.
> 
> It's about our constitution, our family and societal values, privilege and and the creeping entitlement mentality.
> 
> ...




The same argument was used about mixed race couples back in the day: "think about the children".


----------



## stewiejp (18 April 2013)

Julia said:


> It's not all that unusual for three or more people to be involved in a consensual relationship where they all profess to love one another.  Are we going to be equally sanguine about endorsing marriage for this?




I wouldn't be surprised if happened eventually. I just hope the vicar/priest/celebrant/minister etc takes his or her legal obligation of not marrying anyone he or she feels is being coerced or an unwilling participant seriously.

Agree the blokes in wedding frocks looked ridiculous, but they weren't hurting anyone I guess.


----------



## bellenuit (18 April 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I have noticed a big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality. So big that one might be tempted to rule out heredity as the cause.




I have never heard heredity being mentioned as the cause, never mind being mentioned as even a factor in the cause of homosexuality. I'm not saying it isn't, but it's something I haven't heard mentioned.

IMO the swing towards homosexuality is most likely due to it being now accepted as a form of "normal" in society and there is much less reason to hide in the closet, at least in western societies. It doesn't have the stigma attached to it as it previously had. .


----------



## Macquack (18 April 2013)

Logique said:


> When gay marriage advocates *come clean on their full agenda*, that's when I'll think about supporting them.




They are obviously all lefties and greenies.



Logique said:


> Two same-sex parents is better than no parents, I'll concede that, but *children are entitled to a mother and a father*, and this should take priority.




What is your plan for single mothers and single fathers, put their children in the care of the state?


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2013)

Julia said:


> Imo there's scope for that same principle to be considered here.




Not just principle, but real understanding of the nature of homosexuality.



Logique said:


> It's been represented as a human rights issue, but really it goes far beyond that. It's social engineering.
> 
> It's about our constitution, our family and societal values, privilege and and the creeping entitlement mentality.
> 
> ...




Logique, this is a very profound statement.



Julia said:


> It's not all that unusual for three or more people to be involved in a consensual relationship where they all profess to love one another.  Are we going to be equally sanguine about endorsing marriage for this?
> 
> If the loving one another is the basis for it - and there is no legal implication because homosexual couples already have full legal equality in their civil unions in most instances - then presumably relationships between multiple people should be legitimate.
> 
> ...Whenever there are discussions about voluntary euthanasia, people raise the notion of 'the slippery slope'.




Key word here:
sanquine - no concern or embarrassment, ignoring the evidence about the nature of homosexuality
slippery slope - a course of action that leads to unintended consequences​


Gringotts Bank said:


> When the kids of gay parents become adults, they might sue the government that permitted them to be raised without a mother or father.  "How could they have permitted such an abuse on my rights!" they will say.  That would be awkward.
> 
> On another tack, I have noticed a big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality. So big that one might be tempted to rule out heredity as the cause.  Learned perhaps?






bellenuit said:


> I have never heard heredity being mentioned as the cause, never mind being mentioned as even a factor in the cause of homosexuality. I'm not saying it isn't, but it's something I haven't heard mentioned.
> 
> IMO the swing towards homosexuality is most likely due to it being now accepted as a form of "normal" in society and there is much less reason to hide in the closet, at least in western societies. It doesn't have the stigma attached to it as it previously had. .




There is a heredity association. Follow the links from here for more detail: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

​_The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.

Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link, a group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuality is linked to epi-marks ”” extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed. These epi-marks are usually, but not always, "erased" between generations. In homosexuals, these epi-marks aren't erased ”” they're passed from father-to-daughter or mother-to-son, explains William Rice, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara and lead author of the study._



Macquack said:


> What is your plan for single mothers and single fathers, put their children in the care of the state?




The whole notion of marriage has evolved as a moral, ethical and legal basis for people to pool their resources, live together and raise children. It's a starting point designed to give the best social and legal basis for parents to raise children, not a transaction point that necessairly determines the care of children.

One should ask why there is a "big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality" without being 'sanquine' about it. Consider the how, when, where and why. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction... the 'slippery slope' that ill-considered decisions lead to.

The "swing towards homosexuality is most likely due to it being now accepted as a form of "normal""... populism, claiming to represent the common people, the  political philosophy supporting the rights and power of gays in their perceived struggle against the privileged elite. Populism is a play on basic human emotion to be accepted by others.

There is a biological reason why gay people are gay... learn it and understand the ramifications of it. It doesn't demean gays as humans, but to ignore it corrodes the notion of marriage... the social implications of moral, ethical and legal basis for people to pool their resources, live together and raise children. 

Once corrosion gets to a critical point the structure breaks... the slippery slope begins.

The populus push for gay marriage is not about equal rights... it's just about being popular... vanity.

The term 'gay rights' is typically used as the populus wrench on emotions... BUT with rights there always comes responsibilities... the long term implications. Ignore them at your peril.


----------



## bellenuit (19 April 2013)

Whiskers,

I've read your referenced article about the suggested hereditary aspects of homosexuality, but it would appear to be far from conclusive. Kinsey came up with quite different conclusions.

_"If all persons with any trace of homosexual history, or those who were predominantly homosexual, were eliminated from the population today, there is no reason for believing that the incidence of the homosexual in the next generation would be materially reduced. The homosexual has been a significant part of human sexual activity since the dawn of history, primarily because it is an expression of capacities that are basic in the human animal"_ (Kinsey et al., 1948:666).

http://www.queerbychoice.com/dubay_homosexuality.html

IMO, people who have a sexual orientation to be gay have as much rights as others with respect to marriage. I don't see a slippery slope other than a slipper slope away from bigotry and towards acceptance. Marriage is basically a civil institution and should be available to everyone irrespective of the opinions of church leaders who add their own meanings to what marriage is about. That is for them to do, but for civil marriage their views are of no more value than any other citizen.

Adoption of children by gay people, polygamy and group marriages are also worthy of consideration. I am not saying they should be allowed, but those who espouse such arrangements have a right to make their case. I think we cannot deny gays the right to marry purely because we think they have an agenda and this is just the first step in achieving that agenda. Some may have, but we as a society we must treat every issue on its own merits. If workers are working a 45 hour week, do we deny them the right to a 40 hour week, even if we think that is right, because we are afraid that a few years down the track they will demand a 35 hour week.

It must be pretty clear that gay marriages will be legal in every western country within perhaps the next 20 years or so. Let's stop wasting time opposing it and embrace the change. It won't make a damn difference to any heterosexual marriage that exists today or in the future. If it did, what on earth were those marriages about that they have been impacted detrimentally? It may very well impact our "family and societal values", but they are constantly changing anyway and IMO, for the better. One only need look at the "family and societal values" of the 1950s to 1980s to see how the children of poor unmarried mothers were treated in the UK and Ireland to realise such values are not sacrosanct and may need revision.


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Whiskers,
> 
> I've read your referenced article about the suggested hereditary aspects of homosexuality, but it would appear to be far from conclusive. Kinsey came up with quite different conclusions.




Yes, Kinsey did... but that research was abt 60 years ago. Science and genetics have moved a long way since then to this recent project. But the science on this issue has lagged considerably in the face of the gay community insisting they are normal and populus seeking politicians using them as a political power tool and by default, no interest in supporting research that may prove them wrong.

​_Public release date: 11-Dec-2012
 [ Print | E-mail | Share ] [ Close Window ] 

Contact: Catherine Crawley
ccrawley@nimbios.org
 865-974-9350
 National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS)

Study finds epigenetics, not genetics, underlies homosexuality


KNOXVILLE – Epigenetics – how gene expression is regulated by temporary switches, called epi-marks – appears to be a critical and overlooked factor contributing to the long-standing puzzle of why homosexuality occurs.

According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus "erased," can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son. 

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Homosexuality is nevertheless common for men and women in most cultures. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection. 

In the current study, researchers from the Working Group on Intragenomic Conflict at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) integrated evolutionary theory with recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development to produce a biological and mathematical model that delineates the role of epigenetics in homosexuality. 

Epi-marks constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes' backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out – when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. Epi-marks are usually produced anew each generation, but recent evidence demonstrates that they sometimes carryover between generations and thus can contribute to similarity among relatives, resembling the effect of shared genes.

Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized – some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters. 

The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring. 

"Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality," said the study's co-author Sergey Gavrilets, NIMBioS' associate director for scientific activities and a professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. 
_
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/nifm-sfe120612.php

While there needs more research, it seems fairly clear that some of those old concepts are at best incomplete and worst, completely on the wrong track.



> It may very well impact our "family and societal values", but they are constantly changing anyway and IMO, for the better.




I'm referring to more than just "family and societal values"... the legal standard and framework for the structure of civilized society.

As you go on to point out family and societal values fluctuate from time to time, culture to culture and political persuasion of gov... a lot of subjective, emotional and sometimes abusive control influences, even though the concept of and intent of marriage has remained constant. 

As it look a long time to understand many aspects of human like we should not be rushed into anything until the science is exhausted.

What would have happened if the science of say Down syndrome or Leprosy hadn't progressed to where it is today?

I'd suggest the same rationale used toward equality for homosexuality could likely be used today, there also... well maybe not, because of obvious  appearence and intellectual descrepencies.

If the science is indicating a genetic malfunction which can be addressed with 'medicine', should that not be fully explored first and secondly, wouldn't that by definition re-classify homosexuality as an epigenetic/medical disorder?

Then, what of the concept of marriage?

Remembering the whole pretense of the 'gay movement' re marriage is to be treated as normal, if it is found to be a 'curable' epigenetic/medical issue, whould the whole notion of gay marriage be by definition an ill-conceived nonsense... not normal?


----------



## Tink (19 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> +1
> 
> Many won't see the implications of this until many years down the track.




Very true pavilion, and it saddens me for our children and future children, that biological parents arent important anymore to raise their children.
The standard is wrong for all future generations regarding marraige. It should be a sacred union for families. Whether people choose to have children its up to them but its a man and women that has a family.
We have changes in Victoria now about adoption and pushing through about children trying to find their biological parents.
This whole thing is just selfish and this human rights issue is going too far, from this thread to the jail thread. Victims arent being heard.
No matter how bad a parent is, mother or father, a child will always love them and want to know them -- everyone wants to know their roots. Just making a mockery of these childrens lives.

My opinion...


----------



## Izabarack (19 April 2013)

Tink said:


> No matter how bad a parent is, mother or father, a child will always love them and want to know them -- everyone wants to know their roots.




This would have to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read.  I do wish people would stop trying to push their opinions on to others.   The only absolute I do subscribe to is the right of people to self-determine their outcomes.   Gay marriage will have no more negative effects on children than are currently available to those who have "bad" hetro parents.

Iza


----------



## banco (19 April 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> When the kids of gay parents become adults, they might sue the government that permitted them to be raised without a mother or father.  "How could they have permitted such an abuse on my rights!" they will say.  That would be awkward.
> 
> On another tack, I have noticed a big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality. So big that one might be tempted to rule out heredity as the cause.  Learned perhaps?




So you think you could learn to be gay?


----------



## Calliope (19 April 2013)

Izabarack said:


> This would have to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read.  I do wish people would stop trying to push their opinions on to others.




Nasty. Tink is not forcing her opinions on anyone. Her opinions are valued on this forum.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 April 2013)

It isn't natural biologically. 

Sexual desires can certainly be a product of environment. An extreme case is that of a pedophile. I don't think someone is born with a gene were they are sexually attracted to children. It may start with pr0n and then regular pr0n doesn't become as exciting so then teen pr0n, then preteen pr0n and then child pr0n. They have no idea how they got there, they didn't intend to, they weren't born that way but through their choices and the environment they exposed them self to right from the start it developed. Their brain has now become wired in this way.

They weren't born with it.

From an evolutionary point of view it doesn't make sense. Children are born of a mother and father. They genetically crave biological needs from both. 

This isn't an equality issue. If its about our rights and we should have the right to love as we want then why not permit many wives or husbands? If everyone is consenting then who is the government to tell us how to live and love? Then children will have multiple mother and father influences.......
Can you see where this is going?


----------



## pavilion103 (19 April 2013)

Izabarack said:


> This would have to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read.  I do wish people would stop trying to push their opinions on to others.   The only absolute I do subscribe to is the right of people to self-determine their outcomes.   Gay marriage will have no more negative effects on children than are currently available to those who have "bad" hetro parents.
> 
> Iza




Yet you can force your view? You can't see the irony? Get real or get out mate!


----------



## ICdeadppl (19 April 2013)

One good thing to come from Gay Marriage will be Gay Divorce Court, which will be an awesome reality TV show


----------



## pixel (19 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> This isn't an equality issue. If its about our rights and we should have the right to love as we want then why not permit many wives or husbands? If everyone is consenting then who is the government to tell us how to live and love? Then children will have multiple mother and father influences.......
> *Can you see where this is going?*




Yes, I can see where this is going: Multiple Serial Communal Families, a glimpse of which we've seen in the floral 1960's and 70's.
Read Heinlein "Time Enough to Love" and "The Number of the Beast". 

(showing  my age, ain't I )


----------



## Gringotts Bank (19 April 2013)

banco said:


> So you think you could learn to be gay?




Not now, not for me.  But I think a child could.  I'm no expert on this but I have noticed a few things:

1. gay men/women I have known seem to often have poor relationships with the same sex parent.  Not always, but often.  Even if it's just a parent who is aloof or absent a lot. 
2. There was a doco on TV that showed that young gay men who reconnect with their fathers have a high chance of changing their sexual orientation (it was an episode of the Young Americans).
3. We only desire things we don't have.  If we haven't had the love/connection of the same sex parent early in life, we could easily create the image of the perfect lover as being someone who has that missing quality, ie. maleness/femaleness.

It can't be easy being gay.  It's probably a lot easier than it was in the past, which is a good thing.


----------



## MrBurns (19 April 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Not now, not for me.  But I think a child could.  I'm no expert on this but I have noticed a few things:
> 
> 1. gay men/women I have known seem to often have poor relationships with the same sex parent.  Not always, but often.  Even if it's just a parent who is aloof or absent a lot.
> 2. There was a doco on TV that showed that young gay men who reconnect with their fathers have a high chance of changing their sexual orientation (it was an episode of the Young Americans).
> ...




I think it's more basic than that, it's SEX

I might love my mates but there's no way on earth I'd want to be naked with them and the thought of having sex with a man ? 
Would take more than a bad relationship with good old Dad to bring that on


----------



## Ves (19 April 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Not now, not for me.  But I think a child could.  I'm no expert on this but I have noticed a few things:
> 
> 1. gay men/women I have known seem to often have poor relationships with the same sex parent.  Not always, but often.  Even if it's just a parent who is aloof or absent a lot.
> 2. There was a doco on TV that showed that young gay men who reconnect with their fathers have a high chance of changing their sexual orientation (it was an episode of the Young Americans).
> ...



Have you ever thought that homosexual children have poor relationships with their "Same sex parent" because of the fact that they had homosexual traits growing up?  The causation could easily be argued to be the reverse of your argument.

for the record, I've never ever met anyone who has been involved in a "three way" love pact.  I've never really heard it reported any where either.  I'm not sure how people are saying it is "common" or "prevalent" and the "next big step."  Sounds like hyperbole from my, admittedly, shorter experience of the world.


----------



## McLovin (19 April 2013)

Ves said:


> Have you ever thought that homosexual children have poor relationships with their "Same sex parent" because of the fact that they had homosexual traits growing up?  The causation could easily be argued to be the reverse of your argument.
> 
> for the record, I've never ever met anyone who has been involved in a "three way" love pact.  I've never really heard it reported any where either.  I'm not sure how people are saying it is "common" or "prevalent" and the "next big step."  Sounds like hyperbole from my, admittedly, shorter experience of the world.




I agree.

This debate is filled with hyperbole. It's commonly accepted by everyone except some of the more fanatical Bible bashers that homosexuality is something you're born with. As Burnsie pointed out, it takes more than a bad relationship with your dad to want to hop in the sack with your best mate.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (19 April 2013)

Ves said:


> Have you ever thought that homosexual children have poor relationships with their "Same sex parent" because of the fact that they had homosexual traits growing up?  The causation could easily be argued to be the reverse of your argument.
> 
> for the record, I've never ever met anyone who has been involved in a "three way" love pact.  I've never really heard it reported any where either.  I'm not sure how people are saying it is "common" or "prevalent" and the "next big step."  Sounds like hyperbole from my, admittedly, shorter experience of the world.




No I hadn't actually, that's a good point.


----------



## moXJO (19 April 2013)

Ahh NZ.
 One step closer to marrying sheep


----------



## tinhat (19 April 2013)

moXJO said:


> Ahh NZ.
> One step closer to marrying sheep




The Honourable Corey Bernardi is in the chamber.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 April 2013)

McLovin said:


> I agree.
> 
> This debate is filled with hyperbole. It's commonly accepted by everyone except some of the more fanatical Bible bashers that homosexuality is something you're born with. As Burnsie pointed out, it takes more than a bad relationship with your dad to want to hop in the sack with your best mate.




What is it commonly accepted based on? What is the evidence that 'you are born with it'

How is the argument more convincing than the opposite?

Do you so think pedophiles are born with sexual feelings towards kids? 

99 out of 100 people can agree that 1+1=3 but unless there is evidence for it, it's acceptance is based in ignorance.


----------



## moXJO (19 April 2013)

tinhat said:


> The Honourable Corey Bernardi is in the chamber.




wasn't he fired over a similar quote?


----------



## McLovin (19 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> What is it commonly accepted based on? What is the evidence that 'you are born with it'




Countless studies by the medical profession. It may take an environmental factor that causes someone to "come out", but it's extremely unlikely that an otherwise straight man or woman becomes gay overnight after watching Will and Grace. Sexuality is a continum not a binary outcome. If you are right at the gay end of the sexuality spectrum then you're going to be gay. Most people sit somewhere along the spectrum rather than at either end.


----------



## moXJO (19 April 2013)

I wonder what the legal ramifications to persons or institutions that do not recognize gay marriage due to beliefs will be. You would expect laws will have to be changed.


----------



## Julia (19 April 2013)

stewiejp said:


> I would argue the hurdles of going through the adoption process for any couple (which can take years) should show how determined they are to do a good job parenting.



Point worth considering.



> I fail to see how a child would be worse off than some single parent children, or children from less than ideal circumstances. Eg alcohol/drug taking parents, parents who can't afford to look after them, parents who don't know how to look after a child, abusive families..



Agree with the principle you're talking about, but perhaps consider that a homosexual orientation will not preclude people from alcohol/drug abuse, penury, or abuse.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 April 2013)

What about my pedophile question which is also in relation to sexual preference? Is this something people are born with too?

And specifically what genetic information has been found in an individual that makes them have a homosexual preference? Not generic studies but concrete evidence? I can't let a claim like yours, that being born with it is absolutely commonly accepted, go uncontested without some very specific and substantial evidence to back it up.


----------



## McLovin (19 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> What about my pedophile question which is also in relation to sexual preference? Is this something people are born with too?




Last time I checked, paedophilia was not a sexual preference any more than liking MILFs is.



pavilion103 said:


> And specifically what genetic information has been found in an individual that makes them have a homosexual preference? Not generic studies but concrete evidence?




Google away. There's no concrete evidence of what gene causes it but there is a plethora of evidence that it is biological.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 April 2013)

It is intellectually dishonest (or ignorant) to state that people are born with homosexuality as a fact. Objectively, that just cannot be done. 

"Medical studies" is a throw away line on a forum like this rather than presenting evidences A,B,C. 


Unfortunately the uneducated public just accept this as a tolerance issue because it is what they have naively been fed. Most do not have the foresight to see the implications of these decisions (as I've mentioned above). I'm used to it. Like other things people will look at the few who recognized this and say "wow, how did you see that coming. It was only one small tolerance issue at the time."

The amount of propaganda in here is laughable.


----------



## moXJO (19 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> It is intellectually dishonest (or ignorant) to state that people are born with homosexuality as a fact. Objectively, that just cannot be done.
> 
> "Medical studies" is a throw away line on a forum like this rather than presenting evidences A,B,C.
> 
> ...




Do you have a problem with them getting married or just the choice vs genetics?


----------



## McLovin (19 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> It is intellectually dishonest (or ignorant) to state that people are born with homosexuality as a fact. Objectively, that just cannot be done.




I believe I said it was "commonly accepted", there's a difference between that and a proven fact. It's commonly accepted that life on Earth started in a primordial soup, although there is no way of proving it as fact. It's far more intellectually dishonest to try and paint paedophilia as a sexual orientation on par with homosexuality. 

Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK...



> 2. The origins of homosexuality
> Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there
> is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of
> parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a
> ...




http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission to the Church of England.pdf

But what would they know, ay.



pavilion103 said:


> The amount of propaganda in here is laughable.




Agree.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 April 2013)

Complex interplay of genetic factors - this says nothing. 

The article/study basically says they don't believe there is any evidence for homosexually being due to environment (a generic statement not supported by anything at all specific). It's really stated as a personal opinion.

So because one article states:
1) it isn't due to environment ( no evidence)
2) it is due to genetic factors (no evidence)

That is evidence enough? I don't mean to be harsh, I actually enjoy your posts in the trading forums but... Aren't you embarrassed to post that as evidence? You'd never post anything so flakey on the trading boards!!!!


----------



## McLovin (19 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Complex interplay of genetic factors - this says nothing.
> 
> The article/study basically says they don't believe there is any evidence for homosexually being due to environment (a generic statement not supported by anything at all specific). It's really stated as a personal opinion.
> 
> ...




It's not an article, it's the stated position of the peak body of psychiatrists in the UK. If you really think they arrived at that position by sticking in their thumb in the air or drawing lots, then so be it. If you want to find evidence to prove/disprove their position, then go for it. I'll trust their judgement over what a few pundits on an IBB say.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (19 April 2013)

I'm not fixed on any point of view, just throwing up some ideas here, some contradictory... like the following single case study...

Derren Brown is gay.  He's also an expert in psychology, mentalism, influence and hypnosis. What he can do with peoples minds is quite extraordinary....there are few as skilled and powerful as him.  He wasn't happy being gay when he was younger.  He tried everything on himself in order to 'cure' his gayness.  And it didn't work.  While working on oneself is not that easy, one might say that this is fairly strong evidence for the genetic/biological cause.


----------



## explod (19 April 2013)

Who cares?

In a free world the individual should be able to do as pleases providing there is no violation of anothers freedom.

See the Rolf Harris case is now hitting the open news, these are the points for useful discussion in my view.


----------



## bellenuit (19 April 2013)

It is odd to suggest that homosexuality is a lifestyle preference, when many homosexuals, before they had the courage to come out, have often recounted how they hated themselves for the way they were and how they would give anything to be "normal" just like other people. Unless they are also masochists, why would anyone show a preference to a lifestyle or sexual orientation that they hate.


----------



## stewiejp (19 April 2013)

Julia said:


> Agree with the principle you're talking about, but perhaps consider that a homosexual orientation will not preclude people from alcohol/drug abuse, penury, or abuse.




One would hope the adoption process would eliminate, or at least reduce the risk of such. Having said that, hetero couples aren't bound by processes which preclude negative circumstances for their children, in the future gays may not either - through surrogacy/ivf etc


----------



## stewiejp (19 April 2013)

On the more predominance of homosexuality in today's society - Our society is a lot more "Gay Friendly" than it once was. This isn't necessarily "encouraging" people to become gay, more embracing them to show their true feelings/sexuality. Years ago people with homosexual tendencies would rather live alone as a bachelor or spinster than "come out". That, IMHO is a good thing.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 April 2013)

explod said:


> Who cares?
> 
> In a free world the individual should be able to do as pleases providing there is no violation of anothers freedom.
> 
> See the Rolf Harris case is now hitting the open news, these are the points for useful discussion in my view.




The children if adopted. No one in a free world has the right to deny the child their right to a mother AND father.

To suggest otherwise is a complete violation of their basic rights.


----------



## Tink (19 April 2013)

Agree Pavilion and this is exactly what its all about. 
No one cares about the children.  Everyone is too busy yelling about their rights.


----------



## Calliope (19 April 2013)

Tink said:


> Agree Pavilion and this is exactly what its all about.
> No one cares about the children.  Everyone is too busy yelling about their rights.




Yes. The rights of those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman are being trashed.


----------



## Julia (19 April 2013)

Ves said:


> for the record, I've never ever met anyone who has been involved in a "three way" love pact.  I've never really heard it reported any where either.  I'm not sure how people are saying it is "common" or "prevalent" and the "next big step."  Sounds like hyperbole from my, admittedly, shorter experience of the world.



Good that your last sentence recognises  your youth and possibly narrow social experience.
You can hardly expect that people involved in relationships of more than two persons are going to line up at your local supermarket and make an announcement.  Despite the open acceptance now of homosexuality,  we've not yet reached the stage where more complex relationships are going to be widely accepted.

You'd not need to spend long in a general medical practice to become aware of some of the bizarre sexual relationships that people enjoy.  Ditto in an HIV clinic where patients can list dozens of sexual contacts, none of whose names they know.

And don't assume that all these people proclaiming the right to homosexual marriage are engaged in what you would consider to be morally pure relationships.  Plenty of apparently exclusive/monogamous homosexuals still, as a couple, cruise public toilets etc in search of interesting variation.



McLovin said:


> This debate is filled with hyperbole.



That depends on your point of view.  I'd suggest it's also filled with naivete.



McLovin said:


> Sexuality is a continum not a binary outcome. If you are right at the gay end of the sexuality spectrum then you're going to be gay. Most people sit somewhere along the spectrum rather than at either end.



Agree entirely.



McLovin said:


> Last time I checked, paedophilia was not a sexual preference any more than liking MILFs is.



Can you clarify what you're saying here?  Are you suggesting paedophilia is a choice or a biological compulsion, just the same as homosexuality?


----------



## explod (19 April 2013)

Tink said:


> Agree Pavilion and this is exactly what its all about.
> No one cares about the children.  Everyone is too busy yelling about their rights.




In many cases in the current overcrowded world children are wanting for good parents.

However, gays should not ha ve the rights to adopt or have invetro fertilisation.

The rights of all to make thier own choices, as I pointed out, had nothing to do with children.  I am not gay myself, had three children and have eight grandchildren.

People who I know that are gay are very gentle caring individuals.  This discussion has nothing to do with children.


----------



## Tink (19 April 2013)

So why do they have to destroy the concept of marraige when it has always been about the family unit. It has always been about mother, father, child.
They have their union, marraige is about families and has always been about families.
So now we have to omit one?
The children are the victims in this -- a generation trying to find their biological parents.


----------



## explod (19 April 2013)

Tink said:


> So why do they have to destroy the concept of marraige when it has always been about the family unit. It has always been about mother, father, child.
> They have their union, marraige is about families and has always been about families.
> So now we have to omit one?
> The children are the victims in this -- a generation trying to find their biological parents.




People that are gay did not choose that, they were born that way.  Marriage is just a word.  The important aspect is that of a devoted faithful union, whether man and woman to hve children or a pair of gays to love and look after each other.  Happy people together are better than that just described by Julia wandering around dark toilets to find thrills.  There is always going to be that but more normalised relationships in marriage can only be of benefit to all, including children.

A bit like celebacy, it creates psychological problems leading sometimes to abuse.  Gays being shunned and treated less equal must bring about similar type problems and issues.


----------



## Calliope (19 April 2013)

explod said:


> I am not gay myself, had three children and have eight grandchildren.




Good for you Plod. You are the first proponent of gay marriage on this thread to declare they are not gay. By the way, having children is not proof against gayness. Oscar Wilde had two sons.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 April 2013)

Of course this is about children. Anyone who says otherwise is so short sighted. 

WHY DOES NO ONE GIVE A TOSS ABOUT A CHILD'S RIGHT TO A MOTHER AND FATHER. Shame on you all. 

People should have to balls to stop spouting none sense about rights, whilst ignoring where this issue is heading and the rights if the innocent children that will be suppressed.


----------



## bellenuit (19 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> Good for you Plod. You are the first proponent of gay marriage on this thread to declare they are not gay. By the way, having children is not proof against gayness. Oscar Wilde had two sons.




So you are assuming those who support gay marriages on this forum are probably gay? Or that to argue the case why gays should have similar marriage rights to heterosexuals requires you to declare your orientation because the arguments don't stand up on their own?


----------



## Tink (20 April 2013)

Julia said:


> Can you clarify what you're saying here?  Are you suggesting paedophilia is a choice or a biological compulsion, just the same as homosexuality?




Thats it Julia.
Thats why we have undercover police masquerading as children all over the internet catching these people out at their meeting point, not to mention the ones bringing in children slaves.
Its a sickness but its out there -- their preference.


----------



## explod (20 April 2013)

This thread is not about peodophiles, deviants or children.

We are talking about people who are for all points and purposes, law abiding and apart from being gay are perfectly normal in all other aspects.

The question is, should they be allowed to be married.  I know a male couple who have been together for nearly 30 years, they run a business and one is also a minister of a religeon who still conducts services.

Such couples do no harm to anybody and are in fact generous and the first to help anyone in trouble, as a couple together too.

Marriage brings with it security in later years and the benefits of the state.  A married couple or couple together recieve overall less in Government benefits than does the combined amount of two singles.

If by allowing them to marry we will have happier people which is a benefit to everyone.

And of course the sanctity of a good marriage is the ideal for having children but it has never guaranteed their protection and could be argued that under the cover of a marriage a peadophile being one of the partners have been shown to get away with it till the children have often sufferred all the way to later adulthood when sometimes the perpetrator has passed on.  How about the Father in England who had his Daughter locked up in a cellar for many years and had three children to her.  He was married and his wife must have known.  These are very very much more important issues but not part of this debate. 

So if we stick to the question of the thread, where is the problem ?


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> So you are assuming those who support gay marriages on this forum are probably gay? Or that to argue the case why gays should have similar marriage rights to heterosexuals requires you to declare your orientation because the arguments don't stand up on their own?




No, but it would be interesting to know why gay supporters of same sex "marriage" on this thread are averse to  declaring their sexual orientation. Whatever happened to "gay pride"?


----------



## Pager (20 April 2013)

If gay people want to get married then I cant see why not, its up to them, there part of the community and should have the same rights as everyone else, the whole issued is being overblown, surely there are more important issues to tackle.

As for the argument about if or not homosexuality is normal then IMO it most defiantly is NOT, up to the individuals involved and in all other aspects of life a person may be normal but to say being gay is normal just isn’t right.


----------



## DocK (20 April 2013)

> Consensus
> 
> The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[5][6][22][23]
> 
> *Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents*.[4][22] Since the end of the 1980s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Children.E2.80.99s_outcomes

I know the above is from Wikipedia, and no doubt those that have contrary views could find articles supporting their beliefs, but the above - especially the part I've bolded - sums up my views better than I could articulate myself.  

If it is not right to deny a child the right to know its biological parents - should all adoptions be frowned upon, or only those made by same-sex couples?  

There was a time when it was quite normal for daughters to marry whoever their fathers told them to, with little or no importance placed on their preference.

There was a time when it was generally accepted that only a man had the right to own property, and only men could earn money, hold jobs, be members of parliament etc.

There was a time when white people felt they had the right to sell other humans of a different colour as slaves.

There was a time when only men could vote, and many considered the very thought of this changing to be outrageous.

There was a time, not that long ago, that our own Australian aboriginal population were considered good enough to go to war for the country, but not good enough to vote or to be left to raise their own children.

There was a time when inter-racial relationships were considered to be scandalous.

There was a time when equal pay for women for the same job was extremely rare, and women had to resign upon marriage.

I firmly believe that one day our children and grandchildren will look back at this present debate and wonder "how could they think that was right", as I wonder how people in the past ever thought the above "norms" were right or acceptable.

Society evolves.  Some wish to cling to the old ways, and they are just as entitled to their beliefs and opinions as anyone else, but in the end the beliefs of the majority will prevail - it's just a matter of time.  Personally, I think it is wrong to deny a (growing) section of our community the same rights and privileges that fall to the rest of us.


----------



## Logique (20 April 2013)

Soon enough, we'll see gay marrieds, denied an adoption, off to equal opportunity and the courts - 'we're legally married' they'll say.


----------



## DocK (20 April 2013)

Logique said:


> Soon enough, we'll see gay marrieds, denied an adoption, off to equal opportunity and the courts - 'we're legally married' they'll say.




How would that be any different to a hetero married couple who were denied an adoption doing the same thing?  I assume those that screen for adoptions would apply the same filters to both couples, and both would have the right to challenge their decision if they disagreed?


----------



## tinhat (20 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> No, but it would be interesting to know why gay supporters of same sex "marriage" on this thread are averse to  declaring their sexual orientation. Whatever happened to "gay pride"?




Whatever happened to minding your own business?


----------



## Ves (20 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Of course this is about children. Anyone who says otherwise is so short sighted.
> 
> WHY DOES NO ONE GIVE A TOSS ABOUT A CHILD'S RIGHT TO A MOTHER AND FATHER. Shame on you all.
> 
> People should have to balls to stop spouting none sense about rights, whilst ignoring where this issue is heading and the rights if the innocent children that will be suppressed.



Can you share some research to the contrary of Dock's post or is this some more, in your own words, "propaganda"?


----------



## pavilion103 (20 April 2013)

Many in this thread lack the foresight of the implications of adoption for gay couples. 

Not even dealing with whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. 

From an evolutionary point of view nature has dictated that an ideal upbringing is that of a mother and father. Every child has sets of needs that can only be fulfilled by BOTH. This is obvious enough to not warrant further elaboration. 
From a creationist point of view God created man and woman to form union as one and to reproduce within the institution of marriage. 

People can say well gay people are also good people and straight people can be bad parents. Sure, of course, but this ignores the fact that a child has needs that only a mother AND father can truly fulfill. So who the heck has the right to deny a child this? It's not about whether a gay person is a "good person", it's about the ideal upbringing of a child. 


Humans have not been created (or evolved) for this sort of arrangement. If gay couples and parenting is really the way it's meant to be why don't we wait until nature dictates this and men can become pregnant? Or women can get each other pregnant? 
It seems so ironic that a gay couple needs both a MAN and a WOMAN to produce the baby in the first place. 


None of this even addressed how dangerous the homosexual lifestyle actually is and that we are not created (or evolved) to live this way! Even if people have a genetic disposition towards being more 'gay' what does that matter? Someone can have a genetic disposition towards alcoholism, does that mean they should drink until their heart is content?
I find it amazing how we just 'accept' this as being ok because people want to do it, ignoring what we were created to do or how we evolved to live. 
Then people get worked up about how the sexual preference towards being a pedophile has nothing to do with this. WHY? In what ways do YOU see it as different? Are both genetic? Are both environment? Both are a sexual preference for a type of person. 

When the individual starts putting these things into different categories and willy nilly determines what is 'right' or 'wrong' we go down a very dangerous path. We have no accountability. Who cares what the majority thinks? When the majority thought racial segregation was ok did that make it ok? NO.
When we start separating this from the sexual pedophilic sexual preference for children and then other things we implement our own SUBJECTIVE morality. 
This is what Hitler did when he did us all a 'favour' by weeding out the genetically weak, so that the rest of us could enjoy a super race.  

I see a lot of talk of 'tolerance' and if people want to do it it's ok, but this is a soft, passive way of thinking which lacks conviction. Think about this a bit more deeply and whatever you choose to believe don't let it be "because people want to it's ok" or then you might as well put alcoholism and other things in the same category.


----------



## pavilion103 (20 April 2013)

Ves said:


> Can you share some research to the contrary of Dock's post or is this some more, in your own words, "propaganda"?




See my above post. 

What more evidence do you want than the fact that we either:

1) evolved in this manner (i.e. nature determined that a man and woman would have children and that the child has specific needs that can only be met by both - this point is obvious to not warrant further explanation I'm sure you'd agree)

2) we were created in this manner (an all powerful and knowing creator decided this was best - well that ends the argument)


Who are we to try and change this because of our mere personal opinions?

Take either point 1) or 2) and something much bigger than us is trying to tell us something. How can we be so dumb as to not realise what this is?


----------



## Ves (20 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> See my above post.
> 
> What more evidence do you want than the fact that we either:
> 
> ...



The universe / nature or whatever you want to call it isn't a moral system or one that is inclusive of only binary outcomes.   It is a complex web of relationships between its different components. There is logic, some things work and some things do not.  But there is nothing inherent in the system that says there is only one way.

Man has done many things that would seem not to be "natural"  (ie.  technology, building cities, having an economy) - but these are best seen as outcomes of mankind trying to make something out of the tools and components that the diverse system of life offers to him. Some things work best, some things not so good, and some fall somewhere in between.  The outcomes of everything run along a continuum as life has no inherent meaning; there are grey areas.

Point 1)   there is nothing in evolution that says that a man or woman need to be present after conception and birth - unless you can show me by using science that this is the a biological rule that a man and woman must be present when a child is being raised?

Point 2) we were created with the biological rule that you need a man and a woman to make a child - nothing after that point has a biological rule that governs it

I may be misunderstaing you, and you may need to clarify your argument, but it seems that you are saying that you have a mum or a dad, and nothing else can work. *edit:  you seem to be saying that this is the ideal scenario, and I would agree with that, but with the addendum that other ways can, and have empirically, worked.* There is plenty of empirical evidence in society that would suggest that this argument is void.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2013)

tinhat said:


> Whatever happened to minding your own business?




You mean like they do *publicly* in the Mardi Gras.


----------



## Julia (20 April 2013)

Ves said:


> Point 1)   there is nothing in evolution that says that a man or woman need to be present after conception and birth - unless you can show me by using science that this is the a biological rule that a man and woman must be present when a child is being raised?
> 
> Point 2) we were created with the biological rule that you need a man and a woman to make a child - nothing after that point has a biological rule that governs it
> 
> I may be misunderstaing you, and you may need to clarify your argument, but it seems that you are saying that you have a mum or a dad, and nothing else can work. *edit:  you seem to be saying that this is the ideal scenario, and I would agree with that, but with the addendum that other ways can, and have empirically, worked.* There is plenty of empirical evidence in society that would suggest that this argument is void.



Good reasoning and well put, Ves.   Pavilion, if you're going to be adamant that every child must have a male and female parent to develop well, how do you account for the many productive and caring people who are brought up by just a single mother, the father having no input?


----------



## sydboy007 (20 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> See my above post.
> 
> What more evidence do you want than the fact that we either:
> 
> ...




What a load of bigotry.  To have the audacity to think that because you hold an idea so firmly that it must obviously be self evident, and so therefore requires no further discussion, is just the ultimate in narrow mindedness.

Go back in history and look at the styles of families.  The modern day nuclear family is a construct of the post war era.  Go back 100+ years and you will see it would have been fairly UNNATURAL to have children brought up with just a mother and father.  Quite often there was the entire extended family living together, or you relied on friends to help with the caring of children.  Quite often the father was away for extended periods.  I look at my Gran and how she was sent away during WWI to live with her Grandmother.  She's a well adjusted person, yet by your standards she didn't have a NATURL upbringing.

Go to poor countries and you will see that older children have a much greater input into the care of their younger siblings.  It wouldn't surprise me if that is a superior way to raise children than the drop them off at child care of today.

I have  friends who are a gay couple.  They made the choice to have children by surrogacy at a very considerable cost.  If you met the children out playing I doubt you'd even have the merest hint that they were being raised by a gay couple.  They laugh and cry just as much as any other children.  The oldest boy has a cheeky streak to him, while the younger ones are still in that shy phase till they get to know you.

This couple has made major changes in their lives to have the children.  They invested considerable resources into designing their house so they can work from home and have a lot more time with their children.  They had to make a CHOICE, unlike a lot of parents out there who you often wonder if they really want the children they have.

Come around to my house in the inner west some night and I'll let you hear the screaming of a few of my neighbours as they shout abuse to their children.  I can honestly say I would never say anything like they do to a child.  It disgusts me, but hey, as far as you're concerned that would have less impact on the child than gay parents.

As to what is bigger than us, you remind me of the bigots I faced when I was younger.  The whole Sodom and Gomorrah, man shall not lie with man as he would with a woman crap.  If homosexuality was so wrong then why did Jesus never bother to mention it?  As for the good ol' Sodom tale, I'd argue God was quite rightly incensed over the rape of an innocent, than of homosexuality!


----------



## tinhat (20 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> You mean like they do *publicly* in the Mardi Gras.
> 
> View attachment 51851




It's a free country. People can do as they want and don't need to consult or inform you about it. Why would you want to know what goes on in people's bedrooms?


----------



## bellenuit (20 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> No, but it would be interesting to know why gay supporters of same sex "marriage" on this thread are averse to  declaring their sexual orientation. Whatever happened to "gay pride"?




Well considering there are only about 6 or 7 or so actively contributing to this thread with perhaps 3 or 4 supporting gay marriage (representing the relative support of the population as a whole), it would hardly be unreasonable to assume that there are probably no active contributors that are gay. I don't know how much of the population declare themselves gay, but I would be surprised is it were more than 5%, so of 3 or 4 people it is more likely that none are gay. So when you say the gays on this thread are adverse to declaring their sexual orientation, it might just be because there are none.

I haven't heard any declarations from you as to your sexual orientation, but to be honest I wouldn't have paid attention anyway. It's irrelevant. In any case, it is often the case that those who stridently express that they are heterosexual turn out to be closet gays.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2013)

tinhat said:


> It's a free country. People can do as they want and don't need to consult or inform you about it. Why would you want to know what goes on in people's bedrooms?




What are you rabbiting on about?  When did I ask you, or anyone else to "consult or inform" me on anything, let alone their bedroom habits?:screwy:

And bellenuit, just to put you "who doth protest too much" on the right track...nowhere on this thread have I made any criticisms or made any derogatory remarks or passed any judgement on or about anyone's sexual orientation.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> You mean like they do *publicly* in the Mardi Gras.




Another post that adds nothing to the discussion, except maybe to show a level of distain


----------



## Ves (20 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Another post that adds nothing to the discussion, except maybe to show a level of distain



Don't worry he will have backed himself into a corner by the time Pyne and Abbott do one of the biggest backflips in modern political history and leglislate gay marriage in Australia in their governmental period.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2013)

Ves said:


> Don't worry he will have backed himself into a corner by the time Pyne and Abbott do one of the biggest backflips in modern political history and leglislate gay marriage in Australia in their governmental period.




Maybe you will be the one in the corner.



> This morning shadow education spokesman, Chris Pyne suggested that Coalition’s stance may be reviewed in the lead up to or after the September election but out gay brothers and sisters would be wise not to hold their breaths waiting. This is especially so given that Tony Abbott spoke at a community forum last night and said he believed “gay marriage” was not an inevitability, at least “not any time soon.”




http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...tralian/comments/new_zealand_first_this_time/


----------



## bellenuit (20 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> And bellenuit, just to put you "who doth protest too much" on the right track...nowhere on this thread have I made any criticisms or made any derogatory remarks or passed any judgement on or about anyone's sexual orientation.




Hardly putting me on the right track, when I never ever claimed that. 

But you have several times stated that gays' motivations for wanting gay marriage are malevolent, rather than what they state their motivations to be. You have made statements that *want* to denigrate marriage.

I think everyone who thinks homosexuality is a lifestyle choice should listen carefully to what this girl is saying. It has been posted before. Words that stood out when I listened to it were: _"I met gay teens who are happy. I didn't think that was possible."_. Why should we deny them the right to be happy. And if marriage helps them fulfil their happiness, why should we get in the way. It doesn't in any way may marriage less meaningful for others. Considering all the forced marriages, child brides, broken marriages etc., adding to the mix people who aspire to be happily married can only enhance the institution. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=InN6bt0B8x0


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 April 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I'm not fixed on any point of view, just throwing up some ideas here, some contradictory... like the following single case study...
> 
> Derren Brown is gay.  He's also an expert in psychology, mentalism, influence and hypnosis. What he can do with peoples minds is quite extraordinary....there are few as skilled and powerful as him.  He wasn't happy being gay when he was younger.  He tried everything on himself in order to 'cure' his gayness.  And it didn't work.  While working on oneself is not that easy, one might say that this is fairly strong evidence for the genetic/biological cause.




I'll just reply to myself here... and it looks like Derren has changed his mind on homosexuality.

[edit]....or has he?.....sorry about that!

Read here:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...wn-longer-wants-control-mind--improve-it.html


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Hardly putting me on the right track, when I never ever claimed that.
> 
> But you have several times stated that gays' motivations for wanting gay marriage are malevolent, rather than what they state their motivations to be.






> ma·lev·o·lent
> /məˈlevələnt/
> Adjective
> Having or showing a wish to do evil to others.
> ...




Now you are just being silly.:screwy:



> You have made statements that *want* to denigrate marriage.




That is a lie. You seem intent on denigrating me. What have I done to incur your animosity? I know it is a sensitive issue and *I have not been critical of any poster* for that reason.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (20 April 2013)

How do homosexual & lesbian couples explain the birds & the bees to their children?

What is their answer to 'Where do I come from'?

Can we have our rainbow colours back?


----------



## explod (20 April 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I'll just reply to myself here... and it looks like Derren has changed his mind on homosexuality.
> 
> [edit]....or has he?.....sorry about that!
> 
> Read here:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...wn-longer-wants-control-mind--improve-it.html




Sorry I missed that earlier.  You are correct in my view.

As in the religeon thread, the problem of under/or/missunderstanding here, is the tension between belief and science.  One assums the gap can be meshed together for a consensus, but I am afraid it seems to be like trying to square a circle, it wont' go.


----------



## Julia (20 April 2013)

explod said:


> This thread is not about peodophiles, deviants or children.



Not quite true, explod, when you consider the law just passed in NZ gives these couples the right to adopt children, so it's not unreasonable for the discussion to include relationship of sexual orientation to the process of raising children.



> The question is, should they be allowed to be married.  I know a male couple who have been together for nearly 30 years, they run a business and one is also a minister of a religeon who still conducts services.
> 
> Such couples do no harm to anybody and are in fact generous and the first to help anyone in trouble, as a couple together too.



Fine.  But their kindness and generosity probably has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.  I understand the point you're trying to make, however.



> Marriage brings with it security in later years and the benefits of the state.



It makes no difference.  Civil unions already confer all the same financial and social security benefits as marriage.



> A married couple or couple together recieve overall less in Government benefits than does the combined amount of two singles.



So we could regard homosexual marriage as a positive budgetary measure.



> If by allowing them to marry we will have happier people which is a benefit to everyone.



A naive assumption here, explod.  I'm sure every couple who is disposed to get married does so in the belief that it will bring them endless happiness.  Looking at the divorce stats, it obviously doesn't.  No reason to imagine that homosexuals who marry will be any happier than any other couple, is there?



> And of course the sanctity of a good marriage is the ideal for having children but it has never guaranteed their protection and could be argued that under the cover of a marriage a peadophile being one of the partners have been shown to get away with it till the children have often sufferred all the way to later adulthood when sometimes the perpetrator has passed on.  How about the Father in England who had his Daughter locked up in a cellar for many years and had three children to her.  He was married and his wife must have known.  These are very very much more important issues but not part of this debate.



Agree.  There are simply no guarantees that any person or persons raising a child will do so well, whatever their circumstances and/or sexual preference.



sydboy007 said:


> I have  friends who are a gay couple.  They made the choice to have children by surrogacy at a very considerable cost.  If you met the children out playing I doubt you'd even have the merest hint that they were being raised by a gay couple.  They laugh and cry just as much as any other children.  The oldest boy has a cheeky streak to him, while the younger ones are still in that shy phase till they get to know you.
> 
> This couple has made major changes in their lives to have the children.  They invested considerable resources into designing their house so they can work from home and have a lot more time with their children.  They had to make a CHOICE, unlike a lot of parents out there who you often wonder if they really want the children they have.



Definitely.  Fortunately, the latter are a minority, many of whom have just passively fallen into parenthood through simple thoughtlessness.  Hardly the greatest basis for a good outcome.


----------



## McLovin (20 April 2013)

Julia said:


> Can you clarify what you're saying here?  Are you suggesting paedophilia is a choice or a biological compulsion, just the same as homosexuality?




I'm saying that paedophilia is not a sexual orientation, anymore than wanting to have sex with dead bodies or horses is.

Per wiki (yes I know not the most reliable source)...



> Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,[1][2] while asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category




So you can basically be one of four types. Wanting to sexually assault children is not a sexual orientation anymore than a rapist could claim assaulting adult women is a sexual orientation. It's sad that these debates seem to always drag paedophilia and animals into them.


----------



## McLovin (20 April 2013)

DocK said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Children.E2.80.99s_outcomes
> 
> I know the above is from Wikipedia, and no doubt those that have contrary views could find articles supporting their beliefs, but the above - especially the part I've bolded - sums up my views better than I could articulate myself.
> 
> ...




Great post DocK. 

I'm sure back when whites and blacks were first being allowed to date and marry many of the same arguments were made.


----------



## McLovin (20 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> No, but it would be interesting to know why gay supporters of same sex "marriage" on this thread are averse to  declaring their sexual orientation. Whatever happened to "gay pride"?




I'm not averse to it, no one asked. Not that I think it's anyone's business, but I'm not gay. I don't see why one needs to be gay to support gay marriage anymore than one needs to be black to have supported the civil rights movement.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2013)

McLovin said:


> I'm not averse to it, no one asked. Not that I think it's anyone's business, but I'm not gay. I don't see why one needs to be gay to support gay marriage anymore than one needs to be black to have supported the civil rights movement.




Great post McLovin.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2013)

It is ironic that while in the straight population the tendency towards marriage is decreasing, the institution of marriage is becoming more attractive to gays and their supporters. Perhaps we will see the day when the majority of marriages are same sex.



> In 2009-10, 11% (1.9 million) of Australians aged 18 years and over were living in a de facto relationship, while 53% were in a registered marriage. De facto relationships were most common amongst younger people, with one fifth (22%) of people aged 20-29 years living in these relationships, compared with nearly one tenth (9.4%) of people aged 40-49 years. *The proportion of people aged 20-29 years living in a de facto relationship has doubled since 1992,* where one tenth (10%) were living in one of these relationships. The rate for people aged 40-49 years has also nearly doubled (up from 4.7%) during this time.
> 
> De facto relationships include those living in a same-sex relationship and in 2009-10 there were around 46,300 people living in a same sex couple. The majority of these couples had no children




http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30March+Quarter+2012


----------



## bellenuit (20 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> You have made statements that *want* to denigrate marriage.




Sorry, that should have read:

You have made statements that they *want* to denigrate marriage.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Sorry, that should have read:
> 
> You have made statements that they *want* to denigrate marriage.




Did I say that? Well, whether or not I had the foresight to predict that outcome, it seems to be coming to pass. See my previous post. While gays and their supporters are keen for them to take the marriage vows, it's popularity among straights is declining.


----------



## bellenuit (20 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> Did I say that? Well, whether or not I had the foresight to predict that outcome, it seems to be coming to pass. See my previous post. While gays and their supporters are keen for them to take the marriage vows, it's popularity among straights is declining.




Are you saying marriage is declining because gays have denigrated the institution of marriage? I would attribute the decline to lots of other factors, such as (for Western societies):

1. Women becoming more affluent and independent, so no longer seek the "security" in marriage.
2. No longer a stigma to having children out of wedlock, so there is no pressure to marry to "legitimise" the child
3. The decline in religion means that younger people no longer see it as a "sin" to have sexual relations outside marriage, so less of a need to marry to be able to enjoy an active sexual relationship.
4. The pressures of modern society make it harder for couples to make marriage work, so it doesn't have the same positive connotations as previously. The trauma of divorce and the increased likelihood of divorce happening make many young people think the whole exercise is just not worth it. 

I can't see how you could attribute the cause to gay marriages when they are not yet legalised and even the call to allow gay marriages has only become widespread in the last few years. The figures you posted are changes over a decade ending in 2009/2010, a decade when the concept of gay marriage was not even on the mainstream agenda but the above factors I listed were to the fore.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Are you saying marriage is declining because gays have denigrated the institution of marriage? I would attribute the decline to lots of other factors, such as (for Western societies):
> 
> 1. Women becoming more affluent and independent, so no longer seek the "security" in marriage.
> 2. No longer a stigma to having children out of wedlock, so there is no pressure to marry to "legitimise" the child
> ...




Great post bellenuit.


----------



## Julia (20 April 2013)

McLovin said:


> I'm saying that paedophilia is not a sexual orientation, anymore than wanting to have sex with dead bodies or horses is.
> 
> Per wiki (yes I know not the most reliable source)...





> Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,[1][2] while asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category



If Wiki had been around fifty or more years ago, I doubt it would have offered a similar definition.
Homosexuality would still have been regarded as 'abnormal', 'something to be cured' etc.
(I'm not suggesting that's correct at all, but just pointing out how social mores change over time.)



> So you can basically be one of four types. Wanting to sexually assault children is not a sexual orientation anymore than a rapist could claim assaulting adult women is a sexual orientation. It's sad that these debates seem to always drag paedophilia and animals into them.



No, it's not sad.  It's a reasonable extension of the discussion.
So, just to be quite clear, you are saying that an adult feeling a desire for sexual contact with children has absolute choice in the matter, that it is not at all like one man or woman feeling desire for sex with their same gender?
I don't know.   But I think to assume we understand what drives paedophiles is wrong.  How do you know they do not abhor the aberrant drive they feel and fight just as hard to overcome it as once did homosexuals?

The above should not at all be interpreted as tolerance for the sexual assault of children under any circumstances.


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2013)

If I've commented on this topic in the past, my views haven't changed.


----------



## bellenuit (20 April 2013)

Julia said:


> How do you know they do not abhor the aberrant drive they feel and fight just as hard to overcome it as once did homosexuals?




I would say that pedophilia is likely a biological condition outside the control of many pedophiles. It is not uncommon to hear of pedophiles asking for chemical castration because they know they cannot control their urges and will offend again. Apart from some who might get some perverse kick out of "playing" with children, why would anyone chose to obtain sexual gratification that way considering the grave consequence of being ostracised from society if caught.

I think heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles and people with other sexual orientations are predominantly the way they are because of their biology. There is nothing any of us can do to change the biology of ourselves or others (though that may soon not be the case). But acting according to the dictates of our biology can be benign to society for some orientations and harmful for others. It is unfortunate for those who fall into the later category that they will not be able to achieve sexual fulfilment by submitting to their urges without also offending society's rules. But that is the way the dice falls. We are all dealt different hands, not just in relation to sexual orientation, but other physical attributes as well as mental capabilities. Some of these will result in individuals who have tendencies to do things that can harm society and society protects itself by forbidding those activities. Other tendencies will be seen as beneficial and encouraged.

I think in the case of homosexuality it has gone from being seen as detrimental to society to being benign. It was seen as a deviation from the norm before, rather than just another normal. It was misunderstood as being a lifestyle choice that could be opted into or out of at a whim. It was the church which demonised homosexuality, for two main reasons. Badly interpreted scripts from the bible, a book which is irrelevant as a moral code in any case, and also it being seen by its very nature to go against the dictate "increase and multiply". 

However, homosexuality is now being seen as just another "normal". A homosexual relationship poses no threats to society and is beneficial when it means that those who have that orientation can have sexual fulfilment just like the other "normal". Sam Harris defined as "morally good" things that increase the overall happiness and wellness of society. Gay marriage is just another step in allowing homosexuals to be happier people. It doesn't guarantee them happiness, but the opportunity should not be denied to them.


----------



## Tink (21 April 2013)

Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church. 
This entitlement mentality is the ruin for all, especially the children. Anyone that says they are not the same are being naive.Time to let them all out of the closet then if we are allowing one?
There are lots of articles on the internet stating just that as recent as last month if people want to do some research.

At least there was a standard for children that marraige was about raising families, having children, loving your mum and dad, knowing your roots, the list goes on.
Now they want it just about sex - no meaning to the word at all. 

At least try and keep something sacred for our children.

I couldnt care less about the adults - selfish is how I see them. No thought for the children or the future generations..
Yes, I see it as destroying  the concept of marraige.

My view is alot of the children will be run by the state, it will become their responsibility.

My opinion


----------



## Sean K (21 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> If I've commented on this topic in the past, my views haven't changed.



Nice to see you doctor!


----------



## stewiejp (21 April 2013)

Tink said:


> Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.




Pretty strong statement to make there Tink. I respect your right to an opinion but you'd have to be very brave to say that in person to someone with opposing views. I've never seen a link between homosexuality and paedophilia myself, either in person or in print.

Society has evolved. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Now, it is more accepted than it was 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 April 2013)

Tink said:


> Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.
> This entitlement mentality is the ruin for all, especially the children. Anyone that says they are not the same are being naive.Time to let them all out of the closet then if we are allowing one?
> There are lots of articles on the internet stating just that as recent as last month if people want to do some research.
> 
> ...




Tink

my opinion is your a biggot.  To say a person who is homosexual is the same as a pedophile.  On what basis do you make this statement?

Just to update your dark age views, most child sex abuse is done by family members or friends / relatives.  A very small minority of cases is actually done by a total stranger.

As for keeping something sacred for the children, do you have any evidence to show that children brough up by homosexual parents are in any way harmed by this?

Might i say that being brought up with heterosexual parents can cause long term harm.  One has to wonder what the parents of Hitler or Musolini did wrong eh.  Think of general Togo and the atrocities he committed.

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're turning into a small minority.  I'd say 150 years ago you'd have thought it was unnatural for inter racial relationships, maybe even enjoying have a slave or two as domestic help.

Love is...well love.  If you are blinded to this, then maybe you need to look inside to find out what causes your fear and hatred.

There's a lot of reasons why children grow up mal adjusted or "broken", but I've yet to hear of being raised by a loving pair of homosexual parents as being one of them.


----------



## DocK (21 April 2013)

Tink said:


> Thats right bellenuit, *they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia*, and it has nothing to do with the Church.
> This entitlement mentality is the ruin for all, especially the children. Anyone that says they are not the same are being naive.Time to let them all out of the closet then if we are allowing one?
> There are lots of articles on the internet stating just that as recent as last month if people want to do some research.
> 
> ...




You obviously have some strong views on the subject Tink.  I'm interested in whether you are able to provide any links or research to back up the statements I've bolded?  I'm inclined to believe your views are strongly influenced by your religious beliefs and the dictates of your faith, rather than being based on scientific fact or anecdotal research - and if you don't mind confirming or dismissing my assumptions I'd appreciate it.  I personally tend to think that the anti-gay marriage section of our community tends to be mostly over 40, and consists of people likely to hold their views based on either religious beliefs or a general dislike/distaste for homosexuality in general.  Both perfectly legitimate reasons, but ones I think are likely to decrease with time rather than predominate.  I have also assumed that if gay marriage becomes legal at some point that individual religions opposed to it will retain their rights to only marry those they wish to in their own churches - just as I assume they now have the right to refuse to marry any couple of a different faith or they disapprove of?  

I disagree that the main purpose of marriage is for raising families.  There are many couples who marry with no intention of having children, or are past child-bearing age at the time of their marriage.

I also think all this talk of whether homosexuality is biological or not, and the suggestion that as paedophilia may also be biological in nature is an argument often used to muddy the waters.  As is the polygamy question.  The question being debated in the community and on this thread is whether two consenting adults who are doing nothing to harm society should be allowed to be legally married.  I cannot see how homosexuality and paedophilia can rationally be compared - whether they be a lifestyle choice, a biologic compulsion or a result of environmental factors.  Marriage rights for gays has nothing to do with paedophiles, polygamists, cults, animal/corpse lovers or any other group - and the introduction of this very, very small % of the population (as compared to hetero and homosexuals) is a ruse often used to somehow taint the debate.  I also actually think that whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry, and whether they should be allowed to adopt children are two separate questions and should not be automatically linked.  There are many same sex couples who have no desire to have children, but would like to be married, just as there are many who are already able to adopt children or employ surrogates or use ivf etc to have children, without necessarily being married or wishing to.


----------



## McLovin (21 April 2013)

Julia]No said:


> So, just to be quite clear, you are saying that an adult feeling a desire for sexual contact with children has absolute choice in the matter, that it is not at all like one man or woman feeling desire for sex with their same gender?




No, I'm just saying paedophilia is not a sexual orientation. That's all.


----------



## bellenuit (21 April 2013)

Tink said:


> Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.




Tink, if you are going to concur with my statements, please don't omit parts and distort what I said to your own ends.  

I did not single out homosexuals and pedophiles as being the same, but included them as part of the make up of everybody in society. I said: _I think *heterosexuals*, homosexuals, pedophiles and people with other sexual orientations are predominantly the way they are because of their biology._

I did not say they were the same. I said quite the opposite. I said: _We are all dealt *different* hands, not just in relation to sexual orientation, but other physical attributes as well as mental capabilities._


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Tink
> my opinion is your a biggot.  To say a person who is homosexual is the same as a pedophile.  On what basis do you make this statement?




Working on the assumption that you are not bigoted nor biased in any way toward the left or towards same sex marriage, then perhaps you can answer me the following question.

Is a guy whose sexual preferences are for males under the age consent, considered to be a:

a)   A paedophile, 

b)   A homosexual,

c)   or both?

Note. In most states the male age of consent is 16. In Queensland no male under the age of 18 can give consent to sodomy.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> Working on the assumption that you are not bigoted nor biased in any way toward the left or towards same sex marriage, then perhaps you can answer me the following question.
> 
> Is a guy whose sexual preferences are for males under the age consent, considered to be a:
> 
> ...




Why are you even linking the two?  Any discourse over homosexuality always seems to fall into the pedophile question.  It's nearly always a family member that does it, so if anything children should statistically feel safer with a homosexual stranger than an extended family member or family friend.

What about a heterosexual man who gets "aroused" by a bill board poster of some female models that are under the age of consent.  Quite a few female fashion models are well < 16 years old.

Would he be a pedophile?

What is the age of the guy who is attracted to the underage person?  Is that question really relevant?  Maybe if the older person is using say a position of power to sexually abuse the under aged person eg Catholic and Anglican churches.

I'd even ask what you mean by sexual preference?  Are they acting on their preference, or just admiring?  Would a heterosexual man be a pedophile is say he had a preference for women with a "flat chest" and similar body shape to say a 14 year old girl who hasn't "fully matured"

Got to love that term sodomy.  A story about group RAPE, and the only thing main stream society has taken from that over a couple of thousand years was some of the same sex nature of the rape.


----------



## craft (21 April 2013)

I’m married – whilst the ritual itself didn’t mean that much too me the general concept of being married is wonderful.

Gay marriage – who does it harm? Nobody as far as I can see so I’m not for a second going to stand in the way of other humans having the same rights and pleasures as me.


I have kids – There is simply nothing better!

Gay couples raising kids – who does it harm? If you are going generalise and say Gay parents cause harm to kids and deprive Gays the liberty that the rest of us have to raise kids then I think the onus of proof needs to be on proving the harm.  From what I have seen Gay’s parenting abilities are a spectrum – just like the rest of us. Forget the Gay debate let’s instead  put the effort into helping all parents, It’s a tough job and community (tribe, extended family etc) isn’t what it used to be.   Kids have no choice who their parents are regardless of whether they are biological or adopted.  The biological lottery can really suck for some and I’m sure even ‘consensual’ adoption/surrogacy/IVF outcomes are sometimes less then desired.

I’m only for depriving other people’s rights and liberties if doing so stops them harming somebody else.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 April 2013)

craft said:


> I’m only for depriving other people’s rights and liberties if doing so stops them harming somebody else.




+1


----------



## Julia (21 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I would say that pedophilia is likely a biological condition outside the control of many pedophiles. It is not uncommon to hear of pedophiles asking for chemical castration because they know they cannot control their urges and will offend again. Apart from some who might get some perverse kick out of "playing" with children, why would anyone chose to obtain sexual gratification that way considering the grave consequence of being ostracised from society if caught.
> 
> I think heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles and people with other sexual orientations are predominantly the way they are because of their biology. There is nothing any of us can do to change the biology of ourselves or others (though that may soon not be the case).



Agree.  Thank  you for expressing so well what I was musing about earlier.



> I think in the case of homosexuality it has gone from being seen as detrimental to society to being benign. It was seen as a deviation from the norm before, rather than just another normal. It was misunderstood as being a lifestyle choice that could be opted into or out of at a whim. It was the church which demonised homosexuality, for two main reasons. Badly interpreted scripts from the bible, a book which is irrelevant as a moral code in any case, and also it being seen by its very nature to go against the dictate "increase and multiply".



Again, well summed up, as usual.



Tink said:


> Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.



My understanding of what bellenuit said above is the opposite of what you have  just stated, Tink.
I've never seen any valid claims from the medical/scientific community that homosexuality and paedophilia are 
(a) the same
(b) one can lead to the other

I'd have thought the idea had about as much validity as the suggestion that male homosexuals just wish they were women and ditto for lesbians, i.e. none.

I get that you're devoted to your religion and will therefore firmly adhere to whatever the church teaches in this regard.  It puts you in a difficult position, I guess.



> At least there was a standard for children that marraige was about raising families, having children, loving your mum and dad, knowing your roots, the list goes on.
> Now they want it just about sex - no meaning to the word at all.
> 
> At least try and keep something sacred for our children.



As others have pointed out, plenty of marriages are anything but sacred and simply being married doesn't, sadly, guarantee a healthy, happy bunch of children.



DocK said:


> I personally tend to think that the anti-gay marriage section of our community tends to be mostly over 40, and consists of people likely to hold their views based on either religious beliefs or a general dislike/distaste for homosexuality in general.



I don't agree.  Some will, of course.  But, given people over 40 have had the life experience of observing various social changes, most of which have been good, but not all, they may simply be concerned about what they see as the discarding of valid traditions.  

I don't think I'm atypical of the age group you refer to,  I have minimal tolerance for religion and am not homophobic.  As McLovin (I think) said, sexuality is on a continuum and many people - whilst predominantly heterosexual - will also be interested in some homosexual activity.
I couldn't care less what people do with their bodies, or how many people they do it with, as long as it's not in public and it doesn't involve children or animals.

I'm just not persuaded that - given full legal and social security benefits are conferred with existing civil unions, the heterosexual tradition of marriage needs to be junked.



McLovin said:


> I don't think it's a natural extension of the discussion. It seems more like paedophilia is used as a comparable to homosexuality. How can a relationship between two consenting adults can be comparable to the sexual abuse of children. There's no evidence (I've seen) that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles.



I made it quite clear that I was not suggesting any such thing.



> No, I'm just saying paedophilia is not a sexual orientation. That's all.



See bellenuit's post above.  Could you define 'sexual orientation'?  My understanding is that it is biologically determined, viz as in homosexuality.  
So, are you saying paedophilia is not biologically determined, and is therefore the conscious choice of the individual?


----------



## Tink (21 April 2013)

Wow Sydboy, you are throwing that word alot around in here, I dont agree with changing the law regarding marraige, they have their union, nothing else needs to be changed in my view and I am entitled to that opinion, and you can call me all you like. 

Bellenuit, they are both a sexual orientation and wired that way was what I said, and if it wasnt taken that way, thats what I meant, sorry
One article - http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Dock, I dont think it has anything to do with my religious views, as I said, I think its wrong that the standard will be changed for our children  BY LAW to include all and sundry, opening the door to who ever else complains they arent included.

Marraige is about families and having children.
My opinion


----------



## McLovin (21 April 2013)

Julia said:


> See bellenuit's post above.  Could you define 'sexual orientation'?  My understanding is that it is biologically determined, viz as in homosexuality.




I already did give a definition of sexual orientation, straight from Wikipedia. Maybe in time it will become out of date, but at the moment it is the generally definition of sexual orientation. Having no real expertise in matters of the mind, I'll defer to those with more.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> So, are you saying paedophilia is not biologically determined, and is therefore the conscious choice of the individual?




I'm not saying it is or it isn't, because I don't know.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> I couldn't care less what people do with their bodies, or how many people they do it with, as long as it's not in public and it doesn't involve children or animals.




This is basically my opinion as well.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 April 2013)

Maybe this example could help with understand how attitudes have changed over the years.

When I was first starting to go out in Sydney I'd sometimes drag friends to clubs / bars along Oxford St in the early 90s.  Quite enjoyed the piano bar at the old Albury Hotel and a good laugh at some of the crass jokes Hugh Monroe and Sigourney would come up with while they did their show.

My friends would quite often be worried about being seen on Oxford St and what others would think of them.  I would reply that they're here to, so what are you thinking about them, and maybe you just need to stop worrying.

Fast forward to the the 21st Century and now no one cares.  A lot of women like gay bars because there's no violence there.  I can honestly say in 20+ years of going out the only time I've seen violence was at your standard bars and clubs.  Once you get a predominantly gay (friendly) crowd there's not much to worry about.

Younger gen X and Gen Y in general don't give much though to sexuality as either / or.  Seems there's days there's a much finer gradient, with the odd dabbling on the other side.

Part of me thinks just leave the marriage term alone, but then words do have power and by not allowing gay marriage it does tend to legitimise those who wish to discriminate against Homosexuals.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Why are you even linking the two?  Any discourse over homosexuality always seems to fall into the pedophile question.  It's nearly always a family member that does it, so if anything children should statistically feel safer with a homosexual stranger than an extended family member or family friend.




Why are you dodging the question?



> What about a heterosexual man who gets "aroused" by a bill board poster of some female models that are under the age of consent.  Quite a few female fashion models are well < 16 years old.
> 
> Would he be a pedophile?




Why talk rubbish? According to criminal law in Australia, the age of consent refers to the age a person is considered to be capable of legally giving informed consent to sexual acts .



> What is the age of the guy who is attracted to the underage person?  Is that question really relevant?  Maybe if the older person is using say a position of power to sexually abuse the under aged person eg Catholic and Anglican churches.




I ask a simple question and get a rubbishy irrelevant reply.



> I'd even ask what you mean by sexual preference?  Are they acting on their preference, or just admiring?  Would a heterosexual man be a pedophile is say he had a preference for women with a "flat chest" and similar body shape to say a 14 year old girl who hasn't "fully matured"




More nonsense dodging the issue. I am talking about carnal knowledge. 



> Got to love that term sodomy.  A story about group RAPE, and the only thing main stream society has taken from that over a couple of thousand years was some of the same sex nature of the rape.




What the hell are you talking about. I knew I wouldn't get a straight answer out of you. You are as slippery as an eel.:bad:


----------



## bellenuit (21 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> perhaps you can answer me the following question.
> 
> Is a guy whose sexual preferences are for males under the age consent, considered to be a:
> 
> ...




Calliope, I had left it to Sydboy to answer that question as it was addressed directly to him. I thought his answer was quite reasonable and although he didn't explicitly answer a, b or c I understood what he was getting at. However, if I may interject....

The answer, in this case, is probably c. Being homosexual does not preclude one from also being a pedophile, just as being heterosexual doesn't preclude one from being a pedophile, the latter being what Sydboy was saying. Since our biology is complex, our sexual orientation doesn't just sit like a unique colour in the rainbow between the infrareds and ultra violets, but can take on a hue that is a mixture of many colours. 

Maybe I am wrong on this assumption, but it seems you are implying that if there are cases where a homosexual is also a pedophile, then that must be the case for all homosexuals. I assume you are implying that because you posed the question seemingly in response to Sydboy asking Tink: _To say a person who is homosexual is the same as a pedophile. On what basis do you make this statement?   _ 

Just because some people in a group share attributes of another group, doesn't imply that both groups are the same.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Maybe I am wrong on this assumption, but it seems you are implying that if there are cases where a homosexual is also a pedophile, then that must be the case for all homosexuals.




Your assumption is not only wrong it is nonsense. I posed the question simply to get a reaction from your gay marriage support lobby, to the possibility that (shock - horror) homosexuality does not preclude a man from also being a paedophile.

Naturally you are looking at the issue through rose-coloured glasses. You think that once a gay man takes up sex with boys under 16 then he stops being gay and becomes a paedophile...then if he switches back to adult partners he reverts to being gay once more.

I'm sure you know the answer to my question, but like Sydboy you side-step the issue with long-winded nonsense.


----------



## bellenuit (21 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> I'm sure you know the answer to my question, but like Sydboy you side-step the issue with long-winded nonsense.




It appears you didn't understand my answer. I wrote: _*The answer, in this case, is probably c.*_ If that is long-winded nonsense and beyond your comprehension, then there is little I can do about that. 



> I posed the question simply to get a reaction from your gay marriage support lobby, to the possibility that (shock - horror) homosexuality does not preclude a man from also being a paedophile.




Isn't that exactly what I wrote????

These are my words:  _*Being homosexual does not preclude one from also being a pedophile*_



> Naturally you are looking at the issue through rose-coloured glasses. You think that once a gay man takes up sex with boys under 16 then he stops being gay and becomes a paedophile...then if he switches back to adult partners he reverts to being gay once more.




That is completely at odds with what I said.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> It appears you didn't understand my answer. I wrote: _*The answer, in this case, is probably c.*_ If that is long-winded nonsense and beyond your comprehension, then there is little I can do about that.




The simple answer was c), not probably c).The rest of your answer was a long-winded excuse for avoiding the issue that not all gays are nice people. Your rose-coloured glasses come off when anyone opposes your opinions.

Unlike Tink, I am an atheist but respect and understand her views. I'd wager that she is more versed in the art of being a loving and caring parent than anyone in your gay marriage lobby group understands.



> Just because some people in a group share attributes of another group, doesn't imply that both groups are the same.




That's true. Most conservatives wish to retain the traditional concept of marriage. I have always considered you as right of centre, but you and lefty Syd are in lock-step on this issue.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 April 2013)

Calliope

I still don't understand why you are linking homosexuality and pedophilia.  Are you insinuating that all homosexuals are pedophiles?  I've not bothered to research it, but I doubt that the level of pedophilia rates of homosexuals is any worse than with heterosexuals.

Just to provide you some insight, I was targeted by a predator when I was in early high school.  He was quite smart at the way he would target his victims.  I was fortunate enough that before he was able to make much of a move on me he was caught with a a few others while having a party with his friends and some underage boys.  That's probably why I'm so offended by your question and the linking of pedophilia and homosexuality.  The man targeting me had a family and children.  Was he hetro or homo?  Interesting question I doubt any of us can answer.

I find pedophilia to be abhorrent.  Some things it is best to not understand, and I do not understand how someone is sexually attracted to say a 10 year old.

Just because some heterosexual men and women are pedophiles does that then mean we can infer most are?  I'll say again, children are at far more risk of sexual abuse from a family member or close friend than a stranger.

I'm also gay or homosexual or what ever term you'd like to use.  I don't see that it defines me, as I would say seeing yourself as heterosexual probably never really comes to defining who you are?  As your post with a pic from the Sydney Mardi Gras seems to suggest, you would expect anyone who is homosexual to "shout loud and proud" and sometimes I do.  In 92 or 93 I marched for the anti vilification laws that stop inciting hatred against people based on race / sexual orientation / gender as well as others.  Most of the time I'm the guy you ask for help with your PC or have a chat to over the fence if we're both out back watering the garden etc.

I've not really bothered to say this before, as I don't really want to give the right wingers on this forum ammunition for barbs the likes of you or GG and his constant "misogynist" claims.

So please, explain to me what your question was really about?

Why is a discussion about gay marriage in any way linked to pedophilia??

No need to bring out names like slippery eel or lefty.  We're adults.  If you can't put your ideas forward in a calm logical manner, probably best to not post.


----------



## bellenuit (21 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> The simple answer was c), not probably c).




Life is so simple for some. Of course Sydboy did give the situation where the "guy" also happens to be under the age of consent. Underage sex is not uncommon nowadays. So in your simple mind, all guys under the age of 16 who have sex with other guys under the age of 16, that being the age of consent in most states and territories, are pedophiles. Or is the word _*probably*_ too long winded and complex for you to understand.

And to give a more long winded additional example, according to Wiki:  _An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia._. So a 17 year old guy having sex with a 13 year old would not necessarily be diagnosed as a pedophile.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Calliope
> 
> I still don't understand why you are linking homosexuality and pedophilia.  Are you insinuating that all homosexuals are pedophiles?  I've not bothered to research it, but I doubt that the level of pedophilia rates of homosexuals is any worse than




No. We've already covered this and I have nothing more to say on the issue, except that you and I know that same sex marriage is inevitable and it probably *will* occur under an Abbott government.

I hope that when you get married, you will live happily ever after.

I am sorry if I have given you any offence, All the best.


----------



## Ves (21 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> I know that same sex marriage is inevitable and it probably *will* occur under an Abbott government.



It took you two days to see the light of my previous comment - but you eventually got there.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2013)

Ves said:


> It took you two days to see the light of my previous comment - but you eventually got there.




It's the Abbott women who will sway Abbott.


----------



## Tink (22 April 2013)

Thanks Calliope 

It just amazes me that people would sign on the dotted line without reading the fine print.

Time will tell


----------



## stewiejp (22 April 2013)

_"In 1992, alarmed over claims made during a campaign for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater.[8]"_

There are a number of similar studies on the google machine. 

Saying homosexuals are more likely to be or become paedophiles is akin to saying straight guys who like redheads/blondes/whatever are more likely to do the same. It is simply a furfy, and the fact it is being discussed on a board like this is embarrassing - it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

Your average paedophile does not have a pre disposition for adult males or females - he or she is attracted to kids. Which makes him or her a paedophile. Most paedophiles are heterosexuals.


----------



## Tink (22 April 2013)

French protest against gay marriage 



> TENS of thousands of opponents of a gay marriage bill have thronged the streets of Paris in a last-ditch bid to block the legislation, under the watchful eye of police after recent violence over the divisive issue.
> Paris police estimated the march attracted 45,000 people but organisers said 270,000 turned out on a sunny Sunday afternoon in the French capital.
> 
> The mass protest comes just two days ahead of a decisive parliamentary vote on the bill - which also allows adoption by gay couples - that would make France the 14th country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage.
> ...



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nst-gay-marriage/story-fn3dxix6-1226625539550


----------



## nomore4s (22 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> If I've commented on this topic in the past, my views haven't changed.




I'm the same.

People have brought children into the argument but to me that is a separate issue.

Don't gay couples already have ways of adopting or "having" children through various means?
In my daughters school year at her school there are at least 3 gay couples (2 female, 1 male) that have children going to the school. So if there is 3 gay couples with children in such a small sample it can't be all that uncommon for gay couples to already have children even though they can not get married.

So surely saying letting gay couples get married affects the children is a mute point as they already have the ability to adopt or have children? Surely gay couples being married does not make it any easier for them to "have" children considering there are ways for them to "have" children already?

Some of the bigoted views in this thread amazed me 12-18 months ago and sadly they still do.


----------



## Logique (22 April 2013)

I support the family values, the law and above all the rights of children. Does that make me a bigot. 

If gay marriage is so well accepted, then put it to a referendum.


----------



## explod (22 April 2013)

nomore4s said:


> I'm the same.
> 
> People have brought children into the argument but to me that is a separate issue.
> 
> ...




Very well said and the content in this post should  be read carefully by those doubting or having concerns at gay marriage.

It is not going to mater a hoot, there are more important things to discuss elswhere, like child and family abuse but it has nothing to do with actual topic here.  Want to talk that then go to or start a thread on it.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 April 2013)

The greatest implications of gay marriage relate to the family structure and adoption. It would be bizarre to suggest that these are two issues. If we are discussing if we are for or against gay marriage one of the strongest reasons would be in relation to this area. If you want to start another thread called "pro gay marriage - only those welcome" then do so. 

As for the bigot comment. Cannot you see the immense irony? You are being a bigot against those who want to preserve the family structure of a mother, father and kids. And preserve the right of adopted children to have a mother AND father.
Anyone who doesn't agree with you're view is automatically labelled a bigot. Talk about the absolute height of intolerance!!!!!


----------



## Julia (22 April 2013)

Logique said:


> I support the family values, the law and above all the rights of children. Does that make me a bigot.



Good question.  I wonder why it's necessary for a few people to apply pejorative labels to members whose view doesn't happen to coincide with theirs.


----------



## sydboy007 (22 April 2013)

Julia said:


> Good question.  I wonder why it's necessary for a few people to apply pejorative labels to members whose view doesn't happen to coincide with theirs.




Because they kept linking homosexuality with paedophilia.

So the ONLY time I have referred to someone as a bigot was when they clearly made that link, otherwise I'm happy to see the free sharing of ideas and points of view.


----------



## sydboy007 (22 April 2013)

quite an interesting article on the whole concept of marriage and how it has changed over the last few millennia.

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

even has a tie in with gay marriage - surprisingly this WAS around way back in the 12th century.

Got to love the interweb and learning new things each day


----------



## nomore4s (22 April 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> The greatest implications of gay marriage relate to the family structure and adoption. It would be bizarre to suggest that these are two issues. If we are discussing if we are for or against gay marriage one of the strongest reasons would be in relation to this area. If you want to start another thread called "pro gay marriage - only those welcome" then do so.
> 
> As for the bigot comment. Cannot you see the immense irony? You are being a bigot against those who want to preserve the family structure of a mother, father and kids. And preserve the right of adopted children to have a mother AND father.
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you're view is automatically labelled a bigot. Talk about the absolute height of intolerance!!!!!




The bigot comment is totally separate to the family and children issues I commented on in the same post and is not related to people discussing the effects of gay marriage on children and/or family structures.

Read through the whole thread and tell me there aren't bigoted views regarding gays in this thread.


----------



## Julia (22 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Because they kept linking homosexuality with paedophilia.
> 
> So the ONLY time I have referred to someone as a bigot was when they clearly made that link, otherwise I'm happy to see the free sharing of ideas and points of view.



I wasn't at all directing the comment at you, sydboy.  Quite agree with your point.
Cheers.  Julia


----------



## Tink (23 April 2013)

Logique said:


> I support the family values, the law and above all the rights of children. Does that make me a bigot.
> 
> If gay marriage is so well accepted, then put it to a referendum.




Agree Logique. We should have had a poll in here too for the silent majority.

Its causing unrest around the world with this wanting to change the law.

There are plenty of things we should be dealing with more important.


----------



## pavilion103 (23 April 2013)

nomore4s said:


> The bigot comment is totally separate to the family and children issues I commented on in the same post and is not related to people discussing the effects of gay marriage on children and/or family structures.
> 
> Read through the whole thread and tell me there aren't bigoted views regarding gays in this thread.




I agree that there are always bigoted views on every side of every debate/discussion. 

But I also think the label is applied by many in relation to their own views of what a bigot is. For example if someone believes that either a) God created man and woman to marry and reproduce and that is a sacred thing that people should not go outside of (I.e homosexuality) or that b) evolution and nature have determined that sexual relations between a man and woman is how we've evolved and nature intends it to be and that homosexual relationships are dangerous (I.e health effects, life expectancy etc...).

Then people are entitled to that view without being called a bigot and anyone who calls them this is ironically incredible bigoted themselves.


Just because people have a generic desire to do something or have been conditioned in this way not everyone has to agree with it. Eg alcoholism. Because someone wants to drink and its not harming anyone other than themself, I wouldn't encourage them to drink until their heart it content 

Not everyone has to be pro homosexuality to not be a bigot. Everyone is entitled to their view. I think it becomes bigoted when people then insult and abuse people. People can disagree with it, voice their opinions strongly but then still be polite and love the person even though they disagree with what they are doing. Just like someone can dislike someone's alcoholism and still love and support them (not linking alcoholism and homosexuality, just using an example off the top of my head).


----------



## McLovin (23 April 2013)

Tink said:


> Agree Logique. We should have had a poll in here too for the silent majority.






Silent majority?

Are you claiming that every poll that has been taken is wrong?


----------



## bellenuit (20 May 2013)

*Kevin Rudd declares his support for same sex marriage*

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ge/story-fncynjr2-1226647193111#ixzz2TpfJd9Jg


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2013)

bellenuit said:


> *Kevin Rudd declares his support for same sex marriage*
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ge/story-fncynjr2-1226647193111#ixzz2TpfJd9Jg




Ms Wong deserted Ms Gillard because Mr Rudd gives her the best opportunity to become Mr Wong.


----------



## stewiejp (27 June 2013)

Will be interesting to see if he backs up that belief with policy.


----------



## Julia (27 June 2013)

stewiejp said:


> Will be interesting to see if he backs up that belief with policy.



Chris Bowen was asked about this on 7.30 this evening.  There will be no change.  The party has voted on this.
However, given the Labor Party's astonishing propensity to change course, anything could happen.


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Chris Bowen was asked about this on 7.30 this evening.  There will be no change.  The party has voted on this.
> However, given the Labor Party's astonishing propensity to change course, anything could happen.




Rudd certainly can change if there is a minority vote in it that would normally go to the Greens.


Rudd at his most pompous and dismissive.


----------



## chode84 (1 July 2013)

Tink said:


> There are plenty of things we should be dealing with more important.




I know it's a bit old, and not to be dramatic, but I'm a little sick of people using this line. More important to whom? You? A great many people happen to think this is extremely important being that it currently discriminates against a proportion of the population. I'm sure a debate over whether Aborigines should get the vote back in the late fifties/early sixties had similar remarks. 

Sorry, I've read this line a few times today in various comment sections and just happened to vent on here


----------



## Tink (2 July 2013)

Well its not important to our children and it discriminates against them.
They have rights.
I dont have a problem with gay people, but I have a problem with them trying to change the marraige act for the future children of this world.
I will stand by that.

The marraige act is about mum and dad loving each other and having a child and every child deserves to grow up with that thinking.

Gays can not have children on their own and until they do, the marraige act should stay as is. 
I get abit sick of hearing they need to get married to save the children of this world. Sorry that doesnt wash.

The marraige act entitles them to adopt and have the full advantages of a married couple, I think the children should get a say in that too.
I think they would prefer their mother and father.


----------



## Tink (2 July 2013)

As for the Aborigines, they can tell you their own stories about all the children that couldnt find their parents and how much it affected them.
Makes a mockery of these childrens lives.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2013)

Tink said:


> The marraige act is about mum and dad loving each other and having a child and every child deserves to grow up with that thinking.




Yes. I don't think being able to get married would have saved the child from these two monsters.



> Standing before an American court convicted of the most heinous of child sex crimes, the double lives of Australian citizen Mark J. Newton and his long-term boyfriend Peter Truong were laid bare.
> ‘‘Being a father was an honour and a privilege that amounted to the best six years of my life,’’ the American-born Newton, 42, told the court.
> Moments later Newton was sentenced to 40 years in prison for sexually abusing the boy he and Truong, 36 from Queensland, had ‘‘adopted’’ after paying a Russian woman $8000 to be their surrogate in 2005.
> Police believe the pair had adopted the boy ‘‘for the sole purpose of exploitation’’. The abuse began just days after his birth and over six years the couple travelled the world, offering him up for sex with at least eight men, recording the abuse and uploading the footage to an international syndicate known as the Boy Lovers Network.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/name...or-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html#ixzz2Xq6qNsDF


----------



## Julia (2 July 2013)

Tink said:


> The marraige act is about mum and dad loving each other and having a child and every child deserves to grow up with that thinking.
> 
> The marraige act entitles them to adopt and have the full advantages of a married couple, I think the children should get a say in that too.
> I think they would prefer their mother and father.



There's no guarantee that children will be safe in a conventional marriage.  Plenty are abused by someone within that family.


----------



## stewiejp (2 July 2013)

I would say most kids who are abused are abused by a family member.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2013)

stewiejp said:


> I would say most kids who are abused are abused by a family member.




That's true, as in the case above.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yes. I don't think being able to get married would have saved the child from these two monsters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If that had been a "straight" couple I'm assuming you would be advising against heterosexual marriage?

Bad people are bad people, what ever their sexuality or religion.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to try and link those men with gay marriage.  Sigh.  The two issues are unrelated.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> If that had been a "straight" couple I'm assuming you would be advising against heterosexual marriage?




I don't remember "advising" anything. Nor would I presume to advise anyone on this private matter.


----------



## Tink (3 July 2013)

Agree Calliope, interesting it took them two days to put it up on the ABC website, and neither was the father.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-...phile-ring-that-abused-trafficked-boy/4795210
Sickening to read.

I understand that Julia, but I will stand up for the children and family values.
Each parent is valuable.
Ask any child, and they would say they want their mum and dad.

I think its sad that we put down parents when there are so many happily married mums and dads with thriving children in loving homes.


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2013)

Tink said:


> Agree Calliope, interesting it took them two days to put it up on the ABC website, and neither was the father.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-...phile-ring-that-abused-trafficked-boy/4795210
> Sickening to read.
> 
> ...




Tink, I have just returned from the shopping centre. It is the school holidays and there were dozens of mothers there, shopping with one, two or three children. I love to watch the interaction between the mothers and their small children especially when they are at an age where they ask questions about everything. Their bright faces and inquiring minds insist on answers. The busy (and sometimes harassed) mothers always take the time to answer their questions. For the toddlers every outing is a voyage into the unknown.

The relationship between a mother and her younger children fascinates me. The influence of the father comes in at a later stage.


----------



## DocK (3 July 2013)

Tink said:


> Agree Calliope, interesting it took them two days to put it up on the ABC website, and neither was the father.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-...phile-ring-that-abused-trafficked-boy/4795210
> Sickening to read.




Yes indeed, just as sickening as the very many "straight" parents who abuse and exploit their own children.  The use of this case to muddy the waters of the gay marriage debate is deplorable imo.



> I understand that Julia, but I will stand up for the children and family values.
> Each parent is valuable.
> Ask any child, and they would say they want their mum and dad.




Unsubstantiated rubbish.  You are entitled to your opinion Tink, and clearly you feel strongly that children need a parent of each sex, but in reality this simply is not true.  There are so many kids in this world who would be so much better off with two loving Mums or Dads, rather than the one or two parents they actually have, and I wonder if anyone has asked them how they feel?  Children of gay couples have actually spoken out both for (the majority) and against being raised by a gay couple.  Have you done any unbiased research on the subject, or do you just assume that your personal beliefs are the right ones?



> I think its sad that we put down parents when there are so many happily married mums and dads with thriving children in loving homes.




I don't see anyone doing this.  Why do you see an acceptance or approval of gay marriage as necessarily putting down straight marriage and traditional families?  I don't see anyone who is pro gay marriage wanting to interfere with the rights of straight people, and I honestly struggle to understand why some people feel so threatened.  I really can't see how allowing a relatively small % of the population to enjoy the same rights and privileges long held by the rest could undermine or lessen the bond I have with my husband and children.  If anything, I'm saddened that some people are prevented from enjoying all aspects of life, simply because some people want to cling to a status quo based on their own beliefs.

- - - Updated - - -



Calliope said:


> Tink, I have just returned from the shopping centre. It is the school holidays and there were dozens of mothers there, shopping with one, two or three children. I love to watch the interaction between the mothers and their small children especially when they are at an age where they ask questions about everything. Their bright faces and inquiring minds insist on answers. The busy (and sometimes harassed) mothers always take the time to answer their questions. For the toddlers every outing is a voyage into the unknown.
> 
> The relationship between a mother and her younger children fascinates me. The influence of the father comes in at a later stage.




You're so lucky to be living in such a Utopian area, Calliope, although I wonder why all the fathers around you are not interacting with their children until they're school age or more?  I must live in a very different world to you as I regularly witness "bright and enquiring" toddlers being smacked and berated by their mothers (who don't always take the time to even notice their kids, let alone lovingly answer their every question), yet I often see actual fathers out with toddlers   I can also attest that my own children were influenced by their father from the moments of their birth - I do hope I didn't get the whole parenthood thing wrong


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2013)

DocK said:


> You're so lucky to be living in such a Utopian area, Calliope, although I wonder why all the fathers around you are not interacting with their children until they're school age or more?




Did I say that? 



> I must live in a very different world to you as I regularly witness "bright and enquiring" toddlers being smacked and berated by their mothers (who don't always take the time to even notice their kids, let alone lovingly answer their every question)




If you look for the worst in people as you do , you will always find it.



> yet I often see actual fathers out with toddlers




Sarcasm!



> I can also attest that my own children were influenced by their father from the moments of their birth - I do hope I didn't get the whole parenthood thing wrong




Well aren't the clever one? You obviously look for offence where none is intended. How could you read into my innocuous post that I was giving offence to you? :dunno:


----------



## Tink (3 July 2013)

DocK, seems you feel strongly for, just as I feel strongly against, and thats fine as we are both entitled to our opinions.

The questions were always brought up that changing the marraige act might open other doors, this case has come up on the front page from USA and QLD.
You dont think it should have been mentioned?
We just have to talk about how bad the straights are?


----------



## Letts (3 July 2013)

I'm curious as to why people feel the need to discriminate. For f@cks sake, we like in the 21st century. As we have evolved as a race, so has our understanding of massive human rights issues - I fail to see how, if we as a people can abolish something as abhorrent as slavery, we can still balk at the idea of two people who love each other signing a f@cking piece of paper and having that love recognized. 

People who talk about the "children being affected", let me tell you, there is NO garuntee that your gender determines your worthiness and ability as a parent. Pedophilia, child rape, exploitation and abuse was rife long before the idea of loving someone who has the same genitals became openly accepted.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 July 2013)

Hate to do this to my own sex, but it is known that most abuse is done by males, 
....so you could argue that a lesbian couple is far less likely to abuse a child than a straight couple, which is less likely again a male couple. 

Of course a male couple would have to adopt so you would assume the checks would make abuse less likely than a straight couple in reality.


----------



## DocK (3 July 2013)

Tink said:


> DocK, seems you feel strongly for, just as I feel strongly against, and thats fine as we are both entitled to our opinions.
> 
> The questions were always brought up that changing the marraige act might open other doors, this case has come up on the front page from USA and QLD.
> You dont think it should have been mentioned?
> We just have to talk about how bad the straights are?




I'm actually not strongly for gay marriage, I'm just strongly against discrimination and bigotry.

I'm not sure what you mean by 







> The questions were always brought up that changing the marraige act might open other doors, this case has come up on the front page from USA and QLD.
> You dont think it should have been mentioned?



 - could you be a little more clear?  What questions are you referring to?

So far as this comment goes 







> We just have to talk about how bad the straights are?



 - I'm again unsure what you're referring to?  Who is talking about how bad the straights are?


----------



## DocK (3 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Did I say that?




Not precisely, but you did say 







> The relationship between a mother and her younger children fascinates me. The influence of the father comes in at a later stage.



  which I took to mean that you thought fathers had little to do with their children when they are very young - how else could they have little influence?  You can be quite cryptic, so if that isn't what you meant perhaps you could be clearer.




> If you look for the worst in people as you do , you will always find it.




To the best of my knowledge you don't know me, and could have no idea whether I look for the best, worst, or couldn't care less about other people.  I'm inclined to be offended by this comment,  it seems a bit nasty, but I can't quite muster up the necessary emotion.  You seemed to be painting a picture of perfect motherhood, where all the mothers in your shopping centre dote on their beloved children and the interactions between them are simply glorious to behold.  Presumably your point is that young children require a mother, and a Dad or two simply wouldn't be as good - although, admittedly, this may be my inference due to you posting your comments on the Gay Marriage thread.  It simply ain't so in the real world, and I wondered if you were aware of that.




> Sarcasm!




Indeed. 





> Well aren't the clever one? You obviously look for offence where none is intended. How could you read into my innocuous post that I was giving offence to you? :dunno




No offence at all - I was actually going for a bit more sarcasm...  I don't know what sort of world you live in, maybe it's a generational thing, but my point is that many, many fathers have far more of an influence in their children's lives, from the beginning of their lives (not _later_) than you seem to be giving them credit for.  If I were looking for any offence at all I guess it would need to be on behalf of the many Dads who you seem to be implying have little influence over their young children.  I really couldn't be bothered with this nonsense tbh - I suspect you're simply stirring for the sake of it.


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2013)

DocK said:


> *Presumably* your point is that young children require a mother, and a Dad or two simply wouldn't be as good - although, admittedly, this may be my inference due to you posting your comments on the Gay Marriage thread




Your posts are all unfounded presumptions.



> If I were looking for any offence at all I guess it would need to be on behalf of the many Dads* who you seem to be implying *have little influence over their young children.  I really couldn't be bothered with this nonsense tbh - I suspect you're simply stirring for the sake of it.




That's a lot of garbage. I implied no such thing and you are the one obviously doing the stirring...stirring for a fight. Sorry I won't accommodate you.



> I'm actually not strongly for gay marriage, I'm just strongly against discrimination and bigotry




Making unfounded accusations and abusing people who don't think like you, is the worst form of bigotry.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Tink, I have just returned from the shopping centre. It is the school holidays and there were dozens of mothers there, shopping with one, two or three children. I love to watch the interaction between the mothers and their small children especially when they are at an age where they ask questions about everything. Their bright faces and inquiring minds insist on answers. The busy (and sometimes harassed) mothers always take the time to answer their questions. For the toddlers every outing is a voyage into the unknown.
> 
> The relationship between a mother and her younger children fascinates me. The influence of the father comes in at a later stage.




Just wanted to know if:

* The mother child interaction is what you believe happens everywhere or if not, what ratio?  _Having been out to visit my brother in the western suburbs a few times I can attest that your description of parental interaction was generally NOT what I saw, and NO I wasn't looking for bad people, but it's hard to not notice a mother and or father screaming four letter words at their child / children_

* At what point do you believe a father begins to influence their children.

* Could you have maybe seen a same sex couple mother interacting with her child and never have known it?

* What was the point of your post?


----------



## Julia (3 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Tink, I have just returned from the shopping centre. It is the school holidays and there were dozens of mothers there, shopping with one, two or three children. I love to watch the interaction between the mothers and their small children especially when they are at an age where they ask questions about everything. Their bright faces and inquiring minds insist on answers. The busy (and sometimes harassed) mothers always take the time to answer their questions. For the toddlers every outing is a voyage into the unknown.



Good to know at least one section of society meets with your approval, Calliope.  It's touching to see you being impressed by such loving interaction between mothers and their children.
You must have been fortunate enough to avoid those mothers addressing their offspring in terms of obscenities.



> The relationship between a mother and her younger children fascinates me. The influence of the father comes in at a later stage.



Really?  Could you cite the evidence for this?


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Good to know at least one section of society meets with your approval, Calliope.  It's touching to see you being impressed by such loving interaction between mothers and their children.
> You must have been fortunate enough to avoid those mothers addressing their offspring in terms of obscenities.




Strange that my supermarket comments seem to have stirred up some much hostility and sarcasm.. First DocK, then Sydboy and now, of course you. Syd wants to know "what was the point of your post?" More to the point what is the point of your posts? I suppose you colluded to put me down. The attack was out of the blue. What is your motive? Just spite? Why?



> Really?  Could you cite the evidence for this?




Nope. Just an off-the cuff remark. 

Is the inquisition over? Perhaps the three of you could gang up another scapegoat.

I will not be responding to any more of this harassment...unless it's an apology.


----------



## Tink (4 July 2013)

DocK, you see it as discrimination on the gays, I see it as discrimination on the children.

We apologized to a whole generation, and whether it was right or wrong at the time, the children suffered.
It seems you havent taken much notice of the discussions in here when we mentioned that changeing the marraige act, the doors could open to people wanting more.
Gays have always been against marraige as it restricted their freedom saying we were stupid for committing.

As said, I dont have a problem with gays but I do have a problem with them trying to change the marraige act by law.

Throwing that bigot would around does nothing, and if that journalist from the ABC was more aware when she did that interview with those two monsters, that child would not have suffered, instead we had to agree how wonderful they were that they wanted to adopt a child to complete their family.


----------



## DocK (4 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Strange that my supermarket comments seem to have stirred up some much hostility and sarcasm.. First DocK, then Sydboy and now, of course you. Syd wants to know "what was the point of your post?" More to the point what is the point of your posts? I suppose you colluded to put me down. The attack was out of the blue. What is your motive? Just spite? Why?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are quite wrong - there has certainly been no collusion between Sydboy, Julia and myself.  Do you care to apologise for such an unwarranted accusation?  Did you even stop to consider that more than one person reading your post might independently decide to respond to it - as is often the case when numerous readers find a post to be so far removed from reality?


----------



## DocK (4 July 2013)

Tink said:


> DocK, you see it as discrimination on the gays, I see it as discrimination on the children.
> 
> We apologized to a whole generation, and whether it was right or wrong at the time, the children suffered.
> It seems you havent taken much notice of the discussions in here when we mentioned that changeing the marraige act, the doors could open to people wanting more.
> ...




Tink, you are obviously entitled to your views, but it annoys me when you post them as if they were substantiated facts, rather than simply your beliefs.  I have taken notice (and participated in at times) the various discussions in this thread alluding to 







> when we mentioned that changeing the marraige act, the doors could open to people wanting more.



  By more, I assume you're referring to adoption, surrogacy etc.  If I'm understanding you correctly your main objection to gay marriage is that you don't believe two gay people should be allowed to have children and be a family, and that you feel children raised in such an environment would be harmed or discriminated against?  That is a valid concern, and one on which people will have differing opinions  - based no doubt on their own religious views, family values, actual experience and anecdotal information.  As I clearly hold a different view on the ability of gay people to parent a child, you can surely understand why I would question your opinions when they're posted as facts.  Such as: 







> Gays have always been against marraige as it restricted their freedom saying we were stupid for committing.



  You have posted this as a fact, but I doubt you could substantiate it at all, and it is a grossly unfair generalisation to make.  It may be your _opinion_, and you are entitled to it, but please don't post your _opinions_ as if they are _facts_ - it simply isn't honest, and can be quite hurtful to those you're denigrating.  

Clearly you and I are never going to reach accord on this subject, as it seems we both have fairly entrenched opposing views.  I'm sure your views stem from genuine concern for children (even though I think they're largely unfounded) and I hope that you can allow that my views have been formed in the same vein.  I think it best we now agree to disagree on the subject before matters become uncivil.


----------



## Calliope (4 July 2013)

Tink said:


> DocK, you see it as discrimination on the gays, I see it as discrimination on the children.
> 
> We apologized to a whole generation, and whether it was right or wrong at the time, the children suffered.
> It seems you havent taken much notice of the discussions in here when we mentioned that changeing the marraige act, the doors could open to people wanting more.
> ...




I know how you feel Tink. I have previously been accused of being a bigot by bigoted people. I am disappointed that DocK and Julia take the cynical view of mothers shopping with their children, in terms of "toddlers being smacked and berated by their mothers" and "addressing their children in terms of obscenities".

I was only commenting on my experience for one hour on one day, and i will not retract from my view that I was full of admiration for what I observed. The last thing I expected was the nastiness my comments attracted.

DocK thinks I mave a generational problem. Maybe, but as a parent and a grandparent, I have learned to take a much more tolerant and understanding attitude to the problems faced by young mothers who are forced to take their young, and sometimes unruly, children shopping with them.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2013)

DocK said:


> You are quite wrong - there has certainly been no collusion between Sydboy, Julia and myself.  Do you care to apologise for such an unwarranted accusation?  Did you even stop to consider that more than one person reading your post might independently decide to respond to it - as is often the case when numerous readers find a post to be so far removed from reality?



+1, obviously.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 July 2013)

I'll just paste a few quotes from George Takei (Mr Sulu for non Star Trek fans) and I think he sums up quite nicely the attitude of those who fear gay marriage.

Amazingly, since Stonewall _(riots by drag queens at the Stonewall Inn NYC in protest of police harassment and brutality in 1969)_, the question of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights has evolved from whether homosexuals should have any place in our society to whether gay and lesbian couples should be accorded equal marital stature.

Whenever one group discriminates against another, it often boils down to a visceral, negative response to something unfamiliar. I call this the ''ick'', which is often at the base of the politics of exclusion. In March, for example, a young woman at a rally in Washington against same-sex marriage was asked to write down why she was there. Her answer: ''I can't see myself being with a woman. Eww.''

But the ''ick'' goes beyond LGBT issues. It once blocked public displays of interracial affection. A white person didn't kiss a black person on American television until 1968 - on Star Trek when Captain Kirk kissed Lieutenant Uhura. That was quite controversial. Indeed, two decades before that kiss, when I was growing up in California, it was illegal for Asians and whites to marry. Now I'm married to a white dude. How times have changed.

To help justify the ''ick,'' many turn to the Bible, perhaps because science doesn't lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural. As one saying goes, homosexuality is found in more than 400 species, but homophobia in only one. But references to religious texts are not a solid footing on which to base notions of traditional marriage. Concerns about the separation of church and state aside, traditional marriage has never been what its homophobic proponents believe. As author Ken O'Neill reminds us, the fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage.

Because social mores change with each generation, the ''ick'' is not effective at preventing changes to our institutions. Importantly, same-sex marriage is supported by a majority of young people: a recent Field Poll in California showed that 78 per cent of voters under the age of 39 favour marriage equality.

------------------------

As I found out by doing a bit of research same sex unions were not uncommon through histroy, but after the Christian Roman Emperors Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued an edict against same sex unions, and ordered those in one to be executed, well things changed.

In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrÃ¨rement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions.

Societal attitudes change.  I remember my first years in Sydney and heterosexual male friends were scared to be seen on Oxford St, whereas these days no one really cares.

I old enough to still remember the time when it as illegal to be homosexual.  Imagine being told who you are is illegal, a sin.  QLD didn't get rid of their homosexual laws till 1990.

Maybe some of the below sounds familiar?

The arguments most frequently put forward by religious opponents are best presented by way of a summary of the points expressed in the submissions by representatives of the Baptist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches to the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission's Parliamentary Committee:
· The incidence of homosexuality will increase;
· The incidence of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases will dramatically increase;
· Homosexual acts are physically unnatural;
· Homosexuality will be encouraged in schools;
· Homosexuality is contrary to the interests of society;
· Decriminalisation will endanger the welfare of children;
· Decriminalisation will lead to the acceptance and proliferation of sexual 'perversion' in society;
· Decriminalisation will result in moral instability and the downfall of society;
· Homosexual acts are a sin and detestable to God.


----------



## boofis (4 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> perhaps because science doesn't lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural. As one saying goes, homosexuality is found in more than 400 species, but homophobia in only one




This is just silly. It's the "Is vs. Ought to be" problem; science can tell us what is, but it cannot tell us what ought to be. The behaviour of animals is no justification to carry out, or not carry out, any 'act'.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 July 2013)

Hmmm I'd say science DOES lead is to believe that it is unnatural. 

- reproduction occurs between a man and woman (sustains the race)
- disease much more widespread in homosexuality. It's a far more dangerous lifestyle. The anal passage isn't designed for penetration. Life expectancy far less.
- even if someone has a disposition towards homosexuality it doesn't mean anything. Many have a disposition towards alcoholism. I wouldn't say to them "Drink till your heart it content."


I just get sick of those riding on their high horses, calling people bigots and intolerant who agree with the idea that relations are intended to be between a man and a woman. 
People should discuss this openly and agree or disagree without silly name calling.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 July 2013)

There are very good and valid reasons why some people disagree with homosexuality and that is their prerogative.


----------



## stewiejp (4 July 2013)

Great post sydboy007, especially the bit boofis quoted. 

pavilion103, whilst I'm no expert on the anal penetration specifics, and the physical dangers etc, "sustaining the race" on this over populated planet is hardly a concern for us humans anymore is it? Last time I looked we were bursting at the seams. 

True, if one has a disposition towards alcohol, as a society we should not encourage them to drink as much as they can, but comparing that to homosexuality isn't really accurate is it? How about we compare it to someone who has a predisposition for oxygen? We don't deny people that do we?

Whilst it is true anyone is allowed an opinion (in this wonderful country), and some are for and against homosexuality - it is actually against the law to discriminate based on ones sexuality. Just putting that out there.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Hmmm I'd say science DOES lead is to believe that it is unnatural.
> 
> - reproduction occurs between a man and woman (sustains the race)
> - disease much more widespread in homosexuality. It's a far more dangerous lifestyle. The anal passage isn't designed for penetration. Life expectancy far less.
> ...




* With 7 billion people on the planet over reproduction seems to be a larger issue than lack of.  Dare I say that heterosexuality is currently causing planetary degradation that may lead to mass extinctions if we're not able to do a lot more with vastly less?

* Could you site any academic papers to prove that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle.  It is in some ways because of the violence targeted towards non heterosexuals.  Maybe you've been listening to Australian Christian Lobby boss Jim Wallace - he claims homosexuals die younger than smokers.  I'd say homosexual men are far more likely to get tested for STIs, which would then tend to bias any statistics.  Many STIs are asymptomatic.  It's a shame many girls do not get tested for chlamydia when they're younger as it can lead to infertility if undetected over a long period.

* Your use of the term disposition is false.  I'm gay, and never had any form of sexual desire about woman (though plenty of them as friends).  You can't encourage someone to be gay.  It's NOT a lifestyle or choice, just the way a minority of the population is genetically programmed (for want of a better term).  Maybe one day science will give us a reason why, maybe not.


----------



## boofis (4 July 2013)

stewiejp said:


> Great post sydboy007, especially the bit boofis quoted.




You do know I'm disagreeing with what he quoted, yes?


----------



## pavilion103 (4 July 2013)

Disagree it's only based on genetic programming and no element of choice. People have gone from straight to gay and gay to straight. This can't be denied, even if there are a number who struggled with it even when in a straight relationship.


----------



## McLovin (4 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Disagree it's only based on genetic programming and no element of choice. People have gone from straight to gay and gay to straight.




I agree. It's the same with black people. They make the choice, if they didn't go in the Sun they wouldn't be black.


----------



## CanOz (4 July 2013)

Interesting discussion...

You've got to wonder though, why are some people really gay? I mean really gay and not fashionably gay...

There is no question that it is not "normal" in our definition though and it can be argued scientifically that it is a genetic defect can it not?

Anyway, i choose to accept them just as i accept someone with a birth defect, or a disability. they're not what i consider "normal" but that does not give me any reason to deny them rights, human rights...

They can and should be able to do what they like as long as they bring no more harm to themselves or anyone else by being gay.

Only my opinion....

CanOz


----------



## pavilion103 (4 July 2013)

McLovin said:


> I agree. It's the same with black people. They make the choice, if they didn't go in the Sun they wouldn't be black.




Worst post I've maybe seen on this forum


----------



## sydboy007 (4 July 2013)

CanOz said:


> Interesting discussion...
> 
> You've got to wonder though, why are some people really gay? I mean really gay and not fashionably gay...
> 
> ...




I can sort of accept your point.  It's a bit like eye colour or a birth mark I suppose.

As for being really gay, well I've known some heterosexual men who on first appearance seem "gay".  Then you get the machismo men, and we can see how much trouble that gets the footy players into.

It's partly personality, partly persona I suppose.  More often than not you'd probably never know you were talking to a homosexual unless they told you.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Disagree it's only based on genetic programming and no element of choice. People have gone from straight to gay and gay to straight. This can't be denied, even if there are a number who struggled with it even when in a straight relationship.




Could you provide some evidence to this claim?

I'd accept that a lot of people had to hide their sexuality and have then come out in their later years.

It was a shock to me when I used to go to the Gay & Lesbian Counselling Service coming out group when I was 20.  I couldn't understand why guys in their 50s were coming to the group.  Then you listen to their stories, how they got married, had kids, tried to be something they weren't, eventually unable to live that life any more.

I can't imagine what their lives were like.  I was lucky to grow up at a time when attitudes were changing for the better, though I still had to fight to get the anti vilification laws into NSW so hateful people could no longer incite others into bashing gays - or asians or women or pretty much anyone for any reason.

I've been lucky, only ever suffering intimidation from drunk straight guys a few times since I moved to sydney.  A guy that was renting a room from me in 2001 went out for his birthday.  He was a goth.  He didn't even make it to the train station before a group of guys decided to bash him and rob him, leaving him near unconscious in the gutter.

He eventually got himself home, and my other house mate helped him get to hospital.  I cam home from work the next morning and freaked out that there was a trail of blood from the front gate to the front door and into the kitchen.  You see the pictures in the paper, but I swear nothing prepares you fro the reality.  He was so lucky to not sustain any permanent harm from his wounds, but he could see out of 1 eye only for at least a week.  He'd been victim 3 of five for that group that night.  they're weren't too bright as by the time the police caught up with them they still had most of the victims wallets on them.

He'd prob not been targeted for being gay, but all a couple had been, and all of their victims had been different.

So saying gay people are going to molest children, or die younger, carry diseases, or any of the other myths and lies that get propagated, well it then lets some of the fringe in the community start to believe they have the right to take violent action against whatever group is being denigrated.  When I see what religious people have to say about homosexuality it reminds me of what the Nazis used to say about the Jews eg a Nazi propaganda newspaper, told Germans that Jews kidnapped small children before Passover because “Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah."


----------



## Julia (4 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I couldn't understand why guys in their 50s were coming to the group.  Then you listen to their stories, how they got married, had kids, tried to be something they weren't, eventually unable to live that life any more.



Did you ever consider what they put the women they married through?


----------



## Macquack (4 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> I love to watch the interaction between the mothers and their small children especially when they are at an age where they ask questions about everything. Their bright faces and inquiring minds insist on answers. The busy (and sometimes harassed) mothers always take the time to answer their questions. For the toddlers every outing is a voyage into the unknown.




Well bugger me Calliope, I always thought of you as a cranky old bastard who would say that "children should be seen and not heard".


----------



## stewiejp (5 July 2013)

boofis said:


> You do know I'm disagreeing with what he quoted, yes?




Absolutely, but the part you quoted, I feel was a very good point from sydboy007.


----------



## stewiejp (5 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Did you ever consider what they put the women they married through?




One could only imagine Julia. A mate of mine was in this situation, married, in a good relationship with her and luckily for them she understood, even knew, before he "came out" in the 80's or 90's. She was his "best mate" from school days and they are both still very very good friends. 

I guy I used to work with was married to a girl who left him for another girl, (who from memory he also worked with) and he was absolutely gutted. He did re marry a number of times but last I heard he hadn't found happiness and had serious mental issues. Whether they were there because of the first marriage break up or as a result of something else I'll never know but he had some very serious issues last time I saw him, and the few years i worked with him.


----------



## Tink (5 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I was wondering how long it would take for someone to try and link those men with gay marriage.  Sigh.  The two issues are unrelated.



http://www.smh.com.au/national/name...or-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html#ixzz2Xq6qNsDF
How can you say this case is not related, when these two were interviewed by the ABC infront of us, that they were a gay couple and how hard it has been for them and what they were going through being accepted and wanting a child in 2010
This was a push for gay marraige.

This is what gay marraige will be opening up, the right for them to adopt, and since they cant have babies on their own, baby making factories.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Did you ever consider what they put the women they married through?




Julia, everyone suffered because of how society lacked acceptance back then.

The gay men suffered because they had to be someone who they weren't

The wives suffered because from the descriptions I heard they the men could never be fully honest and intimate in the way a couple of should be.

I'm sure the children suffered too because of the underlying stress of their parents.

I'm 41 and not married and in this day and age no one cares.  50 years ago if you weren't married by your mid 20s then tricky questions started to be asked.

It's quite sad the pain and hurt caused by the intolerance.

- - - Updated - - -



Tink said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/national/name...or-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html#ixzz2Xq6qNsDF
> How can you say this case is not related, when these two were interviewed by the ABC infront of us, that they were a gay couple and how hard it has been for them and what they were going through being accepted and wanting a child in 2010
> This was a push for gay marraige.
> 
> This is what gay marraige will be opening up, the right for them to adopt, and since they cant have babies on their own, baby making factories.




Tink, it's already possible for gay couples to have children. Some friends have 3 lovely children by doing surogacy in California.  It's expensive, but at least it's been a conscious choice for them to have children.  I see some of the late teen couples in the public housing around my area and get saddened to think how their children will grow up in an environment of excessive alcohol consumption, parents screaming virulent abuse at each other, sometimes at the children too.

I'd take a loving gay couple as parents over some of the sadly lacking parents living around me.  I'm sure the children would have a better chance of growing up well adjusted members of society compared to what they're getting now.


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2013)

Macquack said:


> Well bugger me Calliope, I always thought of you as a cranky old bastard who would say that "children should be seen and not heard".




Maybe I was once Mac, but when you get to be a grandfather and get involved with your grandchildren, especially in shopping centres, your whole attitude changes .


----------



## Knobby22 (5 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Maybe I was once Mac, but when you get to be a grandfather and get involved with your grandchildren, especially in shopping centres, your whole attitude changes .




I thought the same thing as Mac, pleasantly surprised with you Calliope. Your grandchildren are making you soft I just see the joy of the little ones also with their proud Dads etc.


----------



## CanOz (5 July 2013)

This is a little off topic, but something I see allot of here too, it's amazing how children really bring out the old parent in grandparents!


CanOz


----------



## Tink (5 July 2013)

True CanOz, and lovely to hear Calliope.
Life is a full circle, and grandparents see it all again, the fast paced lifestyle of parents working with young children.


----------



## sinner (5 July 2013)

Yet another thread in the "General chat" area which makes me cringe for the sake of humanity...

I wonder if the reasons people have come up with as to why they are against gay marriage are things they just tell themselves over and over without even thinking about them?

I mean, it's pretty disingenious to try and use fear of "if we let gay marriage happen, bad things X, Y and Z will also inevitably happen", considering 22 countries in Europe, consisting largely of countries which are significantly more developed and much much older than Australia, have already legalised it in one form or another, without even the slightest change in societal norms. That is to say, in all of the countries where same sex unions fall under the aegis of the law, the people who said bad things were going to happen have been proved as laughably incorrect and narrow minded.

 As for the absurd claim that it's "wrong" because of biology (ignoring the fact that the argument is not over whether it's "wrong" or "right"), do you also apply the same crazy rules to an infertile woman who wants to marry a fertile man (or vice versa)? Of course not! 

"I'm sorry, but since you can't biologically have kids, you can't get married". 

Isn't that just completely rediculous? Please explain why the rule of "can't marry because biology" doesn't apply to couples where one or both partners are infertile? Oh, it's completely arbitrary? I see.


----------



## McLovin (5 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Worst post I've maybe seen on this forum




Really? I'm flattered, but in truth you were my inspiration; I made the issue black and white, then offered an opinion dressed up as fact. 

Perhaps if you read some of the stuff you post you might change your opinion.

Here's an example for you...

If I said 



> There are very good and valid reasons why some people disagree with homosexuality and that is their prerogative.




But replaced homosexuality with miscegenation, would the statement still be good by you?


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2013)

sinner said:


> I mean, it's pretty disingenious to try and use fear of "if we let gay marriage happen, bad things X, Y and Z will also inevitably happen", considering 22 countries in Europe, consisting largely of countries which are significantly more developed and much much older than Australia, have already legalised it in one form or another, without even the slightest change in societal norms. *That is to say, in all of the countries where same sex unions fall under the aegis of the law, the people who said bad things were going to happen have been proved as laughably incorrect and narrow minded.*




I suppose you are referring to Europe's burgeoning Muslim population. But I suppose they will eventually change Sharia Law to accommodate gay marriage. That is, if they can overcome their "narrow-mindedness".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10065280/Muslim-leaders-stand-against-gay-marriage.html


----------



## dawson2 (6 July 2013)

Tink said:


> Well its not important to our children and it discriminates against them.
> They have rights.
> I dont have a problem with gay people, but I have a problem with them trying to change the marraige act for the future children of this world.
> I will stand by that.
> ...




Completely agree. I recently attended a lecture given to dads by a child psychologist in relation to teenage daughters. She said that research showed that teenage daughters looked more to their fathers at this stage in their lives for self esteem and identity. A shock to dads present. I have certainly noticed this in my own daughter where I have sensed she is consciously noticing me as a male role model. The mother's role is also important of course but more so in earlier years, according to the speaker. The irrefutable biological fact that procreation occurs naturally between a man and woman and the ensuing interplay between mothers and fathers in the healthy development of the child would suggest that depriving a child of these dynamics is not in the best interests of the child.  Sure, children can survive most situations but in terms of what is BEST for them, traditional marriage is the most natural scenario. We just need to get back to doing it better! The fact that marriage  is undervalued now due to divorce rates etc, does not mean it is inadequate as an institution. If someone plays chess badly it doesn't make chess an inferior game. I cannot understand why gay people want to have anything to do with marriage. Until recently I have only ever noticed them mocking the "old fashioned" institution. Why aren't they seeking so called "equality" through other avenues? Can't help wondering what the real agenda is here....


----------



## bellenuit (6 July 2013)

dawson2 said:


> Completely agree. I recently attended a lecture given to dads by a child psychologist in relation to teenage daughters. She said that research showed that teenage daughters looked more to their fathers at this stage in their lives for self esteem and identity. A shock to dads present. I have certainly noticed this in my own daughter where I have sensed she is consciously noticing me as a male role model. The mother's role is also important of course but more so in earlier years, according to the speaker. The irrefutable biological fact that procreation occurs naturally between a man and woman and the ensuing interplay between mothers and fathers in the healthy development of the child would suggest that depriving a child of these dynamics is not in the best interests of the child.  Sure, children can survive most situations but in terms of what is BEST for them, traditional marriage is the most natural scenario.




If would agree with your assertion that children are better off in a traditional marriage if you define traditional as heterosexual parents that have a good loving relationship between themselves and their children. But many marriages are not traditional in that sense. Nobody is suggesting taking a child out of that environment and giving it to gay parents for adoption.

But you cannot deny that there are millions of children in circumstances that do not offer the love and protection of this traditional marriage environment and I don't need to list what such circumstances are. There is no reason to deny these children the opportunity to be adopted by potential parents that tick all the boxes except that of being a heterosexual couple. Instead of comparing the traditional marriage environment to the gay marriage environment and saying which is best for children as a generalisation, you should be comparing the environment the child up for adoption currently is in compared to the environment offered by the potential adopters, be the gay or heterosexual. 

All things being equal except for the parents' gender, I would say that first preference should go to adoption by heterosexual parents for the reason you gave of the different but complementary roles that the parents play due to their differing genders. But rarely is it an all things equal choice. There are likely circumstances where the other non-gender attributes of the parents can make it better for the child to be adopted by particular gay parents as opposed to other couples, gay or heterosexual, that may be hoping to adopt that child.


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2013)

bellenuit said:


> If would agree with your assertion that children are better off in a traditional marriage if you define traditional as heterosexual parents that have a good loving relationship between themselves and their children. But many marriages are not traditional in that sense. Nobody is suggesting taking a child out of that environment and giving it to gay parents for adoption.
> 
> But you cannot deny that there are millions of children in circumstances that do not offer the love and protection of this traditional marriage environment and I don't need to list what such circumstances are.* There is no reason to deny these children the opportunity to be adopted by potential parents that tick all the boxes except that of being a heterosexual couple.*



(My bolds)

All well and good I suppose, except that in Australia there is no shortage of traditional married couples  "who tick all the boxes," wanting to adopt children. There is no shortage of "adopters" there is a shortage of "adoptees". I think you can rest assured that children available for adoption are not denied anything.

The waiting time is up to six years.

Just 333 children were adopted last financial year, the lowest number on record,

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...re/story-fnet08xa-1226536401261#ixzz2YEL5tih5


----------



## bellenuit (6 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> (My bolds)
> 
> All well and good I suppose, except that in Australia there is no shortage of traditional married couples  "who tick all the boxes," wanting to adopt children. There is no shortage of "adopters" there is a shortage of "adoptees". I think you can rest assured that children available for adoption are not denied anything.
> 
> ...




That's probably correct, but I am really arguing on the basis of whether gays should not be allowed to adopt period. With so few adoptees, I would think that providing a child to a gay couple would not be the correct decision IMO, but there may be some exceptions where that might not be the case. The one that comes to mind is where there may already be some family connection between one of the gays and the child up for adoption, perhaps if the parents were killed in an accident and one of the gays is a close relative of the family. Perhaps a sister of the mother/father where there is already a strong bond with the child. I'm going out in a limb here as I am not familiar with how these situations are treated with non-gay family members.

But outside the current Australian scene, I can envisage situations where adoptees far outnumber potential adopters, in which case there should be no refusal to allow adoption purely on the basis of the parents sexuality, if they are otherwise suitable.


----------



## dawson2 (6 July 2013)

bellenuit said:


> If would agree with your assertion that children are better off in a traditional marriage if you define traditional as heterosexual parents that have a good loving relationship between themselves and their children. But many marriages are not traditional in that sense. Nobody is suggesting taking a child out of that environment and giving it to gay parents for adoption.
> 
> But you cannot deny that there are millions of children in circumstances that do not offer the love and protection of this traditional marriage environment and I don't need to list what such circumstances are. There is no reason to deny these children the opportunity to be adopted by potential parents that tick all the boxes except that of being a heterosexual couple. Instead of comparing the traditional marriage environment to the gay marriage environment and saying which is best for children as a generalisation, you should be comparing the environment the child up for adoption currently is in compared to the environment offered by the potential adopters, be the gay or heterosexual.
> 
> All things being equal except for the parents' gender, I would say that first preference should go to adoption by heterosexual parents for the reason you gave of the different but complementary roles that the parents play due to their differing genders. But rarely is it an all things equal choice. There are likely circumstances where the other non-gender attributes of the parents can make it better for the child to be adopted by particular gay parents as opposed to other couples, gay or heterosexual, that may be hoping to adopt that child.




Adoption is only one of the problems. There is also the surrogacy issue. The Marriage Act is based on biological truth. There are perfectly sound reasons why one would not want to allow adoption or surrogacy by gay people. Placing a child in a situation where the child will learn that it is OK (and if the marriage act is changed, sanctioned by government) and entirely natural for two woman or two men to sexually cavort when it has no foundation in biological truth is grossly irresponsible and ultimately a backward step for society.
If men and woman choose to behave like this it needs to be a private matter as it is now, with the individuals dealing with the morality of that as they see fit. 
It seems from some of your comments that you agree with the view that heterosexual relations are entirely in keeping with biology in its natural form, and as you say, children would be better off in an heterosexual traditional marriage environment for that reason. That really is the end of the story. It is not just about love, it is about what is true. Depriving a child the right to a father and a mother is negligent and should never be enshrined in law.


----------



## Julia (6 July 2013)

Is the adoption/surrogacy question being exaggerated?   My impression is that most homosexuals seeking to get married aren't doing it so they can have children which they seem to be able to do now anyway.  viz Penny Wong and her partner.

There seemed to be pretty complete acceptance across our broader society when homosexual couples were granted equivalent financial rights, access to social security benefits as partners etc.  It has just been since the actual word 'marriage' has been the focus that so much controversy has arisen.

Given the large numbers of marriages that fail, I'm a bit puzzled about the attraction of marriage as an institution anyway.  Just can't see that it makes any difference to the quality of a relationship, the level of love and loyalty, if you have a bit of paper that declares you are married.  As long as de facto couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have all the same rights as couples who are married, what is so essential about 'marriage'?
The whole equality concept is now even being extended to nursing homes where homosexual couples can access all the same rights as heterosexual.  (I must admit I have no idea what this constitutes.)

So, can some of the gay marriage advocates perhaps explain why Civil Unions are not a satisfactory compromise?


----------



## Tink (6 July 2013)

Thankyou for your excellent posts Dawson, and  I agree.

More child psychologists should be involved in this. 

The best interests of the child is paramount, and I am actually offended that they want to drop the standards for our children in changeing the marraige act, that mothers and fathers are not important in a childs life.

The marraige act should not be changed as a standard by law for future generations.

The natural process of a mother and father having children and being with their children is of utmost importance. Each parent is valuable in a childs process.
Every child wants to know their identity.

As we have seen by the last couple of posts, the gay couples arent doing any better in that department so saying that we are doing a bad job with children does not give them the right to want to change the law. 
Marraige is about parents being with their children.There are plenty of parents, mums and dads, that a doing a fantastic job with thriving children in loving homes

We have all grown up with the GOLD standard, and it should NOT move down any levels for our children.
By law means everything will change, as it gets told in schools, the whole scenario, and thats wrong for our children

Marraige is not about paying someone to have a baby.


----------



## CanOz (6 July 2013)

Perhaps, given the posts above, we should consider the morality of single women and men having children through surrogacy as well?

What you all seem to be saying, is that you believe if the children cannot have a "normal" marriage, they should not have children ?

CanOz


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2013)

CanOz said:


> Perhaps, given the posts above, we should consider the morality of single women and men having children through surrogacy as well?
> 
> What you all seem to be saying, is that you believe if the children cannot have a "normal" marriage, they should not have children ?
> 
> CanOz




There is little that can be done to prevent singles or couples of all stripes  buying children through surrogacy. Where do you stand on the morality issue?


----------



## johenmo (7 July 2013)

Julia said:


> So, can some of the gay marriage advocates perhaps explain why Civil Unions are not a satisfactory compromise?




+1.  And without the use of inflammatory or emotive language please.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> (My bolds)
> 
> All well and good I suppose, except that in Australia there is no shortage of traditional married couples  "who tick all the boxes," wanting to adopt children. There is no shortage of "adopters" there is a shortage of "adoptees". I think you can rest assured that children available for adoption are not denied anything.
> 
> ...




Seems to me that this would then really make children null and void as a reason to be against gay marriage?

If it's pretty much unlikely for a gay married couple to be able to adopt, then why worry about it?


----------



## sydboy007 (7 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Is the adoption/surrogacy question being exaggerated?   My impression is that most homosexuals seeking to get married aren't doing it so they can have children which they seem to be able to do now anyway.  viz Penny Wong and her partner.
> 
> There seemed to be pretty complete acceptance across our broader society when homosexual couples were granted equivalent financial rights, access to social security benefits as partners etc.  It has just been since the actual word 'marriage' has been the focus that so much controversy has arisen.
> 
> ...




Julia

you generally sum up my attitude.  Since most laws have changed so as to acknowledge most interpdendency style relationships, marriage isn't really an issue for me as most of the old "benefits" of being married are now available to most in a relationship.

The only reason I can see it is still beneficial for gay marriage to be allowed is that words do have power.  For those less accepting, or even opposed to homosexuality, they are able to maintain their prejudice by feeling they can belittle a gay relationship because the 2 people aren't married, cannot be married, so the relationship is in some way inferior to the gold standard heterosexual married couple.

TBH I think if we just wait a bit longer then the silent majority will win out.  If you ever read some of the things said against the abolition of slavery, I'd dare say most of us just couldn't understand why anyone would think being able to see another human being as mere property to be sold or bought was OK, yet alone a corner stone of society.  A major argument was that it slavery was condoned by the bible.

I'd say most people would find it sad we used to think Aboriginal people weren't capable of voting.

We have a very narrow view of what a "good" family structure looks like.  Go to many poorer countries and I'd dare say they'd think the way most children are shuttled off to child care, don't spend that much quality time with their parents nearly a form of child abuse.  In poorer countries you'll see older children providing a lot of care to their younger siblings, they'll walk or ride a bike to school rather than have parents driving them everywhere, stuffing them with high calorie nutritionally depleted food, wondering why over 1 in 4 children are overweight or moving into obesity.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Seems to me that this would then really make children null and void as a reason to be against gay marriage?
> 
> If it's pretty much unlikely for a gay married couple to be able to adopt, then why worry about it?




Yes, I agree, and I can understand why parenthood would be so far removed your agenda. Your cynical view of parent's behavior is far removed from my experiences. You apparently saw my recounting my pleasurable  experience at the supermarket as some sort of threat to gays, and others were upset that my attitude departed from the image that they shared of me. It doesn't pay on this forum to try to share a pleasurable experience. It goes over like lead balloon.

These days the task of parents in disciplining their children has been made harder by the nanny state. They need all the moral support we can give them.



> The mother child interaction is what you believe happens everywhere or if not, what ratio? Having been out to visit my brother in the western suburbs a few times I can attest that your description of parental interaction was generally NOT what I saw, and NO I wasn't looking for bad people, but it's hard to not notice a mother and or father screaming four letter words at their child / children




I also suspect that the "fathers" screaming obscenities at "their children" are not the fathers at all but the current live-in lover.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yes, I agree, and I can understand why parenthood would be so far removed your agenda. Your cynical view of parent's behavior is far removed from my experiences. You apparently saw my recounting my pleasurable  experience at the supermarket as some sort of threat to gays, and others were upset that my attitude departed from the image that they shared of me. It doesn't pay on this forum to try to share a pleasurable experience. It goes over like lead balloon.
> 
> These days the task of parents in disciplining their children has been made harder by the nanny state. They need all the moral support we can give them.
> 
> ...




I don't think I'm cynical.  Just found your post very Utopian, and certainly as others have commented, not something that gels with the personal reality we have experienced.

No I didn't see your post as a threat to anyone.

Possibly your pleasurable experience was just too perfect.  I just find it hard to believe in a shopping centre all the children were perfectly behaved and all the mothers were joyously imparting knowledge to the little rug rats.  Could by my cynicism creeping in eh.

I have no problem with a parent disciplining their children.  Heck we need more of it.  The no smacking culture is probably why i hate going to shopping centers on a weekend, or really anywhere a large amount of children are.  i know one of the main reasons i never got too out of line was because i didn't like the consequences if I did.  These days no internet or tv for a day just doesn't seem to have the same impact as a quick smack on the bum.  Worse if it happened in public because then there was the embarrassment factor too.

As for the male partner screaming at the children, you could be right, but seems you still feel that is a superior situation for the child than having them live with a couple of same sex parents who would probably be closer to your shopping center experience than what they currently get


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> As for the male partner screaming at the children, you could be right, but seems you still feel that is a superior situation for the child than having them live with a couple of same sex parents who would probably be closer to your shopping center experience than what they currently get




No. I feel the child is much better of with parents in a monogamous and stable relationship. But as you said above, it's a non-issue for you.



> The book Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by authors Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, cites a study of homosexual male couples conducted by gay researchers.
> 
> The couples who participated had been together between 1 and 37 years.
> 
> ...



http://www.examiner.com/article/inf...ian-couples-recently-united-same-sex-marriage

This begs the question doesn't it..why the hell do they want to get married when they play around so much?:screwy:


----------



## Julia (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> This begs the question doesn't it..why the hell do they want to get married when they play around so much?:screwy:



Perhaps because in the biological surge of the hormones of lust one can be deluded into thinking it's all that matters and that such intense ecstasy will last for ever.  

When it doesn't, and there's nothing more substantial underneath, the search is on again for the mythical perfect partner.

Imo marriage is an institution that was once relevant and necessary for multiple reasons.  But those reasons, mostly financial and legal, are no longer a consideration.  
I don't think it would be a bad idea if the whole institution was just wiped and both heterosexual and homosexual relationships were registered as Civil Unions if the couples felt compelled to announce their intentions to all and sundry.

I can't see that it will ever save a rotting relationship to be 'married'.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

I have to admit that becoming a widower years ago freed me from the guilt complex that promiscuity can confer on you in marriage. In gay marriage I doubt that a guilt complex exists. It is quite normal to have extra-marital partners.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> I have to admit that becoming a widower years ago freed me from the guilt complex that promiscuity can confer on you in marriage. In gay marriage I doubt that a guilt complex exists. It is quite normal to have extra-marital partners.




No, I suppose along with an attraction to the same sex, for some reason they also don't have a conscience.

What's better:

A marriage where infidelity occurs behind the back of the other partner

A marriage where the partners have negotiated what they are comfortable with, what are the "rules" of the relationship, and sex with someone else is not done behind the back of the other partner

I've never had any respect for cheaters.

TBH I think marriage causes more problems than it's worth.  How many miserable couples are out there still together "for the kids"?  Best to accept the relationship is over, move on, be happy and the kids will surely be a lot happier than be stuck around parents in a loveless marriage and all the stress that brings with it.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> TBH I think marriage causes more problems than it's worth.




Which brings us back to the question...Why do you advocate and defend gay marriage when you have a cynical view of the relationship and fidelity in marriage?


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

I've  suddenly realized Syd that you are I are on the same side. I was working under the assumption that you thought that refusal to accept same sex marriage was discrimination, when of course you oppose gay marriage and any other form of marriage for that matter.

I remember discussing the issue with a gay friend of mine. One of my best friends actually. He is dead now as are most of my old friends. He was living in  a stable relationship with his partner. I asked him if he felt discriminated against because they couldn't marry. "No' he said "just the opposite. If we were married we would get the married rate of pension instead of two single rates.


----------



## Julia (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> I've  suddenly realized Syd that you are I are on the same side. I was working under the assumption that you thought that refusal to accept same sex marriage was discrimination, when of course you oppose gay marriage and any other form of marriage for that matter.
> 
> I remember discussing the issue with a gay friend of mine. One of my best friends actually. He is dead now as are most of my old friends. He was living in  a stable relationship with his partner. I asked him if he felt discriminated against because they couldn't marry. "No' he said "just the opposite. If we were married we would get the married rate of pension instead of two single rates.



If they were living together they would not be eligible for two single rates.  Couples living together, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are assessed on the partnered rate.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

Julia said:


> If they were living together they would not be eligible for two single rates.  Couples living together, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are assessed on the partnered rate.




Wrong again. They were eligible until July 2009. You will be pleased to know they had both passed on by then.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/centrelink-sympathy-for-fearful-gay-couples-20100113-m71f.html


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Wrong again. They were eligible until July 2009. You will be pleased to know they had both passed on by then.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/centrelink-sympathy-for-fearful-gay-couples-20100113-m71f.html




And it is that ype of changes to laws that DIDN'T recognise any for of same sex relationship that has me not that interested in gay marriage.  I understand why some people are fighting for it, but it's not something I will devote a lot of energy to.


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Which brings us back to the question...Why do you advocate and defend gay marriage when you have a cynical view of the relationship and fidelity in marriage?




Because a lot of the Christian right, and non Christian right, like to believe that because same sex couples can't get married their relationships are inferior to a herterosexual marriage.

As I said before, words have power, words are symbolism, and if you can exclude a group of people the power of particular symbolism within society, then you're able to far more easily exclude them from other areas of society as well.

Savage garden had a beautiful song called Affirmation.  Below is my favourite verse of the song.  It seems very apt for a right lenaing financially based forum.

*I believe you can't control or choose your sexuality *
*I believe that trust is more important than monogamy *
I believe that your most attractive features are your heart and soul 
*I believe that family is worth more than money or gold *
I believe the struggle for financial freedom isn't fair
I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires 

Have a read of this SMH article - http://tinyurl.com/mthxl4j

A couple of the more interesting paragraphs:

Marriage is an institution thousands of years old, designed largely to protect hereditary property (via monogamy), ensure "someone for everyone" in small, sparsely populated rural communities and to produce children to work the farm.

So we blame promiscuity and divorce on 'bad' morals, rather than a once good idea gone bad ... or at least near obsolete.


----------



## Julia (8 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Wrong again. They were eligible until July 2009.



I was referring to the current situation.  In years gone by, I don't think any bureaucracy actually seriously considered homosexual de facto relationships.  It was only after all the activism of wanting equal rights in everything that the then government decided OK, if you're going to have the benefits, you can have the downside as well.



> You will be pleased to know they had both passed on by then.



??  Why would I be pleased or otherwise?


----------



## Calliope (8 July 2013)

Julia said:


> I was referring to the current situation.




You said;  







> If they were living together they would not be eligible for two single rates



 I made it quite clear I was talking about the situation some years ago and *they were eligible for two single rates.*



> ??  Why would I be pleased or otherwise?




Because they can't rip off the taxpayer any more.

?? Why are you nitpicking?


----------



## Zedd (8 July 2013)

Julia said:


> So, can some of the gay marriage advocates perhaps explain why Civil Unions are not a satisfactory compromise?




Heart of the debate IMO, at least for those who recognise that homosexual partnerships are valid in the first place.

If marriage had of stayed as a religious term and those getting 'married' outside of a religious context were referred to being in a civil union it would be sufficient recognition. But, as unions, outside of a religion are still referred to as a marriage, then it is drawing a line and making a distinction based on sexuality alone. That to me is offensive, in the same way as if mixed raced unions had different terminology.

Two roads, equally valid IMO:
1. Change terminology so all unions outside of religious setting are referred to as civil unions.
2. Allow homosexual unions to be referred to as marriages.


----------



## bellenuit (8 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> Two roads, equally valid IMO:
> 1. Change terminology so all unions outside of religious setting are referred to as civil unions.
> 2. Allow homosexual unions to be referred to as marriages.




There is a third option.

Since marriage was originally a civil institution, shouldn't we use the word "marriage" for all civil unions regardless of sexuality. Then let the religions go find their own word.


----------



## Zedd (8 July 2013)

bellenuit said:


> There is a third option.
> Since marriage was originally a civil institution, shouldn't we use the word "marriage" for all civil unions regardless of sexuality. Then let the religions go find their own word.




+1 wp.


----------



## Tink (9 July 2013)

Tink said:


> Thankyou for your excellent posts Dawson, and  I agree.
> 
> More child psychologists should be involved in this.
> 
> ...




to add to my post, I suppose its how you define marraige.

Marraige was always about keeping children with their original parents, so that children were raised in a loving environment and to this day is still told in schools that way.
Thats the gold standard - mum and dad love each other get married and have a baby.

Even child psychologists have done all in their power to make sure children spent time with each one.
This is a complete turn around.
I dont know why religion keeps getting mentioned as I see it more about children than religion.

It seems that adults just want to destroy their little world.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 July 2013)

Tink said:


> to add to my post, I suppose its how you define marraige.
> 
> Marraige was always about keeping children with their original parents, so that children were raised in a loving environment and to this day is still told in schools that way.
> Thats the gold standard - mum and dad love each other get married and have a baby.
> ...




Yet I would say the majority of same sex "marriages" would have no interest in children.  I certainly don't.  I do love the time I get to spend with my friends children.  A few years back I was toying with the idea of leaving the IT industry and going around the world teaching English.  Completed my CELTA then did some extra courses, one to specialise in teaching small children.  It's certainly helped a lot with the way I'm able to explain ideas to them.  There's no more rewarding experience than giving someone the AH HA, seeing that spark of understanding in their eyes.  To be able to give that to a child is priceless, and quite often I learn a bit from them.  Often itt can be quite a challenge to follow the chain of their reasoning, but very rewarding.  I'm often reminded of:

William Blake - Auguries of Innocence

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

You have shown no proof that children raised by a same sex couple are in any way harmed, or that they don't have the same level of emotional well being.  The concept of family has changed so much over the last few hundred years.  I live in an area that was really a dormitory suburb of Sydney in the late 1800s till probably the 1960s, maybe later.  All those tiny 1 bedroom workers cottages, filled by families of 6 maybe 8 people.  Now look at us.  At least 1 bedroom per person in a house, media room AND living room so we can pretty much ignore each other when we're at home as much as possible.

No longer do we live as an extended family.  Go back 100 years and it was quite common to have 3 generations, maybe even 4, living under the 1 roof.  Now, that's pretty rare. It was common in my parents generation to be 1 of 4+ children.  These days single child families is quite common.  How can parents be so cruel to raise a child that spends so much time alone, unable to interact with anyone their own age?  How do they learn the social skills required of them outside the family if they can't learn them at home?

A lot of the arguments against gay marriage are based on the concept of the ideal family from the 1960s onward.  They ignore the thousands of years of human history, and the evolving nature of how familes have been structured.  They even ignore the fact that for a long time civil unions / marriages for same sex couples was not uncommon till religious persecution gave us close to two milleniums of demonising homosexuality.

------------

note: I don't think parents with a single child are cruel.  Below is how stereotypes become embedded in society:

Granville Stanley Hall, an American psychologist and researcher, first explored how only children were “different” back in 1895. Hall sent out a survey for educators and physicians to describe unusual children, and the results were published by his protÃ©gÃ©e, E.W. Bohannon, in 1896. Bohannon’s “A Study of Peculiar and Exceptional Children” concluded that only children (who made up 46 of the 1,045 children surveyed) were more likely to be peculiar, ugly, poorly behaved, and stupid. It's important to note that in the 19th century having many children was the norm, while only children were fairly rare. Greatist Expert Dr. Mark Banschick explains that families with only one child were more likely to be dysfunctional due to health (both physical and mental) issues, which could have a negative effect on raising children. Regardless of rationale, Hall and Bohannon's work effectively created the myth of the socially inept and bratty only child.

- - - Updated - - -



bellenuit said:


> There is a third option.
> 
> Since marriage was originally a civil institution, shouldn't we use the word "marriage" for all civil unions regardless of sexuality. Then let the religions go find their own word.




Don't let the Rev Nile and Cardinal Pell hear you say such things.

Just another inconvenient fact for those against gay marriage


----------



## Knobby22 (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Hall and Bohannon's work effectively created the myth of the socially inept and bratty only child.




It's a myth??   Not from my life experience.


----------



## Julia (9 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> It's a myth??   Not from my life experience.



Oh my goodness, Knobby.  I'm an only child.  I shall now sulk and worry.

Seriously, it's about as rational as saying all home schooled children will be socially inept because they haven't experienced the vicissitudes of a public school.

In my experience quite the opposite is the case and these children are usually confident socially and able to talk on a mature level over a wide variety of subjects.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 July 2013)

Actually I agree with you Julia. Many only children do tend to be very good socially and self aware because they have to be, but they do tend to be more selfish because they haven't had to share. But I am one of 5 so I am biased.
I think the best children are the middle children as they have to deal with everything. (I'm eldest).

In the end though, parenting is by far the biggest factor.


----------



## Whiskers (22 October 2013)

An interesting take on the ACT government new Gay Marriage laws... to be challenged by the Fed government.

Apparently Christene Foster (Abbotts sister) was married to a man, up until a few years ago, and has four children abt 20 yo.



> Mr Abbott's gay sister and Sydney City Councillor, Christine Forster, has bought into the debate, calling for federal Liberal MPs to be allowed a conscience vote on the issue if legislation comes before the Parliament.
> 
> Revealing that she and her partner have been engaged since March, Ms Forster said she hoped the new Liberal Party room would regard the issue as a matter of conscience.
> 
> ...




On face value when they say "Marriage is about love, it's about people's feelings, it's a matter of the heart"... it's all seemingly harmless enough and well intentioned... BUT when the criteria is " it should be a conscience decision, rather than a policy decision", the conflicts of interest and Pandora's box arise.

Polygamy meets all her criteria for such people... so why do we legislate against it in the modern world?

Conscience: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives... is hardly an accurate logical barometer of what is right, let alone what is fact.

Our 'inner sense of what is right or wrong' can be affected by influences beyond our knowledge and control. That ought to ring alarm bells.


----------



## Macquack (24 October 2013)

Whiskers said:


> On face value when they say "Marriage is about love, it's about people's feelings, it's a matter of the heart"... it's all seemingly harmless enough and well intentioned... BUT when the criteria is " it should be a conscience decision, rather than a policy decision", the conflicts of interest and Pandora's box arise.
> 
> Polygamy meets all her criteria for such people... so why do we legislate against it in the modern world?
> 
> ...




I think you are over analysing what Christine Foster said. 

Why have you defined "conscience" when all she was referring to was a "conscience vote". 

I fail to see any alarm bells ringing.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 October 2013)

I think we need to be respectful towards anyone who wishes to clarify their relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

It is my belief that the community has moved on from this "debate".

Godbotherers may want to cling to their book, and that is understandable, 2000 years of precedent is difficult to unwind.

My greatest fear is though that marriage will be devalued at a great cost to children.

gg


----------



## sydboy007 (24 October 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My greatest fear is though that marriage will be devalued at a great cost to children.
> 
> gg




Can you elaborate as to how and why it would be devalued?  How would it affect children?  Are the children born out of wedlock (probably referred to as a bastard child by your generation) somehow negatively impacted by this?  What about the children conceived out of wedlock?  Do parents who "lived in sin" before getting married carry some taint that passes via conception?


----------



## Whiskers (24 October 2013)

Macquack said:


> I think you are over analysing what Christine Foster said.
> 
> Why have you defined "conscience" when all she was referring to was a "conscience vote".
> 
> I fail to see any alarm bells ringing.




I was a bit loathe to elaborate too much in a hurry, just cause people to think about it.

I tried to open the door of possibilities a bit with "Polygamy meets all her criteria for such people... so why do we legislate against it in the modern world?"

I was particularly loathe to mention, but none the less,  if one's emotional feelings and conscience is the only criteria, that by definition also open the argument for incest and paedophile etc and generally unmitigated free sexual relationships to be recognised (as in not condoned) legally.

I know it's a long way from what people normally associate with "Marriage is about love, it's about people's feelings, it's a matter of the heart" and " it should be a conscience decision, rather than a policy decision"... but those criteria should not in themselves be sufficient to make law. There ought to be something more fundamental to the physiological sciences or at least some rationale of the fundamentals underpinning social standards.

The main thrust behind the gay marriage is lobbying for support of a consensus of opinion.

The argument of consensus is a flawed argument. Dr Jensen a Lib MP made a profound distinction re Climate change that also applies here.

"In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all," Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.

"Scientific reality doesn't give a damn who said it and it doesn't give a damn how many say it."

It was wrong to accept the view of the 97 per cent of climate scientists who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activities, because "the argument of consensus . . . is a flawed argument,"​
I know, the activists  will scream what ramifications... but just as the world was convinced of a lie by the tobacco lobby for forty years (and many other examples throughout history) there is some evidence that homosexuality is not natural... it seems to occur more frequently in recent times, but that just makes it more common... not more natural.

For me there needs to be something more substantial than a warm fuzzy feeling to make this sort of legal changes with wider ramifications... something more logical, preferably with  scientific credibility.


----------



## Calliope (25 October 2013)

I don't see why proponents of polygamous marriage couldn't put up the same "equal rights" argument as gays.



> Polygamy Hits Australia
> The Australian reports 20 July 2011 that Muslims in Australia are right now forming polygamous marriages:
> 
> A system of "legal pluralism" based on sharia law "abounds" in Australia, according to new research by legal academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadiq.
> ...


----------



## Knobby22 (25 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> I don't see why proponents of polygamous marriage couldn't put up the same "equal rights" argument as gays.




True, I can't see how that you could argue against it. I personally wouldn't want it though.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 October 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> True, I can't see how that you could argue against it. I personally wouldn't want it though.




One has to think keeping 1 wife happy is hard enough.

How does one do it for 2 or 3, maybe even 4.


----------



## Tink (26 October 2013)

Agree with you, GG.
I often wonder the ones that advocate for these children, if they have ever been in the position themselves.

Also a great post by dawson 



dawson2 said:


> Adoption is only one of the problems. There is also the surrogacy issue. The Marriage Act is based on biological truth. There are perfectly sound reasons why one would not want to allow adoption or surrogacy by gay people. Placing a child in a situation where the child will learn that it is OK (and if the marriage act is changed, sanctioned by government) and entirely natural for two woman or two men to sexually cavort when it has no foundation in biological truth is grossly irresponsible and ultimately a backward step for society.
> If men and woman choose to behave like this it needs to be a private matter as it is now, with the individuals dealing with the morality of that as they see fit.
> It seems from some of your comments that you agree with the view that heterosexual relations are entirely in keeping with biology in its natural form, and as you say, children would be better off in an heterosexual traditional marriage environment for that reason. That really is the end of the story. It is not just about love, it is about what is true. Depriving a child the right to a father and a mother is negligent and should never be enshrined in law.


----------



## sails (26 October 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ?..My greatest fear is though that marriage will be devalued at a great cost to children.
> 
> gg





I agree, GG.  How adults choose to live is their choice but children have no choice.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 October 2013)

Tink said:


> Agree with you, GG.
> I often wonder the ones that advocate for these children, if they have ever been in the position themselves.
> 
> Also a great post by dawson






sails said:


> I agree, GG.  How adults choose to live is their choice but children have no choice.




Care to back up your statements with some evidence?

The family "unit" for want of a better term, has evolved so much over time.  Do you consider the current insular segregated family "unit" to be the ideal one?  

I was chatting with my Gran a couple of days ago and listening (again) to some of her childhood stories and one thing I noticed was how common it was to have multiple generations living under the one roof.  Now the majority demand a room each, multiple entertainment and living spaces, and barely interact with each other at the dining table.

Pop down to Redfern Sydney and see what the current generation of children there are going through, then tell me a loving gay couple would be more harmful.  Maybe a walk through the 20 suburbs with the highest levels of unemployment in Australia might open your eyes.

The sad reality is a lot of children are not living in the idealised conditions you believe in.  If you think living with a gay couple is more damaging to a child than living in one that shouts abuse at them and uses language I'd never use, well I think that says more about you than anything about gay marriage.

There's a reasonable amount of low density public housing around me, and I can honestly say few of the children living in those houses have much hope of escaping the poverty trap they're in.  You do see the odd cohesive family not plagued by some form of addiction, but in general terms it would take a miracle for these children to grow up and be able to function within society.  School can show you the social norms expected of you, but if they're not reinforced at home, well kids are going to take the actions of their parents as what's acceptable over what they see at school.

Lest you think I'm talking about stuff I've seen from the outside, one of my cousins is a heroine addict.  He has 2 children with his wife.  The kids were already held back a year at school due to their poor performance.  I used to think the drugs during pregnancy had probably put them in the slow lane.

My uncle (mum's youngest brother) and his wife decided they would seek custody of the children, and fortunately they were successful.  A year later and both the children are performing above average, they have a normal weight, they just look like the kind of children you'd find in any loving family.  I'm blown away by how fast they "grew" once they were in an environment that was supportive, where someone would sit with them and help them with their homework, give them words of praise and encouragement, and where they have a nutritious diet.

So by your argument a child in an abusive family is still better off than one with loving gay parents?  It's not a small problem.  Some studies say 1 in 6 children lives in poverty.  It's a safe bet to think a decent % of those children live in dysfunctional families where at least 1 parent has an addiction or mental health issue.


----------



## Tink (26 October 2013)

Syd, I have already said my views in here, and its to do with marraige and changing the law, thats it.
I think the standard should stay the same for future generations for our children.

Its nice that you talk about your mum, your dad, your nan, your pop, your uncle and who ever else, family to me is important...and that is the essence of this whole thing, the family unit.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 October 2013)

Tink said:


> Syd, I have already said my views in here, and its to do with marraige and changing the law, thats it.
> I think the standard should stay the same for future generations for our children.
> 
> Its nice that you talk about your mum, your dad, your nan, your pop, your uncle and who ever else, family to me is important...and that is the essence of this whole thing, the family unit.




Fair enough.

But what about the children when the family unit is broken?

Do yo u advocate taking no action?

Honestly, do you believe a child in a dysfunctional family is better off than one living with loving gay parents?  It's a simple question.


----------



## Tink (26 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But what about the children when the family unit is broken?
> 
> ...




So whats that got to do with changeing the marraige act?
You are making out that every marraige breaks down and it doesnt.

As children, I think they should be brought up believing in marraige as a family unit.


----------



## Calliope (26 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Care to back up your statements with some evidence?
> 
> ...So by your argument a child in an abusive family is still better off than one with loving gay parents?  It's not a small problem.  Some studies say 1 in 6 children lives in poverty.  It's a safe bet to think a decent % of those children live in dysfunctional families where at least 1 parent has an addiction or mental health issue.




Sorry to rain on your parade syd, but the love that most "loving gay parents" have for *each other* is, in the majority of cases, a very fleeting thing when promiscuity rules.

In America;


> Incubating a national health problem
> 
> Gay men have between 4 and 100 times more sex partners than heterosexual men. Lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have over 50 sex partners in their lifetime compared with heterosexual women. Seventy-five to ninety percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men. Only 10 percent of homosexual relationships are monogamous after five years.
> 
> ...



Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/homosexual-promiscuitys-national-health-crisis/#1qsV95jkbdL0oiVh.99


----------



## sydboy007 (26 October 2013)

Tink said:


> So whats that got to do with changeing the marraige act?
> You are making out that every marraige breaks down and it doesnt.
> 
> As children, I think they should be brought up believing in marraige as a family unit.




No I'm not, just that there's a significant minority of children currently living in family unit's far removed from the ideal you believe they need.

Like most things in life it's quite often not about getting the ideal, but rather the best of what's available.

There's sadly too many children in family units that would be far better off with a loving gay couple.

Changing the marriage act wont change that fact.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> Sorry to rain on your parade syd, but the love that most "loving gay parents" have for *each other* is, in the majority of cases, a very fleeting thing when promiscuity rules.
> 
> In America;
> 
> Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/homosexual-promiscuitys-national-health-crisis/#1qsV95jkbdL0oiVh.99




* In general terms the GLBT community has a higher level of testing, so more cases of STDs will be reported for them

* Recent research shows girls aged 12-15 years are testing positive for chlamydia at higher rates than older women in Australia

* More than 100 children under the age of 14 tested positive for STIs in the NT recently

* the sexual revolution has made sex less of a taboo.

* risky sexual behaviour is not defined by sexual preference.

* Sadly we've seen a 10% increase in new HIV infections over the last 12 months

I'd also say that people who are not in a committed stable relationship would be very unlikely to be looking to adopt children, whatever their sexuality.

ps what's the TRUE rate of monogamous heterosexual relationships after 5 years?


----------



## Calliope (26 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> There's sadly too many children in family units that would be far better off with a loving gay couple.




To use your words;

"Care to back up your statements with some evidence?"


----------



## sydboy007 (26 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> To use your words;
> 
> "Care to back up your statements with some evidence?"




Pop around to my place on a Friday night or Saturday morning and listen to what some of the parents in the public housing are shouting at their children since they're fully tanked up.  If you're lucky you might get to hear a particular couple where the wife seems to lock the male partner out and then we can all hear their expletive ridden "talk" while a child generally screams through it.

Then we'll head for a walk past some more public housing and see some of the feral looking kids running around, as we make our way to the Redfern tower blocks to see what families of addiction look like.  Quite often 1 or both of the parents have been to the bottle shop on Botany Rd to pick up the 4.4L Berri Wine casks, child(ren) in tow at times.

We can repeat this process in the 20 suburbs with the highest levels of unemployment in Australia and hopefully by then you've started to see the reality out there.  Judging by your shopping centre experience I don't think you've been exposed to the sad reality that there's too many broken families with children growing up that are being shown less than the ideal way to live their lives.


----------



## Chris45 (26 October 2013)

Julia said:


> There seemed to be pretty complete acceptance across our broader society when homosexual couples were granted equivalent financial rights, access to social security benefits as partners etc.  It has just been since the actual word 'marriage' has been the focus that so much controversy has arisen.



I don't know if this question has been asked and answered before, but can someone please tell me why the homosexual community, which contains many of our most creative people, can't come up with a new name for their civil unions?

We have "straight" and "gay" which everyone seems to be happy to accept, so why can't we have "marriage" for the straights and something else for the gays?

So far the best alternative I've heard is "glarriage" which sounds pretty awful and surely they can do better than that.

A homosexual union is clearly different from a heterosexual union so, providing both types of unions have equal financial and legal rights (not sure about the child issue), wouldn't a new name solve the problem?

When you're talking to someone and they say they're "married", it would be helpful to be able to immediately conclude what sort of relationship they're in without having to ask additional awkward questions or make assumptions that may be completely wrong.


----------



## Calliope (26 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Pop around to my place on a Friday night or Saturday morning and listen to what some of the parents in the public housing are shouting at their children since they're fully tanked up.  If you're lucky you might get to hear a particular couple where the wife seems to lock the male partner out and then we can all hear their expletive ridden "talk" while a child generally screams through it.
> 
> Then we'll head for a walk past some more public housing and see some of the feral looking kids running around, as we make our way to the Redfern tower blocks to see what families of addiction look like.  Quite often 1 or both of the parents have been to the bottle shop on Botany Rd to pick up the 4.4L Berri Wine casks, child(ren) in tow at times.
> 
> We can repeat this process in the 20 suburbs with the highest levels of unemployment in Australia and hopefully by then you've started to see the reality out there.  Judging by your shopping centre experience I don't think you've been exposed to the sad reality that there's too many broken families with children growing up that are being shown less than the ideal way to live their lives.




Okay, that's the reality. But what the hell has it to do with gay marriage? Are you saying that "loving gay parents" can show children " the ideal way to live their lives?" 

Again I ask where is your evidence?


----------



## sydboy007 (27 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> When you're talking to someone and they say they're "married", it would be helpful to be able to immediately conclude what sort of relationship they're in without having to ask additional awkward questions or make assumptions that may be completely wrong.




I dare say the awkwardness is all yours.  If a _non straight_ person tells you they're married then you knowing they're not in a heterosexual relationship wont be an issue for them.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> Okay, that's the reality. But what the hell has it to do with gay marriage? Are you saying that "loving gay parents" can show children " the ideal way to live their lives?"
> 
> Again I ask where is your evidence?




Where's your evidence that a child raised by a gay couple is harmed?

That's what you and tink seem to be arguing.

I'm happy to say that in the ideal world a child brought up by a loving heterosexual couple is probably the best way.

When the ideal ISN'T available, there's plenty of less desirable outcomes than a gay couple providing a loving safe stable environment for a child.

If you think that a child being raised by parents with addiction issues / physical abuse / sexual abuse / mental abuse / general lack of care is going to grow up "better" than a child brought up by a gay couple who provide a safe loving stable environment, then I shake me head in sadness because the "care" you have for the children is not true.

By your logic, a parent removing their child from a situation where the other parent was abusive is somehow detrimental to the child since they no longer have a male and female parent.


----------



## Tink (27 October 2013)

So going by your account, Syd, the destruction and dysfunction in society with drugs and alcohol is just getting worse and you want to add more fuel to the fire by destabilizing marraige, the core family unit?
For what reason is gay marraige a betterment in society?
Bringing in gay marraige isnt going to fix these things.

All the things you enjoy as a child, your mum, your dad etc, you are quite happy to take that away from another child?

As said, I dont have a problem with gays but since you cant have children on your own, I dont think its fair on the child and we shouldnt have to change the marraige act.
Marraiges last longer when parents are with their children and thats a fact.

Its already been stated that gays dont adopt, and I dont know if you have ever dealt with people trying to find their parents, its not fair and its not right. 
What about history and medical?

We arent going to agree on this as I feel very strongly about children being with their natural parents, and thats exactly what marraige is about. 

Ah yes, the sexual revolution, and that seems to be the reason the gays have been trying to destroy the family unit, so that it works out better for themselves.
Redefine family because traditional models hold sexual activists back
Redefine and remove standards so anything goes

Marraige is about children, stability, their parents and a happy home.


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm happy to say that in the ideal world a child brought up by a loving heterosexual couple is *probably* the best way.




PROBABLY??? What a grudging admission.



> When the ideal ISN'T available, there's plenty of less desirable outcomes than a gay couple providing a loving safe stable environment for a child.




Stable? loving? safe?  Only 10 percent of homosexual relationships are monogamous after five years. http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/homosexua...5jkbdL0oiVh.99



> If you think that a child being raised by parents with addiction issues / physical abuse / sexual abuse / mental abuse / general lack of care is going to grow up "better" than a child brought up by a gay couple who provide a safe loving stable environment, then I shake me head in sadness because the "care" you have for the children is not true




At least I have had children. I don't think you have. Your views are based on ideology and what you have gleaned on your midnight strolls.



> By your logic, a parent removing their child from a situation where the other parent was abusive is somehow detrimental to the child since they no longer have a male and female parent.




Not at all. By my logic the best foster parents or carers are in a heterosexual family situation where there are other children. "i shake me head in sadness" that you are should think otherwise.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 October 2013)

Tink said:


> So going by your account, Syd, the destruction and dysfunction in society with drugs and alcohol is just getting worse and you want to add more fuel to the fire by destabilizing marraige, the core family unit?
> For what reason is gay marraige a betterment in society?
> Bringing in gay marraige isnt going to fix these things.
> 
> ...




Tink

it's not about destroying the family unit.  I would argue that adoption is a very marginal issue when it comes to gay marriage.  If gay marriage causes the destruction of civilised society, well it was probably near the end anyways.

Can you ever see a situation where a child is better off to not be with 1 or both of their parents?  As I was trying to explain to you and Calliope, I see that situation EVERY day, admittedly with mainly the same families.  

Your "Marraige is about children, stability, their parents and a happy home" maybe true for you, but what about all those people today getting married and not wanting to have children.  What about all the marriages where that ISN'T happening. Marriage a few hundred years ago was really about the transfer of wealth from generation to generation, and it still is to a degree today, though at least women are no longer viewed as chattels (at least in most wester countries)

Are you even able to put into words what the harm is to children brought up by a gay couple?  Could you accept gay foster parents, or would you think institutionalised care for a child is better over a home environment with a gay couple?  My understanding is at times there's just not enough people willing to provide foster care for children.

This is what the Govt sees in terms of foster care:

_Foster carers can be same sex couples, or single and homosexual. What matters is a person’s ability to provide care for a child in a way that promotes their well-being, ensures that all of their needs are being met and protects them from harm._


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2013)

I'm afraid sydboy you lost all credibility for me when you blindly followed the ABC's fallacious line and said;



> interesting to note no major bush fire since European settlement has occurred before December.


----------



## Macquack (27 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> I'm afraid sydboy you lost all credibility for me when you blindly followed the ABC's fallacious line and said;
> 
> 
> 
> > interesting to note no major bush fire since European settlement has occurred before December.




:topic


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2013)

Macquack said:


> :topic




Wrong again Macquack. I was referring to syd's credibility on this thread. If you deliberately mislead on one thread, you lose credibility on all threads. You of all people should know this.


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2013)

This "wedding" should be a hoot.



> EVERYONE'S had a wedding invite that makes them feel a bit uncomfortable
> 
> It might be from an ex-partner, or someone you were secretly in love with at school. Or a workmate who you secretly hate but who has guilted you into going. Maybe it's your creepy uncle and he's up to wife number four - who happens to be younger than your children.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...forsters-wedding/story-fnh4jt60-1226745113900


----------



## sydboy007 (27 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> Wrong again Macquack. I was referring to syd's credibility on this thread. If you deliberately mislead on one thread, you lose credibility on all threads. You of all people should know this.




If you believe that then Tony lost all credibility the day he was caught lying about the pensioner electricity bill, though he'd lied quite a few times prior to that.  

I also seemed to remember you saying a comment in one thread is not relevant to another, at least when it was used against you.

I'm still waiting for you to provide one skerrick of proof that a child brought up by a same sex couple is permanently harmed by this.


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm still waiting for you to provide one skerrick of proof that a child brought up by a same sex couple is permanently harmed by this.




Only time will tell...and the children will be the guinea pigs.


----------



## Chris45 (27 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> Only time will tell...and the children will be the guinea pigs.



Sadly, children are usually the "guinea pigs" and what's best for the parents usually takes priority over what's best for the child.

Syd, since you seem to have some inside knowledge of this issue, can you suggest why the gay community cannot come up with an alternative name that both sides could accept?

I agree with you that while stable loving heterosexual couples make the best parents (Tink's gold standard), stable loving gay couples are surely preferable to dysfunctional unloving straight couples and the world would be a much better place if we could somehow disable procreation in the latter group.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Sadly, children are usually the "guinea pigs" and what's best for the parents usually takes priority over what's best for the child.
> 
> Syd, since you seem to have some inside knowledge of this issue, can you suggest why the gay community cannot come up with an alternative name that both sides could accept?
> 
> I agree with you that while stable loving heterosexual couples make the best parents (Tink's gold standard), stable loving gay couples are surely preferable to dysfunctional unloving straight couples and the world would be a much better place if we could somehow disable procreation in the latter group.




Gay marriage isn't a huge issue for me any more.  Go back 20 years when a lot of the laws were blatantly discriminatory against same sex couples and I was quite active in pushing for change.  I still find it hard to believe that 20 years ago when I was in uni it was legal to incite violence against gays.

Since a lot of laws have changed, the majority of the "rights" marriage gives are now available to same sex couples, so the equality marriage would bring has been generally achieved via other avenues.

I think those who still view same sex marriage as important believe that blocking the use of the term marriage for a same sex couple means society views their relationship as inferior.

I find generally those most against same sex marriage use a few straw man arguments, and one of the tops ones is around children.  When you question this, they're never actually able to give a detailed reason, or they hold one standard that exists only in a utopian world.

You can see from Calliope's arguments the view that same sex relationships are not on the same level as heterosexual relationships, yet I think all of us have seen enough news reports about how unfaithful heterosexul partners can be to each other.  NRL / AFL scandals anyone?

Personally I think a bit of patience will see things cleared up.  We moved on from slavery as good, women as chattels, racial segregation, seeing homosexuality as a mental illness.  Social progression will move things along, just maybe not as fast as some in the GLBT community would like


----------



## sydboy007 (27 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> Only time will tell...and the children will be the guinea pigs.




So your argument about children and same sex marriage is based on a fear it MIGHT be harmful for children rasied by a same sex couple, but you have no proof it WILL be harmful to them?

But then we have a situation where children in dysfunctional families are PROVEN to have a much higher chance of exhibiting criminal behaviours as they grow up, that they will perform poorly at school which will nearly always have life long negative effects.

ps How's Tony's credibility with you?


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So your argument about children and same sex marriage is based on a fear it MIGHT be harmful for children rasied by a same sex couple, but you have no proof it WILL be harmful to them?




I thought I answered that. I guess the social engineers down the track will decide which are the most harmful...drunken abusive addictive parents or unstable, abusive, drunken gay "parents". I guess stability is the key, and neither can provide it. It's a scary scenario for the kids.



> ps How's Tony's credibility with you?




Off topic! But to be truthful it's only slightly above your credibility level i.e. pretty low... following his inaction on the Randall travel rorts.


----------



## Whiskers (27 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> I agree with you that while stable loving heterosexual couples make the best parents (Tink's gold standard), stable loving gay couples are surely preferable to dysfunctional unloving straight couples and the world would be a much better place if we could somehow disable procreation in the latter group.




On the point of stability of who you love (for sexual purposes) a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays' are just that, un- stable... as in starting out as heterosexual and switching to gay, or actively both.

So in that sense it's difficult to argue they are just as stable as normal heterosexual couples.

I'll see if I can find some scientific evidence that the 'gay' lobby is doing their best to deny... in arguably a similar vain as people with mental disorders such as anxiety and depression often ignore their symptoms or in some cases, such as paedophilia and schizophrenia, blatantly deny they have a problem.


----------



## Chris45 (27 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Gay marriage isn't a huge issue for me any more.  Go back 20 years when a lot of the laws were blatantly discriminatory against same sex couples and I was quite active in pushing for change.  I still find it hard to believe that 20 years ago when I was in uni it was legal to incite violence against gays.



I've always considered the mindless violence directed at gays by "straight" thugs was abhorrent and if I'd had a say in their punishment I would have started with castration and then progressively amputated sections of their bodies until they ended up like Monty Python's Black Knight. The gay community has produced some of the most creative minds in the world and it's a shame so many people don't appreciate that.



> Since a lot of laws have changed, the majority of the "rights" marriage gives are now available to same sex couples, so the equality marriage would bring has been generally achieved via other avenues.
> 
> I think those who still view same sex marriage as important believe that blocking the use of the term marriage for a same sex couple means society views their relationship as inferior.



Yes many still do think it's important apparently, so if everyone would start urging the gay marriage lobby to come up with a new name they might start making progress towards gaining acceptance. Gay unions are different from straight unions (not necessarily inferior) so the names used should also be different. Why can't they see that?



> Personally I think a bit of patience will see things cleared up.  We moved on from slavery as good, women as chattels, racial segregation, seeing homosexuality as a mental illness.  Social progression will move things along, just maybe not as fast as some in the GLBT community would like



I remember back in the 70s learning that males are the consequence of male hormones (determined by the XY chromosome pair) acting on a female substrate, and sexuality is a spectrum ranging from extreme masculinity at the blue end, if you like, to extreme femininity at the red end, and we are all positioned somewhere along that spectrum. Classic evidence of this is the disturbing case of Candice Armstrong who now has a one inch penis ,   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...uilder-drug-habit-left-penis-facial-hair.html

How these stupid religious zealots can still claim that homosexuality is a mental illness is beyond me.


----------



## Chris45 (27 October 2013)

Whiskers said:


> On the point of stability of who you love (for sexual purposes) a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays' are just that, un- stable... as in starting out as heterosexual and switching to gay, or actively both. So in that sense it's difficult to argue they are just as stable as normal heterosexual couples.



I was referring to stable as in "long lasting". Given that about 30% of marriages end in divorce, heterosexual unions are certainly not very stable. I don't know what the figure is for homosexual unions.

I believe many gays, especially in older generations but even today in Asian communities, start out as heterosexuals because of family pressures and switch sides when they realise they're living a lie so it's probably not very fair to judge them. If people were allowed to be themselves from birth the situation would be different.

I joke that used to circulate many years ago was, "All the world is a little queer, except thee and me ... but even thee is a little queer at times."


----------



## sydboy007 (28 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> I thought I answered that. I guess the social engineers down the track will decide which are the most harmful...drunken abusive addictive parents or unstable, abusive, drunken gay "parents". I guess stability is the key, and neither can provide it. It's a scary scenario for the kids.
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic! But to be truthful it's only slightly above your credibility level i.e. pretty low... following his inaction on the Randall travel rorts.




In what scenario do you see a same sex couple that are drunks or have some other form of addiction getting through the adoption process without their addiction being seen as precluding them from adopting a child?

I'm still waiting for you to give me an understanding as to what harm you think will be done to the adopted child.

I've continually advocated that a stable loving environment provided by a heterosexual couple is the best family unit, but where this "gold" standard is not available, a stable loving environment provided by a same sex couple is likely to be a great improvement for the child(ren).


----------



## sydboy007 (28 October 2013)

Whiskers said:


> On the point of stability of who you love (for sexual purposes) a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays' are just that, un- stable... as in starting out as heterosexual and switching to gay, or actively both.
> 
> So in that sense it's difficult to argue they are just as stable as normal heterosexual couples.
> 
> I'll see if I can find some scientific evidence that the 'gay' lobby is doing their best to deny... in arguably a similar vain as people with mental disorders such as anxiety and depression often ignore their symptoms or in some cases, such as paedophilia and schizophrenia, blatantly deny they have a problem.




Whiskers

what you're saying is pretty much WRONG.  I've known I was gay pretty much all my life.  i have memories of being young and thinking men had a nicer body shape to women.  Pretty much all my gay friends say the same thing, whether male or female.  It's not a choice or something that just "happens" as we grow up.

As for your stability argument that heterosexual relationships are more stable, I can't really comment if it's true or not.  I've seen just s many long term relationships on both sides with the people I know, and seen quite a few relationships break apart too.  I would say for sam sex relationships there isn't the need to stay in a loveless relationship "for the kids" and I wonder how many couples are unhappily married for this reason.

I'm offended that you've tried to link my homosexuality to some form of mental disease, or the straw man argument linking homosexuality and paedophilia.  Any legitimate reporting on this issue will show that it's nearly always a family member or family friend that abuses children.

I get the feeling your views are tainted by religion, and if you want to cast stones let me remind you of the disgusting actions regarding paedophilia that organised religions have been involved in!  I'd argue a child is in more danger with a devoutly religious person than a homosexual one, and the statistics would back me up on that!


----------



## Whiskers (28 October 2013)

Syd, don't take offence... I didn't say all, just... "a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays'" are by definition un-stable sexual orientation. Again, in referring to Abbott's sister and a number of high profile cases, I just used 'un-stable' as a metaphor, or maybe more of a simile for not being strictly or strongly of just male or female sexual orientation. 

 And I can assure you I'm not 'religious'... spiritual, yes... but religious as in a literal follower of the bible or some cultish version of it... definitely not.

I actually had an uncle-in-law openly, but not loud in your face in a gay couple, who was one of the nicest people I knew (but hell don't tell the ex that). And one thing I've recognised is that gays tend to be a bit higher intelligence and more successful in many, including financial aspects of their life. The scientific research I've seen tends to support and explain that too. So, my 'beef' is not about the sexuality' just the demands of some to re-classify 'marriage' when 'civil union' or simply defacto relationship explains and differentiates the different legal arrangements quite adequately.  

I know many more have 'come out' and or changed over on the back of increasing popular acceptance, but to some extent that could also be explained as a self-fulfilling prophecy... the trendy thing to do.  

For me it's not demeaning to be gay, anymore than it is to suffer from a mental disease or disability. From some experience with the latter two I can understand not being accepted as 'normal' in the eyes of more judgemental people.

Being gay is not necessarily a bad thing... even though it may be that some people become gay because of bad things happening to them, or their mother during conception and pregnancy... but we are all human beings, just manifest in different ways. That's the point I believe everyone has to start from to firstly accept and secondly understand the meaning of it all.

As for the stability of relationships, that's a whole nother issue.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 October 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Syd, don't take offence... I didn't say all, just... "a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays'" are by definition un-stable sexual orientation. Again, in referring to Abbott's sister and a number of high profile cases, I just used 'un-stable' as a metaphor, or maybe more of a simile for not being strictly or strongly of just male or female sexual orientation.




If I understand what you're saying here, then it would just as equally apply to heterosexuals ie the Alpha males and then the more even tempered ones, or the pretty in pink females compared to the ones who are out doing some adrenaline sports.  I'd argue that few people fit the "stereotype' of their gender, whatever their sexual orientation is.



Whiskers said:


> So, my 'beef' is not about the sexuality' just the demands of some to re-classify 'marriage' when 'civil union' or simply defacto relationship explains and differentiates the different legal arrangements quite adequately.




Yet historically same sex couples were able to be married.  It was religious intolerance that brought about the persecution of homosexuality and pretty much "stole" marriage from same sex couples.  I think there's a reasonable argument that allowing same sex marriage is really just going back to the way things were.

Now that most laws have changed, and what a defacto relationship can be defined as, a lot of the reasons for me are no longer there for marriage, but I do understand why some in the GLBT community are fighting for it, because even in this reasonably enlightened day too many people still view homosexuality negatively and do their utmost to devalue the contribution we make to society.  Just look at the criticisms of Gillard not being married but in a defacto relationship.



Whiskers said:


> I know many more have 'come out' and or changed over on the back of increasing popular acceptance, but to some extent that could also be explained as a self-fulfilling prophecy... the trendy thing to do.




I doubt that anyone would choose the negatives around being gay.  You are probably referring to the older generation where it wasn't acceptable to be gay and they would get married and have families and spend much of their lives miserable, causing a lot of issues for their family.  Now it's easier for them to be who they truly are.  It's not like they suddenly decided to be homosexual.  I'd have thought Brokeback Mountain would have helped more people to understand this.



Whiskers said:


> For me it's not demeaning to be gay, anymore than it is to suffer from a mental disease or disability. From some experience with the latter two I can understand not being accepted as 'normal' in the eyes of more judgemental people.




Argh.  Why even say this.  Plenty of people out there still want to link the two.



Whiskers said:


> Being gay is not necessarily a bad thing... even though it may be that some people become gay because of bad things happening to them, or their mother during conception and pregnancy... but we are all human beings, just manifest in different ways. That's the point I believe everyone has to start from to firstly accept and secondly understand the meaning of it all.




Being homosexual is NOT a bad thing.  It is a small part of who a person is.  As a heterosexual I doubt you even think about your sexual orientation.  For most homosexuals we don't either, though we're more conscious of it simply due to being a minority.  A person has no more control of their sexual orientation than they do about their eye or hair colour.

Trust me, people do not turn gay due to bad things happening to them, but plenty of bad things have happened to us throughout history due to bigotry and intolerance.


----------



## Tink (28 October 2013)

Syd, you mention dysfunction in society and I see these sort of laws trying to override the gold standard, destructive for society. 
They should have picked another word.

Rather than pushing families together, its tearing them apart.
Rather than celebrating mothers and fathers and their children, this is pushing them out of the family home.
I dont see that as equal omitting one.
Both parents are important in a family environment.
Saying that they are the same environment for children is wrong.

For what reason is gay marraige a betterment in society?


----------



## Calliope (28 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I've continually advocated that a stable loving environment provided by a heterosexual couple is the best family unit,




No you haven't. You said "probably".:bad:


----------



## sydboy007 (28 October 2013)

Tink said:


> Syd, you mention dysfunction in society and I see these sort of laws trying to override the gold standard, destructive for society.
> They should have picked another word.
> 
> Rather than pushing families together, its tearing them apart.
> ...




How would it be destructive?

Do you see a gay couple being allowed to take adopt a child from a loving stable heterosexual couple?

What are you views on children who are currently growing up in dysfunctional families where one or both parents have addiction issues and the child is suffering.  What do you believe is the best course of action to solve this HUGE issue in society.  At the moment we chose to ignore it, with the MASSIVE costs involved in human suffering and the financial costs to society as the children from these families tend to head down the criminal path, or at best suffer life time reductions in their income earning potential due to poor academic performance.

How does gay marriage push parents out of the family environment?

I've never said a same sex couple provides the same environment as a heterosexual couple.  I have argued that the environment provided by a same sex couple is likely to be better for the child than if they are growing up in a dysfunctional family.

You wont get any argument from me that both parents are important within the family structure, but what happens when 1 or both of those parents are so caught up in their own problems that their children receive none of the guidance or nurturing you would expect those parents to provide?

Do you see the love that a same sex couple has for each other as the same as a heterosexual couple, or do you think it's wrong / inferior?

Do you think the defacto law should include same sex couples (as it now does) or should it have remained like before with a definition reliant of a couple as a man and woman?

Maybe homosexuality should still be a crime, or still regarded as a mental illness.  I'm just trying to work out how anti "gay" you are.

For what reason is gay marriage a detriment to society?


----------



## Calliope (28 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Gay marriage isn't a huge issue for me any more.




Not a huge issue? You have posted 18 times on the issue in four days.::bricks1: Overkill I'd say. You are neglecting your other political proselytizing.

However I have lost interest in such a nonsense issue and I will leave you to tilt at your windmills undisturbed. :goodnight


----------



## sydboy007 (29 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> Not a huge issue? You have posted 18 times on the issue in four days.::bricks1: Overkill I'd say. You are neglecting your other political proselytizing.
> 
> However I have lost interest in such a nonsense issue and I will leave you to tilt at your windmills undisturbed. :goodnight




I will challenge people making claims that children will be somehow harmed by same sex marriage.

As you've rightly highlighted Calliope, people in this thread seem to want to talk about lots of straw man arguments about how same sex marriage will be the fall of western civilisation, yet when pressed they can't / wont actually explain how this will occur.

Multiple comments from you, and not once have you backed up your claims on how same sex marriage would affect children.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 October 2013)

While I am not necessarily against gay marriage, I find it extraordinary that it takes up so much space on a stock forum.

We are at a nexus for a bull market or a retreat to previous highs.

I fail to see how peoples private sexual preferences expressed as a desire for marriage take up so much space on ASF.

gg


----------



## Tink (29 October 2013)

Syd, I am not anti gay and thats fine that you are all in defacto relationships and that its all been adjusted for you, I have said that at the start of this thread, but trying to change the marraige act is what I am standing up for, for the future generations in society.
The future children in society have a right to grow up believing that marraige is about families enshrined in law, not what you are pushing.

*I stand up for mothers and fathers and their children.
THAT makes for a healthy society.*

Sorry that I dont stand up for the Gay Lobby and the femanazi that take pleasure in shooting down men, which we have all seen in parliament just recently, and if you think that is healthy for society, you are dreaming.

I dont know where you go, but I see healthy families around here and it annoys me that you constantly put families down.


----------



## overhang (29 October 2013)

Let them have their gay marriage, the only reason it was defined as between a man and a women is because of the bigoted nature of the times where gays were thought to be unnatural.  Marriage has lost all creditability when the divorce rate is near 50% and frankly if you're worried about how children will perceive marriage then this is a far bigger issue than if a same sex couple were to marry.

On the issue of gays raising children I think its incredibly selfish to bring a child into this world with the intention to deny them their biological parents. The gay and lesbian community has spent years telling us to accept them for their natural way and maybe that same community should also accept the way they are and accept that biologically they're not meant to reproduce.  I'm not necessarily opposed to adoption as a stable environment for a child is what those children need.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 October 2013)

overhang said:


> On the issue of gays raising children I think its incredibly selfish to bring a child into this world with the intention to deny them their biological parents. The gay and lesbian community has spent years telling us to accept them for their natural way and maybe that same community should also accept the way they are and accept that biologically they're not meant to reproduce.  I'm not necessarily opposed to adoption as a stable environment for a child is what those children need.




So you would agree that any parent bringing a child into the world without being 100% certain they will not die or divorce or in any way cause the child(ren) to be raised by one parent is selfish?  By your argument a heterosexual couple that has to go for fertility treatment should instead just accept their biology?

For a gay couple looking to surrogacy to have children it's:

* a conscious decision

* a large financial commitment

Certainly they would do more planning and talking about the choice to have children than probably what a lot of heterosexual couples do.  Purely from the cost perspective I doubt many married gay couples will be able to do this - think $80-100K per child.

A couple I know have had children via surogacy.  Their children know their surrogate mother in the USA and communicate with her via skype and email.  She's not intimately involved in their lives, but they have an understanding of where they come from.  Their children don't seem to be any different to children brought up in a more traditional family structure.  The oldest boy is quite outgoing, the younger ones still in their shy phase but once they know you try getting them to slow down .  My friends lives pretty much revolve around their children now, as it should.


----------



## overhang (30 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So you would agree that any parent bringing a child into the world without being 100% certain they will not die or divorce or in any way cause the child(ren) to be raised by one parent is selfish?  By your argument a heterosexual couple that has to go for fertility treatment should instead just accept their biology?




The two are chalk and cheese Syd as parents don't bring children into the world with the sole intention of dieing or divorcing but gay couples having surrogate children have the full intention of stripping that child of either both or one biological parent. If science can assist a heterosexual couple in fertility then I have no qualm with this as biologically a male and female are meant to conceive however that is not possible for a gay couple.


----------



## Tink (31 October 2013)

Agree with you, overhang. 

Giving the rights to one, takes the rights from another, and this is the children in this case.
I said I would stand up for marraige (the family unit) and the children, and I am.
Changing the law to state the fact that its OK to take children away from their parents, is not right.
Thats not what marraige is about

Every generation is a new generation, and I believe the children have the right to the same values and biological truth that we grew up with.

Syd, we have seen bad things happen with gay couples as well so making out that their relationships are all perfect, is not true.
Every step taken further to the left, the next request will be waiting to be changed.

It has just fallen through in Tasmania, not passed.
Its a minority making alot of noise

The votes werent even close the last time they tried nationally, and thats without the Libs voting, so if they feel its more than a few, bring on the referendom, give it to the people and let us all speak.


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2013)

Tink said:


> The votes werent even close the last time they tried nationally, and thats without the Libs voting, so if they feel its more than a few, bring on the referendom, give it to the people and let us all speak.




Federally a same-sex marriage bill is dead in the water.



> Only a year ago a same-sex marriage bill was defeated in the House of Representatives 98-42. That is not a close vote. Since then *Labor, the main same-sex marriage party, has lost a swag of seats and the Coalition, the main traditional marriage party, has gained seats.* The September 2010 debate saw the Coalition vote as a bloc against same-sex marriage. Even if Coalition MPs had voted on conscience the bill would have been defeated by a wide margin. This remains the situation.




- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y-e6frg74x-1226749264326#sthash.BTjALqGR.dpuf


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2013)

Tink said:


> Syd, we have seen bad things happen with gay couples as well so making out that their relationships are all perfect, is not true.




Yes, they are not all angels.


----------



## bellenuit (31 October 2013)

Tink said:


> Every generation is a new generation, and I believe the children have the right to the same values and biological truth that we grew up with.




Tink, whereas I agree with you that the "biological truth" about homosexuality hasn't changed, at least in the more recent millennia of human evolution, that truth has only been realised in the last 50 years or so. Previously homosexuality was not understood and was stigmatised based on ignorance, superstition and just plain bigotry.

Nobody has the right to instil in children values that were previously wrong because they were based on such falsehoods. I certainly have not taught my son, now grown up, some of the values that were taught to me by my parents and the schools I went to. They were all good meaning people who wouldn't hurt a fly, but looking back many of their attitudes were plain racist and in relation to sexuality discriminatory and damaging both physically and mentally.

The truth is out there and may only be understood over time. But I don't expect to find it in a stone age manuscript.


----------



## Tink (31 October 2013)

Bellenuit, that had nothing to do with gays. A few had mentioned about divorce rates and dysfunction in society already, and I dont think thats a reason to change the marraige act.

I think gays have been accepted in society already, and I havent said anything mean towards them. 

I am standing up for traditional marraige and I have given my reasons why.


----------



## bellenuit (31 October 2013)

Tink said:


> Bellenuit, that had nothing to do with gays. A few had mentioned about divorce rates and dysfunction in society already, and I dont think thats a reason to change the marraige act.
> 
> I think gays have been accepted in society already, and I havent said anything mean towards them.
> 
> I am standing up for traditional marraige and I have given my reasons why.




Tink. My appologies for taking your comment in the wrong context.


----------



## bellenuit (31 October 2013)

Not what one would have expected.....


----------



## ftw129 (6 November 2013)




----------



## Tink (17 November 2013)

After the ninth attempt around Australia, NSW says NO to Gay Marraige.


----------



## ftw129 (17 November 2013)

A few more years until a lot of you old, stubborn fools die off and this whole thing is going to be looked back on as a total disgrace led by a much older and out of touch generation.

Shame that it's going to have to drag out a bit longer and make such a large and important part of the human population seem as irrelevant.

Shame on you all really. After living lives that witnessed much hate and oppression you'd think that you would be wise enough to promote love and equality for all. 

Instead of having learned from the mistakes of humanity you still allow yourselves to be driven by FEAR, resentment, hate and ego's. 

Pity you can't be as mature about it as your own children.

Move over.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 November 2013)

ftw129 said:


> A few more years until a lot of you old, stubborn fools die off and this whole thing is going to be looked back on as a total disgrace led by a much older and out of touch generation.
> 
> Shame that it's going to have to drag out a bit longer and make such a large and important part of the human population seem as irrelevant.
> 
> ...




When you refer to your opponents as "old fools", who should "die off", is that not also an expression of fear and hate?  When you suggest to your opponents that they should "move over" are you saying that they should be made to feel irrelevant and inferior in the same way that you now feel irrelevant and inferior?  When you say "shame on you all", do you feel ashamed of who you are?

Just so you know, I am neither an opponent nor advocate of gay marriage.  While your feelings of shame and inferiority were caused by a judgmental older population, and while your anger is completely understandable, you might get more relief by examining your thought pattens of _self_-judgment that remain as a result.

In other words... "there's nothing wrong with you!!  Relax!"


----------



## ftw129 (17 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> When you refer to your opponents as "old fools", who should "die off", is that not also an expression of fear and hate?  When you suggest to your opponents that they should "move over" are you saying that they should be made to feel irrelevant and inferior in the same way that you now feel irrelevant and inferior?  When you say "shame on you all", do you feel ashamed of who you are?
> 
> Just so you know, I am neither an opponent nor advocate of gay marriage.  While your feelings of shame and inferiority were caused by a judgmental older population, you might get more relief by examining your thought pattens of _self_-judgment that remain as a result.




Thank you GB. I'll remember that.


----------



## ftw129 (17 November 2013)

1. Love. Perhaps the most important. Fall in love, if you aren't already. If you have, fall in love with your partner all over again. Abandon caution and let your heart be broken. Or love family members, friends, anyone -- it doesn't have to be romantic love. Love all of humanity, one person at a time.

2. Get outside. Don't let yourself be shut indoors. Go out when it's raining. Walk on the beach. Hike through the woods. Swim in a freezing lake. Bask in the sun. Play sports, or walk barefoot through grass. Pay close attention to nature.

3. Savor food. Don't just eat your food, but really enjoy it. Feel the texture, the bursts of flavors. Savor every bite. If you limit your intake of sweets, it will make the small treats you give yourself (berries or dark chocolate are my favorites) even more enjoyable. And when you do have them, really, really savor them. Slowly.

4. Create a morning ritual. Wake early and greet the day. Watch the sun rise. Out loud, tell yourself that you will not waste this day, which is a gift. You will be compassionate to your fellow human beings, and live every moment to its fullest. Stretch or meditate or exercise as part of your ritual. Enjoy some coffee.

5. Take chances. We often live our lives too cautiously, worried about what might go wrong. Be bold, risk it all. Quit your job and go to business for yourself (plan it out first!), or go up to that girl you've liked for a long time and ask her out. What do you have to lose?

6. Follow excitement. Try to find the things in life that excite you, and then go after them. Make life one exciting adventure after another (with perhaps some quiet times in between).

7. Find your passion. Similar to the above tip, this one asks you to find your calling. Make your living by doing the thing you love to do. First, think about what you really love to do. There may be many things. Find out how you can make a living doing it. It may be difficult, but you only live once.

8. Get out of your cubicle. Do you sit all day in front of computer, shuffling papers and taking phone calls and chatting on the Internet? Don't waste your days like this. Break free from the cubicle environment, and do your work on a laptop, in a coffee shop, or on a boat, or in a log cabin. This may require a change of jobs, or becoming a freelancer. It's worth it.

 9. Turn off the TV. How many hours will we waste away in front of the boob tube? How many hours do we have to live? Do the math, then unplug the TV. Only plug it back in when you have a DVD of a movie you love. Otherwise, keep it off and find other stuff to do. Don't know what to do? Read further.

10. Pull away from Internet. You're reading something on the Internet right now. And, with the exception of this article, it is just more wasting away of your precious time. You cannot get these minutes back. Unplug the Internet, then get out of your office or house. Right now! And go and do something.

11. Travel. Sure, you want to travel some day. When you have vacation time, or when you're older. Well, what are you waiting for? Find a way to take a trip, if not this month, then sometime soon. You may need to sell your car or stop your cable bill and stop eating out to do it, but make it happen. You are too young to not see the world. If need be, find a way to make a living by freelancing, then work while you travel. Only work an hour or two a day. Don't check email but once a week. Then use the rest of the time to see the world.

12. Rediscover what's important. Take an hour and make a list of everything that's important to you. Add to it everything that you want to do in life. Now cut that list down to 4-5 things. Just the most important things in your life. This is your core list. This is what matters. Focus your life on these things. Make time for them.

 13. Eliminate everything else. What's going on in your life that's not on that short list? All that stuff is wasting your time, pulling your attention from what's important. As much as possible, simplify your life by eliminating the stuff that's not on your short list, or minimizing it.

14. Exercise. Get off the couch and go for a walk. Eventually try running. Or do some push ups and crunches. Or swim or bike or row. Or go for a hike. Whatever you do, get active, and you'll love it. And life will be more alive.

15. Be positive. Learn to recognize the negative thoughts you have. These are the self-doubts, the criticisms of others, the complaints, the reasons you can't do something. Then stop yourself when you have these thoughts, and replace them with positive thoughts. Solutions. You can do this!

16. Open your heart. Is your heart a closed bundle of scar tissue? Learn to open it, have it ready to receive love, to give love unconditionally. If you have a problem with this, talk to someone about it. And practice makes perfect.

17. Kiss in the rain. Seize the moment and be romantic. Raining outside? Grab your lover and give her a passionate kiss. Driving home? Stop the car and pick some wildflowers. Send her a love note. Dress sexy for him.

18. Face your fears. What are you most afraid of? What is holding you back? Whatever it is, recognize it, and face it. Do what you are most afraid of. Afraid of heights? Go to the tallest building, and look down over the edge. Only by facing our fears can we be free of them.

19. When you suffer, suffer. Life isn't all about fun and games. Suffering is an inevitable part of life. We lose our jobs. We lose our lovers. We lose our pets. We get physically injured or sick. A loved one becomes sick. A parent dies. Learn to feel the pain intensely, and really grieve. This is a part of life -- really feel the pain. And when you're done, move on, and find joy.

20. Slow down. Life moves along at such a rapid pace these days. It's not healthy, and it's not conducive to living. Practice doing everything slowly -- everything, from eating to walking to driving to working to reading. Enjoy what you do. Learn to move at a snail's pace.

21. Touch humanity. Get out of your house and manicured neighborhoods, and find those who live in worse conditions. Meet them, talk to them, understand them. Live among them. Be one of them. Give up your materialistic lifestyle.

22. Volunteer. Help at homeless soup kitchens. Learn compassion, and learn to help ease the suffering of others. Help the sick, those with disabilities, those who are dying.

23. Play with children. Children, more than anyone else, know how to live. They experience everything in the moment, fully. When they get hurt, they really cry. When they play, they really have fun. Learn from them, instead of thinking you know so much more than them. Play with them, and learn to be joyful like them.

24. Talk to old people. There is no one wiser, more experienced, more learned, than those who have lived through life. They can tell you amazing stories. Give you advice on making a marriage last or staying out of debt. Tell you about their regrets, so you can learn from them and avoid the same mistakes. They are the wisdom of our society -- take advantage of their existence while they're still around.

25. Learn new skills. Constantly improve yourself instead of standing still -- not because you're so imperfect now, but because it is gratifying and satisfying. You should accept yourself as you are, and learn to love who you are, but still try to improve -- if only because the process of improvement is life itself.

26. Find spirituality. For some, this means finding God or Jesus or Allah or Buddha. For others, this means becoming in tune with the spirits of our ancestors, or with nature. For still others, this just means an inner energy. Whatever spirituality means for you, rediscover it, and its power.

27. Take mini-retirements. Don't leave the joy of retirement until you are too old to enjoy it. Do it now, while you're young. It makes working that much more worth it. Find ways to take a year off every few years. Save up, sell your home, your possessions, and travel. Live simply, but live, without having to work. Enjoy life, then go back to work and save up enough money to do it again in a couple of years.

28. Do nothing. Despite the tip above that we should find excitement, there is value in doing nothing as well. Not doing nothing as in reading, or taking a nap, or watching TV, or meditating. Doing nothing as in sitting there, doing nothing. Just learning to be still, in silence, to hear our inner voice, to be in tune with life. Do this daily if possible.

29. Stop playing video games. They might be fun, but they can take up way too much time. If you spend a lot of time playing online games, or computer solitaire, or Wii or Gameboy or whatever, consider going a week without it. Then find something else to do, outside.

30. Watch sunsets, daily. One of the most beautiful times of day. Make it a daily ritual to find a good spot to watch the sunset, perhaps having a light dinner while you do so.

31. Stop reading magazines. They're basically crap. And they waste your time and money. Cancel your subscriptions and walk past them at the news stands. If you have to read something, read a trashy novel or even better, read Dumb Little Man once a day and be done.

32. Break out from ruts. Do you do things the same way every day? Change it up. Try something new. Take a different route to work. Start your day out differently. Approach work from a new angle. Look at things from new perspectives.

33. Stop watching the news. It's depressing and useless. If you're a news junky, this may be difficult. I haven't watch TV news or read a newspaper regularly in about two years. It hasn't hurt me a bit. Anything important, my mom tells me about.

34. Laugh till you cry. Laughing is one of the best ways to live. Tell jokes and laugh your head off. Watch an awesome comedy. Learn to laugh at anything. Roll on the ground laughing. You'll love it.

35. Lose control. Not only control over yourself, but control over others. It's a bad habit to try to control others -- it will only lead to stress and unhappiness for yourself and those you try to control. Let others live, and live for yourself. And lose control of yourself now and then too.

36. Cry. Men, especially, tend to hold in our tears, but crying is an amazing release. Cry at sad movies. Cry at a funeral. Cry when you are hurt, or when somebody you love is hurt. It releases these emotions and allows us to cleanse ourselves.

37. Make an awesome dessert. I like to make warm, soft chocolate cake. But even berries dipped in chocolate, or crepes with ice cream and fruit, or fresh apple pie, or homemade chocolate chip cookies or brownies, are great. This isn't an every day thing, but an occasional treat thing. But it's wonderful.

38. Try something new, every week. Ask yourself: "What new thing shall I try this week?" Then be sure to do it. You don't have to learn a new language in one week, but seek new experiences. Give it a try. You might decide you want to keep it in your life.

39. Be in the moment. Instead of thinking about things you need to do, or things that have happened to you, or worrying or planning or regretting, think about what you are doing, right now. What is around you? What smells and sounds and sights and feelings are you experiencing? Learn to do this as much as possible through meditation, but also through bringing your focus back to the present as much as you can in everything you do.


----------



## Julia (17 November 2013)

ftw129 said:


> A few more years until a lot of you old, stubborn fools die off and this whole thing is going to be looked back on as a total disgrace led by a much older and out of touch generation.
> 
> Shame that it's going to have to drag out a bit longer and make such a large and important part of the human population seem as irrelevant.
> 
> ...





> 24. Talk to old people. There is no one wiser, more experienced, more learned, than those who have lived through life. They can tell you amazing stories. Give you advice on making a marriage last or staying out of debt. Tell you about their regrets, so you can learn from them and avoid the same mistakes. They are the wisdom of our society -- take advantage of their existence while they're still around.




Seems to be some confusion here.


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2013)

Julia said:


> Seems to be some confusion here.




Yes, and completely off topic...unless it's the gay credo.


----------



## sydboy007 (17 November 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Not what one would have expected.....





Just have to say WOW.  In Texas!  Liberal housing policy, and seemingly liberal citizens too.


----------



## ftw129 (17 November 2013)

Julia said:


> Seems to be some confusion here.




I assure you there's no confusion (or so I think... I am still "young"). 

Obviously, not all "old people" are worth listening to... Just because you're old doesn't mean you're wise... as you'd know.



Calliope said:


> Yes, and completely off topic...unless it's the gay credo.




Perhaps. Point being there's much more important and worthwhile things to focus on in life. Like yourself.

Live in love. Not fear. 

The "old" people should be teaching that to their children.


----------



## Tink (18 November 2013)

Nine bills in 2 years? Overload much?

Why do gays feel they need to force their sexual lifestyle on our children?
Why do we need to teach that in schools?

ftw, they already have all the rights and they are accepted in society.

Marraige is about the family unit.
For your information, young and old are both advocating for marraige to stay the same as is.
Mothers, fathers and their natural children is for the common good and the best for a healthy society.
No one is discluded and doesnt take the rights from another.
Thats what marraige is about.

What you wrote I could point straight back at you.


----------



## ftw129 (18 November 2013)

Tink said:


> Nine bills in 2 years? Overload much?
> 
> Why do gays feel they need to force their sexual lifestyle on our children?
> Why do we need to teach that in schools?




Because a SIGNIFICANT portion of these children are gay.

10% or more.

Your views are completely outdated, irrelevant and inappropriate.


----------



## trainspotter (18 November 2013)

ftw129 said:


> Because a SIGNIFICANT portion of these children are gay.
> 
> 10% or more.
> 
> Your views are completely outdated, irrelevant and inappropriate.




Got any proof on the 10% quip?


----------



## bellenuit (18 November 2013)

Tink said:


> No one is discluded and doesnt take the rights from another.
> Thats what marraige is about.




That's pretty much what the Gay marriage activists are asking for, but are being denied.


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2013)

ftw129 said:


> Because a SIGNIFICANT portion of these children are gay.
> 
> 10% or more.
> 
> Your views are completely outdated, irrelevant and inappropriate.




Maaaaate

It is attitudes like yours which risk alienating passive supporters such as myself.

I'm in the what the hell it doesn't hurt me, so why not camp (but still on the fence really). But traditionalists have a right to their opinion also and your efforts to marginalize them smacks of hypocrisy. 

You cannot win arguments about prejudice by being prejucided... And right or wrong, the onus is on the gay community to win the argument. Don't blow it by wishing old farts would die off man! That mean spirited.


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2013)

This middle aged fart's opinion FWIW:

I think it only fair that committed life partners have equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Therefore it seems fitting that there is so officially recognized  commitment ceremony equivalent to hetro marriage, for same sex couples, vis a vis, in effect marriage. 

Whether the nomenclature is the same for same sex couples.... Dunno at this point in time. Lots of cultural impediments for the moment.

But certainly the rights should be equal IMO.

It might just take a bit more time to get to the "marriage" nomenclature, but I'm sure one day it will be accepted by all and sundry... but not via old farts dying off.


----------



## CanOz (18 November 2013)

wayneL said:


> This middle aged fart's opinion FWIW:
> 
> I think it only fair that committed life partners have equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Therefore it seems fitting that there is so officially recognized  commitment ceremony equivalent to hetro marriage, for same sex couples, vis a vis, in effect marriage.
> 
> ...




Well said Wayne, pretty much what I've wanted to say but never knew quite how to articulate it....


----------



## Julia (18 November 2013)

ftw129 said:


> Because a SIGNIFICANT portion of these children are gay.
> 
> 10% or more.
> 
> Your views are completely outdated, irrelevant and inappropriate.



That's just rude and entirely unnecessary.  Tink is as entitled to her view as are you.



wayneL said:


> Maaaaate
> 
> It is attitudes like yours which risk alienating passive supporters such as myself.
> 
> I'm in the what the hell it doesn't hurt me, so why not camp (but still on the fence really). But traditionalists have a right to their opinion also and your efforts to marginalize them smacks of hypocrisy.



My position also.  I don't really care and am getting pretty tired of all the noise about it.



wayneL said:


> This middle aged fart's opinion FWIW:
> 
> I think it only fair that committed life partners have equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Therefore it seems fitting that there is so officially recognized  commitment ceremony equivalent to hetro marriage, for same sex couples, vis a vis, in effect marriage.
> 
> Whether the nomenclature is the same for same sex couples.... Dunno at this point in time. Lots of cultural impediments for the moment.



I think it's the nomenclature that's the problem.  As I understand the situation, there are already equal rights in respect to legal and financial matters.  It all seems to have now come down to just the word 'marriage'.

I don't know anyone who cares what anyone else does with or to whom in their private lives, as long as no children or animals are adversely affected.

What is wrong with "Civil Union", something that can be celebrated in whatever sort of ceremony the participants want?


----------



## Knobby22 (18 November 2013)

The meaning of the word marriage is changing rapidly.

This English business arranges marriages with your pet  

http://www.marryyourpet.com/  Quite a few people have done it!!!

Or if you find that a bit extreme, you can get a marriage arranged within the same genus. It's actually a bit cute and for charity in this case. 

http://jezebel.com/5925750/call-it-puppy-love-two-dogs-marry-in-most-expensive-pet-wedding-ever

When I lived in Albert park there was a shop near me that specialised in dogs birthday parties so anything goes!

- - - Updated - - -


----------



## ftw129 (18 November 2013)

Yes I admit my comments are out of line and are showing an emotional weakness which I am still working on.

Trading has definitely been eye opening experience, teaching me a lot about my own psychology and self control.

I have a way to go but I have faith that I'll get there. 

Controlling my emotions that is.

I feel as though you guys are being respectful towards me which is why I'm taking on board your reactions and am using them to reflect on myself.

I know a lot of you are a lot older than me and I respect that. 

Learn to practice what I preach is what I'm hearing...

All good 

Peace.


----------



## Tink (19 November 2013)

I think its very sad to hear that, ftw, that families are outdated, irrelevent and whatever else you think and its a sad case when we hear children saying that.
Does this all come from the throw away society?

I am glad that my children still feel its important to keep these things for our children, they do believe in preserving things for future generations.

Gays should have equal rights for their commitment, and thats why everything was changed for their union.
Marraige it is not.

The family unit is worth saving.
Marraige may have changed through the years, but there are still traditional families with mum, dad and children, and thats what I believe should stay.
Children should still be taught this model in all schools.
I believe in celebrating our differences as male and female, and that we can have children to complete the family.
No one is excluded in this environment.

Gays on the other hand cant do this, so coming along and saying we want to be a part of this is wrong. Changing all models in schools to accomodate them is selfish on their part when they know that they cant have children and they are nothing like a hetro couple in that way.

I will be standing up for traditional marraiges as I think its important for our children and our future.


----------



## trainspotter (20 November 2013)

Such a shame that you can't preside over your own son's same sex union even when you are the minister.

http://www.news.com.au/world/us-min...samesex-marriage/story-fndir2ev-1226764554085

Also believe what Tink said in regards to traditional marriages. Does this make me a fence sitter or open minded to both?


----------



## Tink (21 November 2013)

Dont worry, trainspotter, that will be next.

The normal gays are getting on with their lives, and there are few that dont agree with changing the marraige act, taking away parenthood (mother and father) and children rights from the equation.
I am very impressed to see them standing up for what they believe in too.

Its this Gay Lobby that is pushing to dominate the lot, which is destroying it for the normal ones.
Break up and redefine the family unit so anything goes.

These sexual activists are the problem, in my opinion.


----------



## trainspotter (21 November 2013)

Sorry I should have been a bit more clearer in my statement. I am all for same sex union, I am all for traditional marriage. I am NOT for the disintegration of the family unit. If it is a genuine love then what does it matter? As long as the children (if there are any) do NOT get hurt.

Would be a bit strange (not sure if this is the right word?) if say a gay couple (men or women) adopt, procure, surrogate, whatever, a child and this child is hetero. No doubt they will love and nurture the child etc etc BUT there would be a LOT of explaining to do along the way. Is this in the best interest of the child? I am not sure.


----------



## Trembling Hand (21 November 2013)

trainspotter said:


> Would be a bit strange (not sure if this is the right word?) if say a gay couple (men or women) adopt, procure, surrogate, whatever, a child and this child is hetero. No doubt they will love and nurture the child etc etc BUT there would be a LOT of explaining to do along the way. Is this in the best interest of the child? I am not sure.




I know a male couple who have adopted triplets. The kids are fine. They take it all in their stride, well looked after, happy and loved. It is the old staunch angry and fearful nutters that have the problem with it and construct outcomes in their own mind that suits their hatred and fear of the world.


----------



## Tink (22 November 2013)

Thanks trainspotter.
No one has denied same sex unions, its marraige that the public arent happy about, changing the whole structure for our children.
Their sexual lifestyle should not be put on par with mothers and fathers in schools.
Gender should not be taken out of marraige, children are born to a mother and father.

Anyway, I have said my bit in here about my whys and the votes have been NO to this point after the ninth attempt.


----------



## Trembling Hand (22 November 2013)

Tink said:


> Gender should not be taken out of marraige, children are born to a mother and father.




Jesus wasn't!!


----------



## Calliope (25 November 2013)

Ms Quentin Bryce yearns for the day when a gay PM and his/her gay partner may live openly in wedded bliss at the Lodge. We have had married gay P.M.s in the past but they have been in marriages of convenience, to maintain the facade.


----------



## Tink (25 November 2013)

Yes, sadly we have a very unprofessional, GG.

She has used her position only given to her because Australia has a GG, to push in her son in law, Shorten.
She should never have said her opinion until March.

In hindsight, when she offered her resignation in September, Abbott should have taken it.

She has damaged the GG's office for her own agenda.


----------



## Macquack (25 November 2013)

Calliope said:


> We have had *married gay P.M.s* in the past but they have been in marriages of convenience, to maintain the facade.




Care to enlighten us as to who you are referring?


----------



## wayneL (25 November 2013)

There was a rumour about Keating......


----------



## Calliope (25 November 2013)

Macquack said:


> Care to enlighten us as to who you are referring?




I'm surprised you don't know.:shake: Billy McMahon and Paul Keating.


----------



## Macquack (26 November 2013)

Calliope said:


> I'm surprised you don't know.:shake: Billy McMahon and *Paul Keating*.




How would I know?

How do you know?

Have you seen Keating in a steam bath house or the like?


----------



## Calliope (26 November 2013)

Macquack said:


> How would I know?
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Have you seen Keating in a steam bath house or the like?




One of the things I admire about you Mac is your naivety. You may be surprised to know that most Gays are above the bath-house culture and are more interested in the fine arts.


----------



## Macquack (26 November 2013)

Calliope said:


> One of the things I admire about you Mac is your naivety. You may be surprised to know that most Gays are above the bath-house culture and are more interested in the fine arts.




I know a few gay people and they are all very nice.

Just for clarification, have you previously posted, that your brother is gay?


----------



## trainspotter (26 November 2013)

http://www.thekeating.com/massage.asp One of my favourite spots when I am in San Diego.

Did someone mention a "beard" in the Lodge?


----------



## Calliope (26 November 2013)

Macquack said:


> I know a few gay people and they are all very nice.
> 
> Just for clarification, have you previously posted, that your brother is gay?




Clarification of what? He's also an avid whale watcher. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## Macquack (27 November 2013)

Calliope said:


> Clarification of what? He's also an avid whale watcher. Not that there's anything wrong with that.




I was making the point, that if your brother is gay, then you would have more experience in spotting a "gay".


----------



## Tink (29 November 2013)

This is probably off topic, but I read an article a while back that said, they were trying to remove the gender box being ticked when a baby is born in Germany. 
Parents can choose whether they tick the box or not.

Where are we heading with this, that we will no longer be ticking the gender box?


----------



## Trembling Hand (29 November 2013)

Tink said:


> This is probably off topic, but I read an article a while back that said, they were trying to remove the gender box being ticked when a baby is born in Germany.
> Parents can choose whether they tick the box or not.
> 
> Where are we heading with this, that we will no longer be ticking the gender box?




To hell I would imagine if people don't bother to check their facts and just use any half story to confirm their bias,

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/10/germany-third-gender-birth-certificate


----------



## Tink (29 November 2013)

Trembling Hand said:


> To hell I would imagine if people don't bother to check their facts and just use any half story to confirm their bias,
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/10/germany-third-gender-birth-certificate




Oh OK, there are 3 boxes now, my mistake.


----------



## noirua (29 November 2013)

All marriage should be abolished and therefore solve the problem. Instead, a partnership contract, done on the cheap, both partners sign, jump or hop over a broomstick, and job done.

If either partner wants to dissolve their contract, they turn up, pay the fee, jump backwards over the broomstick and thats that.

There will be the option of circling the broomstick or being carried over it, for those who cant hop or jump.


********** There will be no fee if you have voted for ASF in the best stock forum competition: the_stockies - forums - www.thebull.com.au
http://www.thebull.com.au/the_stockies/forums.html


Here is a song for you as well -- Pentatonix Performs The A Cappella Version Of 'Little Drummer Boy' You've Been Waiting For
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...mer-boy_n_4338565.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular


----------



## Trembling Hand (29 November 2013)

Tink said:


> Oh OK, there are 3 boxes now, my mistake.




For very good reason. Did you read what an intersex child is?


----------



## bellenuit (29 November 2013)

Trembling Hand said:


> For very good reason. Did you read what an intersex child is?




That's an interesting article. I hadn't heard of intersex children before, those that can't be identified as either male or female when they are born.

Some very sad stories I have become aware of in the last few years are children who physically are distinctively one sex, but emotionally/psychologically the other. They often have very distressing childhoods, feeling completely out of place in their "skin" and in the gender roles they are expected to fulfil. Suicide is high amongst those children when they enter their teenage years and gender becomes such an important issue. The problem is often resolved by hormone treatment followed by a sex change, which is not only expensive, but requires very caring and understanding family and friends. However, doctors are reluctant to undertake such treatment when the kids are in their younger years, because many such kids are known to emotionally and psychologically revert to match their physical gender as they grow older, so such treatment might backfire. Such children would obviously not be helped by the German law, as their physical gender is obvious at birth, but their mental alignment takes a while to be recognised. I don't know if those who successfully change sex can have their birth certificate altered in later life, but it would help them avoid embarrassing situations following their sex change when dealing with officialdom.


----------



## trainspotter (12 December 2013)

We'll have none of that around here you know ! 



> *THE High Court has struck down the ACT's same-sex marriage laws.*
> The court unanimously ruled that the ACT's Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 could not operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961.
> The ACT enacted its same-sex marriage legislation in November with the first couples marrying at the weekend.
> About 30 couples have tied the knot.




http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...ay-marriage-laws/story-e6frfku9-1226781458937


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2013)

trainspotter said:


> We'll have none of that around here you know !




Nor in India.



> Homosexual sex is illegal, and punishable by life in prison, India’s highest court has ruled.
> In setting aside a 2009 judgment by the Delhi High Court that decriminalised homosexual sex, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday ruled that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was constitutionally valid.
> Section 377 - ‘‘Unnatural offences’’ - states that ‘‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal’’ shall be punishable by life imprisonment.
> 
> Framed by the British in 1860, Section 377 does not specifically define ‘unnatural offences’, but it is has historically been interpreted as an anti-sodomy law. Petitions brought before the Supreme Court appealing the lower court’s ruling, argued that gay and lesbian sex are against the order of nature.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/gay-sex...ghest-court-20131211-hv5b7.html#ixzz2nE4tIqcf


----------



## orr (12 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> That's an interesting article. I hadn't heard of intersex children before, those that can't be identified as either male or female when they are born.
> 
> Some very sad stories I have become aware of in the last few years are children who physically are distinctively one sex, but emotionally/psychologically the other. They often have very distressing childhoods, feeling completely out of place in their "skin" and in the gender roles they are expected to fulfil. Suicide is high amongst those children when they enter their teenage years and gender becomes such an important issue. The problem is often resolved by hormone treatment followed by a sex change, which is not only expensive, but requires very caring and understanding family and friends. However, doctors are reluctant to undertake such treatment when the kids are in their younger years, because many such kids are known to emotionally and psychologically revert to match their physical gender as they grow older, so such treatment might backfire. Such children would obviously not be helped by the German law, as their physical gender is obvious at birth, but their mental alignment takes a while to be recognised. I don't know if those who successfully change sex can have their birth certificate altered in later life, but it would help them avoid embarrassing situations following their sex change when dealing with officialdom.




Half a dozen years ago I had to explain the morphology of indeterminate sex at birth to an incredulous building site worker, who then, in his mid 30's reading had never progressed past the sports pages of the 'Telegraph', on his hearing 'the Greens' policy proposal to include sex reassignment surgery on Medicare.
'Black and White' sexual determination of humanity, either as it is physically expressed or in the much more subtle neurological manifestations expressed, is a tool of oppression.  

To see that general ignorance on the subject is still a useful political lever you only need to be assailed by the cretinous blathering's of senator Cory Banardy.


----------



## ftw129 (16 December 2013)




----------



## bellenuit (16 December 2013)




----------



## sydboy007 (16 December 2013)

Bellenuit

you forgot the mormons - Alien Invasion


----------



## >Apocalypto< (18 December 2013)

kennas said:


> Now, just to change tac a little and open another can of worms not specifically related to Al Qaeda - gay marrage.
> 
> Bob Brown was in parliament today arguing that gay marriage should be accepted because it is natural and just and should be a legitimate way for two loving, caring people to express their desire to live together for the rest of their lives, under the full legal auspices of the Australian constitution.
> 
> ...




i have no idea why this is even an issue... just let them get married it's 2013 not 1922... allowing does no harm at all.


----------



## ftw129 (15 March 2014)

Our kids, the next generation and our future, tell Abbot how it is.

http://youtu.be/yBZwu5bAEdo

"Let's have a blokes question" He says at the end LOL


----------



## ftw129 (25 March 2014)




----------



## Julia (25 March 2014)

Just seeing "Get Up" in the corner of the video was enough to make me quickly exit.


----------



## ftw129 (26 March 2014)

Julia said:


> Just seeing "Get Up" in the corner of the video was enough to make me quickly exit.




I don't get it :dunno:


----------



## Calliope (8 April 2014)

They can now legally marry and live happily ever after... but not on a Senator's pay.





Ms Pratt is an openly gay politician whose partner, Aram Hosie, was a female, but is now legally a male.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 April 2014)

I don't mind consenting adults doing what they like in private, but when they try to bring up children in an un-natural environment and then try to pretend it's "normal", that's where I draw the line.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't mind consenting adults doing what they like in private, but when they try to bring up children in an un-natural environment and then try to pretend it's "normal", that's where I draw the line.




What is a natural environment to you?

My Grandmother's generation tends to view current lifestyles as pretty unnatural.  In her times it was quite natural to have 3 generations living in the same house.  Similar for Asian families where it's quite acceptable for married children still to be living with one set of parents - guy at work was telling me about his Indian neighbor (he's also Indian) and how he'd built a 5 BR 6 bathroom house on the premise his sons would continue to live with him even when married and they'd have relatively self contained rooms for privacy.

The model of natural that you seem to be referring to has been around for maybe the last 40 years, possibly less, and seems to be going back to how things were with the relative unaffordability of shelter in the capital cities - children staying home till their 30s or moving back home because the struggle to pay exorbitant rents gets to be too much.

If you can refer me to any peer reviewed studies that show children in "unnatural" families have any developmental issues or are in any way detrimentally affected I'll read it with great interest.


----------



## Bill M (9 April 2014)

Everyone should be treated equal and no government has the right to dictate who people can or can not marry. People should get over the judgment of others, live and let live. I would rather be around a couple who are gay and happy than a straight couple who are continually at each others throats. Embrace love and respect for all, no matter where it comes from.


----------



## eager to learn (9 April 2014)

I totally agree  "   ...... live and let live.....  Embrace love and respect for all ..........."

"Hi Guys.  I joined this forum in early 2013.  I enjoy very much reading  all members post .  Reading and understanding post is not a problem.  However expressing myself clearly in English is a challenge.  Therefore I seldom post.  I hope you will forgive me for not contributing."


----------



## sydboy007 (9 April 2014)

eager to learn said:


> I totally agree  "   ...... live and let live.....  Embrace love and respect for all ..........."
> 
> "Hi Guys.  I joined this forum in early 2013.  I enjoy very much reading  all members post .  Reading and understanding post is not a problem.  However expressing myself clearly in English is a challenge.  Therefore I seldom post.  I hope you will forgive me for not contributing."




Welcome to the forum, and I'll say the best way to learn and improve is to practice practice practice.  My school teachers would probably still put on my report cards "must watch spelling" but as long as you pass on the ideas perfect spelling and grammar can take a back seat as far as i'm concerned.  Writing an academic paper is a whole other deal.

Live and let live, and we can all enjoy the Dolce Vita (sweet life)


----------



## Miss Hale (9 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> What is a natural environment to you?
> 
> My Grandmother's generation tends to view current lifestyles as pretty unnatural.  In her times it was quite natural to have 3 generations living in the same house.  Similar for Asian families where it's quite acceptable for married children still to be living with one set of parents - guy at work was telling me about his Indian neighbor (he's also Indian) and how he'd built a 5 BR 6 bathroom house on the premise his sons would continue to live with him even when married and they'd have relatively self contained rooms for privacy.
> 
> ...




My parents lived with my mum's parents after they were married too, my two eldest brothers were born before they got their own place, it was quite common after the WWII when there was a housing shortage. Cannot even be compared with bringing up children with two 'parents' of the same sex.


----------



## Julia (9 April 2014)

Miss Hale said:


> My parents lived with my mum's parents after they were married too, my two eldest brothers were born before they got their own place, it was quite common after the WWII when there was a housing shortage. Cannot even be compared with bringing up children with two 'parents' of the same sex.



+1.  Can't see any connection between multigenerational occupancy of a home and homosexual parenting.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 April 2014)

Miss Hale said:


> My parents lived with my mum's parents after they were married too, my two eldest brothers were born before they got their own place, it was quite common after the WWII when there was a housing shortage. Cannot even be compared with bringing up children with two 'parents' of the same sex.






Julia said:


> +1.  Can't see any connection between multigenerational occupancy of a home and homosexual parenting.




I suppose the point I was making is that the term "un-natural" had been used and I just wanted to show that the idea of a westnerised family where it's just parents and children living together as "natural" is open to challenge.

From a lot of other cultures our narrow and insular family structures would seem "un-natural".

I suppose the family living behind my house were showing the great "natural" family structure where mum and dad were using expletives towards each other and one of the children, while the child was crying loud enough I found it distressing.  Similar to the "natural" families living in the housing commission around me that have 14 year olds (definitely under aged) smoking and I'll sometimes see them in the small park next to the train station on a Fri or Sat night smoking and drinking late at night.

_Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres._  The Apostle Paul was right, and in many ways homosexual people probably know the truths of these words far stronger than many in "natural" families because they are constantly judged.  

I doubt any of you have had to take words like "Abomination of God", "f@#king faggot" or faced physical abuse because you were holding you're partners' hand while walking along the street, or in the case of an old house mate just walking to the train station to go out for your birthday and being bashed to the point where one eye is so swollen shut the doctors fear you might lose sight in the eye.

Ask yourself, how would you feel if everyday you were confronted with the media and people questioning if your love, your relationship is valid, face claims that you would have a detrimental affect on children should you be involved with their raising.  Try and imagine a life where you worry about what could happen if you did some public display of affection like a hug or holding hands with your partner.  Imagine so many of the little things in life you do with your partner that you probably have no conscious thought about really, yet for a gay person can lead to emotional and or physical abuse, or issues at their workplace, maybe issues at school or other facets of their life.

That's the "natural" world that I as a homosexual has to live within.


----------



## bellenuit (9 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I doubt any of you have had to take words like "Abomination of God", "f@#king faggot" or faced physical abuse because you were holding you're partners' hand while walking along the street, or in the case of an old house mate just walking to the train station to go out for your birthday and being bashed to the point where one eye is so swollen shut the doctors fear you might lose sight in the eye.
> 
> Ask yourself, how would you feel if everyday you were confronted with the media and people questioning if your love, your relationship is valid, face claims that you would have a detrimental affect on children should you be involved with their raising.  Try and imagine a life where you worry about what could happen if you did some public display of affection like a hug or holding hands with your partner.  Imagine so many of the little things in life you do with your partner that you probably have no conscious thought about really, yet for a gay person can lead to emotional and or physical abuse, or issues at their workplace, maybe issues at school or other facets of their life.
> 
> That's the "natural" world that I as a homosexual has to live within.




I empathise with you Sydboy. Not exactly on topic particularly in relation to gay parenting, but Jaclyn Glenn addresses gender related issues very well from about 1:20 in on this video.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 April 2014)

The word "un natural" refers to the fact that two men or two women cannot produce children. It has nothing whatever to do with people living in their parents homes, and your comparison as such was a complete straw man.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The word "un natural" refers to the fact that two men or two women cannot produce children. It has nothing whatever to do with people living in their parents homes, and your comparison as such was a complete straw man.




people can't regenerate hearts, livers, lungs, corneas, kidneys, yet it seems natural to have a transplant.

What do you believe could be the harm of a gay couple raising a child?  How does that compare to the tens of thousands of dysfunctional families in Australia?  I've got at least 20 within an easy walk of my house.

I'd put my money on a loving gay family raising happy children any day over your preferred "natural" family that sees no harm is shouting abuse at family members, or allowing under-aged children to smoke and drink and roam the streets at night pretty much as they please.


----------



## Miss Hale (9 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> people can't regenerate hearts, livers, lungs, corneas, kidneys, yet it seems natural to have a transplant.
> 
> What do you believe could be the harm of a gay couple raising a child?  How does that compare to the tens of thousands of dysfunctional families in Australia?  I've got at least 20 within an easy walk of my house.
> 
> I'd put my money on a loving gay family raising happy children any day over your preferred "natural" family that sees no harm is shouting abuse at family members, or allowing under-aged children to smoke and drink and roam the streets at night pretty much as they please.




It's not about whether a couple shouts abuse at family members, or allows under-aged children to smoke and drink and roam the streets at night and so on. This could easily apply to a heterosexual couple or a gay couple - I hope you are not trying to suggest that the sort of relationship and parenting issues a heterosexual couple can have would not also apply to a gay couple. Every child has a mother and a father and every child deserves the opportunity to be brought up by a male parent and a female parent as nature intended.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd put my money on a loving gay family raising happy children any day over your preferred "natural" family that sees no harm is shouting abuse at family members, or allowing under-aged children to smoke and drink and roam the streets at night pretty much as they please.




So what makes you think that gay parents are any less subject to being abusive, smoking, drinking, drug taking or anything else that sets a bad example to children ?

 The people I've had this discussion with elsewhere always try to paint gay parents as saints in comparison to the 'nasty heterosexuals', but the recent case of two homosexuals who bought a child from a woman in Russia so they could abuse him is one example that the rose coloured glasses view of gay parenting is false.


----------



## Julia (9 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> people can't regenerate hearts, livers, lungs, corneas, kidneys, yet it seems natural to have a transplant.



Does it?  I don't think it seems natural at all.  But I do think it's a wonderful development of science to allow lives to be saved by such means.
I have no idea why you would raise such an analogy.  Just like the multigenerational occupancy of a household, it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual relationships.

Others have already made the valid point of disagreeing with your suggestion of painting homosexual relationships as all being blissfully happy, without dissension, jealousies, addictions or financial issues which are often at the basis of difficulties between couples regardless of their sexual preference.

As far as your being verbally abused via the terminology you describe goes, it's not for me to question that this happens.   My own observations are to the contrary, with the current political correctness dictating people must fall over themselves to observe 'equality' to people declaring themselves homosexual.  That's fine.  I think I'm typical of the majority of the population who couldn't care less what adult human beings do with their bodies in private, as long as they don't involve children or animals.

Unfortunately, as referred to above, we have recently seen a completely hideous example of a homosexual couple acquiring a baby whom they began to abuse when he was just 2 weeks old, such procurement being designed to allow them to prostitute the child all over the world.
I'm sure this is absolutely not typical, but for you to suggest that  homosexual relationships somehow escape the net of repugnant behaviour is disingenuous at best.

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn whether homosexual people get married or not.  And I don't think the majority of the population do either.  Given the high divorce rate I can't see why marriage as an institution should be regarded as so desirable by anyone.

But I am very, very sick of the topic being thrust in my face all the time.  Do whatever you want, but just bloody shut up about it.  If I see one more celebrity "bravely coming out" and declaring proudly their homosexuality I want to kick the TV.  Heterosexual people don't prance about declaring their sexual preference.  

Whatever happened to the notion of personal privacy?  Somehow our present civilisation seems to have developed a mass addiction to discussing their most personal issues in public.  I try to avoid Facebook and Twitter, but it's not entirely possible to do so, and I see people baring their every emotion and physical sensation to the world at large.  I truly wonder "who on earth cares"?   Have we, as a society, become so addicted to egocentric behaviour that we feel deprived if we are not talking about what once was personal and private to the whole world?

Syd, do what you like.  But please don't expect everyone else to necessarily want to know about it.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 April 2014)

Julia said:


> Whatever happened to the notion of personal privacy?  Somehow our present civilisation seems to have developed a mass addiction to discussing their most personal issues in public.  I try to avoid Facebook and Twitter, but it's not entirely possible to do so, and I see people baring their every emotion and physical sensation to the world at large.  I truly wonder "who on earth cares"?   Have we, as a society, become so addicted to egocentric behaviour that we feel deprived if we are not talking about what once was personal and private to the whole world?
> 
> .




So true. I remember how we used to laugh at those US programs where people bared their souls to celebrities.
Maybe its a reflection of upbringing. Everyone has become so out there - and when they realise people don't really care they get depressed.

We could all be accused, at least a little bit, of the same thing on this site.

And a bit off topic, but look at Carr - he is even telling us what he had for dinner in his book.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So what makes you think that gay parents are any less subject to being abusive, smoking, drinking, drug taking or anything else that sets a bad example to children ?
> 
> The people I've had this discussion with elsewhere always try to paint gay parents as saints in comparison to the 'nasty heterosexuals', but the recent case of two homosexuals who bought a child from a woman in Russia so they could abuse him is one example that the rose coloured glasses view of gay parenting is false.




Nothing, except they have to make a conscious decision to have children, which is probably not what happened in a lot of dysfunctional families.  Combine that with the fact that at present a gay couple is not able to adopt, thought they could be foster parents which has a fairly stringent screening criteria.  If current adoption criteria was broadened to gay couples then I think there's a very high chance that children would be placed with good parents and have a much higher chance of a happy life than ones brought up in a dysfunctional heterosexual family

You say you're worried about the impact on children raised by gay parents, but what are you doing about the children who are raised by parents who are addicted to alcohol or other substances, who physically abuse their children either mentally and or physically?  There's nothing to stop these same families having more and more children they neither want nor can adequately provide for, but in your "natural" world that is acceptable, or at least preferable than a stable gay family adopting a child.

I've still not seen you or Miss Hale actually articulate what harm you believe will befall these children.  How is being raised by 2 gay parents different from say a single parent raising children?

As for your purchasing of a child to abuse them, I'd say most of us would agree that it's abhorrent, yet how often are the people arrested in paedophile rings taken from a suburban family home?  What of the heterosexual people who facilitated the purchase?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> You say you're worried about the impact on children raised by gay parents, but what are you doing about the children who are raised by parents who are addicted to alcohol or other substances, who physically abuse their children either mentally and or physically?  There's nothing to stop these same families having more and more children they neither want nor can adequately provide for, but in your "natural" world that is acceptable, or at least preferable than a stable gay family adopting a child.




If I had my way I would be doing a number of things about anyone (regardless of sexual preference) who indulges in child abuse or child neglect. Unfortunately , a lot of people say more government intervention means a "nanny state" which is such a pejorative that it stops governments interfering in the lives of others even when children are at risk. Child welfare departments are chronically understaffed and unable to keep up with the demand.

As a start I would phase put the baby bonus and other family payments over time. People who can't afford children shouldn't have them. Remove a financial incentive to have children and it's likely that people with more responsibility will be the main producers of children in the long term.



> I've still not seen you or Miss Hale actually articulate what harm you believe will befall these children.  How is being raised by 2 gay parents different from say a single parent raising children?




I'll put some faith in the evolutionary process over the ages that it produces a system that benefits the species in the long term. There is likely to be a good reason why couples of the same sex cannot have children (and I'm not talking about God), but evolution that works to a plan that makes the species stronger over time.

In individual cases, there is the point about appropriate male/female role models administered with the authority that comes from genetic linkage, not through a test tube, and the child's knowledge that they have biological parents who want them, and are not prepared to give them away or sell them to strangers. 

As far as you comparing gay parents to single parents, you are making the common mistake of equating one deficient situation with another and excusing it on that basis. I'm sure the majority of single parents don't want it that way, they would prefer a loving partner who shares the load. So just because some children live in single parent households due to unforeseen and unwanted circumstances, doesn't mean similarly deficient circumstances should be inflicted on children by design.



> As for your purchasing of a child to abuse them, I'd say most of us would agree that it's abhorrent, yet how often are the people arrested in paedophile rings taken from a suburban family home?  What of the heterosexual people who facilitated the purchase?




Everyone in this shocking case should be prosecuted if possible, but as the child was procured overseas, it's beyond the resources of our government to prosecute them. Surrogacy should be banned in all circumstances, children are not playthings to be bought and sold.


----------



## Calliope (10 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I've still not seen you or Miss Hale actually articulate what harm you believe will befall these children.  How is being raised by 2 gay parents different from say a single parent raising children?




A well known Sydney gay sauna advertises;

"All Races.Ages.Sizes.Welcome". 

At what age, sydboy, do you suggest that your "2 gay parents" should acquaint their "son" with the gay "facts of life"?


----------



## sydboy007 (11 April 2014)

Calliope said:


> A well known Sydney gay sauna advertises;
> 
> "All Races.Ages.Sizes.Welcome".
> 
> At what age, sydboy, do you suggest that your "2 gay parents" should acquaint their "son" with the gay "facts of life"?




How many brothels are located in Kings Cross?  How many out in the suburbs of Sydney?  How many in your local area?  How many of the customers at brothels are married?  At what point do you believe a heterosexual couple should acquaint their son with their nearest brothel?  Why do you assume a male child of a gay couple is gay?  Would a female child of a lesbian couple also be gay?  

/sarcasm How confusing it would be if a gay couple had a child of the opposite sex /sarcasm


----------



## sydboy007 (11 April 2014)

Julia said:


> Syd, do what you like.  But please don't expect everyone else to necessarily want to know about it.




Then no need to read this thread.  I've not forced you to read this or participate in the discussion.  

Time and again people say they oppose gay marriage because of the children, yet never specify exactly what that harm will be, while seemingly oblivious of the huge amount of harm that is occurring within far too many heterosexual families.

I'm not arguing that all gay people would make good parents, but I do argue that since it is a conscious decision and that they would be following a formal adoption process that it's more likely they would make good parents, with a good probability of providing a far better environment for a child to grow up than in a dysfunctional family.

As for the couple who bought a child, that was outside any formal adoption process.  There's plenty of cases of heterosexual men doing similar.  It's an abhorrent crime and I hope anyone doing it is caught and faces the full weight of the law.

It would be unlikely a similar outcome would occur during a formal adoption.

Very disturbing article in the SMH today http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/calls-for...d-over-abandoned-children-20140410-36g31.html

found that 75,000 cases of reported abuse never received a face to face assessment by a caseworker.

which examined changes between 2010-11 and 2012-13, found that only 28 per cent of the 104,000 reports of abuse received face-to-face investigation

Adolescents were less likely to receive a visit, with only only one in five at-risk teens getting a face to face assessment in 2012-13.

More than 40,000 vulnerable children are having their cases quietly buried and shredded.


----------



## Calliope (11 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> How many brothels are located in Kings Cross?  How many out in the suburbs of Sydney?  How many in your local area?  How many of the customers at brothels are married?  At what point do you believe a heterosexual couple should acquaint their son with their nearest brothel?




It is interesting that you equate gay saunas with brothels. 



> Why do you assume a male child of a gay couple is gay?  Would a female child of a lesbian couple also be gay?




I didn't. But surely no child should exposed to the unnatural recreational habits of their "parents". 



> /sarcasm How confusing it would be if a gay couple had a child of the opposite sex /sarcasm




Confusing to whom?


----------



## ftw129 (11 April 2014)

The issue some people have about gay parents has no business in this thread which is titled "Gay marriage" (in my opinion) but I feel I may have an interesting experience to offer.

When I was undertaking the screening required in order to become a sperm donor I was informed that my sperm would never be used in couples that were not white/caucasian (as I am).

Their reason was because that all of the decisions made, surrounding any IVF births was always centered around the child's psychological welfare as being paramount, rather than the needs of anyone else. Fair enough....

There were other things that are screened before any grant is made to any couple but sexuality is not one of them and I was told that these criteria have been developed based on many years of research on the psychological development of IVF children.

That is fact and can be researched at your own leisure. (I attended the Melbourne IVF clinic to become a donor)

Interestingly, most of the gay people that I know, have no desire to ever get married and even less so to have children. In fact, not one single gay couple that I know has any desire to do either and is quite embarrassed about this whole "issue" but that doesn't mean that they don't think it's wrong to be discriminated against, based on their sexuality. 

Children aside, the quicker this irrelevant and ugly "issue" is resolved with the changing of the current outdated legislation, the less frustration for all, gay or not.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 April 2014)

ftw129 said:


> The issue some people have about gay parents has no business in this thread which is titled "Gay marriage" (in my opinion) but I feel I may have an interesting experience to offer.
> 
> When I was undertaking the screening required in order to become a sperm donor I was informed that my sperm would never be used in couples that were not white/caucasian (as I am).
> 
> ...




Just interested in your motivation for becoming a sperm donor. Did you get paid ?

Also very interesting that mixed race children are quite common now, but are apparently able to be discriminated against, but you can't discriminate against gays . I think it says more about the power of the gay lobby these days than any 'psychology'.


----------



## Julia (11 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Then no need to read this thread.  I've not forced you to read this or participate in the discussion.



My contribution to the thread has been minimal.  As you are entirely capable of understanding, my earlier comments did not relate just to this thread.  Much more to the incessant banging on about gay marriage by the minority who are insisting on continuing to push the issue so vociferously.  It's impossible to listen to ABC radio for any few days and not have it thrust across the airwaves at us.  Usually it's interchangeable with catastrophic climate change, just for variety.

Recently I was waiting in a long supermarket queue, all checkouts open, lots of people, peak hour.
Ahead by two in my queue were two women.  One had her hand down the shorts of her partner and was clearly fondling her genital area.  Standing immediately behind them was a mother and three little kids, the latter being very curious about what was going on and the mother trying hard to divert their attention, unsuccessfully.

It's this sort of overt "we're here, we out and proud, and you need to get that!" stuff that many people find inappropriate and completely unnecessary.   



> found that 75,000 cases of reported abuse never received a face to face assessment by a caseworker.
> 
> which examined changes between 2010-11 and 2012-13, found that only 28 per cent of the 104,000 reports of abuse received face-to-face investigation



Yes, I was disappointed to hear that when it was reported on the ABC yesterday.  Again, though, I don't understand what it has to do with homosexual marriage.
If we look at the currently running Royal Commission on sexual abuse in institutions, have there actually been any examples of abuse carried out by women?  I've not heard any.  The perpetrators have all been male.
Similarly, all the non-institutional sexual abuse I've heard of or come across has been by males.

Child Services (or whatever they're currently called) is as under funded as many other essential care services, aged care just as one example.  But no one wants to pay any more taxes.  Even the notion of propping up Medicare with a minimal $5 charge received outrage.
So, as long as that's the case, social workers are going to have to do their best to assess by phone and other records which cases require the most urgent face to face attention.  It's a thankless job and morale is low.


----------



## Julia (11 April 2014)

ftw129 said:


> Interestingly, most of the gay people that I know, have no desire to ever get married and even less so to have children. In fact, not one single gay couple that I know has any desire to do either and is quite embarrassed about this whole "issue" but that doesn't mean that they don't think it's wrong to be discriminated against, based on their sexuality.



Good to hear.  The two issues are entirely separate.  I don't know anyone who has any issue with any adult's sexual preference with one exception of a crusty old bloke in his 80s who still thinks it's a choice and 'someone should wallop it out of them'.  Yes, really.


----------



## ftw129 (11 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Just interested in your motivation for becoming a sperm donor. Did you get paid





Thank you for your interest. I have a couple of reasons for becoming a donor and I'm happy to answer you in private if you'd like however I will say here that money was not one of them. I've been asked whether I got paid to donate a couple of times already and I'm not entirely sure where that idea comes from. It is illegal in Australia to pay for human sperm (under the Human Tissue Act 1982). (I was born in 1981) However, I will admit that I did receive "reimbursement" for my time and travel costs which is calculated on the distance from your house to the clinic but is certainly not an amount that would entice anybody to make the rather serious commitment to become a sperm donor which is an 18 month to 2 year process involving psychiatric and physical assessments. Not to mention the prospect of having children trying to track you down for the rest of your life. 

(For the record I was employed full time on a 60k+ per year salary at the time)


----------



## SirRumpole (11 April 2014)

ftw129 said:


> Not to mention the prospect of having children trying to track you down for the rest of your life.
> 
> (For the record I was employed full time on a 60k+ per year salary at the time.)




Thanks for your reply.

While I don't doubt your motives, the statement quoted above does create a lot of concern, to me at least, about the morality (for want of a better word) of creating children via IVF where a part of their lives that is very important to them is missing, and there is a necessity for them to go to great lengths to fill in those gaps.

One wonders if there is more concern about the 'needs' (or maybe it really is 'wants') of the parents rather than those  of the children.

I was also under the impression (from another source), that the biological parents of IVF children are required to be disclosed to them. If so, donors must know that there is a possibility that they will be tracked down one day.


----------



## ftw129 (11 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> While I don't doubt your motives, the statement quoted above does create a lot of concern, to me at least, about the morality (for want of a better word) of creating children via IVF where a part of their lives that is very important to them is missing, and there is a necessity for them to go to great lengths to fill in those gaps.
> 
> ...




Please let me explain;

I would not have been allowed to become a donor had I not have agreed to release a few basic details about myself to to "my" future "biological" children (with the assurance that the information about myself would not be enough for them to be able to track me down or identify me just from that information alone).

I was also given the option to elect an age for the children to be able to enquire about my identity for possible "meeting". I elected that when the children reach the age of 16, that I am willing to be contacted by the IVF clinic and make a decision then, whether or not I would like to meet. This was of course, entirely optional and no donor ever has to meet "their" biological children.

I was also delighted to be able to supply my future children with photos of myself as a child along with my brother in order to satisfy their natural curiosity about what their biological father looks like. Also, I wrote them all a beautiful letter that they can have from the moment they are born.

The clinic does not accept donors unwilling to at least provide their first name to the children and some other very basic and unidentifiable pieces of information.

Personally, I was thrilled to give the kids as much as I can and I can not tell you the immense amount of satisfaction that I've gotten out of the whole experience . I am the type of donor that the clinic screens for. It is not easy for just anyone to become a donor and without any material rewards the process does not attract men that have any other reason to become a donor other then quite personal ones.

Of course, babies being born this way is a very controversial topic and for very good reason.

Much more controversial than that of gay marriage... (That's my opinion anyway)


----------



## sydboy007 (11 April 2014)

Calliope said:


> It is interesting that you equate gay saunas with brothels.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'd say brothels are probably the closest thing to a gay sauna in the heterosexual world, apart from say a key party I suppose.

What unnatural recreational habits are we talking about?  Are they something that only same sex partners do, or something for heterosexual partners too? 

Why do you even suggest that a gay couple would take their son to a gay sauna?  Saying that implies you believe a male child of a gay male couple is by default also gay, or will somehow be taught to be gay.  I can assure you sexual orientation is something we're all born with, otherwise how do you explain gay children raised by heterosexual parents?

You'd probably never think to ask a heterosexual friend about when they thought a heterosexual couple would take their child to a brothel for them to learn about the "heterosexual" facts of life.


----------



## Calliope (11 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> What unnatural recreational habits are we talking about?  Are they something that only same sex partners do, or something for heterosexual partners too?




I doubt that a normal couple would visit a gay sauna, 



> Why do you even suggest that a gay couple would take their son to a gay sauna?




There you go again, I didn't suggest that. But the question is purely hypothetical. As you have said, it is not easy for a male gay couple to gain control of a child.



> You'd probably never think to ask a heterosexual friend about when they thought a heterosexual couple would take their child to a brothel for them to learn about the "heterosexual" facts of life.




Of course not. Why should I?


----------



## banco (11 April 2014)

Julia said:


> Good to hear.  The two issues are entirely separate.  I don't know anyone who has any issue with any adult's sexual preference with one exception of a crusty old bloke in his 80s who still thinks it's a choice and 'someone should wallop it out of them'.  Yes, really.




I wouldn't have picked Caliope as being so old.


----------



## Julia (11 April 2014)

banco said:


> I wouldn't have picked Caliope as being so old.



Just for the record, it was not Calliope whom I had in mind.  I make no comment about Calliope's views.


----------



## Calliope (11 April 2014)

banco said:


> I wouldn't have picked Caliope as being so old.




You are quite a piece of work. Julia said she knows this guy. She certainly doesn't know me.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 April 2014)

Calliope said:


> I doubt that a normal couple would visit a gay sauna,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What is a normal couple?

Then why did you ask the hypothetical question?  What purpose did it serve regarding the discussion about gay marriage?

If you felt it was OK to ask the question hypothetically about a gay couple, why are you so adamant you would never ask a similar question about a heterosexual couple?


----------



## Calliope (12 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> What is a normal couple?




Male and female of course.



> If you felt it was OK to ask the question hypothetically about a gay couple, why are you so adamant you would never ask a similar question about a heterosexual couple?




Why do you ask silly questions?


----------



## Calliope (12 April 2014)

Julia said:


> .
> It's this sort of overt "we're here, we out and proud, and you need to get that!" stuff that many people find inappropriate and completely unnecessary.




It's called the Bob Carr syndrome.


----------



## Tink (12 April 2014)

NO to Gay Marriage.

If the Gay Lobby want changes, bring on a referendum to the people.
Gays have their Union, it has been sorted for them.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 April 2014)

Tink said:


> NO to Gay Marriage.
> 
> If the Gay Lobby want changes, bring on a referendum to the people.
> Gays have their Union, it has been sorted for them.




I've argued with gay people on other forums who say that the overwhelming majority of people support gay marriage. 

Strangely though, when the question of a public vote is mentioned, they go very quiet. They say the debate would expose gay people to ridicule or other silly excuses. It's obviously easier for them to harass and badger a few politicians than it is to convince a majority of the population.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 April 2014)

Calliope said:


> Male and female of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you ask silly questions?




So what term would you use to describe a same sex couple?  Considering the level of homosexuality in the population is roughly the same level of left handedness I'll be quite interested to see your response.  Interesting to note that the left handed were for a long time equated to have been touched by evil, hence the English version of sinister from the original Latin sinistra.  Just born that way but it was normal to view them with suspicion or see them as evil.  As some of the comments in this thread show, homosexuals still have to put up with these kind of prejudices.

I've always been told there's no silly questions, just silly answers.  I ask to try and show you the bias you are presenting.  

You seem to think asking an inappropriate hypothetical question based on a same sex couple as reasonable, but then say you'd never consider asking it of a heterosexual couple.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I've argued with gay people on other forums who say that the overwhelming majority of people support gay marriage.
> 
> Strangely though, when the question of a public vote is mentioned, they go very quiet. They say the debate would expose gay people to ridicule or other silly excuses. It's obviously easier for them to harass and badger a few politicians than it is to convince a majority of the population.




Few hundred years ago the overwhelming majority viewed slavery as acceptable.  

I'd be quite happy for a referendum on the issue.  I'm relatively happy now that most Commonwealth and State legislations no longer discriminate against same sex partners, but I do understand the power of words and why some people want to have their relationships recognised with equal weighting as what the majority in society already get.

If you believe that the love a same sex couple have for each other is the same as that within a heterosexual relationship, and leaving children out of the discussion because as far as I can tell there's no plans to allow adoption by same sex couples, what is the harm is allowing same sex partners to be married?

As for being exposed to ridicule, we still face it quite regularly.  If Brandis gets his way with the anti-discrimination legislation we might see a lot more of it.  Back in 2003 a survey found over 50% of GLBT people had suffered some form of homophobic abuse in the previous 12 months.  Heck there's even a gay panic defence for men who claimed to be so offend or frightened of a gay man that they just had to bash them, sometimes killing them - it's still part of common law in some states of Australia.  A study in 2010 for SA schools found 61% of homosexual children had suffered verbal abuse, with 18% suffering physical abuse.

When a drunk yobbo wants to yell abuse do they say hetero or faggot?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Few hundred years ago the overwhelming majority viewed slavery as acceptable.
> 
> I'd be quite happy for a referendum on the issue.  I'm relatively happy now that most Commonwealth and State legislations no longer discriminate against same sex partners, but I do understand the power of words and why some people want to have their relationships recognised with equal weighting as what the majority in society already get.
> 
> ...




If you can leave children out of the equation, then I have no objection to gay marriage, but marriage is a foot in the door to gay parenting which obviously involves people other than consenting adults and should be subject to deeper scrutiny.


----------



## Tink (13 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I've argued with gay people on other forums who say that the overwhelming majority of people support gay marriage.
> 
> Strangely though, when the question of a public vote is mentioned, they go very quiet. They say the debate would expose gay people to ridicule or other silly excuses. It's obviously easier for them to harass and badger a few politicians than it is to convince a majority of the population.




Exactly. 

My view, PC gone mad.


----------



## gordon2007 (13 April 2014)

I tend not to really advocate one way or the other towards these type of things. However if I did have to choose a side, I'd say go for it. 

However I do find it rather strange in a way that most men seem to find it extremely challenging to accept two men being physically intimate with each other, yet will seek out pr0n that is of a female\female intimacy, in deed even searching specifically for this type of pr0n. And of course the women are always gorgeous blondes.

Get two women of physical resemblance to penny wong, and suddenly being gay is morally wrong. 

So, it's sexy, cool and a good opportunity to self pleasure oneself watching to hot blondes provide oral sex on each other but morally wrong when men and or non stunningly beautiful women do this?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2014)

gordon2007 said:


> I tend not to really advocate one way or the other towards these type of things. However if I did have to choose a side, I'd say go for it.
> 
> However I do find it rather strange in a way that most men seem to find it extremely challenging to accept two men being physically intimate with each other, yet will seek out pr0n that is of a female\female intimacy, in deed even searching specifically for this type of pr0n. And of course the women are always gorgeous blondes.
> 
> ...




Maybe women go for men on men pr0n.


----------



## bellenuit (10 May 2014)

*WATCH: For 8 Years, She Convinced The World She Was A Boy. Now, She's Making Us Rethink Sexuality*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tedtalks/io-tillett-wright-ted_b_5295619.html


----------



## bellenuit (22 December 2014)

Something to ponder for those who think Gay Marriage would destroy traditional marriage.  What *IS* traditional marriage?

*Captive Virgins, Polygamy, Sex Slaves: What Marriage Would Look Like if We Actually Followed the Bible*

http://valerietarico.com/2012/03/29...-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/


----------



## Tisme (23 December 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Few hundred years ago the overwhelming majority viewed slavery as acceptable.




The same could be said for traditional marriage, but it still persists regardless of every effort to destroy its legitimacy.


----------



## explod (24 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If you can leave children out of the equation, then I have no objection to gay marriage, but marriage is a foot in the door to gay parenting which obviously involves people other than consenting adults and should be subject to deeper scrutiny.




Seems to be an inference that a gay couple would treat children differently to a heterosexual couple.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (26 December 2014)

As usual I think the issue is yet another topic blown out of all proportion by the vocal inner city minority and latched onto by the media because they love the 'perceived' controversy. I think generally nobody gives a hoot. Although, I have no objection to them getting 'married' I just think the word marriage shouldn't be used as it has, for me, symbolised a union between male and female. Perhaps they can appropriate another word like they have with the formally innocent word 'gay'?


----------



## banco (26 December 2014)

Uncle Festivus said:


> As usual I think the issue is yet another topic blown out of all proportion by the vocal inner city minority and latched onto by the media because they love the 'perceived' controversy. I think generally nobody gives a hoot. Although, I have no objection to them getting 'married' I just think the word marriage shouldn't be used as it has, for me, symbolised a union between male and female. Perhaps they can appropriate another word like they have with the formally innocent word 'gay'?




I think you'll find gay people give a hoot but **** them right?


----------



## Tisme (26 December 2014)

banco said:


> I think you'll find gay people give a hoot but **** them right?




MÃ©nage Ã  trois ?


----------



## bellenuit (17 April 2015)

Great ad from Ireland on the upcoming referendum.


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2015)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Although, I have no objection to them getting 'married' I just think the word marriage shouldn't be used as it has, for me, symbolised a union between male and female.




Why should another word be used?

Marriage should be marriage regardless of thegenders of the individuals involved.

The fact is Gays already have marriages, any committed relationship is a marriage, its just the a lot of government currently discriminate, and won't recognise them.




> innocent word 'gay'




Gay is still an innocent word.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The fact is Gays already have marriages, any committed relationship is a marriage, its just the a lot of government currently discriminate, and won't recognise them.




Possibly thousands of heterosexual couples live in 'sin' without ever getting married. The practical advantages of marriage are overrated imo.


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Possibly thousands of heterosexual couples live in 'sin' without ever getting married. The practical advantages of marriage are overrated imo.




So, the government should either recognize all marriages between consenting adults, or it should get out of the marriage business and not recognize any


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So, the government should either recognize all marriages between consenting adults, or it should get out of the marriage business and not recognize any




Well yes, why should the government have any say about who gets married as long as they are consenting adults of sufficient mental capacity ? Tear up the Marriage Act for I care, the only practical advantages seems to be recognition of parentage for children which goes on a birth certificate anyway, so really what is the point of legislation covering marriage ?


----------



## Tink (17 April 2015)

Interesting that they are having a 'referendum' in Ireland, bellenuit.
I think it's the best way.


----------



## bellenuit (17 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Interesting that they are having a 'referendum' in Ireland, bellenuit.
> I think it's the best way.




*"So called marriage equality forces a child to miss out on a mother or a father...."*

Tink, that completely lost me. How does gay marriage force a child to miss out on a mother or a father? Unless it is referring to gay adoption of kids, which is a separate issue from gay marriage and wasn't even mentioned in the clip you posted.


----------



## Tink (18 April 2015)

I have already given my reasons against, bellenuit.

Define Marriage?

For what reason is, Gay Marriage, a betterment for society?

This referendum is in Ireland, not here.


----------



## Value Collector (18 April 2015)

bellenuit said:


> *"So called marriage equality forces a child to miss out on a mother or a father...."*
> 
> Tink, that completely lost me. How does gay marriage force a child to miss out on a mother or a father? Unless it is referring to gay adoption of kids, which is a separate issue from gay marriage and wasn't even mentioned in the clip you posted.




Seems like she has committed a logical fallacy, The slippery slope fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope



Tink said:


> Define Marriage?
> 
> .




To me a marriage is a Union between two people, who have committed to love, respect and support each other throughout life. 

The term has been muddied, as it has been high jacked by religions and governments, however marriages predate both religions and governments.

Children are a separate issue, you don't need to be married to have children, and you don't need to have children to be married. 



> For what reason is, Gay Marriage, a betterment for society?




The recognising of gay marriages, betters society by ending discrimination in that area.

You may as well be asking the question, "for what reason is, allowing Black people to sit at the front of the bus is a betterment for society"


----------



## bellenuit (18 April 2015)

Tink said:


> I have already given my reasons against, bellenuit.




I appreciate that Tink, but I was questioning a statement made in the video you posted.

*"So called marriage equality forces a child to miss out on a mother or a father...."*

It didn't make sense to me in the context of gay marriage, so I was asking you what it meant.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 April 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I appreciate that Tink, but I was questioning a statement made in the video you posted.
> 
> *"So called marriage equality forces a child to miss out on a mother or a father...."*
> 
> It didn't make sense to me in the context of gay marriage, so I was asking you what it meant.




If a gay couple, married or not adopt of have a child by IVF, then that child misses out on a mother and/or father, so in that respect, Tink is right. Gay parenting is a different issue than gay marriage, and should be treated as such. 

Just because relations between consenting adults should not be the business of anyone else, does not mean that we should not consider whether children should be forced to do without one or other biological parent and whether it has a detrimental effect on them.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If a gay couple, married or not adopt of have a child by IVF, then that child misses out on a mother and/or father, so in that respect, Tink is right. Gay parenting is a different issue than gay marriage, and should be treated as such.
> 
> Just because relations between consenting adults should not be the business of anyone else, does not mean that we should not consider whether children should be forced to do without one or other biological parent and whether it has a detrimental effect on them.




Therefore divorced parents are harming their children, especially if one is relatively absent.  Do we need to basically outlaw divorce for the sake of the children?

The ABS shows there were 961,000 single parent families in 2012.  780,000 were single mother families.  That means over 1M children will have limited to no dual parenting.  That's a significant amount of harm going on there.   So shouldn't we _consider whether children should be forced to do without one or other biological parent and whether it has a detrimental effect on them_ in terms of divorce?  If it's OK to force a gay couple to not be able to have children, is it OK to force 2 parents to continue their biological responsibilities till their children are 18?

Something like 1 in 4 children in single parent families are living in poverty.  How can straight people be so uncaring about the children?

So shouldn't "straight" people sort out the problems they have before making up problems of gay parenting?

* there's a level of sarcasm in this post, but the questions still stand.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 April 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Therefore divorced parents are harming their children, especially if one is relatively absent.  Do we need to basically outlaw divorce for the sake of the children?




The divorce rate is alarming, but at least the children of heterosexuals know who both their parents are. They know their lineage and medical histories and where they sit in relation to their ancestors, unlike those raised by gay parents (or by heterosexuals with children by means of IVF) who sometimes spend years looking for their biological parents because its in our nature to want to know our ancestors.

I don't think we have the right to put them through that sort of mental torture.


----------



## luutzu (18 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The divorce rate is alarming, but at least the children of heterosexuals know who both their parents are. They know their lineage and medical histories and where they sit in relation to their ancestors, unlike those raised by gay parents (or by heterosexuals with children by means of IVF) who sometimes spend years looking for their biological parents because its in our nature to want to know our ancestors.
> 
> I don't think we have the right to put them through that sort of mental torture.




Yea but with heterosexual parents, they can always scare their kids by saying "if I could bring you into this word, I could take you out of it and just make more."

Whereas with homosexual parents, they can't threaten their kids like that. "I will take out out of this world and then I'll go find a surrogate or IVF or adoption agency, and after a lot of hassle and background checks and all that... I'll replace you"... that doesn't scare them too much, haha

too much coffee me think.


----------



## Value Collector (19 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The divorce rate is alarming, but at least the children of heterosexuals know who both their parents are. They know their lineage and medical histories and where they sit in relation to their ancestors, unlike those raised by gay parents (or by heterosexuals with children by means of IVF) who sometimes spend years looking for their biological parents because its in our nature to want to know our ancestors.
> 
> I don't think we have the right to put them through that sort of mental torture.




So your fine with gay marriage, and your also fine with gay parents (which is a separate topic) as long as the child knows its biological parents, is that correct?


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So your fine with gay marriage, and your also fine with gay parents (which is a separate topic) as long as the child knows its biological parents, is that correct?




I don't care about gay marriage either way, but I think children should be raised by BOTH biological parents unless unforeseen circumstances arise. The connection between a biological parent and child is greater than that between unrelated parents and children, I think that is undeniable. Assuming all else is equal and the B.P. is loving and not abusive.


----------



## Tink (19 April 2015)

Thanks, bellenuit, I know you are for free speech.

VC, we are entitled to our views and don't need to be bullied by the Gay Lobby.

I see children being discriminated against, not the adults.
I don't see gay people being discriminated at all, their union is exactly the same as marriage.

Agree with you, Rumpole.

Children need to be close to their parents, their mum and dad.
We should be strengthening parenthood, mothers, fathers, families, exactly what Marriage is.
This has been the best outcome through the years as nature had intended.
Makes for a healthy society
Strengthening the importance of mothers and fathers being with their children.

Money cannot buy families and children shouldn't be sold.

The mother, the father and their child -- that is Marriage.
That to me is equal as no one is missing in the equation.

Children should be taught the true meaning of Marriage.


----------



## Tisme (19 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't care about gay marriage either way, but I think children should be raised by BOTH biological parents unless unforeseen circumstances arise. The connection between a biological parent and child is greater than that between unrelated parents and children, I think that is undeniable. Assuming all else is equal and the B.P. is loving and not abusive.





Yes the argument that gay parenting is OK because of breakdowns in hetro marriages is ludicrous. Social engineering will never takeaway the primal urge to mate, procreate and bond with the maternals and paternals.

Oh look at that fat  person mommy, yes dear because he's fat I'm going to make you fat. That fella just exposed himself mommy, yes dear you can do that too when you grow up.......... fallacious arguments that are just as ridiculous as suggesting a child doesn't benefit (for the better) from mother/father coupling; spurious breakdown analogues aside.

I'm with Rumpole on the marriage thing, it was secondary to my love for my wife, but I'm glad I did marry to give my kids recognition of the bond between my wife and therefore normalcy, solidarity and validity to their existence. That is not to say marriage is the best, but at least it doesn't impress the kids in the family they are tantamount to pets and curiousities to a bored and sexually confused couple of same sexers.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yes the argument that gay parenting is OK because of breakdowns in hetro marriages is ludicrous. Social engineering will never takeaway the primal urge to mate, procreate and bond with the maternals and paternals.
> 
> Oh look at that fat  person mommy, yes dear because he's fat I'm going to make you fat. That fella just exposed himself mommy, yes dear you can do that too when you grow up.......... fallacious arguments that are just as ridiculous as suggesting a child doesn't benefit (for the better) from mother/father coupling; spurious breakdown analogues aside.
> 
> I'm with Rumpole on the marriage thing, it was secondary to my love for my wife, but I'm glad I did marry to give my kids recognition of the bond between my wife and therefore normalcy, solidarity and validity to their existence. That is not to say marriage is the best, but at least it doesn't impress the kids in the family they are tantamount to pets and curiousities to a bored and sexually confused couple of same sexers.




Fine post there Tisme


----------



## explod (19 April 2015)

A friend I have known 40 years lost his Sister who left two children under 5 at the time.   Though gay he assumed the role of Mother.   Both chlidren are now married with thier own children

Being gay is not something that happens after birth,  it is neurological.   As an artist I have met many gay people,  compared to the general community the are usually very kind,  tolerant and good citzens. 

They should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else and allowed to marry if they so choose.


----------



## Bill M (19 April 2015)

explod said:


> A friend I have known 40 years lost his Sister who left two children under 5 at the time.   Though gay he assumed the role of Mother.   Both chlidren are now married with thier own children
> 
> Being gay is not something that happens after birth,  it is neurological.   As an artist I have met many gay people,  compared to the general community the are usually very kind,  tolerant and good citzens.
> 
> They should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else and allowed to marry if they so choose.




Fully agree with explod here. During my working life, half of the people I encountered were gay. They were the most decent people I ever came across and  should be treated equally just like anybody else in the community.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm with Rumpole on the marriage thing, it was secondary to my love for my wife, but I'm glad I did marry to give my kids recognition of the bond between my wife and therefore normalcy, solidarity and validity to their existence. That is not to say marriage is the best, but at least it doesn't impress the kids in the family they are tantamount to pets and curiousities to a bored and sexually confused couple of same sexers.




Hopefully you're being sarcastic, because I'm neither sexually confused or bored.

I know 3 gay couples with children.  I'd be willing to bet that if you saw the kids in a room of children you couldn't pick them out, even though you're arguing they are somehow psychologically damaged.

Are you saying the 1M odd aussie children in single parent families somehow lack a _normalcy, solidarity and validity to their existence?_

Why do you have such a narrow viewed way of raising children, especially how most western countries do it, which seems rather insular compared to say a couple of generations ago or in poorer countries today.

This whole argument reminds me of the Divergent series of books, with the concept of GP (Genetically Pure) and GD (Genetically Damaged) people and the attitudes and privilege the GPs have towards the so called GDs.  Thousands of years for what ever God you believe to have stepped in, or thousands of years for evolution to have decided homosexuality was not in some way beneficial to the species, yet we're still here contributing and trying to get by against the lack of acceptance and baseless arguments of how we're unsuitable for many roles in society.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Hopefully you're being sarcastic, because I'm neither sexually confused or bored.
> 
> I know 3 gay couples with children.  I'd be willing to bet that if you saw the kids in a room of children you couldn't pick them out, even though you're arguing they are somehow psychologically damaged.




Children in a classroom are not of an age to be aware of their situation. Once they grow up and realise that they don't know who one of their biological parents is that the problems start and they start on a search, sometimes fruitless to find them. 

I  say they are being deprived and disadvantaged by having to undertake that process while the rest of us do not.


----------



## Tink (20 April 2015)

They are still family, explod. a brother taking on his sisters children because she has passed away.
What has that got to do with Marriage?
A majority of the time its the step parents or new boyfriend/girlfriend that hurts the children, not the original parents.
How many cases have we seen in the news of children being killed in those circumstances.

Problems have arisen in society because of no stability with these children.
Marriage was intended to keep families together to raise their children.

Gay people are accepted and have the same rights, as I said above.
Wanting a word makes no difference in the outcome.
This has nothing to do with how people are treated, as the PC mob keep playing on, it is to do with the word - Marriage.

Much was changed over the years for the betterment of society.

_Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, abortion, infanticide, child abuse/pedaphiles, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Christian_Church_in_civilization

Are the PC mob going to advocate for each one?


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Children in a classroom are not of an age to be aware of their situation. Once they grow up and realise that they don't know who one of their biological parents is that the problems start and they start on a search, sometimes fruitless to find them.
> 
> I  say they are being deprived and disadvantaged by having to undertake that process while the rest of us do not.




I know I posted my first hand experience on this in another forum, but I am still haunted by that little girl who's awareness kicked in at a party for family friends, when she realised her lesbian mum and dad weren't the same as the other kids with a mum and dad. The bewilderment was palpable as a hush came over the adult chatter also engaging in the incidence.  That little girl is now in her teens and still plays second fiddle to her maternal mother's trysts and tilting at social windmills..... one of those situations where the child has passed the mother in the maturity stakes and seeded resentment is sprouting.

I couldn't pick a criminal in a crowd, a pedophile in a crowd, even a homosexual in a crowd, so I think I would have a hard time picking the ward of a homosexual couple in a kindy either ... schools are not the place for observing under the bonnet misfiring, there are plenty of other distractions to obscure arrested developments.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

Tink said:


> They are still family, explod. a brother taking on his sisters children because she has passed away.




Yes one unforeseen tragedy doesn't forgive voluntarily replicating the situation. The question should be if the original parents intended to hand over there kids to a homosexual in the course of time, or hold on to their kids and raise them as if they were there own (which of course they were).

As many of us were raised in extended families, we know that the bond with our maternal/paternal parents is much stronger than our unmitigated love for our grandparents. In many instances the extended family is a result of mum or dad missing in action, but the traditional links remain visibly intact, providing solid foundations for a child.....and yeah there are people who shouldn't breed either.
.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yes one unforeseen tragedy doesn't forgive voluntarily replicating the situation. The question should be if the original parents intended to hand over there kids to a homosexual in the course of time, or hold on to their kids and raise them as if they were there own (which of course they were).
> 
> As many of us were raised in extended families, we know that the bond with our maternal/paternal parents is much stronger than our unmitigated love for our grandparents. In many instances the extended family is a result of mum or dad missing in action, but the traditional links remain visibly intact, providing solid foundations for a child.....and yeah there are people who shouldn't breed either.
> .




I know two people who were adopted, and both feel infinitely closer to their adopted parents than their biological ones.

One met their biological father 3 three times out of interest, but has now not seen him in 8 years, he doesn't feel the need to maintain a relationship, however he maintains a normal family relationship with his adopted parents, they are the grandparents to his children, etc.

The other one is my adopted cousin, she again has a normal family relationship with her adopted parents, but met her biological parents only a couple of times, she sends them xmas cards etc with photos of her children, but makes no real effort to be close.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

Tink said:


> What has that got to do with Marriage?




Exactly Tink, What do your unending reversions to children have to do with marriage?



> A majority of the time its the step parents or new boyfriend/girlfriend that hurts the children, not the original parents.




And not adopted parents either.



> Marriage was intended to keep families together to raise their children.




Marriage would have the same effect regardless of gender.



> Gay people are accepted and have the same rights, as I said above.




except they can not get married, hence the problem



> wanting a word makes no difference in the outcome.




Would you accept the same argument if we were talking about blacks instead of gays, eg Blacks have the same rights, wanting to be called the same word makes not difference.

If it's just a word, why not let them have it?



> _Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, abortion, infanticide, child abuse/pedaphiles, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest_
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Christian_Church_in_civilization
> 
> Are the PC mob going to advocate for each one




Why would we care what Church fathers advocated for? their opinion is worth no more than anyone elses, their arguments are only valid if they are based on facts.

You would have to have a separate debate on each topic, I have no problem with consensual Polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism. But if you think one of them should be banned you would have to make an argument against that separately, you can't ban homosexual marrriages because of a fear of polygamy or incest, that's the slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I know two people who were adopted, and both feel infinitely closer to their adopted parents than their biological ones.
> 
> .





Yes well that is your appraisal based on conversations, inter alia, but only those two people know how they really feel and overtly betraying the adoptive parents isn't going to be high on the agenda. I'm guessing there are plenty of people who have enmeshed with their bio parent(s) and feel infinitely closer to them than the adoptive, but I can't prove that as much you can't prove the reverse.

At best we scan only speak for ourselves and even then we (colloquially) talk as not to offend those we hold dear....even on message boards.  

Personally I know of several people who behave like they aren't all that happy about the fractured biological bonds, mostly through marriage breakdown and I don't see how that wouldn't translate for anyone missing that 50%. The arguments here seem to be predicated on poor outcomes of normalised coupling makes it alright to deliberately and artificially create poor potential outcomes.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yes well that is your appraisal based on conversations, inter alia, but only those two people know how they really feel and overtly betraying the adoptive parents isn't going to be high on the agenda. I'm guessing there are plenty of people who have enmeshed with their bio parent(s) and feel infinitely closer to them than the adoptive, but I can't prove that as much you can't prove the reverse.
> 
> At best we scan only speak for ourselves and even then we (colloquially) talk as not to offend those we hold dear....even on message boards.
> 
> Personally I know of several people who behave like they aren't all that happy about the fractured biological bonds, mostly through marriage breakdown and I don't see how that wouldn't translate for anyone missing that 50%. The arguments here seem to be predicated on poor outcomes of normalised coupling makes it alright to deliberately and artificially create poor potential outcomes.




Considering that the vast majority of couples are not rushing out to adopt other people's children but try, sometimes for years to have children *of their own*, and only when that fails (or they don't want to have heterosexual relations), do they seek other means of having children.

This indicates a clear preference towards raising biological offspring over raising the children of others, and whilst non biological children may not be materially disadvantaged, emotionally there is always something missing when the BP's are not in the picture.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Considering that the vast majority of couples are not rushing out to adopt other people's children but try, sometimes for years to have children *of their own*, and only when that fails (or they don't want to have heterosexual relations), do they seek other means of having children.
> 
> This indicates a clear preference towards raising biological offspring over raising the children of others, and whilst non biological children may not be materially disadvantaged, emotionally there is always something missing when the BP's are not in the picture.




You know there is strong feelings within the Family Court for the govt to legalise surrogacy here. It is being done under the guise of protecting children; I suspect it's a yet another social engineering push to legitimise the disenfranchised who cannot, will not and should not procreate using the plug and socket method.

I still remember the guarantees we got in the face of public indignation at IVF and how quickly it turned into a mini market of human product regardless.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

So if the science was available (it is actually not far away), For a lesbian (or homosexual) couple to make a baby using the DNA of two mothers or two fathers, Would you consider that ok?

Eg, rather than chromosomes being supplied by a sperm, they artificially supply the DNA from the other mothers egg effectively making a baby using 2 eggs, or use the DNA of two sperm, to create an embryo from an empty shell of a donated egg.

Then both parents would be biological, even more so than standard IVF babies, created from donated sperm or egg.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So if the science was available (it is actually not far away), For a lesbian (or homosexual) couple to make a baby using the DNA of two mothers or two fathers, Would you consider that ok?
> 
> Eg, rather than chromosomes being supplied by a sperm, they artificially supply the DNA from the other mothers egg effectively making a baby using 2 eggs, or use the DNA of two sperm, to create an embryo from an empty shell of a donated egg.
> 
> Then both parents would be biological, even more so than standard IVF babies, created from donated sperm or egg.




If the science was available I honestly would wonder why it would be necessary. Once again by empirical measure I have a very good friend who was shooting blanks. He went down the IVF path and conceived only to spawn a daughter who has major difficulties intellectually, organ failures and even a heart swapout pre puberty (which BTW is being arrested by chemicals). My friend is part of a community with similar outcomes, we just don't hear about it for fear of spooking the population and impacting on a profitable business ... and ROA money is all that matters these days.

My question would be how much chemical is going to be used as catalyst and how much leakage will find its way into the primordial soup? Molly the sheep comes to mind


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So if the science was available (it is actually not far away), For a lesbian (or homosexual) couple to make a baby using the DNA of two mothers or two fathers, Would you consider that ok?
> 
> Eg, rather than chromosomes being supplied by a sperm, they artificially supply the DNA from the other mothers egg effectively making a baby using 2 eggs, or use the DNA of two sperm, to create an embryo from an empty shell of a donated egg.
> 
> Then both parents would be biological, even more so than standard IVF babies, created from donated sperm or egg.




This is Frankenstein stuff if it's real. 

Distinct male and female sexes exist for a reason. They both have different behaviours and characteristics which complement each other in a relationship and in the raising of children.

Lets be honest here and ask ourselves, all else being equal, would we rather have a mother and a father or would we prefer to have been raised by homosexuals ?

We don't have to make that choice, but some of us seem to be prepared to impose it on others.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> If the science was available I honestly would wonder why it would be necessary.




Because as you pointed out, a lot of people like the idea of having their own biological children, with this technology lesbian or homosexual couple could mother or father their own biological children.

It also gets around yours and Rumpoles objection to children not being raised with their biological parents.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> This is Frankenstein stuff if it's real.
> 
> .




not really, it's just an alternative way of joining a group of chromosomes together to make a human, whether it is done by a sperm and egg after natural sex or artificially in a lab, the end result is the same.



> Lets be honest here and ask ourselves, all else being equal, would we rather have a mother and a father or would we prefer to have been raised by homosexuals ?




I am attached to my parents so wouldn't want to change anything, I could imagine growing up with two mothers or fathers I would be attached also, and wouldn't want to change anything.

It's a bit like an Australian that gets asked if they would have rather grow up in the USA most answer no, Australia is the best country to grow up in, People in the USA say the same of their country though.



> Lets be honest here and ask ourselves, all else being equal, would we rather have a mother and a father or would we prefer to have been raised by homosexuals




Also lets be honest, this child wouldn't exist any other way, If it was a choice between having two fathers or never existing in the first place, I will choose existence over non existence any day.

Existing is awesome. I am pretty stoked that the right sperm met the right egg to create me, I can't really complain about how it happened, I won a lottery that was trillions to 1 odds.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Because as you pointed out, a lot of people like the idea of having their own biological children, with this technology lesbian or homosexual couple could mother or father their own biological children.
> 
> It also gets around yours and Rumpoles objection to children not being raised with their biological parents.




My concerns are not subsets of a biological phenomenon, when I say "biological" I mean that in the broadest terms and part of that is native reproduction, with all the pump action required to consolidate success.  I suppose you could argue I'm an LP in a Compact Disc world.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Existing is awesome. I am pretty stoked that the right sperm met the right egg to create me, I can't really complain about how it happened, I won a lottery that was trillions to 1 odds.




Pft, billions of sperm are never fertilised and I don't hear them complaining. The point is the quality of life after you come into existence. I would prefer to have it the way I did.


----------



## luutzu (20 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> This is Frankenstein stuff if it's real.
> 
> Distinct male and female sexes exist for a reason. They both have different behaviours and characteristics which complement each other in a relationship and in the raising of children.
> 
> ...




I don't think the kids would care.

As long as they grew up with caring and loving parents, in a nurtured environment, I doubt any kids would ask where's the male/female parent.

All else being equal, I think children growing up in a gay marriage might turn out to be more understanding and mentally stronger adults. That is, you take two equally loving marriages - one being hetero the other homosexual... I would imagine the homosexual couple would have to put up with a lot of biases, stereotypes and discrimination to just be "normal", just to have a "normal" family.

Kids would pick up the prejudices against their parents and may grow up not to be so quick to judge; might see the mental strength and struggles their parents goes through and learn from that.

Just my opinions. But at the end of the day, gays are also human and citizens, and as such ought to have equal rights whether we like it or not. To say they can't have children because it's "bad" for the children - if it is bad and detrimental to the children, let it be judged on a case by case basis... That's why we can't just assume all heterosexual parents and marriages are automatically good for the kids.

All else equal, gay parents wanting children tend to actually want to and plan for it. There's no such thing as accidental, shotgun parenting there. When both parents plan for and desperately want to raise children, the result tend to be good for the kids being raised.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> My concerns are not subsets of a biological phenomenon, when I say "biological" I mean that in the broadest terms and part of that is native reproduction, with all the pump action required to consolidate success.




I am a bit confused by what your saying.

Are you actually saying that you don't really care so much if the child is biologically related to the parents, just so long as the child was created by a couple having natural heterosexual sex?

Any particle position? limit it to missionary maybe?

Should we outlaw conception that's done in any other sexual acts?


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> I don't think the kids would care.
> 
> As long as they grew up with caring and loving parents, in a nurtured environment, I doubt any kids would ask where's the male/female parent.
> 
> .





You think school yards don't punish the odd anymore ... fat chance.... they are where the bleeding obvious begins and the social engineering by bleeding hearts tries to counter it. It seems many succumb to the brain washing that prescribes denial of intuition.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I would prefer to have it the way I did.




But if you asked a person who had two fathers, they may say the same thing.

But my point is, if you asked the people who were created using two sperm or two eggs, are they happy they are alive or would they rather have never existed, I bet the vast majority choose existence.


----------



## luutzu (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am a bit confused by what your saying.
> 
> Are you actually saying that you don't really care so much if the child is biologically related to the parents, just so long as the child was created by a couple having natural heterosexual sex?
> 
> ...




He's old school... just in out and gone in 60 seconds. None of that foreplay and those crazy rope and leather stuff.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> You think school yards don't punish the odd anymore ... .




That's the same argument used against interracial marriages in the 60's.

You shouldn't ban things because parts of society are bigoted, otherwise we may as well ban red heads breeding.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ............. otherwise we may as well ban red heads breeding.




and you reasoning against that action is....?


----------



## luutzu (20 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> You think school yards don't punish the odd anymore ... fat chance.... they are where the bleeding obvious begins and the social engineering by bleeding hearts tries to counter it. It seems many succumb to the brain washing that prescribes denial of intuition.




Sure they'll get picked on, but bullies will always find ways and means. We can't ban gay couples from having kids because the kids might be bullied - teach those kids how to deal with bullies, or make certain the school principal talks to them about it.

To say gay couples shouldn't have kids because of this and that is like saying poor people shouldn't have kids, then prescribe that only those with x income could have y number of kids because kids costs money. Plenty of kids from poor family do perfectly fine without the private schools, trips to the zoo and summer holidays by the coast.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> and you reasoning against that action is....?




Are you actually asking me what my reasoning is against banning red heads from breeding?

Does this mean you would support a law that banned people who are likely to have red headed children breeding, due to the children having a higher chance of being bullied?


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> Sure they'll get picked on, but bullies will always find ways and means. We can't ban gay couples from having kids because the kids might be bullied - teach those kids how to deal with bullies, or make certain the school principal talks to them about it.
> 
> To say gay couples shouldn't have kids because of this and that is like saying poor people shouldn't have kids, then prescribe that only those with x income could have y number of kids because kids costs money. Plenty of kids from poor family do perfectly fine without the private schools, trips to the zoo and summer holidays by the coast.




Once again you advocate making society change its instinctive and intuitive norms to suit the aberrant behaviours of the few. How does that progress society? Tolerance does not automatically equate to good for the tribe. Imagine how far we could have leapt if we hadn't been shackled by political correctness and vilification laws, instead we have the brakes on and a public more like public servants than innovators and free thinkers.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Are you actually asking me what my reasoning is against banning red heads from breeding?
> 
> Does this mean you would support a law that banned people who are likely to have red headed children breeding, due to the children having a higher chance of being bullied?




Well....you must admit there could be some merit in the idea ...maybe we can mutate them into something more appealing that doesn't have a volatile temper and require anti-perspirant in a crowd scene. Now that's a good use for science intervention


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

Interesting attitude by Ms Rosalie Ber:



> The introduction of contraceptive technologies hasresulted in the separation of sex and procreation. Theintroduction of new reproductive technologies (mainlyIVF and embryo transfer) has led not only to theseparation of procreation and sex, but also to there-definition of the terms mother and family.For the purpose of this essay, I will distinguishbetween:1. the genetic mother – the donor of the egg;2. the gestational mother – she who bears and gives birth to the baby;3. the social mother – the woman who raises the child.This essay will deal only with the form of gestationalsurrogacy in which the genetic parents intend to bethe social parents, and the surrogate mother has nogenetic relationship to the child she bears anddelivers. I will raise questions regarding medicalethical aspects of surrogacy and the obligation(s) ofthe physician(s) to the parties involved. I will arguethat the gestational surrogate is “a womb to rent,”that there is great similarity between gestationalcommercial surrogacy and organ transplant marketing.Furthermore, despite claims to freedom of choice andfree marketing, I will claim that gestationalsurrogacy is a form of prostitution and slavery,exploitation of the poor and needy by those who arebetter off. The right to be a parent, although notconstitutional, is intuitive and deeply rooted.However, the issue remains whether this rightoverrules all other rights, and at what price to theparties involved. I will finally raise the followingprovocative question to society: In the interim periodbetween today's limited technology and tomorrow'sextra-corporeal gestation technology (ectogenesis),should utilizing females in PVS (persistent vehetativestate) for gestational surrogacy be sociallyacceptable/permissible – provided they have leftpermission in writing?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's the same argument used against interracial marriages in the 60's.
> 
> You shouldn't ban things because parts of society are bigoted, otherwise we may as well ban red heads breeding.




That's a simplistic argument that ignores all the other good reasons why children raised by homosexuals are at a disadvantage to other children.

Add it all up, and on balance it's better to have a mother and father than two mothers or two fathers. Gays want to have children so they can pretend that they are the same as everyone else. In a lot of ways they are, but not when it comes to raising children.


----------



## luutzu (20 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> Once again you advocate making society change its instinctive and intuitive norms to suit the aberrant behaviours of the few. How does that progress society? Tolerance does not automatically equate to good for the tribe. Imagine how far we could have leapt if we hadn't been shackled by political correctness and vilification laws, instead we have the brakes on and a public more like public servants than innovators and free thinkers.




A country is only as rich as its poorest, only as strong as its weakest 

If we want to live in a civil society, live among others, we ought to care for those others we live among. Why live in society, drawing strength and efficiency and protection that an ordered and organised group often give... and then ignore the need of the few and the weak among that group?

I mean, we're all selfish and self-serving so it doesn't need much to tell people to just look out for number one. But the great leap forward is not of much use if it leave many of its own behind. 

This is not just wishy washy leftist (socialist, noco?) propaganda, it make a lot of economic as well as moral and civilised sense.

Marriage equality is great progress to me.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

> Once again you advocate making society change its instinctive and intuitive norms to suit the aberrant behaviours of the few. How does that progress society?




How is anyone asking society to change?

Except for maybe asking them to stop being bigots, but that's a good thing.




> Tolerance does not automatically equate to good for the tribe



. 

Yes it does, Society is better today because it is more tolerant. Society is better because we let Blacks into universities, and we don't stone gays.





Tisme said:


> Well....you must admit there could be some merit in the idea ...maybe we can mutate them into something more appealing




No, the idea of banning read heads has no merit, and I the existence of so many gorgeous red heads mean I would be against it, lol


----------



## luutzu (20 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> Well....you must admit there could be some merit in the idea ...maybe we can mutate them into something more appealing that doesn't have a volatile temper and require anti-perspirant in a crowd scene. Now that's a good use for science intervention




oi, you might be upsetting Prince Harry. He's here flying around in our jets for some reason.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a simplistic argument that ignores all the other good reasons why children raised by homosexuals are at a disadvantage to other children.
> 
> .




All of the arguments against gay marriage have been simplistic, infact none of them actually confront gay marriage at all.

I don't really see the children as being disadvantaged, especially when the other option is not existing at all.

Lets say we spoke to you, 2 hours before your conception and we said.

"Look Rumpole, things are happening on earth and it looks like its possible you might get a chance to be born and live, but here's the thing, the genes that make you up are in two eggs, not a sperm and an egg. The only way you will be born is if the lesbian woman owning one egg has it fertilized with the chromosomes from her wife's egg, so you have a chance at life, but only if you have two mothers, did you want us to go ahead with it?"

If given that option, would you take your chance at life or be happy to fade away and never exist.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> "Look Rumpole, things are happening on earth and it looks like its possible you might get a chance to be born and live, but here's the thing, the genes that make you up are in two eggs, not a sperm and an egg. The only way you will be born is if the lesbian woman owning one egg has it fertilized with the chromosomes from her wife's egg, so you have a chance at life, but only if you have two mothers, did you want us to go ahead with it?"
> 
> If given that option, would you take your chance at life or be happy to fade away and never exist.




That's a spurious nonsensical argument. 

People don't get the choice whether to exist or not, but at a suitable age they can compare their lot in life with their peers and ask themselves if they got a better deal or not.

 If children of homosexuals would have preferred to have been bought up by heterosexuals (all else being equal), then they obviously feel deprived in some way and would, if they had any compassion would not want others to be bought up that way.


----------



## Purple XS2 (20 April 2015)

It may be true that our society has _to some extent_ separated sex from procreation.
But to suggest we embrace the notion of asexual procreation as the _equal_ of a formalised sexual relationship - marriage - is a notion that I simply do not believe has widespread support.

Easily tested of course: hold a plebiscite. After all, the homosexual rights / asexual procreation movement both believes in democracy, and has overwhelming public support, which is why they at the forefront of calls for a plebiscite ... oh ... they're not. Now why is that, I wonder?


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a spurious nonsensical argument.
> 
> People don't get the choice whether to exist or not, but at a suitable age they can compare their lot in life with their peers and ask themselves if they got a better deal or not.
> 
> If children of homosexuals would have preferred to have been bought up by heterosexuals (all else being equal), then they obviously feel deprived in some way and would, if they had any compassion would not want others to be bought up that way.




It's not a nonsensical argument, you are effectively saying that you don't want anyone who is not made of DNA from a woman and man to exist, you are saying they would be better off not existing than to have two fathers or two mothers.

To say they may look at them selves later and say, "well I would have rathered those parents, instead of these one's" is nonsensical because non of us can choose our parents, we either have the parents we have, or we don't exist.

We all get different lots in life, some rich some poor, some black some white, etc it's not different having gay parents


but humour me for a moment, what would have been your answer? Would you prefer nonexistence?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> but humour me for a moment, what would have been your answer? Would you prefer nonexistence?




I said your argument is nonsensical and it is, because in order to answer your question of whether I wanted to exist, I would already have to exist, otherwise I couldn't answer your question.

You seem to have tied yourself into a logical knot there old chap .


----------



## pixel (20 April 2015)

I had always thought that the proliferation of gays and lesbians was Nature's way to curb overpopulation. With the world on the brink of collapse because of lacking food, resources, living space - wouldn't that be preferable to putting more and more kids into the world, only to let them starve, die in squalor, or blow themselves and others up in the name of a fictitious deity that seems to love carnage?


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I said your argument is nonsensical and it is, because in order to answer your question of whether I wanted to exist, I would already have to exist, otherwise I couldn't answer your question.
> 
> You seem to have tied yourself into a logical knot there old chap .




lol, I am not in a logical knot, you just seem to be avoiding the question. It seems like an easy enough question to answer, I think you are just avoiding it because if you give the honest truth, which Would be that you would rather exist with gay parents than not exist at all, your entire argument against gays having children breaks down.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

pixel said:


> I had always thought that the proliferation of gays and lesbians was Nature's way to curb overpopulation. With the world on the brink of collapse because of lacking food, resources, living space - wouldn't that be preferable to putting more and more kids into the world, only to let them starve, die in squalor, or blow themselves and others up in the name of a fictitious deity that seems to love carnage?




Nah, gays have nothing to do with over population, they exist within all populations.

All it takes to reduce the population is for every couple that wants kids, to have no more than two children, if that was the case, the population would drift downward.


----------



## Tink (21 April 2015)

An article I posted last year.

Dr Lauren Burns talks about the rights of children to know their biological parents

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-...or-rights-of-donor-conceived-children/5661090

http://donorconceived.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/lauren-burns-donor-conceived.html


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> lol, I am not in a logical knot, you just seem to be avoiding the question. It seems like an easy enough question to answer, I think you are just avoiding it because if you give the honest truth, which Would be that you would rather exist with gay parents than not exist at all, your entire argument against gays having children breaks down.




There is no point in answering your question because you do not offer a choice that could exist in reality. No one has the option to choose whether or not they exist and under what conditions.

The proposition you put is an absurdity and therefore not worthy of an answer.

The question that those of us who do exist have to decide is whether gay parenting provides any advantage, or at least no disadvantage to children that heterosexual parenting, all else being equal gives. I think I and others have given several good reasons why it foes not.


----------



## Tisme (21 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> A country is only as rich as its poorest, only as strong as its weakest
> 
> .




I think the trap  here is thinking that somehow we have been moving to an enlightenment, when I fact we should probably look behind us and see what we have left behind or brought along with us. Australia was not the cultural backwater many pointy heads would have us believe and we have consistently been a benefactor nation to the poor  surrounding us, a net +ve migration country, shown strong restraint in putting up with waves of old world cultures with their pagan hoodoos, even allowing them to create ghetto enclaves to hide in and set up "communities" (which I totally do not subscribe to).

Back a few generations we cared about who, what and where, but it seems these days we are more concerned about not getting involved. We have been carefully crafted to agree to anything that was customarily a taboo as out moded thinking. We have even have laws to force us to agree. What is happening is an extension of the way we sit idly by and allow the Catholic Church manage  priests into pedophilia, which male on male is homosexuality, which is ironically anti Christian, no two ways about it.

No one is going to stop some men sticking their penis into another man's effluent pipe, but I don't see how that translates to special privileges because of it. Society is a majority thing and I doubt very much society agrees being verballed by a vocal minority. IMO the entertainment industry and social media has much to blame for the desensitisation of the latest generations to accepted no go zones; the few have a disproportionately big voice . Even discussion boards have become places where people no longer speak frankly and freely, but are now vehicles for individuals to get all hurt and bent out of shape because someone doesn't agree with them and their push agenda (usually looking for validation of their insecure conscience). 

There is no doubt in the near future children will be gratuitously, but legally conceived for the pleasure of homosexuals wanting to role play mum and dad. And with it will be a plethora of movies and magazine propaganda to wash our concerns away. Even homosexuals who think the gay marriage and gay parenting thing is a sham will saddle up to the tribe of bothers and sisters because they must.

Because others repetitively asserts they agree with things that go against one's instinct doesn't make that instinct wrong, if anything it galvanises one's resolve. I am steadfast in believing marriage is an invention patented for hetrosexual couples (likely to earn a few shillings for the friars and monks) and it should not be tinkered with. Personally I don't think people should marry unless they intend to start a family, but that's my view. I have major problems with allowing women to become breeding heifers and cows for the pleasure of others ; I have a major problem with IVF outside of couples who would otherwise be fertile if not for injury; I have major concerns genetically manipulating conception and; I have really gigantic concerns for the deliberate breeding/concept of children to be involuntary placed/stuck with parents who live at the fringes of society and social norms *who lack the paternal and maternal drives *that would steer them into procreating as our bodies are designed.


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

Tink said:


> An article I posted last year.
> 
> Dr Lauren Burns talks about the rights of children to know their biological parents
> 
> ...





But again Tink, what doe this have to do with Gay marriage?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> But again Tink, what doe this have to do with Gay marriage?




Slice by slice. "You have recognised our rights to marry, now recognise our 'rights' to have children".


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There is no point in answering your question because you do not offer a choice that could exist in reality. No one has the option to choose whether or not they exist and under what conditions.
> 
> .




But by banning gays from becoming biological parents to their own children, you are in fact making that decision for them, You are saying you would rather these children don't exist, than them live a life where they had gay parents.





> The question that those of us who do exist have to decide is whether gay parenting provides any advantage, or at least no disadvantage to children that heterosexual parenting, all else being equal gives.




Do you understand that the biological children of gay parents never had the option of hetero parents to begin with. It's not like if you ban gay parenting, then those children will just pop out of a heterosexual womb somewhere else.

That's the whole point of my question.


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Slice by slice. "You have recognised our rights to marry, now recognise our 'rights' to have children".




that's called the slippery slope logical fallacy bud, each topic is a separate debate.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Do you understand that the biological children of gay parents never had the option of hetero parents to begin with. It's not like if you ban gay parenting, then those children will just pop out of a heterosexual womb somewhere else.
> 
> That's the whole point of my question.




So what if some people never exist ? As I said before, billions of sperm are never fertilised and therefore never "exist" as living individuals. Should we hold memorial services for them all ?

What is important is the quality of life when people are actually given the chance of life. Gay parenting does not give the proper male/female balance and role models that the traditional form does, among other psychological side effects. 

Children raised by gay parents are being disadvantaged in comparison to those of heterosexual parents.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> that's called the slippery slope logical fallacy bud, each topic is a separate debate.




Call it what you like, it's a representation of reality.


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Call it what you like, it's a representation of reality.




everything would be banned if we allowed slippery slope arguments.

I mean we should probably ban hetero marriage, because if we allow hetero marriage then gays want marriage, and if we allow that, then people will want to marry dogs etc.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> everything would be banned if we allowed slippery slope arguments.
> 
> I mean we should probably ban hetero marriage, because if we allow hetero marriage then gays want marriage, and if we allow that, then people will want to marry dogs etc.
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope




Well, if we allow gay marriage on the condition that gays are banned from raising children, that's fine by me. 

How about you ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So what if some people never exist ? As I said before, billions of sperm are never fertilised and therefore never "exist" as living individuals. Should we hold memorial services for them all ?
> 
> .




I am fine with people never existing, offcourse it's normal that lots won't, I am here instead of a trillion others.

However, you are making a judgement, taking away the chance of a whole subgroup of potential people, because you feel only those with hetero parents will enjoy life. 



> What is important is the quality of life when people are actually given the chance of life




There is nothing that says that someone who is born to gay parents can't have a quality life, so why deny their chance. you keep saying we should deny them the chance because hetero couples are better, but even if that were true that person your denying doesn't have that as an option.


. 







> Gay parenting does not give the proper male/female balance and role models that the traditional form does, among other psychological side effects



. 

I would like to see the studies that say that, or are you just making that up?



> Children raised by gay parents are being disadvantaged in comparison to those of heterosexual parents




I don't believe they are, but even if there was a slight disadvantage, it would pale in comparison against all the other possible advantages and disadvantages children are born into.

You can not say every child born into a gay relationship is worse off than every straight relationship child.


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, if we allow gay marriage on the condition that gays are banned from raising children, that's fine by me.
> 
> How about you ?




I think each topic deserves a rational separate debate.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

> I would like to see the studies that say that, or are you just making that up?




You really need a study to work out that a child raised by two lesbians does not have a male role model parent ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You really need a study to work out that a child raised by two lesbians does not have a male role model parent ?




You need a study that would show that a child raised without a male role model is sufficiently disadvantaged to warrant us banning that child from having a chance at life.

Lots of men have been raised by females, I don't think many of them regret that they were born because of that. But anyway, generally kids have more male role models around than just their father.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> But anyway, generally kids have more male role models around than just their father.




You mean like Shane Warne and Buddy Franklin ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You mean like Shane Warne and Buddy Franklin ?




Grand fathers, uncles, cousins, neighbors, family friends, sports coaches, school teachers, members of other social groups,  the list really does go on. who says every biological father is a positive role model anyway?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Grand fathers, uncles, cousins, neighbors, family friends, sports coaches, school teachers, members of other social groups,  the list really does go on. who says every biological father is a positive role model anyway?




Who says a homosexual father/mother is a positive role model anyway ? 

And you seem to suggest that people on the periphery of ones family are just as effective role models than a person the child sees most of the time.

You are being PC for the sake of it. If you believe what you say then you think it should be fine to give up your children to be raised by sports coaches while you have nothing further to do with them. Would you really do that ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Who says a homosexual father/mother is a positive role model anyway ?
> 
> ?




Not me, your the one trying to define who we can and can't accept, and what sort of role models children need.

I am happy to say that I have no reason to believe two mothers or two fathers can not raise well rounded children. 



> And you seem to suggest that people on the periphery of ones family are just as effective role models than a person the child sees most of the time.




Who knows every situation is different, 



> You are being PC for the sake of it. If you believe what you say then *you think it should be fine to give up your children to be raised by sports coaches while you have nothing further to do with them. Would you really do that*




Your just being silly there.

your logical fallacy is - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

And I suppose its not a straw man to demand I choose between non-existence and gay parents ?


----------



## luutzu (21 April 2015)

Has it gotten to "save the children"?

These kids with gay parents doesn't seem to need any help.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> Has it gotten to "save the children"?
> 
> These kids with gay parents doesn't seem to need any help.





I haven't watched it but you can bet that the PC brigade won't put up anything that harms their cause.

And at the age those kids are, they wouldn't know any different anyway.


----------



## Value Collector (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And I suppose its not a straw man to demand I choose between non-existence and gay parents ?




no it's not a straw man.

You were making the point that we shouldn't allow the possibility that these kids exist because their parents are gay. I was simply trying to get you to ask yourself if you were in that position which you would prefer, mandatory non existence or a chance to live, but with gay parents.


----------



## luutzu (21 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think the trap  here is thinking that somehow we have been moving to an enlightenment, when I fact we should probably look behind us and see what we have left behind or brought along with us. Australia was not the cultural backwater many pointy heads would have us believe and we have consistently been a benefactor nation to the poor  surrounding us, a net +ve migration country, shown strong restraint in putting up with waves of old world cultures with their pagan hoodoos, even allowing them to create ghetto enclaves to hide in and set up "communities" (which I totally do not subscribe to).
> 
> Back a few generations we cared about who, what and where, but it seems these days we are more concerned about not getting involved. We have been carefully crafted to agree to anything that was customarily a taboo as out moded thinking. We have even have laws to force us to agree. What is happening is an extension of the way we sit idly by and allow the Catholic Church manage  priests into pedophilia, which male on male is homosexuality, which is ironically anti Christian, no two ways about it.
> 
> ...




It's fine to believe that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman; that children ought to be raised in a "traditional" family with a father and a mother... and if you believe that and think that works best, no one ought to tell you otherwise. I'm fine with it, but if I or others are not, that's our problem.

I actually think my kids benefit greatly with a "father figure" like yours truly, ahem, but others might think differently, and others, gay or otherwise, also think they too could be as awesome. Let them try I'd say 


Society evolves, cultural norms evolve. I personally think it's a sign of progress when minority groups within society are given equal rights and privileges as the rest of society. Don't see why they shouldn't when they too are citizens, pay their share of taxes, do what they can to contribute to society.

Life's already full of obstacles and challenges, there's no need to pile more of it on some to make them "normal" like us or the majority of us.

What people do in their bedroom, their living room, their kitchen, their basement, haha... is their business. And if we're uncomfortable if it's male on male or female on female, let them have children and that **** will stop pronto.

And if gay parents are harmful to children - in terms of they abuse, mentally or physically harm the kids - there are laws that deal with that. Traditional marriage and parenting does not guarantee healthy kids, same with wealth or poverty being good or bad for children... case by case seems fair.


I think you're also concern with the vocal minority demanding obedience and accommodation from the majority... what with the gay pride parade, or some people pushing their gayness in our faces... I guess some people just do things like that - some show their gayness like it's everybody's business, others wear $10,000 Apple Watches to show they're rich idiots; Some pride parade is not just about weird stuff, but raising awareness... telling those homosexual who's confused or afraid that it's OK to be yourself etc.


----------



## luutzu (21 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I haven't watched it but you can bet that the PC brigade won't put up anything that harms their cause.
> 
> And at the age those kids are, they wouldn't know any different anyway.




There's a girl in there that said it's a bit weird, others are fine with it... Sure these kids might be teased at school... and maybe need to confront questions of sexuality earlier than other kids. So it might make them stronger, more tolerant kids.. might turn some completely the other way. Just like kids from any marriages or parents - some rich and privileged kids "betray" their class and want to help the poor; some poor kids who made it rich put their noses up those who didn't "make it".


----------



## bellenuit (2 May 2015)




----------



## noco (2 May 2015)

Gay marriage is a contentious point between Shorten and his deputy Tania Plebersek...It will be interesting to see who wins this battle.


----------



## Tisme (3 May 2015)

noco said:


> Gay marriage is a contentious point between Shorten and his deputy Tania Plebersek...It will be interesting to see who wins this battle.




Like the Liberal Party has betrayed its foundation roots because of Roman Catholic dominance, so will the Labor Party under the influence of the Pleberseks, whose cultural roots are far from the Anglo Scottish founders' who pursued labour reform and worker welfare .


----------



## noco (3 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> Like the Liberal Party has betrayed its foundation roots because of Roman Catholic dominance, so will the Labor Party under the influence of the Pleberseks, whose cultural roots are far from the Anglo Scottish founders' who pursued labour reform and worker welfare .




To the best of my knowledge the Liberal National Party believe in a conscience vote...The Green/Labor Party are all over the shop and cannot agree amongst themselves....You have Tania Plebersek saying one thing while her leader is out of the country and when Shorten returns he disagrees with her.

If Plebersek wins by insisting there is a block in the Labor Party and if one or more Labor MP's cross the floor, will they be expelled for pushing their own barrow?...Also if she gets her way, won't that weaken Bill Shorten's hold on power?..Under the circumstances what would happen if Bill Shorten crossed the floor in what he believes in or will he back down like a wimp?

Who in the Liberal Party are Roman Catholics...Can you name them?


----------



## explod (3 May 2015)

noco said:


> Who in the Liberal Party are Roman Catholics...Can you name them?




Mr Abbot the rabbit.


----------



## orr (3 May 2015)

noco said:


> Gay marriage is a contentious point between Shorten and his deputy Tania Plebersek...It will be interesting to see who wins this battle.




Contentious in the sense that if the numbers dictate on Shortens side he'll feel pressured, where as Plebesek has her own moral compass.
Contention is what is obvious between the Bernardi Andrews block of the Liberal party, who's preference would be to stone to death the proposed nuptial partners and others still not stuck in the dark ages(be it  the few) .


----------



## bellenuit (3 May 2015)

I found this post on FB in relation to Ireland's upcoming referendum.  I think it deserves reposting here.....




J_oey Teehan
Why I am voting “Yes” on May 22nd
This photograph was taken 7-years ago at a party in a friends bowling alley. It is the first picture taken of Myself & Donal. I was 23 and he was 24. We were dating for a month at the time. I didn’t know at that stage how close we would get but I thought he was the most handsome man I had ever seen in my life. We had everything in common (except Masterchef. It’s terrible). He is the most important person in my life. For those who don’t know him, Donal is a dentist from Castleknock. He is the most intelligent and the funniest person that i know.

I wasn’t always as happy as I am today with Donal. Growing up gay in Kilkenny was really hard, especially in the school system. You have no support. You are completely alone. In the halls in Kieran’s College, “Bender, Fag, Queer, Puff“ were part of normal student conversation. I spent most of my teen years living in constant fear of being abandoned by my family or my friends. This made me very suicidal. You grow up knowing you are the worst thing in the world you could possibly be. This has huge mental health effects on gay teens and who are: five times more likely to be medicated for depression; two and a half times more likely to self harm; and at least three times more likely to attempt suicide.

I’m a tough person. I can handle most of the crap that comes with being gay. When it comes to marrying Donal though I draw the line. I will not let opponents of same-sex marriage get away with spreading lies and fear about something so important to us. Gay people have all been through enough and frankly we are tired. I have decided to address issues that some people may have with gay couples.

The first argument against same-sex marriage is that of same-sex parenting. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with the vote in May, despite what posters might try to suggest. The subject has already been addressed by the introduction of the Children And Families Right’s Bill. But I am not afraid to discuss it.

“Think of The Children”
Not being able to have children is really hard. Especially when we would make such great parents. One after the other we watch our friends have children. And we are very happy for them. They have amazing kids and we are so lucky to be part of their lives. When someone tells you they're expecting a child, I get excited for them. But there’s an ache in your heart because you can never do the same. And it seems so easy. Sometimes they don’t even have to try. : ) Being alone with Donal the rest of my life does not scare me. But it is not what is in our hearts. We worry about what might happen as we get older. I never wanted to be surrounded by material things. I wanted to be surrounded by a family; my family. We worry about being left behind as our friends move on with their lives. Do we sound like a same-sex couple? Or just a couple who can’t have children?

Just because same-sex parenting is unfamiliar, it does not make it wrong. A total of 71 studies have shown that same-sex couples are just as good at raising children as opposite-sex couples. There are 4 studies against same-sex parenting. Unfortunately we cannot make everyone in the country read these studies. After removing the discredited research the remainder prove that what a child needs is a stable, safe, loving family environment. A good parent fulfills the needs of their child, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. The sex or sexual orientation of parents has zero effect on the upbringing of that child.

So convincing is the argument for same-sex parenting that the Adoption Authority of Ireland, The Ombudsman for Children, Children’s Rights Alliance, Barnardos, ISPCC, and the Society of Social Workers all strongly support same-sex adoption and marriage. And those are all organisations that have read their research. When a child is being adopted the needs of the child must always come first. Choosing the best parents to fulfill the needs of that child is what’s important. Not the sexual orientation of the parents.

Any couple that make it through the adoption process deserve to be parents. And any gay couple that are lucky enough to be allowed to adopt would love that child more than anything else in the world. Gay couples have to make a real effort to become parents. It does not just happen. There are no accidents. They have to really want children, like any other adopting couple.

But studies will probably not convince the public about same-sex parenting because it is unfamiliar. And what is unfamiliar can be scary. And this makes it very easy for opponents to spread fear about such an important issue. It will take stories from children of same-sex parents and visibility of same-sex families to change this.

“Marriage is for Procreation”
The second argument against same-sex marriage is that “Marriage is for procreation.” Should we screen-test couples to see if they can procreate before they get married? Should we ban older people from getting married or remarried after a partner dies? Marriage is not just about having children, it’s about who you want to spend the rest of your life with. Having children is a huge bonus for those who are lucky enough to have that privilege, but that is not the reason why we enter into marriage. Marriage is about companionship. Having that person beside you “till death do you part, through thick and thin, in sickness and in health.” All the time. They are your family. When you end up in the emergency room, terrified something really bad has happened to you, it’s Donal I want there. Not anyone else. That’s what marriage is about.

“Allowing Gay People To Marry will Redefine Marriage”
Cynthia Nixon put it best. “Gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the right to vote, they did not redefine voting. When the African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter, alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table”.

“It’s ok to Treat Different Situations Differently”
So why is it that we treat gay couples so differently? Is it because they cannot procreate? Lots of people cannot have children. Is it because they are unable to raise a loving family? Is it because it will redefine marriage? Or is it because of the deep rooted fear of gay people that has been built into our religions and culture?

Growing up I wondered how black people in America were treated so poorly. How did some white people not have empathy for people with a different skin colour? How did they treat them that way. Why did they do those things to them? Why did they have no rights? Why was slavery accepted? The truth is that people genuinely thought that black people were less than everyone else, or worse; that they wanted to believe that black people were less. Only looking back do we really know how wrong that was. We will look back at the gay rights movement in exactly the same way. But the difference is that we do not have a different skin colour sitting at the back of the bus, but a different sexuality, and this is happening right now. Today. And you have the opportunity to change it.

“They Already Have Civil Partnerships, Why Do They Want Marriage?”
I have one question. Would you swap your marriage for a civil partnership?

On October 22nd Donal and I will be signing into a civil partnership. I will have very mixed feelings that day signing that piece of paper. I did not get excited when civil partnerships came in. There was no celebration. It’s a piece of paper that says that we are less than everybody else. 166 ways we are treated differently for no good reason. None. No-one dreams of having a civil partnership. It’s a separate drinking fountain. On that day, I hope to know that we will be among the last couples that will ever have to sign it. It will be a closed chapter in Ireland’s history, and we will look back and wonder why Ireland was so backwards then.

The Reality
Gay people are only 4% of the population. We really are a minority. It is straight people that will be deciding if we get to enter into marriage or not. And those straight people will never fully understand what it is like to be a gay person, but I hope this letter helps you to understand a little.

Voting ‘Yes’ on May 22nd will make Ireland a better place. It will send a message to the gay people of Ireland that they are valued. It will make it a more inclusive place for couples like Donal and me. It will give kids in schools hope for the future. It will mean your children won’t be treated differently because of their genes. It will slowly aid in ending the fear and homophobia experienced on the streets. It would mean the world to be able to get married to the man I love and finally be treated the way that we deserve to be treated in this country.

If you have any questions please do not be afraid to send me a private message.

Joey._


----------



## Tink (4 May 2015)

Bellenuit, with the referendum in Ireland, the Yes and the No would both be putting their views across on the word - Marriage.

Good on them for taking it to a referendum.

I still want to know why they feel they have to force this sexual lifestyle on the children through schools, and how marriage is taught.
There are plenty in society that pay taxes and can't get married, as I mentioned in another post.
If they think ONLY religious people are against the word marriage being changed, they are mistaken.

I hope the NO voters stick to their values and truth, and don't get threatened and bullied as I have seen here.
That has happened and is still happening in Europe, when people express a different view, even when they are gay.
Boycotts etc. 
The gays are argueing between themselves on whether marriage should be changed, and/or whether they should be allowed surrogacy. 
The gays should be allowed to express that view if they are against.

Freedom of speech is a right for all, not just some.

Rather than trying to force people to agree with Gay Marriage, they should be convincing the public why its better for society than what has been in place for many years.


----------



## Value Collector (4 May 2015)

Tink said:


> I still want to know why they feel they have to force this sexual lifestyle on the children through schools, and how marriage is taught.
> 
> .




Who is forcing "this sexual lifestyle" in schools?



> There are plenty in society that pay taxes and can't get married.




Such as?



> Rather than trying to force people to agree with Gay Marriage, they should be convincing the public why its better for society than what has been in place for many years




No one is trying to force people to agree, they are trying to get equal rights, you don't have to agree with it. I don't agree with smoking, but it's not up to me to ban it.

You can disagree with inter racial marriage till your heart is content, but you have no right to stop it.



"Homosexuality is not just a form of sex, its a form of love, and deserves our respect for that reason"
Christopher Hitchens


----------



## Atari rose (5 May 2015)

I'm against this Gay marriage not because of two people getting together but we must remain extremely clear with regards to the law.

I have been nfloowing the American stories of gay people not being allowed to stay in people guest houses etc or I think the most recent was refusing to bake a gay couple a cake on the grounds of religion.

Now not being religious or gay I can stand back and take the sides
There needs to be protection for people who don't believe or appreciate the lifestyle choices of others. The US has gone about this the wrong way but hopefully should get there sooner or latter.

There needs to be extremely clear laws regarding children. 

There needs to be laws on breakups. 

Until I see some sort of framework regarding the laws involved and how they change compared to other people then the feel good PC brigade can go to hell.


----------



## Value Collector (5 May 2015)

Atari rose said:


> There needs to be protection for people who don't believe or appreciate the lifestyle choices of others. The US has gone about this the wrong way but hopefully should get there sooner or latter.
> .




what do you mean by this?

Are you saying people should have the right to discriminate?

If you are running a business that provides a service to the public, the law should not allow you to refuse service to a customer based on their race, gender, sexuality etc. any situation in which you think it would be ok to deny service to a gay man or woman, try thinking would you deny the service to a person based on race, if you know it would be racist to deny the same service based on race, then you should understand it's wrong to deny it based on sexuality.

In the bakery situation, if the lady sells wedding cakes, she would be within her rights to say "we don't stock any gay wedding cake statues/ toppers, you'll have to provide that yourself. but if a gay couple walks in and picks a cake from the range she ordinarily supplies, then she should serve them, their sexuality is irrelevant. 




> There needs to be laws on breakups



. 

Recognising gay marriage would actually provide a lot of clarity in this area.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 May 2015)

> If you are running a business that provides a service to the public, the law should not allow you to refuse service to a customer based on their race, gender, sexuality etc. any situation in which you think it would be ok to deny service to a gay man or woman, try thinking would you deny the service to a person based on race, if you know it would be racist to deny the same service based on race, then you should understand it's wrong to deny it based on sexuality.




Yes, you and I may think this is wrong to discriminate on any basis, however if we believe in freedom of religion (and you have said many times that you do), don't businesses have the right to deny service to people they disapprove of on religious grounds ?

After all, there are most likely a lot of other places that people could go to get the services, and personally I would not want to deal with a business who looked down on me for some reason beyond my control.


----------



## Tisme (5 May 2015)

noco said:


> Who in the Liberal Party are Roman Catholics...Can you name them?




Yep. The real question is who isn't = Julie Bishop.

You can start with the obvious and work down simply by using your keyboard

e.g. Abbott, Joyce, etc

I think Menzies (the actual true Liberal Party) had only one team Catholic in the lower house.

Of course the Catholic takeover of the Labs was completed around the late 80'S.

Good reading is to compare the party planks and policies of fifty years ago to now. Clearly both parties are ghosts of their original agendas.


----------



## Tisme (5 May 2015)

Atari rose said:


> I have been nfloowing the American stories of gay people not being allowed to stay in people guest houses etc or I think the most recent was refusing to bake a gay couple a cake on the grounds of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Until I see some sort of framework regarding the laws involved and how they change compared to other people then the feel good PC brigade can go to hell.




Yes well I think Daniel explained in his own unique way why people like me disinfect everything in a hotel room when travelling. Putting human faeces over everything including door knobs and remotes because of some fetish to insert things in clacker valves ain't my idea of garnering equality.

This is from Daniel's TV show as seen on Fox


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0hlZqkhQCI


----------



## Value Collector (5 May 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, you and I may think this is wrong to discriminate on any basis, however if we believe in freedom of religion (and you have said many times that you do), don't businesses have the right to deny service to people they disapprove of on religious grounds ?
> 
> After all, there are most likely a lot of other places that people could go to get the services, and personally I would not want to deal with a business who looked down on me for some reason beyond my control.




No, freedom of religion does not give the right to discriminate if you are running a business that is open to the general public, if you wish to pick and choose your clientele in a discriminating manner, simply be upfront about it, and run your business as a club that requires membership.

it's funny that they pick to discriminate against gay marriages though, but are fine serving people who are divorced or whereing mixed fabrics since both of these are banned too.

In a lot of places you simply can't go to another business, imagine a gay person trying to live in a smallish country town, if people were aloud to refuse him service based on the sexuality he was born with, he might not be able to buy petrol or food.


----------



## Value Collector (5 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yes well I think Daniel explained in his own unique way why people like me disinfect everything in a hotel room when travelling. Putting human faeces over everything including door knobs and remotes because of some fetish to insert things in clacker valves ain't my idea of garnering equality.
> 
> This is from Daniel's TV show as seen on Fox
> 
> ...




What's that got to do with gay marriage?


----------



## qldfrog (5 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No, freedom of religion does not give the right to discriminate if you are running a business that is open to the general public, if you wish to pick and choose your clientele in a discriminating manner, simply be upfront about it, and run your business as a club that requires membership.



on a pure logical point I agree, BUT PC now forbids these restrictions;
See the rage against men only older establishment clubs...
What do you think will happen if you decide to open a white only bar in a city, with nice clear signage?
PC is ruling, you can have a gay or women only association, no a white male.
This is why it is hard to logically have any argument on this subject as well as on many other as PC has just move the imbalance from what was established 100y ago to a new imbalance;
Some are more equal than other: used to be the  white alpha man, 
now it is a mix of skin colour, sex and sexual (but non all) orientation.
In antique greece, pedophilia was a standard: young males (aka teenage years) were being mentored  into adulthood;
Now what do you think would be the reaction to promoting within the state institutions pedophile adoption?

And isn't pedophilia just a sexual orientation after all?

Rage and passion have taken this and many other society debates to a level where logic and common sense can not even be heard.

Apologies VC, as i just realised that  twice recently replied and gave opposing views, nothing personal there!
I share some of your views too


----------



## qldfrog (5 May 2015)

now, back as to why I clicked on that thread:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/its-about-a-fair-go-alan-joyce-on-samesex-marriage-20150504-1na7am.html
I found it so ironic
Alan Joyce in the same sentence as "A fair go";
In my view: AJ is an overpaid buffon who managed to finish one of our last national icon.
Fair go


----------



## Tisme (5 May 2015)

qldfrog said:


> now, back as to why I clicked on that thread:
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/its-about-a-fair-go-alan-joyce-on-samesex-marriage-20150504-1na7am.html
> I found it so ironic
> Alan Joyce in the same sentence as "A fair go";
> ...




Yes I wonder if he plays the G card whenever the daggers are drawn.


----------



## Tisme (5 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> What's that got to do with gay marriage?




It was relative to the post I was responding to. Insofar as the topic the participants are pretty much same crew with the same intransigent polar views who sometimes desire to be contrary to targeted members... don't you think? 

Some of us think the whole idea of gay marriage is a lampoon on natural customs and sexual drive and an abomination to our primal being as a race and the midichlorians. Of course there will always be aberrant behaviours within any community and there will always be those who make themselves the social conscience (see also new Labor doctrines) to defend those afflicted with whatever mental deficiency drives those behaviours, whatever they may be.

Deep down you know I speak the truth Luke.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No, freedom of religion does not give the right to discriminate if you are running a business that is open to the general public, if you wish to pick and choose your clientele in a discriminating manner, simply be upfront about it, and run your business as a club that requires membership.




Fine by me. I take it you have no opposition to men only clubs or women only clubs ?
Or even no Jews, blacks or gays clubs ?

Apparently these have also been banned by anti discrimination legislation.


----------



## qldfrog (5 May 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Fine by me. I take it you have no opposition to men only clubs or women only clubs ?
> Or even no Jews, blacks or gays clubs ?
> 
> Apparently these have also been banned by anti discrimination legislation.



was my point, anyway, i do not have much time for that debate:
when an overpopulated world is crumbling, a local economy leading for the wall, you would think that bored and idled people looking for a cause could at least fight for some worthwhile causes;
there are plenty.


----------



## Value Collector (5 May 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Fine by me. I take it you have no opposition to men only clubs or women only clubs ?
> Or even no Jews, blacks or gays clubs ?
> 
> Apparently these have also been banned by anti discrimination legislation.




I have no problem with clubs catering to certain groups either, especially if they are invitation only or very exclusive membership, some groups boarder on public establishments, these may cause issues, especially if the club is not open as to its membership requirements.

eg. I have no problem with a club which is openly a Men's club, with applications open to the public refusing a women, But if they refuse a man because he is black, that's wrong, unless they are openly stating they are a white mans club.

But basically if you are a business that's open to the public, you have a responsibility to serve anyone wishing to buy your products, unless there is legal restrictions on the products eg Guns and alcohol.


----------



## Value Collector (5 May 2015)

qldfrog said:


> Now what do you think would be the reaction to promoting within the state institutions pedophile adoption?
> 
> And isn't pedophilia just a sexual orientation after all?




Paedophilia causes harm and generates a victim it's rape, So there is no comparison between it and a relationship between two consenting adults. we don't ban hetero marriage because of paedophilia or rape, so it's not a reason to ban gay marriage either.

We do not allow children to partake in many adult activities, smoking, drinking, driving etc, Sexual activity is not different.


----------



## Value Collector (5 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> It was relative to the post I was responding to. Insofar as the topic the participants are pretty much same crew with the same intransigent polar views who sometimes desire to be contrary to targeted members... don't you think?




Well, if your worries about having poo in your hotel room, it would be better to ban couples traveling with young children, they are far more likely to leave a mess. 

I do find it weird that people preoccupy themselves with what gays do in the bedroom, but probably don't think about the potential acts or fetishes of straight couples.  



> Some of us think the whole idea of gay marriage is a lampoon on natural customs and sexual drive and an abomination to our primal being as a race and the midichlorians.




Well it's not, so don't worry about it.



> Deep down you know I speak the truth Luke.




On this topic, I actually think you speak a lot of bigoted nonsense.


----------



## bellenuit (5 May 2015)

qldfrog said:


> And isn't pedophilia just a sexual orientation after all?




No it isn't, it is a psychiatric disorder.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children


----------



## Uncle Festivus (5 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I do find it weird that people preoccupy themselves with what gays do in the bedroom, but probably don't think about the potential acts or fetishes of straight couples.




Don't you find anal sex disgusting?


----------



## Tisme (5 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Well, if your worries about having poo in your hotel room, it would be better to ban couples traveling with young children, they are far more likely to leave a mess.
> 
> I do find it weird that people preoccupy themselves with what gays do in the bedroom, but probably don't think about the potential acts or fetishes of straight couples.
> 
> ...




Of course the old "bigot" tag; almost as good as the "nazi" tag given mods. You don't suppose you are being a bigot by calling me out for my view that differ from yours, yet mine are in the majority? And yes I am aware that babies poo and as a rule their damage is cleaned up by parents with necessary doses of 'Milton' or whatever is used these days; and if you had looked at the vid it was not homosexual behaviour Tosh was sampling.

I concerns me you don't seem to take hygiene seriously and are prepared for others to suffer illness by exposing them to septic environs.


----------



## qldfrog (5 May 2015)

bellenuit said:


> No it isn't, it is a psychiatric disorder.
> 
> Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children



well isn't it applied in australia to any sex between adult and under aged/minor?
I would have been quite happy to have sex with some 20ish in my 16th;
anyway, not a subject i do find any value except rants from PC hordes.
Discrimination against gay, yes I can fight against, but gay marriage when you can have legal civil union is just a semantic point


----------



## Value Collector (5 May 2015)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Don't you find anal sex disgusting?




Not really, it's not something my wife and I do, but I am not disgusted by the thought of it.

If you're disgusted by it then don't have it, simple as that, don't sit around thinking about other couples bedroom activities.

but anal sex isn't limited to gay men, hetero couples have anal sex as well, not to mention a range of other activities which do disgust me, but each to their own, if it makes them happy and doesn't harm others, Go for it.

If I owned a hotel and a gay couple checked in, I wouldn't be sitting there day dreaming about them having anal sex, and I can't see why anyone else would. A lot of gay couples don't even have much anal sex, I have heard blow jobs and mutual masturbation are more popular.


----------



## Value Collector (5 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> Of course the old "bigot" tag; almost as good as the "nazi" tag given mods. You don't suppose you are being a bigot by calling me out for my view that differ from yours, yet mine are in the majority? And yes I am aware that babies poo and as a rule their damage is cleaned up by parents with necessary doses of 'Milton' or whatever is used these days; and if you had looked at the vid it was not homosexual behaviour Tosh was sampling.




 even if your views were the majority, that's just an argument from popularity fallacy, it means nothing, but it won't be that way for long, the generation that holds your view is dying off, they younger generation is much more supportive of gay rights.

.


> I concerns me you don't seem to take hygiene seriously and are prepared for others to suffer illness by exposing them to septic environs




It concerns me that you think any environment that a gay couple has inhabitited is septic.


----------



## Value Collector (5 May 2015)

qldfrog said:


> well isn't it applied in australia to any sex between adult and under aged/minor?
> I would have been quite happy to have sex with some 20ish in my 16th;
> anyway, not a subject i do find any value except rants from PC hordes.




Two slightly different things, the legal definition is based on age (there has to be a legal line in the sand), but the psychological condition different, it's about being attracted to prepubescent boys or girls.

Eg, A 19 could technically be convicted of paedophila if he had sex with a fully developped 15 year old, even though she is of breeding age. you and I should both be able to agree that it is a far cry from having sex with a 5 year old.



> Discrimination against gay, yes I can fight against, but gay marriage when you can have legal civil union is just a semantic poinT




If it's just a semantic point, why have the two classes?

It's a bit like saying "yes I can fight for equal rights for blacks, but when blacks can ride in the back of the bus, having them fight for the right to sit at the front is just a semantic point"


----------



## Tisme (6 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> .
> 
> 
> It concerns me that you think any environment that a gay couple has inhabitited is septic.




Do you have any idea of the promiscuity and acts that homosexuals get up to? You seem very naÃ¯ve or blinkered, which astounds me given your apparent ability to hold a reasonable argument on other matters.

Only 2% of them have something approaching monogamy
50% have more encounters in a lifetime with different men than there are days in a year
30% have more "partners"  than there days in three years

This nothing to do with bigotry or hysteria. Homosexuals are by and large preoccupied by the thrill of the chase and the forbidden fruit nature of their acts. I'm sure many have convinced themselves that marriage is for them, but it seems to run counter to the liberal nature of their desires for multiple liasons.

You want to ignore the rates of herpes, hepC, hepB, CMV and any other venereal diseases that hang around the homosexual community  in defence of fringe dwellers, while ignobly ignoring the health and welfare of the majority it seems. 

I can't help but think you defend gay marriage and homosexuality in general because it's a cause you have welded yourself to from whatever trigger (underdog, vilification, protest, etc), but can't bring yourself to confront the general behaviours and mindsets of homosexuals and the risks they pose to a myriad of social and health issues.


----------



## bellenuit (6 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Eg, A 19 could technically be convicted of paedophila if he had sex with a fully developped 15 year old, even though she is of breeding age. you and I should both be able to agree that it is a far cry from having sex with a 5 year old.




Are you sure? Isn't that just statutory rape not paedophilia?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 May 2015)

bellenuit said:


> No it isn't, it is a psychiatric disorder.
> 
> Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children




So pedophiles should be in mental asylums not prisons ?

I think that's a good idea as they can be kept indefinitely untill they are deemed "cured", unlike prisons where they have to be let out at some stage, probably to continue their crimes.


----------



## Value Collector (6 May 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Are you sure? Isn't that just statutory rape not paedophilia?




it all comes down to the legal definitions of the individual state / country.

My point is, that what is "psychological paedophilia"  and what is legal paedophilia is two different things.

I think we have all (especially as younger men) seen a girl and thought "gee she's looking pretty sexy" only to find out she is under age, now there is a social stigma to admitting you find a younger girl attractive, but it is quite normal to be attracted to a girl if she is fully developed, this is very, very different, from a guy who finds girls (or boys) attractive that are un developed,


----------



## Value Collector (6 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> Do you have any idea of the promiscuity.




probably the same amount as most young men would, if they could find willing female participants. But how is that any of our business?



> and acts that homosexuals get up to?




you seem naÃ¯ve if you think heterosexual couples don't also do a whole host of crazy acts. However just like in the hetero sexual community, I think the really crazy stuff is in the minority.




> Only 2% of them have something approaching monogamy




So what? If you want more monogamy, then you should be supporting gay marriage and accepting their right to have family's they can commit to.



> 50% have more encounters in a lifetime with different men than there are days in a year




Most straight men would if they could also. 



> This nothing to do with bigotry or hysteria.




I disagree, you seem completely hysterical on this topic.



> You want to ignore the rates of herpes, hepC, hepB, CMV and any other venereal diseases that hang around the homosexual community  in defence of fringe dwellers, while ignobly ignoring the health and welfare of the majority it seems.




Those diseases are not limited to the gay community.  



> I can't help but think you defend gay marriage and homosexuality in general because it's a cause you have welded yourself to from whatever trigger (underdog, vilification, protest, etc), but can't bring yourself to confront the general behaviours and mindsets of homosexuals and the risks they pose to a myriad of social and health issues




I defend them because I believe treating people equally, allowing people freedom to choose their own life style makes the country better


----------



## qldfrog (6 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> it all comes down to the legal definitions of the individual state / country.
> 
> My point is, that what is "psychological paedophilia"  and what is legal paedophilia is two different things.
> 
> I think we have all (especially as younger men) seen a girl and thought "gee she's looking pretty sexy" only to find out she is under age, now there is a social stigma to admitting you find a younger girl attractive, but it is quite normal to be attracted to a girl if she is fully developed, this is very, very different, from a guy who finds girls (or boys) attractive that are un developed,



Agree but the law is only looking at the age figure, remember berlusconi and the 17y old prostitute;
Hard to see that as pedophilia
anyway, we are getting distracted, and my point is that I am 100% sure that the battle for gay marriage is not about the marriage but what is currently linked to marriage  in 100's of law, and I believe especially adoption, and donating mother.
But anyway, to each his own battle just sad to see all that media mess and involvement for such a subject 
and everyday children and women are raped and executed by IS and gays are bashed and murdered in countless countries (Africa, middle east, indonesia)
But easier to shout and agitate for gay marriage here than fight these real issues


----------



## Uncle Festivus (7 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> even if your views were the majority, that's just an argument from popularity fallacy, it means nothing, but it won't be that way for long, the generation that holds your view is dying off, they younger generation is much more supportive of gay rights.




Well no, it's just that there are laws against free speech these days? Privately, the views expressed by most are somewhat different to the inner city latte set and talking heads, air kissing society types who frequent TV and self appoint themselves as societies moral compass that we must all agree with?



Tisme said:


> Do you have any idea of the promiscuity and acts that homosexuals get up to? You seem very naÃ¯ve or blinkered, which astounds me given your apparent ability to hold a reasonable argument on other matters.




et al good points/post


----------



## Atari rose (7 May 2015)

Gay Marriage and the death of freedom?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australi...390702/gay-marriage-and-the-death-of-freedom/


----------



## Value Collector (7 May 2015)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Well no, it's just that there are laws against free speech these days? Privately, the views expressed by most are somewhat different to the inner city latte set and talking heads, air kissing society types who frequent TV and self appoint themselves as societies moral compass that we must all agree with?




Which laws would stop you stating your opinion on gay marriage?


----------



## Value Collector (7 May 2015)

Atari rose said:


> Gay Marriage and the death of freedom?
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/australi...390702/gay-marriage-and-the-death-of-freedom/




Tell me, how exactly does two individuals getting married infringe on your rights or cause you to lose an ounce of freedom?

If there was a ceremony right now, and two lesbians were married and their relationship recognised as a legal marriage, what single freedom do you currently posses that would be taken away by their marriage?

I call bs on your statement.

It's simple, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have a gay marriage, but don't make up a bogus story about how it infringes on your rights in some way.

I have still not heard a single valid argument hear against it.


----------



## Tink (8 May 2015)

Yes, the lefts new social engineering, Atari rose. 

*Rights over responsibilities.*

They forgot to mention the gays that voiced their opinion, that were ostracised, and their business boycott.
Not even gays are allowed to talk unless it's what they want to hear.

It seems that intolerance and the urge to persecute are endemic in human nature. 
Rather than reacting to criticism and arguments with counter-arguments and an ultimate willingness to agree to differ, some authoritarian people attempt to penalise their critics by harming them economically with a boycott, or (as recently in the UK) by trying to dismiss them from their jobs and ensure that they are barred from future employment, or by requiring them to act against their conscience.

It is already happening here, Atari rose, as the PC hordes control the media and what we are allowed to say.

People have been speaking out more after the ABC interviewed those two gay guys that had expressed how hard done by they were for not being able to get married and have children, yet that child in the story was being abused around the world.

We will hear a lot more of that, and learn that the era of liberation was not always so good for those who never asked to be liberated, hence the children.

Destroy the family, Marriage, the fabric that keeps society together, so that anything goes.
We now have problems with paedophile rings, child pornography which is rampant.

The equality achieved will be - we will all be reduced to the level of animals.

I have still not heard a single valid argument for it, VC.


----------



## Tisme (8 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Destroy the family, Marriage, the fabric that keeps society together, so that anything goes.
> We now have problems with paedophile rings, child pornography which is rampant.
> 
> The equality achieved will be - we will all be reduced to the level of animals.
> ...




You could always just forget about morals, comfort zones, religion, social cohesion, etc and take a homosexual under your wings and protect him from the big bad people who don't like their customs and traditions eroded. As part of the majority, you apparently have an obligation to embrace the poor unfortunates and defend them (a kinda perverse discrimination that polarises the community and consolidates the disdain).

The danger is when the majority finally have enough of the fad and object in numbers, Hollywood will wheel out more propaganda films to counter the threat to its (largely) immoral acting retinue. Tiresome social engineering flicks that keep the 1%ers in the darling group and food on the table for the actors who oblige.


----------



## Value Collector (8 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Destroy the family, Marriage, the fabric that keeps society together, so that anything goes.
> We now have problems with paedophile rings, child pornography which is rampant.
> 
> The equality achieved will be - we will all be reduced to the level of animals.
> ...




So how would allowing to Women to marry destroy your family? 

How would allowing to women to marry be reducing U.S. To the level of animals?

The most simple argument for gay marriage is that freedom should always be preferred to no freedom, we shouldn't ban something unless we have very good evidence that the thing is harmful to others.

Their are lots of valid reasons to allow gay marriage, but asking me to supply them is shifting the burden of proof. Societies shouldn't start with the notion that everything is banned until it is proven its ok, it should start with the notion that everything is allowed until it can be shown it is harmful.


----------



## Value Collector (8 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> You could always just forget about morals, comfort zones, religion, social cohesion, etc and take a homosexual under your wings and protect him from the big bad people who don't like their customs and traditions eroded. As part of the majority, you apparently have an obligation to embrace the poor unfortunates and defend them (a kinda perverse discrimination that polarises the community and consolidates the disdain).
> 
> The danger is when the majority finally have enough of the fad and object in numbers, Hollywood will wheel out more propaganda films to counter the threat to its (largely) immoral acting retinue. Tiresome social engineering flicks that keep the 1%ers in the darling group and food on the table for the actors who oblige.




Their is nothing immoral about being gay.

 protecting your personal comfort zones is not a valid reason to takes other people's freedoms away.

Society has no obligation to follow your religion, that's like me saying cookies need to be banned because I am on a diet.

Social cohesion comes from tolerating a variety of life styles, and accepting others have the right to live the way they want so long as it doesn't cause direct harm to others or infringe on the rights of others.


----------



## Tink (8 May 2015)

Tisme, I agree with you, and am standing up for traditional marriage.

In Europe, there is now no tolerance for anyone that disagrees with gay marriage, and that is even if you are gay and against changing the institution.
Your business will be banned.

That was what I was saying.
Not sure where you were coming from with your post.

Freedom of speech is gone


----------



## Value Collector (8 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Tisme, I agree with you, and am standing up for traditional marriage.
> 
> .






Traditional marriage is not under threat, no one is suggesting taking away your right to have a traditional marriage

But I would like you to answer the questions I posed to you.

So how would allowing two Women to marry destroy your family? 

 How would allowing two women to marry be reducing U.S. To the level of animals?

If you really want traditional biblical marriage, well that often included selling women to men as property, capture women in battle and taking them as wives, forcing women to marry their rapist, etc I don't really think you want that, so your version of marriage is a relatively modern one any way.


----------



## sydboy007 (8 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Yes, the lefts new social engineering, Atari rose.
> 
> *Rights over responsibilities.*
> 
> ...




So exactly how would a married Gay couple have a more detrimental effect on the solemn institution of marriage that what heterosexual people have?  Gay marriage in some countries is relatively recent, yet marriage has in many ways has been eroded and sullied by heterosexual infidelity, heterosexual spousal and child abuse, heterosexual polygamy and bigamy, heterosexual divorce.

What would gay marriage do to the institution of marriage that heterosexual people have not already done to undermine it?

Heterosexual people abuse children, so by your abc interview logic, all heterosexuals should be banned from having or adoption children, and leaving children unattended with any religious leader would be tantamount to wanton child abuse.  The RC into child abuse is continually shedding light on heterosexual sanction and committed child abuse.  One would think children around heterosexuals are in constant danger of being abused.

If the PC hordes control the media, then how was Maurice Newman able to have an opinion piece published today that says AGW is a giant conspiracy to bring in a UN one world Govt?  Could it be that not many people actually have the extreme religious views that you do, and therefore don't have much of a problem with gay marriage?

Please explain to me how gay marriage brings us down to the level of animals.  To be honest as a gay man I find that idea to be downright offensive.  How about you base your arguments on facts rather than religious ideology?  I'd argue not using critical thought, but rather placing uncritical blind faith in religious texts and supposed infallible religious leaders, brings us closer to behaving like unthinking reactionary animals.


----------



## Value Collector (8 May 2015)

Tink said:


> .
> 
> Freedom of speech is gone




not true, you are free to say what ever you want, and people are free to avoid you if after you speak they decide they don't want to associate with you.

The guy that owns my local fish and chip shop is free to say he hates blacks and that gays should be stoned, If he did honestly believe those things, then I would find some where else to buy my calamari snack pack and serve of tartare sauce. 

That doesn't mean I have taken away his freedom of speech, freedom of speech doesn't mean people should be forced to associate with you if they find you repugnant.


----------



## Tink (8 May 2015)

You still haven't answered mine, VC.

For what reason do gays need to force children to know about their sexual lifestyle through schools?
Why do they need to change marriage by law?

Why aren't you standing up for incest, polygamy, and all these others that pay taxes that can't get married?
What makes gays better than them?

You are the one that keeps talking about discrimination.

I have given my reasons -- a father and mother and their child is equal, nothing else needs to be changed.


----------



## Value Collector (8 May 2015)

Tink said:


> You still haven't answered mine, VC.
> 
> For what reason do gays need to force children to know about their sexual lifestyle through schools?
> 
> ...




What are you talking about?

Are you talking about the existence of gays being mentioned during a sex ed class? If so well I think that's a valid thing to talk about, because 1, some of the children in the classes will be gay  2, the children will be growing up in a society that has members who are gay, So it's important to understand it because later in life their friends, children or family may be gay.




> Why do they need to change marriage by law?




Because at the moment the laws are not inclusive of gays



> Why aren't you standing up for incest, polygamy, and all these others that pay taxes that can't get married?
> What makes gays better than them?




those are separate topics, but I don't have a problem with consensual polygamy, doubt there would be many people out there that want that life style, but if there were, I don't care if that's the way they want to live. I guess you would have the burden of proof to show that polygamy is harmful to others.

When it comes to incest, that can be shown to cause harm to the resulting off spring, So the water is muddy there, But If someone wants to marry their cousin or brother or sister, that's their business. It's not what I would do, but as long as its consensual and doesn't cause harm, It's up to them. Maybe there would be a case for outlawing close relatives from breeding, but we would have to look to the science on that.


----------



## Hodgie (8 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The guy that owns my local fish and chip shop is free to say he hates blacks and that gays should be stoned, If he did honestly believe those things, then I would find some where else to buy my calamari snack pack and serve of tartare sauce.




He may find himself in trouble with the law if the guy at your local fish and chip shop says those types of things, especially to a black or gay. There are limits to freedom to speech which is reasonable in some cases.

Similar situation to this racist women being issues with an infringement which carries a penalty of up to $1,100. 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-issued-transport-infringement-after-racist-rant-20150507-ggwqh8.html


----------



## Value Collector (8 May 2015)

Hodgie said:


> He may find himself in trouble with the law if the guy at your local fish and chip shop says those types of things, especially to a black or gay. There are limits to freedom to speech which is reasonable in some cases.




Freedom of speech laws do not protect you in the event you are harassing someone or Making public statements about an individual which are untrue.

Eg. you can stand in a public square and state your opinions about tony abbot till the cows come home, However you can't stand their and call him a paedophile, unless it's true, and if he decides to sue you for saying that, then you won't be protected by the freedom of speech laws, because you said things that were untrue.


You also can't follow some one down the street harassing them on an individual level. eg. If Tink was wearing something that identified hear as a catholic, Freedom of speech does not give me the right to harass her and state untruths and false accusations


----------



## McLovin (8 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Freedom of speech laws do not protect you in the event you are harassing someone or Making public statements about an individual which are untrue.
> 
> Eg. you can stand in a public square and state your opinions about tony abbot till the cows come home, However you can't stand their and call him a paedophile, unless it's true, and if he decides to sue you for saying that, then you won't be protected by the freedom of speech laws, because you said things that were untrue.
> 
> ...




Speech as expression is generally free. Speech as conduct has legislated limits. Consider two people yelling fire in a crowded theatre, one is on stage acting the other is in the audience and wants to create panic. One is speech as expression the other is speech as conduct.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 May 2015)

If this is how non gays behave, in a devoutly Catholic country, I'm waiting to see how anyone can argue gay marriage could be any more harmful to children. 

http://m.smh.com.au/world/the-horri...s-tearing-paraguay-apart-20150512-ggzcb2.html


----------



## Tink (13 May 2015)

Syd, I think we have been through this many times, and this subject has been done to death.

Standing up for Traditional Marriage is standing up for truth, biological truth, and family values, exactly what Marriage means.

Marriage should not be changed by law, and children in schools should be taught the gold standard.
Mothers and fathers with their children.

Making children medical and social experiments is not part of marriage.

The left have become as authoritarian as what you complain about, in their pursuit for themselves on social engineering. 
Rights before responsibilities.


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> If this is how non gays behave, in a devoutly Catholic country, I'm waiting to see how anyone can argue gay marriage could be any more harmful to children.
> 
> http://m.smh.com.au/world/the-horri...s-tearing-paraguay-apart-20150512-ggzcb2.html




Disgusting behaviour and reinforces the need/desire for ordered society with sacrosanct rules. Unfortunately the strictness of those rules and penalties is dependent on the most morally corrupt amongst us, therefore restricting our freedoms of the jungle.

I'm not sure there is a corollary for poor behaviour being a positive determinant for a disparate cause. The only linkage is child abuse of one kind or another; mental, social, physical, etc.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Syd, I think we have been through this many times, and this subject has been done to death.
> 
> Standing up for Traditional Marriage is standing up for truth, biological truth, and family values, exactly what Marriage means.
> 
> ...




Yet you gloss over the fact that this poor girl is being forced, due to Catholicism in the country, to have the child.  Talk about punishing the victim.

Your gold standard is too often more like a lump of rusted steel.  Even the concept that a single parent family is inferior harks back to the good old days where women who had children out of wedlock were scorned and looked down upon by society.

You brought up the issue of the gay couple on the ABC:



> People have been speaking out more after the ABC interviewed those two gay guys that had expressed how hard done by they were for not being able to get married and have children, yet that child in the story was being abused around the world.




and used that as an argument against gay marriage.

But how do you reconcile what is happening in too often in traditional marriages?  Is it right to judge a group of people before they have even done something wrong?

Can I suggest you have a read of the below Govt publication.  It might help you to realise that children are already have same sex parents and are growing up with no issues.

https://www3.aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/same-sex-parented-families-australia



> Overall, research to date considerably challenges the point of view that same-sex parented families are harmful to children. Children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families.




Further information can be found at 

http://groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Griffiths ACP 2 11.pdf



> In contrast to these claims, there are no known detrimental effects of being raised by homosexual parents in any academic literature (Patterson, 2005). Children raised in such families display typical age-appropriate emotional, cognitive and social development
> (Patterson, 2005) and furthermore, display higher levels of positive attributes such as a higher tolerance of diversity than children raised in heterosexual families (Negy & McKinny, 2006). No significant differences in gender identity, gender role behaviour, or sexual orientation have been found in research comparing children raised by heterosexual parents with children raised by homosexual parents (Golding, 2006).




The reality is very different to your beliefs / bias / perception.


----------



## Tink (13 May 2015)

And yet you gloss over that this girl was raped by her step father, not her father.
I am sure the father would be angry.

What has abortion got to do with gay marriage.

As I said, children shouldn't be bought and sold, nor medical and social experiments, they are not pets.

If you asked a child, I am sure they would say -- their parents.

The gold standard still wins.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2015)

> Further information can be found at
> 
> http://groups.psychology.org.au/Asse...P 2 11.pdf




It doesn't take much reading to discover that such publications are a load of cowdung.

From the introduction to this report



> *Five* lesbian couples raising children in Perth, Western Australia were interviewed.




Five ? That's it is it ? What a great sample size on which to base a "scientific" report. But it gets worse



> *Limitations of this study include the lack of child participants, meaning mothers were speaking on behalf of their children.*




WHAT ??? No confirmation bias whatever in this study is there ? Lesbian mothers *"speaking for their children" *saying what great parents they are ?

Did you even read this Syd ? It's an insult to our intelligence to refer to it when even the most scanty perusal reveals what bull it is.

 As a supposed "scientific paper" the only place it belongs is in the rubbish bin.


----------



## qldfrog (13 May 2015)

about my point about dealing with real issues
http://http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/gambias-president-threatens-to-slit-the-throats-of-gay-men-20150513-gh0h4j.html
and these mentalities are coming here and in Europe by the thousands every month.


----------



## bellenuit (23 May 2015)

Breaking: Ireland says Yes by up to 2:1 margin

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...and-says-yes-by-up-to-21-margin-31246520.html

Ireland will be the first country that decided the issue by a referendum of its people.


----------



## Value Collector (23 May 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Breaking: Ireland says Yes by up to 2:1 margin
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...and-says-yes-by-up-to-21-margin-31246520.html
> 
> Ireland will be the first country that decided the issue by a referendum of its people.




This is fantastic news, I am so happy for them, I wish I was to celebrate with a Guinness, lol.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 May 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Breaking: Ireland says Yes by up to 2:1 margin
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...and-says-yes-by-up-to-21-margin-31246520.html
> 
> Ireland will be the first country that decided the issue by a referendum of its people.




Shame Australia can't be adult enough to do the same.  Seems fairer than just waiting on a few politicans to say yay or nay.


----------



## orr (24 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Shame Australia can't be adult enough to do the same.  Seems fairer than just waiting on a few politicans to say yay or nay.




Someone has to be amongst the social justice and humanitarian rump. And this is a growing definition that accurately defines too many in our political '_elite'_

Though it's still my understanding that Irish have an issue with the womens right to choose.


----------



## Pager (24 May 2015)

I sometimes think we in the West need a wake up call to what our priorities should be when you see country’s like Ireland waste so much time, effort and money on such a stupid vote, surely there is more pressing issues than this in that Country? Hear there healthcare is in dire need of funds, poverty is pretty high by western standards and unemployment a big problem. 

Personally I have no objection to any consenting adult marrying whomever they wish, I bet the poor and war torn nations of the world are pleased Ireland has sorted this out though, and the western world has given it so much attention as well 

Pathetic for the Irish nation, hope we never do anything so stupid


----------



## sydboy007 (24 May 2015)

Pager said:


> I sometimes think we in the West need a wake up call to what our priorities should be when you see country’s like Ireland waste so much time, effort and money on such a stupid vote, surely there is more pressing issues than this in that Country? Hear there healthcare is in dire need of funds, poverty is pretty high by western standards and unemployment a big problem.
> 
> Personally I have no objection to any consenting adult marrying whomever they wish, I bet the poor and war torn nations of the world are pleased Ireland has sorted this out though, and the western world has given it so much attention as well
> 
> Pathetic for the Irish nation, hope we never do anything so stupid




100 odd years ago people probably said similar things about allowing Women the right to vote.  Gems like:

* BECAUSE it can be of no benefit commensurate with the additional expense involved.
* BECAUSE 80% of the women eligible to vote are married and can only double or annul their husband's votes.
* BECAUSE it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur.

I love that last one

It's easy to see issues of equality as lower order when you sit at the top of the equality ladder.


----------



## Pager (24 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> 100 odd years ago people probably said similar things about allowing Women the right to vote.  Gems like:
> 
> * BECAUSE it can be of no benefit commensurate with the additional expense involved.
> * BECAUSE 80% of the women eligible to vote are married and can only double or annul their husband's votes.
> ...




Comparing this to the right for woman to vote around a 100 years ago is really going over the top, totally different time, just being in a relationship and living with someone would see you labelled an outcast and heaven forbid you had a child out of wedlock, a bastard who would suffer ridicule and be shunned by society for life.

Referendums should be for major issues were huge change to our way of life and country are the issue, the last was the republican one about 10 years ago, the legalisation of Gay marriage is really something our elected politicians should legislate on with a conscience vote, not as in Ireland were they were too scared to do that for fear of being branded homophobic if they didn’t support it, and maybe more to the point lose votes, and I note the few who did speak out and say it was a waste of money and the country had more pressing issues were branded as such!

If we had such a referendum here in Australia then I would vote YES, and I would guess it would be a landslide for the yes vote in this country but I bet if you asked most of the Yes vote if they thought it had been worth the time and the tens of millions of dollars to hold the referendum they would be an emphatic NO.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 May 2015)

Pager said:


> Comparing this to the right for woman to vote around a 100 years ago is really going over the top, totally different time, just being in a relationship and living with someone would see you labelled an outcast and heaven forbid you had a child out of wedlock, a bastard who would suffer ridicule and be shunned by society for life.
> 
> Referendums should be for major issues were huge change to our way of life and country are the issue, the last was the republican one about 10 years ago, the legalisation of Gay marriage is really something our elected politicians should legislate on with a conscience vote, not as in Ireland were they were too scared to do that for fear of being branded homophobic if they didn’t support it, and maybe more to the point lose votes, and I note the few who did speak out and say it was a waste of money and the country had more pressing issues were branded as such!
> 
> If we had such a referendum here in Australia then I would vote YES, and I would guess it would be a landslide for the yes vote in this country but I bet if you asked most of the Yes vote if they thought it had been worth the time and the tens of millions of dollars to hold the referendum they would be an emphatic NO.




The benefit of a refurendum is it's a public show of support for the change.

If we legalise gay marriage by political legislation then you'll have the division of those against it claiming it's not the will of the people.  No one can say that in Ireland because it's been shown to have overwhelming support.

I doubt there'd be much expense or effort if it was tacked on at a federal election. One more box to tick really.


----------



## McLovin (24 May 2015)

Pager said:


> Comparing this to the right for woman to vote around a 100 years ago is really going over the top, totally different time, just being in a relationship and living with someone would see you labelled an outcast and heaven forbid you had a child out of wedlock, a bastard who would suffer ridicule and be shunned by society for life.
> 
> Referendums should be for major issues were huge change to our way of life and country are the issue, the last was the republican one about 10 years ago, the legalisation of Gay marriage is really something our elected politicians should legislate on with a conscience vote, not as in Ireland were they were too scared to do that for fear of being branded homophobic if they didn’t support it, and maybe more to the point lose votes, and I note the few who did speak out and say it was a waste of money and the country had more pressing issues were branded as such!
> 
> If we had such a referendum here in Australia then I would vote YES, and I would guess it would be a landslide for the yes vote in this country but I bet if you asked most of the Yes vote if they thought it had been worth the time and the tens of millions of dollars to hold the referendum they would be an emphatic NO.




Pretty much agree with you.

Ireland proposed to change their constitution with an amendment which is why there was the requirement of a referendum. I don't think we would require that here. Like you say, I would be bowled over with surprise if a plebiscite on the issue rejected gay marriage. The support has been consistently increasing for years.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2015)

McLovin said:


> Pretty much agree with you.
> 
> Ireland proposed to change their constitution with an amendment which is why there was the requirement of a referendum. I don't think we would require that here. Like you say, I would be bowled over with surprise if a plebiscite on the issue rejected gay marriage. The support has been consistently increasing for years.




That's very true, gay couples are such a large part of our day to day life now, it is really the norm.

I'm sure there would be an overwhelming support for it.

It all boils down to just changing public perception, people just need educating to accept, what is a widely carried out activity.

Don't 12 year old's get married off in some cultures, maybe we can work on that next. lol 

Just joking, that would never happen in Australia.


----------



## luutzu (24 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> The benefit of a refurendum is it's a public show of support for the change.
> 
> If we legalise gay marriage by political legislation then you'll have the division of those against it claiming it's not the will of the people.  No one can say that in Ireland because it's been shown to have overwhelming support.
> 
> I doubt there'd be much expense or effort if it was tacked on at a federal election. One more box to tick really.




That extra box will mean an extra tick with the pencil, which will add to an extra boxful of pencils around Australia; then there's the extra columns to tally up the results... might end up spending an extra 50 bucks to give gay people their equal rights. 

To be fair though, I take Pager's and others' point that the public is overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage that you don't need a Referendum to know which way the vote will go... which begs the question, why hasn't the politicians been representative of the public on that.


----------



## Tink (24 May 2015)

Well I disagree, if the Gay Lobby thinks it will get through IN AUSTRALIA, then bring on a referendum.

This isn't Europe.

Just like Labor was going to win in a landslide in the UK -  I don't believe the polls.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2015)

luutzu said:


> That extra box will mean an extra tick with the pencil, which will add to an extra boxful of pencils around Australia; then there's the extra columns to tally up the results... might end up spending an extra 50 bucks to give gay people their equal rights.
> 
> To be fair though, I take Pager's and others' point that the public is overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage that you don't need a Referendum to know which way the vote will go... which begs the question, why hasn't the politicians been representative of the public on that.




Well let's have a referendum.

I think that would put it to bed, so to speak.


----------



## luutzu (24 May 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Well let's have a referendum.
> 
> I think that would put it to bed, so to speak.




Not under Abbott, he's trying to get in bed with the Pope - or at least be invited to Vatican City and kiss His Holiness ring 

That's a bit unfair on Pope Francis... he seems like a good man doing good things. Beats the last one that look like Gollum though.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Shame Australia can't be adult enough to do the same.  Seems fairer than just waiting on a few politicans to say yay or nay.




As the Irish can say now.

"Cheers, up your bum".

Now they can get down to the serious discussion of abortion, rather than something that doesn't include, the inception of a baby.

It is fascinating how people can get caught up in agendas, that have nil importance, yet overlook issues that cause massive social issues.

I guess it depends on who is pushing the barrow.


----------



## McLovin (24 May 2015)

sptrawler said:


> That's very true, gay couples are such a large part of our day to day life now, it is really the norm.
> 
> I'm sure there would be an overwhelming support for it.




I really don't know anyone under 50 who doesn't support it, although I'm sure they exist. It's a complete non-event for most, only the Bible bashers seem to care. As a kid/teen/early 20s I was very homophobic; I didn't like them and thought they were basically deviants. I've worked with them, I have friends and family members who are gay. All the rubbish about paedophilia and marrying dogs says more about the people saying it than the people they're trying to smear.

The whole plebiscite thing is nonsense. A democracy is not just majority rule, it's also the protection, and equal treatment, of minorities.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2015)

McLovin said:


> I really don't know anyone under 50 who doesn't support it, although I'm sure they exist. It's a complete non-event for most, only the Bible bashers seem to care. As a kid/teen/early 20s I was very homophobic; I didn't like them and thought they were basically deviants. I've worked with them, I have friends and family members who are gay. All the rubbish about paedophilia and marrying dogs says more about the people saying it than the people they're trying to smear.




I agree with you, however I think it all gets a lot more airplay than it deserves.

Jeez, we've got joker's to the left of us, clown's to the right and were listening to this. 

The economy could tank tomorrow, if some sports star came out of the closet, the economy wouldn't get air time.lol


----------



## McLovin (24 May 2015)

sptrawler said:


> I agree with you, however I think it all gets a lot more airplay than it deserves.
> 
> Jeez, we've got joker's to the left of us, clown's to the right and were listening to this.
> 
> The economy could tank tomorrow, if some sports star came out of the closet, the economy wouldn't get air time.lol




I don't disagree, sp. Then again, if I was in their shoes I'd probably want to be keeping it on the radar.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2015)

McLovin said:


> I don't disagree, sp. Then again, if I was in their shoes I'd probably want to be keeping it on the radar.




Same as most other inwardly focused groups. It is about time people got over themselves and realised, we actually have some serious issues.

The problem is, affluence in the first world, is so far out of step with reality.

Wastage, consumerism and greed, is driving unsustainable demands on resources, both financial and social.

Yet we are obsessed with media driven agendas.

Young people on welfare are feeding up on fast foods, drugs and alchohol, their life expectancy will be shot to $hit.
But it can't be said because it's politicly incorrect, don't tell them they're fat, don't tell them they're lazy, don't tell them to get off their ar$e.

No tell them they're underpriveliged, that's why they can't cook, can't walk to the shops, can do sod all.

Much better to have nonsense side issues on the go, gives the media something to dribble on about.lol

My rant for the week.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2015)

Maybe not.

Another example of media and loonie left wing agenda.IMO Was the onshore gas processing plant near Broome.

The media and loonies, stopped it, now the gas will be processed offshore and shipped away.

Which meant a loss of thousands of jobs, plus viable downstream industries being developed.

Now all we hear about is the social problems and criminal activity in Broome, also what are we going to do, to solve it.

Maybe they can get Bob Brown to come up with some ideas, he`was vocal enough opposing the gas hub, funny we don't hear his solution to the Aboriginal social problems there.

No, nothing like agendas, that have no responsiblity or accountability attached to them. 
All you need is a sympathetic or lazy media, that need easy, emotionally driven argument. Well that's my belief.

I'll class that as a rant continuation.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 May 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe not.
> 
> Another example of media and loonie left wing agenda.IMO Was the onshore gas processing plant near Broome.
> 
> ...




SP

all the Gas is being shipped off shore.  Unless Australians are willing to pay Asian export pricing the gas is no longer available to Australians.  Gas usage charges are going to double over the next few years, and will end up close to 3 times higher than before this lunacy started.

There's plenty of Gas we can get from SA, but now the CS-LNG terminals in QLD are all short of gas they're siphoning it away from east coast domestic users.  Even the USA doesn't force domestic users to compete against the rest of the world.

So what do the bright sparks look at doing now?  They want to build a massively expensive pipeline from the NT to bring in gas from the off shore fields there.  So on the one hand we have gas on the east coast that could be piped to domestic users via existing infrastructure being exported, and now we're thinking to build a new pipeline, adding extra costs onto domestic users, when it would be better to export the gas from NT and use the CSG on the east coast.  But then that would cause massive write downs on those new plants, so better to keep the corporate profits and whack the Aussies yet again.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> SP
> 
> all the Gas is being shipped off shore.  Unless Australians are willing to pay Asian export pricing the gas is no longer available to Australians.  Gas usage charges are going to double over the next few years, and will end up close to 3 times higher than before this lunacy started.
> 
> ...




Don't know what this has to do with gay marriage, but it seems to me that thousands of Australian businesses that consume gas (as well as households) are being disadvantaged for the benefit of a few very large and most likely foreign owned gas exporters.

So how can this government claim to be supportive of local businesses when they are forced to pay export prices for gas ?  

Any sensible position should be that we get the benefit of our own resources first, but obviously this has been subsumed by the idiotic "free market" ideology of twits like the IPA.


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't know what this has to do with gay marriage, but it seems to me that thousands of Australian businesses that consume gas (as well as households) are being disadvantaged for the benefit of a few very large and most likely foreign owned gas exporters.
> 
> So how can this government claim to be supportive of local businesses when they are forced to pay export prices for gas ?
> 
> Any sensible position should be that we get the benefit of our own resources first, but obviously this has been subsumed by the idiotic "free market" ideology of twits like the IPA.




Read from one of Santos' annual reports and they say Australia has the equivalent of around 100 years' worth of gas at current projected domestic consumption. Their next line is - let's sell most of it and make some money 

"Free market" is only ever raised when it benefits the big boys. When it would harm their profit, free market becomes "bail us out", national security, national interests, and jobs for the people of Australia, for the Aussie battlers.


----------



## trainspotter (25 May 2015)

Ya just gotta know when to call it quits ....



> TWO men in a gay relationship, and who had plans to marry, have discovered that they are actually brothers.
> 
> The pair, named Paul and Lee, appeared on the Jeremy Kyle Show to have a DNA test after Lee’s family and friends noticed an uncanny resemblance between Paul and his mum’s former husband, Ron.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...graph&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Ya just gotta know when to call it quits ....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...graph&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial




Now they can be best buddies - without the sex. Like marriage with children.


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2015)

> It is fascinating how people can get caught up in agendas, that have nil importance, yet overlook issues that cause massive social issues.




I can't see how the issue has nil importance, I would think that if you were gay, you would probably think it was quite important for you to have equal rights.

But anyway, the fact that of all the issues society has, this issue is one that can be fixed almost instantly, there fore it should be fixed asap.

Offcourse there are many other bigger issues, that are hard to fix and disserve attention, But that doesn't mean you ignore the other issues, especially when they are so simple to fix.


----------



## Tink (25 May 2015)

Well going by VC, that is fine that brothers are now an item - nothing is morally wrong.

They pay taxes and should be married.

We can't start discriminating on people.

The start of anarchy.

Correct me if I am wrong, VC.


----------



## Knobby22 (25 May 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Ya just gotta know when to call it quits ....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...graph&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial




Classic case of people going out with clones of themselves.
You see hetero couples where the wife and husband look so similar they could be twins. Pretty funny.


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Well going by VC, that is fine that brothers are now an item - nothing is morally wrong.
> 
> They pay taxes and should be married.
> 
> ...




Incest is a separate topic from gay marriage, allowing gay marriage would not be the same as allowing incest in exactly the same way that allowing straight marriage does not allow incest.

However, although I (and most of society) would be repulsed at the idea of entering a sexual relationship with a sibling, my personal thoughts on it are not enough to make it illegal,  it would have to be shown that it is harmful to others in society for me to agree that it is morally wrong and needs to be banned.

There is probably reasons to not allow incest relationships to copulate, but that comes down to scientific evidence.

But don't you believe the earth was populated by incest, twice.



> The start of anarchy.




That's a bit hysterical isn't it?


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ...
> 
> But don't you believe the earth was populated by incest, twice.
> 
> ...




ha ha


----------



## sydboy007 (25 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Well going by VC, that is fine that brothers are now an item - nothing is morally wrong.
> 
> They pay taxes and should be married.
> 
> ...




Suppose you could be referring to the anarchy in Josh Duggar's family?

They certainly know how to pop them out.  Even a reality show 19 kids and counting.

Josh and the family are staunch activists against gay marriage, citing all those evil things that will become of society should it be allowed, especially around children.

Now it turns out Josh was a kiddie fiddler molesting several girls as a teenager.  Family sent him off for counselling via a Church elder who ran a home remodelling business and a Christian work program that focused on hard physical work.  Gosh if only we'd known how easy it was to reform a paedophile. 

Being the good Christians that the Duggar family are, it only took them a year to notify authorities of the crime.  Suppose they did a bit better than most of the catholic church there.

The parents never allowed the police to actually talk to Josh though.  So basically the girls were denied any form of justice.

So how does Josh show he's sorry for what he's done.  Oh he asked Christ to come into his life and to forgive him.  He's very thankful for God's grace, mercy and redemption.  Everything's just fine and dandy because God's OK with it.

I want to call it hypocracy, but Tink, I think lets just call it anarchy.  It's already here.  Shame the religious seem to be so often the cause.

A Stanza on Freedom  By James Russell Lowell

THEY are slaves who fear to speak	
For the fallen and the weak;	
They are slaves who will not choose	
Hatred, scoffing, and abuse,	
Rather than in silence shrink	        
From the truth they needs must think;	
They are slaves who dare not be	
In the right with two or three.


----------



## trainspotter (25 May 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Classic case of people going out with clones of themselves.
> You see hetero couples where the wife and husband look so similar they could be twins. Pretty funny.




Oh you mean like this?





Or did you mean this?




Ohhh I get it now like this?


----------



## Tisme (25 May 2015)

So 36% of the eligible voters changed the constitution of Ireland. They should have had mandatory voting. 

 It's not like the Irish are historically law abiding when it comes to the rule of law anyway, preferring gelignite to settle things. 

I'm guessing the excommunication from the church will begin once the dust settles.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing the excommunication from the church will begin once the dust settles.




That's a bit like a hippy threatening to punch you in your aurora as they say.


----------



## jbocker (26 May 2015)

Gay Marriage will happen in time, I just hope the politicians would get on with legalising it. I think it is a tragedy of love that two consenting adults cannot commit to each other in the form of a marriage if that is what they wish to do.
With gay marriage legalised, the community culture will move to greater acceptance and respect. With that we can then have many homosexuals finally liberated in the love of their preference.

Don't waste time and money, It is not a referendum issue.


----------



## qldfrog (26 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Incest is a separate topic from gay marriage, allowing gay marriage would not be the same as allowing incest in exactly the same way that allowing straight marriage does not allow incest.



I would disagree on that:
I have the same stance on both subject: incest should not be illegal, nor should gay couple: as long as you do not hurt any unwilling person, do as you please but procreation as a result of incest should be forbidden due to the obvious proven risks to the kids.
Marriage in either gay and incest cases should not be legal or use another name..like civil union which exists already.
Otherwise you redefine the name Marriage and so remove its value
but who should oppose the Kardashian of PC and society politics;
In a world where coloured american are named african americans, we will have Peter married to Paul...who cares as long as the next Big Brother is still on
While Rome is burning....
And I also think a referendum should be mandatory for items of society change; [where I would vote null on Gay marriage as in Australia, we can not express our " I do not care feeling" otherwise due to the evil compulsory voting]


----------



## Tisme (26 May 2015)

qldfrog said:


> I would disagree on that:
> I have the same stance on both subject: incest should not be illegal, nor should gay couple:.... While Rome is burning.......




I think it's only a matter of time before, incest, paedophilia, zoo sex, polygamy, unmitigated pornography; any taboo or depraved act will become acceptable in first world countries lest hurting hurting the love and bond feelings of individuals in some lobby/interest group. Society will be considered robust enough to ignore history, because history is for old people who have no idea about anything except pagan worship and phonograph records.

Meanwhile the powerless few who cannot abide the loss of moral and ethical codes will migrate to comparatively nuance social consciousness' like Islam, eventually a cleansing war, religious power clock reset and 1-2k years later another reset, another reset, another reset, etc

Marriage became redundant ages ago, as technology took the place of "honey I'm home". Much easier having a relationship with a solid state media player or computer than the tedious task of justifying the human condition to a, hand on hip wildcat, other half.  A wedding is just another show off event and excuse to break the boredom of a stalled or stale relationship IMO.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2015)

qldfrog said:


> Marriage in either gay and incest cases should not be legal or use another name..like civil union which exists already.
> ]




Why bother with different names, call a spade a spade, and a marriage between two people a marriage



> Otherwise you redefine the name Marriage and so remove its value




How exactly does extending its use to couples of the same sex cause it to lose value



> And I also think a referendum should be mandatory for items of society change;




It's probably necessary when you have gutless politicians not willing to bite the bullet and make a decision, atleast with a referendum we get what we want and the politicians don't get blamed for the minority backlash.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think it's only a matter of time before, incest, paedophilia, zoo sex, polygamy, unmitigated pornography; any taboo or depraved act will become acceptable in first world countries lest hurting hurting the love and bond feelings of individuals in some lobby/interest group. Society will be considered robust enough to ignore history, because history is for old people who have no idea about anything except pagan worship and phonograph records.
> 
> Meanwhile the powerless few who cannot abide thecodes will migrate to comparatively nuance social consciousness' like Islam, eventually a cleansing war, religious power clock reset and 1-2k years later another reset, another reset, another reset, etc
> 
> Marriage became redundant ages ago, as technology took the place of "honey I'm home". Much easier having a relationship with a solid state media player or computer than the tedious task of justifying the human condition to a, hand on hip wildcat, other half.  A wedding is just another show off event and excuse to break the boredom of a stalled or stale relationship IMO.




Man, that post really shows how hysterical you guys can get. 

You should really learn about the slippery slope fallacy.



> loss of moral and ethical codes




There is nothing immoral or unethical about homosexuality.



> A wedding is just another show off event




I agree it can be, But a wedding and a marriage are not the same thing are they.


----------



## Tink (26 May 2015)

qldfrog said:


> I would disagree on that:
> I have the same stance on both subject: incest should not be illegal, nor should gay couple: as long as you do not hurt any unwilling person, do as you please but procreation as a result of incest should be forbidden due to the obvious proven risks to the kids.
> Marriage in either gay and incest cases should not be legal or use another name..like civil union which exists already.
> Otherwise you redefine the name Marriage and so remove its value
> ...




+1, well said, though I would vote no.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> But don't you believe the earth was populated by incest, twice.



Tink

Just thought I would point out, that according to your "Moral book" the bible. not only did the world get populated twice by incest, once by Adam and Eve's children and then again by the few people on noahs ark.

But, there is also a whole host of incestuous relationships, 

 In Genesis 4:17, Cain has a wife,  she was either a full sister of Cain or she was Cain's mother Eve.

In Genesis 9:20-27, Ham saw his father Noah's nakedness. The Talmud suggests that Ham may have sodomized Noah (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a).

Abraham's brother Nahor married his niece Milcah, the daughter of his other brother Haran.

In Genesis 19:30-38, living in an isolated area after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's two daughters  seduced their father due to the lack of available partners. The two children born were directly Lot's sons and indirectly his grandsons, being his daughters' sons. Likewise, their sons were also their half-brothers, having the same father.

In one of the tales of a wife confused for a sister, Abraham admitted that his wife Sarah is also his half-sister, on his father's side.

Abraham's son Isaac married Rebekah, his first cousin once removed,

Isaac and Rebekah's firstborn son Esau married his cousin Mahalah,

while their second son Jacob married his cousins Leah and Rachel, daughters of his mother's brother Laban.

 .
In Genesis 35:22, Jacob's firstborn son Reuben committed incest by sleeping with his father's concubine Bilhah.

In Genesis 38, Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, mistook his daughter-in-law Tamar for a prostitute while she was veiled, and had sex with her.

The biblical character Amram married his paternal aunt, Jochebed, the mother of Miriam, Aaron and Moses.

In the book of 2nd Samuel, Amnon, King David's eldest son and heir to the throne, raped his half-sister Tamar


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Tink
> 
> Just thought I would point out, that according to your "Moral book" the bible. not only did the world get populated twice by incest, once by Adam and Eve's children and then again by the few people on noahs ark.
> 
> ...




Yea... but it has always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve 

Wait... wouldn't the world according to the Bible meant that all human procreation are incestuous? And that we are one messed up family?

----

Saw some doco, I think it was "Zeitgeist" or something, where they compare Christ's birth and his miracles to similar, almost identical, stories from other cultures and religions that came before. And all of them seem to derive their saviour's birth and biography based on Ancient Egypt's Ra - the Sun God.


----------



## sptrawler (26 May 2015)

Simple, put it to a referendum.


----------



## Tisme (26 May 2015)

luutzu said:


> Wait... wouldn't the world according to the Bible meant that all human procreation are incestuous?
> .




It certainly accounts for some people's inability to think for themselves


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> It certainly accounts for some people's inability to think for themselves




Thinking original thought is overrated. 

Unless you got a fancy title, a fancy degree or two, or a few hundred plus millions... your original thought are just your opinions, and everyone has at least a few of that.

But if you quote from others... it show you're well-read, scholarly, intellectually something... even if you quote them uncritically and verbatim


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Simple, put it to a referendum.




Shorten is going to table a bill for it - so our Budget will save a few bucks 



I find it strange though, that consenting adults who love each other would need anyone's permission to get married.

The only thing that needs permission from me is being my neighbour and buying a bloody car with sport exhausts and driving in and out of your driveway anytime you feel like it! dam kid! Karma my wife said. But my Supra was awesome!


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Simple, put it to a referendum.




Referendums are for changing the Constitution. You don't need a referendum to change an Act of Parliament ie the Marriage Act.

A public vote on the issue would be a plebiscite, which is non binding on Parliament, but would give them a fair indication of public opinion.


----------



## Tink (27 May 2015)

_Rather than shutting down debate and forcing an outcome by intimidation and exhaustion, Australian same-sex advocates need to make the case for why redefining marriage to disconnect it from children would make society better and not worse.

It’s in everyone’s best interests to strengthen marriage as the foundational institution of civil society, in which a man and a woman raise solid citizens, gay or straight, to replenish the moral capital of the future.

That’s where our energies should be focused, rather than this relentless legislative “marriage equality” merry-go-round that comes up every six months._

Bill Shorten must be on the nose, and ready to be thrown out.
Whenever they are drowning, they put up the Gay Marriage card for survival.

The last person that did this was Kevin Rudd, and he was tossed out.

Agree, Rumpole - as qldfrog said, I think it should be mandatory when it is society change.


----------



## Tisme (27 May 2015)

luutzu said:


> I find it strange though, that consenting adults who love each other would need anyone's permission to get married.




It's not enough just to cuddle up for many. In the hetro world there's a tradition and peer pressure at play. The circus includes a try before you buy engagement which is supposed to take the couple off the market and out of temptation's way. There's even a conjugal rights clause in some instances that can nullify a marriage after a short warranty period. 


I suspect in the homo world there is protest, recognition, destruction of norms, financial gain, etc that are major factors, because marriage is not a tradition for them and I suspect monogamy is also a sham given the different value systems that inspire the promiscuous homosexual behaviour in the first place. 

The whole push for "equality" of a sect that is obviously different is ridiculous, simply because an apple is an apple and cannot be an orange, but there are obviously a lot of oranges in Ireland who can spot a green and shoot it, but mistake an apple for a citrus fruit.

I know that there is a load of poly waffle about declaration of love, rings that bind, God blessing and any other June Alllison mush factor and mockery that Hollywood can think up, but we lads know the never to be spoken truth on who generally wants the marriage thing and a ring on finger to show her GFss 

I say that if the govts have historically written bills and legislation to financially encourage a nation of naturally conceiving families and they are now being modified to embrace impossible to naturally conceive couple, then why not just scrap the whole govt interfering in marriages and hand that back to Churches who thought up the idea in the first place for fun and profit:-. 

No taxpayer incentives for people who are stupid enough to have kids, silly enough to get married and dumb enough not to write a will. No widows style pensions, no family tax concessions,....... nothing left but a level playing field and the love that apparently needs a population to appreciate via the ballot box, a love that will keep 'em together. Let's see how quick the bleeding hearts  will give up their support of gay rights, let's see how the gay marriages evaporate .. it's basic child rearing tactics, but effective to get to the core of nonsense.

Think of the debt reduction if we did away with govt interference and incentives for married people.


----------



## Tisme (27 May 2015)

I more I think about it the more I ponder why marriage is regulated by the state and if it is really needed to be regardless of its diminution as a nuclear family thing in recent times.

So I have embarked on a quest to find out what the drivers were for legislators to interfere in the first place.

Here is one viewpoint from an American blogger's perspective:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/14...e-state-for-permission-to-get-married-anyway/


----------



## trainspotter (27 May 2015)

qldfrog said:


> I would disagree on that:
> I have the same stance on both subject: *incest should not be illegal*, nor should gay couple: as long as you do not hurt any unwilling person, do as you please but *procreation as a result of incest *should be forbidden due to the obvious proven risks to the kids.
> Marriage in either gay and incest cases should not be legal or use another name..like civil union which exists already.]




I am having trouble with this statement ...


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2015)

Tink said:


> _Rather than shutting down debate and forcing an outcome by intimidation and exhaustion, Australian same-sex advocates need to make the case for why redefining marriage to disconnect it from children would make society better and not worse.
> 
> _



_

Marriage has nothing to do with children, because 

1, You don't have to get married to have children

2, It's already legal to get married if you don't intend on having children

3, It's legal to get married if you are not physically capable of having children 

It's up to you to prove that Allowing gays to marry would cause damage to society, So far no one has been able to supply a rational reason to disallow gay marriage._


----------



## Tink (27 May 2015)

Do you know what standards are, VC?

That is exactly what qldfrog was talking about in his post, when you drop the value.
Clarify that if I am wrong, qldfrog.

Why should we downgrade marriage for a few that don't fit the mold.

No, it is up to the Gay Lobby to convince us that changing Marriage is better for society than what is the GOLD standard.

I think it should be left as it is.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Do you know what standards are, VC?
> 
> That is exactly what qldfrog was talking about in his post, when you drop the value.
> Clarify that if I am wrong, qldfrog.
> ...




How does straight Marriage lose value by allowing gay Marriage?

Your not downgrading anything, your actually encouraging the formation of committed relationships.





> No, it is up to the Gay Lobby to convince us that changing Marriage is better for society than what is the GOLD standard.
> 
> I think it should be left as it is




creating a society based on equal rights makes society better. it's common sense.

But the burden of proof is on you, If you want something outlawed, you have to show that it is harmful.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2015)

I think anyone who thinks gay marriage some how devalues "traditional Marriage" needs to listen to these two shorts videos.

Basically it is two brothers, the first is an atheist and the second is religious, both are pro gay marriage, but both bring up topics that counter the arguments made by some of you here.

the second video talks about gay marriage from a religious prospective.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Do you know what standards are, VC?
> 
> That is exactly what qldfrog was talking about in his post, when you drop the value.
> Clarify that if I am wrong, qldfrog.
> ...




Tink

can you tell me something a gay couple could do to devalue marriage that a straight couple hasn't already done?


----------



## bellenuit (27 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Tink
> 
> can you tell me something a gay couple could do to devalue marriage that a straight couple hasn't already done?




It's pretty clear that those who think gay marriage somehow devalues marriage or that homosexual sex is somehow a lowering of morality are really saying that gay people are a lower form of life than heterosexuals or are morally not on a par with heterosexuals. It is exactly the same argument that was being used before interracial marriage was allowed and when interracial sex was frowned upon.

The truth is that a society that embraces gay marriage and treats sexual relations between gays the same as between heterosexuals is more moral than those that don't. One only has to look at those countries that resist most this evolution in human understanding to realise the backwardness of their thinking.


----------



## Tink (27 May 2015)

Bellenuit, they have Civil Unions which caters for Gays, and gives them all the rights they need.

The family unit, with a mother, father and THEIR child is different to a gay couple with two men and a baby that was bought.

How can you say that is equal.

The family unit is the foundation of society and should be strengthened and taught to all children in schools as Marriage.
I see no reason for it to be changed.

Giving rights to one, takes it from another, and this is the children.

Rinse and repeat, we have been through this many times.


----------



## MrBurns (27 May 2015)

Agree Tink for a few reasons mainly for the sake of the children. Though same sex adoption is legal in a few states. I don't agree with it but that's the way it is.


----------



## luutzu (27 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> It's not enough just to cuddle up for many. In the hetro world there's a tradition and peer pressure at play. The circus includes a try before you buy engagement which is supposed to take the couple off the market and out of temptation's way. There's even a conjugal rights clause in some instances that can nullify a marriage after a short warranty period.
> 
> 
> I suspect in the homo world there is protest, recognition, destruction of norms, financial gain, etc that are major factors, because marriage is not a tradition for them and I suspect monogamy is also a sham given the different value systems that inspire the promiscuous homosexual behaviour in the first place.
> ...




You're a bit too optimistic about heterosexuals and traditional marriages.

There's the lying, the cheating, the mental and physical abuses between spouses and on to the children, the abandonment and chasing after skirts or chasing after prestige or wealthier partners...

Then there's the single hetero who sleeps around, sleeps with married co-workers and just shrugs it off like it's nothing.

As Sydboy implied above... there really isn't anything a homosexual could or would do that the hetero haven't. 

Promiscuity and moral standards are not higher or lower between the two sexual preferences. God is quite fair that way, haha... keep us on our feet me think.


----

One of the ways to keep social order and higher tax revenue is to encourage marriage - gay or otherwise.

When a person is young there are no chain and ball attached so they move and quit jobs if it's not to their liking; take long holidays and time off to "find themselves" and other nice but tax-light activities. Put a ring around that finger and you know... no more protests and questioning of gov't policies... it's heads down and bums up to pay the bills and put food on the table.


----------



## luutzu (27 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Bellenuit, they have Civil Unions which caters for Gays, and gives them all the rights they need.
> 
> The family unit, with a mother, father and THEIR child is different to a gay couple with two men and a baby that was bought.
> 
> ...




Nothing beats teaching children that while all people are equal, some are just more equal than others.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Bellenuit, they have Civil Unions which caters for Gays, and gives them all the rights they need.
> 
> The family unit, with a mother, father and THEIR child is different to a gay couple with two men and a baby that was bought.
> 
> ...




The Tink family unit Scale

Gold - Mum Dad and kids

Silver - Single parent and kids

Bronze - Single people

Outside society - anything that doesn't fit into the above

At school ensure the kids know howe society rates their family.  Would be like going back 50+ years. 

Just exactly what rights do gay people need?  Or, to phrase it a bit better, what rights do you believe they deserve?  I often wonder if you were against the decriminalising of homosexuality?

Do you believe gay people are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals?  There evidence of it.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> The Tink family unit Scale
> 
> Gold - Mum Dad and kids
> 
> ...




As far as consenting adults are concerned, do what you like but don't expect the rest of us to believe that's it's not weird. Where children are concerned, personally I believe they need BOTH biological parents in a happy relationship for the best upbringing. 

The argument "yes but a lot of heterosexual marriages break down" doesn't cut it because the promiscuity rate among homosexuals has been shown to be a lot higher than for hets as evidenced by the rapid spread of HIV in gay communities.

There is no evidence that gays would necessarily be better, or as good parents than hets, all else being equal.

People offering "after market" parenting services like IVF or adoption should be allowed to discriminate against gays, after all Nature does. And I'm not talking about God, just evolution.


----------



## jbocker (28 May 2015)

Gday SirRumpole


SirRumpole said:


> ... Where children are concerned, personally I believe they need BOTH biological parents in a happy relationship for the best upbringing.



Sadly not always the case.



SirRumpole said:


> ... The argument "yes but a lot of heterosexual marriages break down" doesn't cut it because the promiscuity rate among homosexuals has been shown to be a lot higher than for hets as evidenced by the rapid spread of HIV in gay communities.



I agree with your view on the promiscuity rate, So let Gays get married who want to commit to a relationship.



SirRumpole said:


> ... There is no evidence that gays would necessarily be better, or as good parents than hets, all else being equal.




Is there evidence they wont be? I believe that is down to the person themselves. Any man can be a great father if he chooses to be.



SirRumpole said:


> ... People offering "after market" parenting services like IVF or adoption should be allowed to discriminate against gays, after all Nature does. And I'm not talking about God, just evolution.




I don't know what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting a man does not have a right to have his own biological child and raise it? 
Don't know how far you want to swing the Nature argument but Evolution has created examples of where males look after the brood. It is not common but exists, and makes it 'weird'. There aint nothing weirder in nature than our own species.
Cheers.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2015)

> I agree with your view on the promiscuity rate, So let Gays get married who want to commit to a relationship.




I don't understand that argument. Promiscuity is a state of mind, a willingness to have many partners. Why do people need marriage to have a stable relationships ? If two people actually love each other they will be faithfull to each other whether they are married or not. Many unmarried people, gay and het have had long term stable relationships without marriage.



> Are you suggesting a man does not have a right to have his own biological child and raise it?




What about children's rights to know and be raised by their biological parents ? The hereditary bond is so strong that many IVF children spend years searching for a biological parent. No loving parent would put a child through that. 

We are also talking about the "rights" of two people to raise "their" children. Parenting is or should be a two person exercise. Relationships break up, but children usually have contact and access with both parents during their lives.


----------



## Tink (28 May 2015)

Syd, as I have said many times throughout this thread, I don't have a problem with gays.
This isn't pointed at you, but generally, this is the problem with this debate, we are all howled down as homophobic if we disagree.

There are many gays that have said exactly what I am saying now, that marriage shouldn't be changed away from the family unit, that a mother and father are important in a child's life.They love their parents and are grateful they were raised with them.
They were howled down for even voicing those opinions, and this is where this whole debate is wrong and hijacked by the PC hoardes.
All those countries that have allowed Gay Marriage are run by PC.
Every morning they get up and say, what are we forced to agree with today.

A few countries have said no because of the children and I congratulate them for being honest and saying it as it is - I am thinking of Germany here and her speech.

In society there is much that is legal that I don't agree with personally, but that is humans and they are free to do as they please.
Changing it to marriage because of discrimination is wrong, or because they pay taxes.
That is not what marriage is.

Standing up for traditional marriage is standing up for the family unit, and children being with their mother and father.

Trainspotter put up an article of two men that met by accident and didn't know they were brothers, this is the problem we create, where we have children everywhere that don't even know they have the same parents.

Marriage is about keeping families together, mother and father, and taking responsibility to raise their children.


----------



## Tisme (28 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Marriage is about keeping families together, mother and father, and taking responsibility to raise their children.




At least that is the goal for many. It seems failure to launch by the few is grounds enough for chameleons to fill the voids left by that failure.


It seems to me (and bear in mind I mainly think marriage is worthwhile to legitimise children's self worth as part of a galvanised family, not a social experiment or tilt at windmills) that the old "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck" is enough for people to agree that we are all ducks with the same duck value systems and therefore any man made lake is a great place to sh!t3 in even if it starves the oxygen, pollutes and kills the food source.


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Bellenuit, they have Civil Unions which caters for Gays, and gives them all the rights they need.
> 
> The family unit, with a mother, father and THEIR child is different to a gay couple with two men and a baby that was bought.
> 
> .




Where in the marriage laws does it say marriage has anything to do with children?

If a straight couple that can't have children can get married, then a gay couple should be able to.

Every marriage is different, you are just trying to push your personal views onto others.

If your son or daughter can't have and didn't plan to have children, would youwant them to have a "civil union" rather than a marriage?

and who says gays can't have children any way, the science exists that would let an embryo be produced using the DNA of two eggs, rather than a sperm and an egg.

So a lesbian couple have two wombs, and two egg sources, in the future they will be able to produce biological children. What would your argument be against them getting married then?


----------



## Tisme (29 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> If a straight couple that can't have children can get married, then a gay couple should be able to.




So you are saying that couples should have fertility and compatibility tests before their marriage is legally recognised? Isn't that discriminating against hetrosexuals?

I'm still quizzical what it is that drives your crusade to promote homosexual marriage? It's not like you are a bleeding heart or even approaching socialism.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> So you are saying that couples should have fertility and compatibility tests before their marriage is legally recognised? Isn't that discriminating against hetrosexuals?
> 
> I'm still quizzical what it is that drives your crusade to promote homosexual marriage? It's not like you are a bleeding heart or even approaching socialism.




What is the difference between the arguments against interacial marriages in say the USA 50+ years ago and against gay marriage now?

As VC has stated, marriages can occurr without children.  Sometimes that is by choice, sometimes because of biology.

Would you deny a retired couple to get married because it's likely they can't have children?  Isn't marriage more about the two people getting married, and the way society views their relationship?  Civil unions don't carry the same "respect" within society, let alone defacto relationships.  There's till a negative view from some int he community against sex outside of marriage.

Some slogans from the USA against interracial marriages:


Race mixing is communism
This type of legal marriage must be forbidden simply because natural instinct revolts at is as wrong (republican senator)
God disapproves - The fact he separated the races shows the he did not intend for the races to mix
The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results
The underlying factors that constitute justifications for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages
The progeny of a marriage between negro and cuacasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races
Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration."

Do you believe any of the above is true?


----------



## Tink (29 May 2015)

If they don't have a referendum on this and let the public talk, this will always be an issue.

NINE POLL - Majority oppose Same Sex Marriage 

Yes – 47% [41,387]agree to change to Marriage Act 
No – 53% [46,498] OPPOSE change to Marriage Act

@ 5PM WST 28 May 2015


http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...u-readers-have-their-say-on-same-sex-marriage


----------



## Value Collector (29 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> So you are saying that couples should have fertility and compatibility tests before their marriage is legally recognised? Isn't that discriminating against hetrosexuals?
> 
> .




I am not saying that, I am happy for anyone to marry any other consenting adult regardless. Tink and others here are saying marriage is about children, and saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage is about raising children, by that logic we should be excluding anyone who can't or doesn't plan to have children.



> I'm still quizzical what it is that drives your crusade to promote homosexual marriage?




Simply because I believe it's the right thing to do, a society that treats people as equals is a better place to live. If I have children that turn out to be homosexual or lesbian, I want society to treat them no differently as anyone else.



I also don't think it's right to ban things that can't be shown to be harmful, I honestly can not see a single reason why a homosexual or lesbian couple can not be married just as any other couple can, I mean it doesn't affect me, it won't affect you, so why ban it?



> It's not like you are a bleeding heart or even approaching socialism




No. I am not a bleeding heart, But I do like to do the right thing, and I have no idea what socialism has to do with gay marriage.


----------



## Value Collector (29 May 2015)

Tink said:


> If they don't have a referendum on this and let the public talk, this will always be an issue.
> 
> NINE POLL - Majority oppose Same Sex Marriage
> 
> ...




that's pretty close, but anyway a poll of less than 100,000 can't be taken as a representation of the country, I mean I think a greater portion of the older generations probably are represented there. 

When it's younger people surveyed, the results are enormously in favour of gay marriage. So you are on the losing side tink, by the day your support base are dwindling and ours is growing, trying to stop gay marriage will be as futile as trying to stop the tides.

I just think we may as well get it done asap, so more people can benefit from it, rather than let it drag on.



> Support for gay marriage among Generation Y, also known as the Millennial Generation, has reached 70%, according to a poll released Thursday (21 March) by The Pew Research Center. Not only is this level of support among those 18-32 far higher than the support among older generations, it has grown dramatically from 51% 10 years ago. This is particularly significant since 'Millennials' make up 27% of the adult population today compared to 9% in 2003. Overall, support is at 49% compared to 33% in 2003. Generation X, people born between 1965 and 1980, are at a 49% acceptance rate of gay marriage - up 8 percentage points. - See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...iage-rapid-pace-us220313#sthash.gRNXi386.dpuf


----------



## Hodgie (29 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> When it's younger people surveyed, the results are enormously in favour of gay marriage. So you are on the losing side tink, by the day your support base are dwindling and ours is growing, trying to stop gay marriage will be as futile as trying to stop the tides.




I would have to agree there, I'm Gen Y as are the major portion of my friends, I see huge support for gay marriage coming from the people I know, especially from young females.


----------



## McLovin (29 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> that's pretty close, but anyway a poll of less than 100,000 can't be taken as a representation of the country, I mean I think a greater portion of the older generations probably are represented there.




Umm...It's a web poll. It's for novelty purposes only.


----------



## Boggo (29 May 2015)

Tink said:


> If they don't have a referendum on this and let the public talk, this will always be an issue.
> 
> NINE POLL - Majority oppose Same Sex Marriage
> 
> ...




Bear in mind that a portion of the vote in Ireland was a direct message of opposition to the Catholic church as a result of its arrogant approach to the Irish public in ensuring that its criminal pedophiles were protected at all costs.

You will find that the church here will adopt a neutral stance in this debate as any opposition to same sex marriage might result in a similiar effect especially while the likes of Pell etc were moving their criminals around and now they have had to "promote" him away from the problem he has left behind.


----------



## Junior (29 May 2015)

I'm in my early 30s.  My social media feeds are a constant stream of very strong support for gay marriage...and none opposing.

If support is say 70% for people under 40 years old now, how strong will support be in 10 or 20 years?  I'm not saying younger folks opinion matter more, I'm saying the majority of marriages are amongst younger individuals, it's absolutely inevitable, so let's just get it done and we can stop hearing about it, and debate other important issues.  

For those opposed, consider the fact that legalisation of gay marriage will not impact on your life or anyone you know.

It's yet another area where this country is living in the past, and lagging other developed economies.


----------



## Value Collector (29 May 2015)

McLovin said:


> Umm...It's a web poll. It's for novelty purposes only.




Yes, I understand that, Tink was suggesting it had greater significance.


----------



## trainspotter (29 May 2015)

*Bill Shorten releases details of Labor's same-sex marriage bill*



> The words "man and woman" and "husband and wife" will be replaced by "two people" in the Marriage Act under Bill Shorten's proposal to redefine marriage in Australia.
> 
> Under the changes gay couples who have already married overseas would have their unions recognised under Australian law, with the repeal of section 88EA of the Act.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-samesex-marriage-bill-20150529-ghcinb.html







> If Labor listens to its deputy and the national conference votes in favour of a binding vote on gay marriage, the major party of the Left in this country could split. Certainly the conservative elements of the party will cross the floor and risk expulsion. If they are kicked out, then a split will soon follow. If a blind eye is turned to the breaking of clear party rules, the solidarity so many within the labour movement claim as an important reason for denying the right to cross the floor will be shattered. A conscience vote avoids all of this.
> 
> While I do not doubt Plibersek’s sincerity of purpose when it comes to championing gay rights, there is more at play for her. The Left faction, of which she is the most senior member, is growing in strength internally. It dominates the ranks of the lay membership, which now has an equal say with the parliamentary party when electing federal leaders. Plibersek is playing to her natural constituency, including those in her electorate, which is increasingly under threat from Greens. Many within the Left wouldn’t mind a party split that saw the Right weakened with departures. The challenge the Left faces from the Greens makes it mindful of the need to push causes that appeal to inner-city progressives.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...iage-hurts-cause/story-fn53lw5p-1227330766042

Just live in sin and have a pre-nup. Marriage is archaic and should be abolished IMO


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 May 2015)

trainspotter said:


> *Bill Shorten releases details of Labor's same-sex marriage bill*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





+1

gg


----------



## Tink (30 May 2015)

VC, as I have said, I don't believe the polls, just as was shown in the election in the UK, but it does go to show how divided people still are on this topic.
Web poll or not, people still felt the need to have their say.

The Gay News is not a place I would get my information without bias.

Boggo, I am not going to make excuses for the HUMANS in the Catholic Church as I agree it was disgusting what they did, but one question I ask is who are these humans?
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, you can flip it any way you want, but that is exactly what it is, sexual urges for children.
Sadly, they don't tell you that on their references.

We have child pornography running rampant in society for something that we think we have found and dealt with, is it getting better?

Secondly if that country voted in spite, rather than for, then I feel for the children of that country whose rights have just been stripped.
As I said, give rights to one, take it from another.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 May 2015)

Tink said:


> VC, as I have said, I don't believe the polls, just as was shown in the election in the UK, but it does go to show how divided people still are on this topic.
> Web poll or not, people still felt the need to have their say.
> 
> The Gay News is not a place I would get my information without bias.
> ...




Tink

one of your main arguments against gay marriage is that it somehow devalues current marriages.

So if gay marriage does get legalised, would you instantly feel your marriage is somehow devalued?  Or are you more worried about how others will view marriage?

If the later, can you understand how gay people feel when they are told their relationships are not worthy of being called marriage.

A possible way around the issue could be to just change the legal side of things so everything is called a civil union.  Marriage can just represent the (unimportant) ceremony , but the Govt recognition of the relationship and all that entails can be be referred to s a civil union.

The religious can continue to pretend they have a monopoly over the term marriage, and the community moves on.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Tink
> 
> one of your main arguments against gay marriage is that it somehow devalues current marriages.
> 
> ...




Given that, do you respect the right of churches to refuse to marry gay people ?


----------



## bellenuit (30 May 2015)

Tink said:


> Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, you can flip it any way you want, but that is exactly what it is, sexual urges for children.




Tink, you can't just make up your own science to suit your agenda. 

_Pedophilia or paedophilia is a *psychiatric disorder* in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger._

You keep trying to position paedophilia in the same category as homosexuality in order to denigrate the latter. Studies have shown that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two ends of a scale and everyone is positioned somewhere along that scale, not just at either ends. Although homosexuality was at one stage considered a psychiatric disorder, that idea has long been discredited.

_ In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system._


----------



## sydboy007 (30 May 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Given that, do you respect the right of churches to refuse to marry gay people ?




Sure do.

Why push a group to do something they legally are not required to do.  Why waste your tiem aroudn people that don't respect you?

There's plenty of other venues to get married at.  My parents eloped.  Pretty much all my relatives were married outside a church, I suppose mostly due to the fact we're not particularly religious.

Why be part of a Church if it's not progressive enough to recognise your relationship?

The issue is people equate marriage in a church as marriage.  It's not.  It' just a get together or various people to see a ceremony.

If you don't do the official paper work you're not married.  Religious groups like to pretend they have a monopoly on marriage.

The world didn't end when Jesus worked on the Sabbath, if you call giving sight to a blind man work, and the world survived.  Anyone who professes to have read and understood their direct from God book, should maybe have a reread of John 4:28-30, Matthew 21:28-32, John 8:1-11 and then do some reflection on that great question "What would Jesus do"????

The sun will continue to rise and set long after Australia accepts gay marriage, and the kind of Jesus I like to believe in would be quite chuffed that we'd made a little more social progress.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2015)

> Sure do.
> 
> Why push a group to do something they legally are not required to do. Why waste your tiem aroudn people that don't respect you?
> 
> ...




A very reasonable view.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2015)

Tink said:


> then I feel for the children of that country whose rights have just been stripped.
> As I said, give rights to one, take it from another.




No child has lost any right, and the children that are gay can now look forward to having more rights than they used to be able to look forward to, so it's a net plus for kids.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Given that, do you respect the right of churches to refuse to marry gay people ?




Yes, they can have a bigoted little club if they like. unless they advertise as offering wedding services to the public, then it's should be open to any eligible party that comes.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2015)

What's up with religion and homosexuals?

The Church explains everything away as "God's plan", that we have to come to term with it because god have his reasons etc. 

So natural disasters, drought, famine, war, diseases... all those horrible things are bad, but god weeps and it's part of his plan. Those bacteria and cancerous cells killing your loved ones... It's part of god's creation etc.

But... homosexuality? That's just nasty, god didn't make that... they're definitely going to hell those gays. And according to Pat Robertson in the US, God so hated homosexuals he bring on hurricanes and floods.

ah nuts.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No child has lost any right,




Children conceived by IVF could be considered to have lost the "right" to two biological parents, but that hardly matters these days does it ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Children conceived by IVF could be considered to have lost the "right" to two biological parents, but that hardly matters these days does it ?




The referendum that tink says caused children to lose their rights, was about gay marriage, not about Ivf laws or biological parents.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The referendum that tink says caused children to lose their rights, was about gay marriage, not about Ivf laws or biological parents.




Ah yes, but it's the old slippery slope argument don't you know ?


----------



## pixel (31 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> The religious can continue to pretend they have a monopoly over the term marriage, and the community moves on.




The religious crowd already pretends theirs is a special union: They call their brand of marriage a sacrament.

Given that, I don't believe there is a need for rebadging marriage and giving it another name (e.g. civil union). Let's simply grow up and continue to label the legal status of two persons who have made this particular commitment to each other a marriage. 

In Victorian times, the right to enter into legally binding contracts, especially ownership of property, was restricted to members of one gender. Women needed a guardian, and husbands were required to "audit the household books" at least monthly. The same was true in the case of parliamentary elections.

Societies have moved on and removed gender-specific restrictions in those cases without changing the descriptions of "property", "contract", or "election". Of course, history records strong opposition at the time, with arguments similar to those now leveled against gender-neutral marriages. 
God's Will, different brain functions, lunar cycles, ... lots of invented, irrational, unscientific nonsense; over time, the opponents died out. The same will - and should - happen once sanity will have prevailed about "marriage".


----------



## Tink (1 June 2015)

Syd, this topic has been done to death, but just to answer your post.

I appreciate your post, regarding civil unions and respecting the Churches wishes, regarding Marriage.
Yes, I am looking at it from a Church perspective, but I know many are looking at it as the foundation that holds society together, equal being mum, dad, children..
You don't have to be religious to be standing up for Marriage, we all have parents.
There has been a strong voice against, and many asking for a referendum, they want their voice heard.

Tisme said similarly in one of his posts about handing Marriage back to the Church where it began.

_I say that if the govts have historically written bills and legislation to financially encourage a nation of naturally conceiving families and they are now being modified to embrace impossible to naturally conceive couple, then why not just scrap the whole govt interfering in marriages and hand that back to Churches who thought up the idea in the first place for fun and profit:-. 
_
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=48&p=870324&viewfull=1#post870324

I know you are not religious but just understanding the Christian Churches teachings and principles, there is a reason for all that they stand up for, and it is not trying to single out anyone. 
-- Life, Family and the common good for all.

Marriage is the foundations of society that keeps it together, dismantling Marriage, just moves it to state control.

Marriage is a sacrament, man and woman, becomes husband and wife, have their children and raise them.
They have perfect equality of a mother and father, and BOTH give what a child needs.
I mention the Gold standard because that is what Marriage is and should be taught in schools as is.
I don't agree with removing genders.
I don't believe children should be learning your lifestyle as marriage, you can't have children that way and there is no reason for them to learn about it.

Marriage is about the truth, biological parents with their children.

We have been through this many times.

I was told the other day that this is not a human rights issue.
It has been dealt with regarding your relationships.

VC, we don't live in a communist country, I can say whatever I like.
We do still have free speech.

The Left are determined to destroy the family unit.

Classic leftists lines 
_-- it is in the science or more education is needed -- _
hence, more brainwashing for their social engineering.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Syd, this topic has been done to death, but just to answer your post.
> 
> I appreciate your post, regarding civil unions and respecting the Churches wishes, regarding Marriage.
> Yes, I am looking at it from a Church perspective, but I know many are looking at it as the foundation that holds society together, equal being mum, dad, children..
> ...




being homosexual is no more a _lifestyle _than being heterosexual.  it is not a choice, and why would anyone choose to be viewed as deviant by society if they could choose to be part of the dominant group?  I knew I was more attracted to men from a younish age.  Certainly always found the masculine form more "pleasing to the eye".  I was born this way and accept it as being as much apart of me as blue eyes and brown hair.

Brainwashing is more likely to occur within a religion than in a schoolroom.  When you have religious people wanting to force schools to treat creationism on the same level as the scientific understanding of how the earth formed and life began, well I suppose it's good to know the earth is just about 6000 years old and according to a lot of the religious right we have humans frolicking with the dinosaurs.

Judeo Christian Churches did not invent marriage.  Marriage rituals were around long before Jesus was born.  They were pretty much pagan celebrations, though probably religious too but pagan according to the more recent religions.  Records show some of the earliest "marriages" were even for same sex couples.  It was really only the influence of religion that caused 1600+ years of persecution for homosexuals.  Around 340 AD the Christian Emperors Constanttinus II and Constans brought into law prohibitions on same sex marriages.  Monastery records from Spain show that 2 men were married on 16 April 1061.  If you can bring yourself to take off your religious blinkers you'll see that same sex marriage has been around for a very very long time.

I would argue that a fair society that treats all it's citizens equally has stronger bonds between people than one that views some as more worthy than others.  In 20 or 30 years those against same sex marriage will be viewed in the same light as those who supported slavery, and racial segregation and were against interracial marriages.  Many of those people were overtly religious, using the bible to justify their positions.


----------



## Value Collector (1 June 2015)

Tink said:


> .
> 
> Tisme said similarly in one of his posts about handing Marriage back to the Church where it began.
> 
> ...



The Church doesn't own marriage, never has and never will

Human beings Marrying each other Pre dates pretty much all religions, and it certainly predates both Christianity and Jewish religions, there was marriages happening in cultures all over the world for thousands of years before the Bible was written.

So the religious opinions on marriage don't mean anything when it comes to people or nations that are not part of the religion.

Marriage also predates all countries and political structures, and marriages exist whether those countries recognise them or not, But if a country gets into the business of recognising marriages, while also making itself out to be a nation that embraces diversity and equality, then it should recognise all marriages.



> VC, we don't live in a communist country, I can say whatever I like.
> We do still have free speech.




I have never suggested we are a communist country, We are a vibrant secular democracy. I do wonder why you always through the word communist around.

Also, I have never said you don't have the right to free speech, But I also have the write to point out that you are being silly, and that you are wrong.



> Marriage is about the truth, biological parents with their children




Marriage is about what ever the two people involved say its about, My marriage is about loving and supporting each other, enjoying our time together, watching movies, eating out, walking our dogs, kisses, etc etc.

You don't get to say what my marriage is.

For some people marriage is about gets, and I say good for them, but for others marriage is about other things, and that's good too.


----------



## Value Collector (1 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> For some people marriage is about gets,.




I meant Kids, lol not gets


----------



## SirRumpole (1 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I meant Kids, lol not gets




Maybe you meant pets, but did a typo


----------



## McLovin (1 June 2015)

pixel said:


> In Victorian times, the right to enter into legally binding contracts, especially ownership of property, was restricted to members of one gender. Women needed a guardian, and husbands were required to "audit the household books" at least monthly. The same was true in the case of parliamentary elections.




Coverture was alive and well in the Victorian era, and wives were the chattel property of their husbands. I'm sure at the time it was considered necessary for society to keep its "family values".


----------



## Value Collector (1 June 2015)

McLovin said:


> Coverture was alive and well in the Victorian era, and wives were the chattel property of their husbands. I'm sure at the time it was considered necessary for society to keep its "family values".




Yes, when people say they are in favour of traditional marriage, I always wonder how "traditional" they mean, Are the talking 1950's traditional or 1650's traditional or Biblical traditional, because traditional can mean some crazy stuff.

And when people like Tink dwell on nostalgic feelings of how good values were back in the day, they should remember it only seemed good because it wasn't "right" to talk about the stuff they thought was bad.

Gays didn't exist back then because we kept them stuffed in the closet with threats, out of wedlock children didn't exist because we sent young girls out of town to have bastard children and then took the child by force and adopted them out, divorce didn't exist because women were taught to stay in bad relationships, couples didn't argue because men would keep "their women" in line, abortion never existed because we had forced marriages/shotgun weddings.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 June 2015)

No longer just think of the children, now it's the poor aliens too

http://mikeheath.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/a-rabid-government-america-forcing.html



> The government went further than I imagined possible.  In addition to "sexual orientation" they included the category of gender, "trans"gender to be more specific.  This is more accurately described as cross dressing on steroids, just as "sexual orientation" is more accurately imagined as sexual perversion.




There's that Christian love they speak so much of



> In the article by Austin Ruse mentioned above we find that the virus is spreading rapidly.  It won't be enough to pervert the whole world with this evil anti-family worldview.  Since the developed governments of the world aspire to colonizing planets we have to prepare for the export of sodomy to other worlds -- to the entire universe!
> 
> I think it's time for us Christians to flip open our communicators.  Beam me up Scotty.
> 
> It's like satan, a rabid dog, sunk his fangs deep into the donkey flesh of our nation's government.  And now the deranged ass is infecting other nations.




Oh if only they could be beamed to somewhere else.



> Coach Dave told me this week that he has a clip of conservative talker Michael Savage saying that the only force capable of saving America is a militant Christianity.




Uh oh, are they headed down the righteous path like those heathen Muslims?



> The America of Chesty men may be gone forever. The America of youthful, virile and patriotic pastors may be gone. But I don't think so.




Ah, lets keep this <G> rated eh



> While my son and I were in Seattle, Washington recently I talked with an old friend.  She told me of a Christian acquaintance of hers who will probably speak at the conference.  Her acquaintance promotes homosexuality as a moral sexual alternative for Christians.  She is motivated by the tragic suicide of her drug-addled sexually-deviant son.
> 
> This mom thinks that early and frequent exposure of youth to the idea that it is evil to "discriminate" against "gays" will head off suicide. Jesus certainly doesn't agree.  He condemns all sex outside of marriage, and isn't kind to adults who work to corrupt their imaginations.




Oh the depth of Christian love that you show.  Um, remind me of the verses that Jesus spoke explicitly about sex, because I don't seem to remember him getting too worked up about it.  A little bit about divorce and adultery, but that was pretty much it.



> Is it too late for America to take the vaccine?
> 
> Are the symptoms of judgment evident?




Well, considering a significant minority of US Christians believe the rapture will occur during their lifetime, you're not lone in your feelings of delusion.


----------



## Tink (3 June 2015)

Syd, as I mentioned, there are a couple of gays that are standing up for Marriage too.
I would say it is a lot more than a couple, that respect Marriage to stay as is.
Mother, Father, and their Children.

Still no reason how bringing in Gay Marriage will be better for society?

_By undermining our Christian foundations, you undermine civilisation. 
By satisfying present desires, you ensure subsequent chaos and misery._

I find it interesting that you are against segregation but you are happy to have just males or females with a child?
How is that a reflection of society?
You don't think a son needs his father, daughter needs her mother, or vice versa.
You don't think the sexes are different and each contribute to a well rounded child?

NO to removing genders.

We now have a fatherless generation, and we want to make things worse.
Why aren't they up in arms about this puppy farm for women, as Tisme mentioned, where they are there to breed for homosexuals?
_
The Left has a secret agenda: to replace parenthood with the state. 
In particular it despises the father, as the protector of his children._


----------



## Value Collector (3 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Still no reason how bringing in Gay Marriage will be better for society?




We Have answered your question many times, but here it is again.

A society that values equality is a better palce to live for all, so unless it can be shown that Gay marriage is harmful it should not be banned, simple as that.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Syd, as I mentioned, there are a couple of gays that are standing up for Marriage too.
> I would say it is a lot more than a couple, that respect Marriage to stay as is.
> Mother, Father, and their Children.
> 
> ...




I've shown you evidence that has been gathered over decades that shows children raised by same sex parents are not adversely affected.  You choose to either ignore or not believe it.  

You ignore the fact that the church used to perform same sex marriages in the distant past.  It was only due to religious intolerance that homosexuality went through over a thousand years of persecution.

I believe that love for a child, whether from your gold standard, a single parent, same sex parents, is far more important than anything else.  You like to pretend the current family unit is perfect, when there's tens of thousands of children in Australia living within abusive families.  Somehow that is still preferable to a child being raised by a loving same sex couple.

You insinuate that somehow same sex couples would abuse the children, when we have decades of history to see it's predominantly heterosexuals that are child abusers, that it's members of the same Church you are aligned with that perpetuate the abuse, that systematically covered it up and then done it's best to deny any wrongdoing.  How does one argue morality from a morally corrupt position?

Your left state seeking to ursurp parenthood sounds like right wing propaganda.  Maybe you prefer "The America of Chesty men...The America of youthful, virile and patriotic pastors..." though I'd prefer an Australia that treats all citizens as equals, that doesn't condemn youth to higher suicide rates because the "mainstream" dominant class lets it be known they value one sexual orientation over all others.

Too many religious people fought against the abolition of slavery, they fought against ending racial segregation, they fought against interracial marriages, they fought against decriminalising homosexuality.  Major religions always seem to fight against the very things Jesus would have supported.  It amazes me how far most have strayed from the path they profess to be following.


----------



## Logique (3 June 2015)

Too many hidden agendas for me. It's a con job, and attacks a fundamental pillar of our society.

If it was just about equality, I'd be fine with it. But equality is just the sales pitch. 

My local MP has been told in no uncertain terms how to vote.


----------



## Junior (3 June 2015)

Logique said:


> Too many hidden agendas for me. It's a con job, and attacks a fundamental pillar of our society.
> 
> If it was just about equality, I'd be fine with it. But equality is just the sales pitch.
> 
> My local MP has been told in no uncertain terms how to vote.




What are some examples of the hidden agendas?


----------



## luutzu (3 June 2015)

Logique said:


> Too many hidden agendas for me. It's a con job, and attacks a fundamental pillar of our society.
> 
> If it was just about equality, I'd be fine with it. But equality is just the sales pitch.
> 
> My local MP has been told in no uncertain terms how to vote.




There are things worth conserving, then there are "pillars" that needs removing, add an arch and extend the view.

There's talks of banning gay marriage to save the children... what about the gay children? The gay adolescents? Should our society protect other children at their expense?


----------



## Logique (3 June 2015)

Suddenly I'm the one called upon for disclosure.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 June 2015)

> when we have decades of history to see it's predominantly heterosexuals that are child abusers,




Like the gay couple that bought a child from a foreign country so they could abuse him ?

The rate of child abuse among homosexuals would be limited by the numbers of homosexuals (about 5% of the population), and their access to children.

There is nothing to say that they are any better or worse than heterosexuals when it comes to child abuse.


----------



## Value Collector (3 June 2015)

Logique said:


> Suddenly I'm the one called upon for disclosure.




I would also be interested in hearing what these agendas are.


----------



## Value Collector (3 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> .
> 
> There is nothing to say that they are any better or worse than heterosexuals when it comes to child abuse.




Exactly, so risk of child abuse can not be used as an argument against them.

Not to mention that children is a separate issue anyway.


----------



## Tink (4 June 2015)

Logique said:


> Too many hidden agendas for me. It's a con job, and attacks a fundamental pillar of our society.
> 
> If it was just about equality, I'd be fine with it. But equality is just the sales pitch.
> 
> My local MP has been told in no uncertain terms how to vote.




+1, agree, Logique.

This is about Marriage.

Kicking and stomping that they want to be equal, does not make it so.

Every child adopted by a gay couple is stripped of his parents.

Luutzu, this is not a human rights issue, gays have had civil unions for ten years, which have all the same rights.

Yes, Rumpole, most of the abuse that happens is NOT by the biological parent.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Like the gay couple that bought a child from a foreign country so they could abuse him ?
> 
> The rate of child abuse among homosexuals would be limited by the numbers of homosexuals (about 5% of the population), and their access to children.
> 
> There is nothing to say that they are any better or worse than heterosexuals when it comes to child abuse.




Then why is it always an argument against gay marriage about the harm a same sex couple would have on the Children?


----------



## sydboy007 (4 June 2015)

Tink said:


> +1, agree, Logique.
> 
> This is about Marriage.
> 
> ...




https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics



> The most recent national figures from the AIHW indicate that during 2012-13, there were 184,216 Australian children suspected of being harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect. *This resulted in 272,980 notifications being issued by state and territory authorities (a rate of 35.5 notifications per 1,000 Australian children).* The total number of notifications represents an increase of 7.9% from the 252,962 reports made in the previous year.








The above types of abuse are most likely to come from biological parents.  If not, then an extended family member or someone known to the family.  It wont surprise me if things have gotten worse with the slowing of the economy.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 June 2015)

Logique said:


> Suddenly I'm the one called upon for disclosure.




You made a claim.  In an open forum it's usually good manners to back it up with some evidence.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Then why is it always an argument against gay marriage about the harm a same sex couple would have on the Children?




The children argument is more to do with a balance of male and female opinions and attributes in the child's upbringing which gives them a balanced outlook in their lives. Gay parenting does not provide that apart from peripheral characters in the child's life which is not the same as parental guidance.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 June 2015)

For anyone who may think gays are squeaky clean when it comes to domestic violence.



> Woman stabbed in eye, genitals by partner in Brisbane assault
> 
> A woman in her 30s has been stabbed multiple times, including in the eye and genitals, by her female partner in western Brisbane, police say.
> 
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (4 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> For anyone who may think gays are squeaky clean when it comes to domestic violence.




It's not about them being "squeaky clean", its whether being gay makes you more likely to commit offences, if the answer is "No you are no more likely" then that's the end of the argument.

I not at all interested in the listing of situations where straight or gay individuals have committed offences, but if you want to play that poker game, then I see your lesbian stabbing, and I raise you one straight lady murdering 8 children in cairns.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's not about them being "squeaky clean", its whether being gay makes you more likely to commit offences, if the answer is "No you are no more likely" then that's the end of the argument.
> 
> I not at all interested in the listing of situations where straight or gay individuals have committed offences, but if you want to play that poker game, then I see your lesbian stabbing, and I raise you one straight lady murdering 8 children in cairns.




I previously said that gays are no more or less likely than hets to commit violent acts, but some people like to portray that they are the picture of innocence compared to the things going on in the straight community. That's clearly not the case.


----------



## Value Collector (4 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I previously said that gays are no more or less likely than hets to commit violent acts, .




If you are talking about acts of extreme violence, eg. Bashing, stabbing etc that leads to death or hospitalisation the biggest risk factor is simply being male. Now I am not sure, but a lot of homosexuals to seem to have more feminine characteristics, this my in fact me they are less risk, But we would need to see a study on this to confirm that.

Either as you rightly point out, any argument that suggests they are more likely is bunk.



> but some people like to portray that they are the picture of innocence compared to the things going on in the straight community. That's clearly not the case




I don't think any memebers are portraying a picture of innocence, So members are trying to portray a picture of vile sexual deviants.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The children argument is more to do with a balance of male and female opinions and attributes in the child's upbringing which gives them a balanced outlook in their lives. Gay parenting does not provide that apart from peripheral characters in the child's life which is not the same as parental guidance.




So if you got to watch a room full of young children playing and interacting with each other, and there some with male and female parents, others with just a single parent, and some with same sex parents, are you saying you could pick which children came from which family?

If not, how would you be able to determine / prove that the children from the heterosexual couple were developing in a mentally / emotionally superior way?  Would a heterosexual couple always provide the superior childhood growth?  As we see in the newspapers and on TV there are varying parental standards out there.  Surely at some point single and same sex couples would provide a superior outcome for the child.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 June 2015)

> Surely at some point single and same sex couples would provide a superior outcome for the child.




It would be pretty hard to prove that same sex parents/ single parents are better for a child ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

Of course you can always take a dysfunctional het relationship and say that a stable gay relationship is better for children, but that is a false argument because you are comparing apples with oranges. A stable het relationship would be even better because of the factors I mentioned before.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It would be pretty hard to prove that same sex parents/ single parents are better for a child ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.
> 
> Of course you can always take a dysfunctional het relationship and say that a stable gay relationship is better for children, but that is a false argument because you are comparing apples with oranges. A stable het relationship would be even better because of the factors I mentioned before.




We live in an imperfect world. There are far too many dysfunctional heterosexual relationships where children are involved.

What metrics are you using to show that children from a same sex marriage are developmentally impaired?  My friends have 3 children from surrogacy. I'm confident in saying you'd not pick them out as being from a same sex couple. They know their biological mother in the USA.

A work colleague is going through a divorce. The ex husband to be seems to have little to no interest in the welfare of the children. More so the daughter from a previous marriage gets more support from my college than her biological father, and the daughter has for awhile wanted to be known as a he. Her / his biological mother passed away from cancer a couple of years ago.

So we have a non biological parent providing more support than than the biological parent. How does that compute? Should we stop the non biological parent from providing that support and force the father to step up?


----------



## Tink (5 June 2015)

Syd, with everything you have mentioned, I would rather strengthen Marriage than weaken it.
Keep it as the nuclear family -- the Gold standard.

Marriage is there for parents to take responsibility for their children, and it seems from what you are saying, people are no longer taking responsibility and sacrifice seems to be an outdated word.
The children are theirs and they need to step up and take responsibility.

Children should be put as first priority, not last.
How has this changed through the years?

Encouragement of both the mother and father to be with their children is what we should be doing.
Picking up peoples responsibilities is what is happening here, and the state is not the place to be handing the children.

Civil unions already gives you all the rights that a marriage couple have, except for adopting children, is that right?

I don't think weakening marriage makes it better for society, but worse.

Singling out the father as the big bad wolf is not going to help the situation, as we know we see it both ways, where women are just as much to blame in these situations. 
One is not more than the other.

We need to get back to basics where people are made to take responsibility for their actions.

We don't want the word 'Marriage' hijacked, thanks, leave it as it is.


----------



## Tisme (5 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> We live in an imperfect world. There are far too many dysfunctional heterosexual relationships where children are involved.
> 
> What metrics are you using to show that children from a same sex marriage are developmentally impaired?  My friends have 3 children from surrogacy. I'm confident in saying you'd not pick them out as being from a same sex couple. They know their biological mother in the USA.
> 
> ...




I for one don't condone surrogacy or hands off parenting and those two wrongs don't make a right. 

I've related a girl of a family ties lesbian coupling before and related my observations of that girl . She is moving towards teens and I don't see any improvement in the emotional "metrics" we would consider well adjusted to society. Her dominating real mum doesn't allow any influences on the girl that might impact on her own sexual pursuits and desires ... how dare a child question the out of kilter that is so patently obvious. The girl is more like a Rose in the Attic that gets paraded before all insundry as a trophy for The Sisters' cause.


----------



## Tisme (5 June 2015)

Tink said:


> We don't want the word 'Marriage' hijacked, thanks, leave it as it is.




Ownership of anything these days is considered poor form. Everything is up for grabs because we left the dark ages behind us in year 2000. An age of enlightenment has befallen us where peace, brotherhood and calm reigns supreme. Now we can bring all those who previously chose to live in the fringes into the main stream and bring all their cultural value systems with them for the betterment of society. Yeah!!!


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> We live in an imperfect world. There are far too many dysfunctional heterosexual relationships where children are involved.




Of course, and the solution is more guidance before people get married and have children, not just assertion that gays could do a better job.



> What metrics are you using to show that children from a same sex marriage are developmentally impaired?  My friends have 3 children from surrogacy. I'm confident in saying you'd not pick them out as being from a same sex couple. They know their biological mother in the USA.




It depends on what age the children are as to whether there are any differences in their behaviour. Children grow up however and are then more able to comprehend their position and how better or worse off they may have been if circumstances were different. Asking 5 year old kids about their "parents" is useless because there is still a dependency of the children on their parents.



> A work colleague is going through a divorce. The ex husband to be seems to have little to no interest in the welfare of the children. More so the daughter from a previous marriage gets more support from my college than her biological father, and the daughter has for awhile wanted to be known as a he. Her / his biological mother passed away from cancer a couple of years ago.




This happens all the time in society. Trying to assert that gay people would be any different in that situation is unsupported.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course, and the solution is more guidance before people get married and have children, not just assertion that gays could do a better job.




Exactly how do you propose to achieve this?  If it was so important why hasn't it been done a decade ago or more?



SirRumpole said:


> This happens all the time in society. Trying to assert that gay people would be any different in that situation is unsupported.




Saying the outcomes would be worse via a same sex couple is also unsupported.  It seems those arguing against same sex marriages hold them to the highest of standards in defence against it, but then are happy to acknowledge that the standard is not met happens all the time in society.  So if a same sex couple were generally providing children with the family closer to the "gold" standard, how would that be a worse situation that what we have in our imperfect world?

To follow you logic to the extreme, no one should be able to have a child until they can prove they can live up to the "gold" standard over the life of a child, otherwise aren't we allowing too much risk for the children?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Exactly how do you propose to achieve this?  If it was so important why hasn't it been done a decade ago or more?




Probably something to do with neo Conservatism and hatred of the "nanny state". Throw people in the deep end and let them sort it out themselves, it's not the government's business, apart from paying for domestic violence, law enforcements, divorce courts and child care.



> Saying the outcomes would be worse via a same sex couple is also unsupported.  It seems those arguing against same sex marriages hold them to the highest of standards in defence against it, but then are happy to acknowledge that the standard is not met happens all the time in society.  So if a same sex couple were generally providing children with the family closer to the "gold" standard, how would that be a worse situation that what we have in our imperfect world?
> 
> To follow you logic to the extreme, no one should be able to have a child until they can prove they can live up to the "gold" standard over the life of a child, otherwise aren't we allowing too much risk for the children?





Loving biological parents are the gold standard. Children have contact with parents and know they are wanted, they have a proper male/female balance and role models and they don't get ribbed at school. They know their heritage, medical history  and they don't need to justify their parents to anyone. Can gay parents provide all that ?


----------



## luutzu (5 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> ....
> Loving biological parents are the gold standard. Children have contact with parents and know they are wanted, they have a proper male/female balance and role models and they don't get ribbed at school. They know their heritage, medical history  and they don't need to justify their parents to anyone. Can gay parents provide all that ?




Why not?

Homosexual couples would really really have to want kids to get them. Hetero have your shot gun weddings and just plain old accidents.

Aren't all role models from TV, music and politicians? 

Homosexual parent might be good model by the simple fact they chose to be themselves despite all the legal and social difficulties.

All kids will get rib at school... .children are nice and creative that way. There's blubber if you're fat; (kidsname) germ if you got a cold and sneeze it all out some day; then just plain old fun and games with names - Scott no balls; Toddler... 

Medical, heritage... yes. Justification? Why need to justify to anyone? They could learn to tell others where to go if they're bigotted.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Probably something to do with neo Conservatism and hatred of the "nanny state". Throw people in the deep end and let them sort it out themselves, it's not the government's business, apart from paying for domestic violence, law enforcements, divorce courts and child care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let me paraphrase your argument

Even though there's no evidence that children with same sex parents have any   developmental issues, you believe same sex parents can never provide the level of care you view as appropriate.

Therefore all same sex parents should be prohibited from having children.

You accept that a significant minority of heterosexual parents have been shown to  not provide the level of care you view as appropriate.

Therefore there should be no restrictions on which heterosexual parents can have children, nor should there be any limits on how many children they can have, nor any restrictions on having children with multiple partners.

Basically you are only calling for same sex parents to meet the gold standard.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2015)

> Basically you are only calling for same sex parents to meet the gold standard.




No I'm saying that same sex parenting by its very nature does not provide the qualities that are necessary for a balanced upbringing. Male and female parental role models, knowledge that both your biological parents love and want you (as opposed to one of them just ejaculating into a jar for money), and being part of mainstream society rather than being on the fringe. 

Every person should ask themselves what they would prefer for themselves. I would say the vast majority would want a mother and father, and the few that prefer otherwise would most likely be gay themselves.

Gay marriage for consenting adults OK, disadvantaging non consenting children, not OK.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No I'm saying that same sex parenting by its very nature does not provide the qualities that are necessary for a balanced upbringing. Male and female parental role models, knowledge that both your biological parents love and want you (as opposed to one of them just ejaculating into a jar for money), and being part of mainstream society rather than being on the fringe.
> 
> Every person should ask themselves what they would prefer for themselves. I would say the vast majority would want a mother and father, and the few that prefer otherwise would most likely be gay themselves.
> 
> Gay marriage for consenting adults OK, disadvantaging non consenting children, not OK.




So then you're saying some same sex marriages could provide the same level of care and outcomes as heterosexual parents?

What do you propose for the significant number of "non consenting children" brought into the world by heterosexual parents that are not willing / able to provide the gold standard of care?

I think love is love.  A child that has at least 1 loving parent is usually going to be OK in life.

For some strange reason the focus is on same sex couples when there is already a too high level of harm from heterosexual parents already.  Those poor "non consenting children"


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> For some strange reason the focus is on same sex couples when there is already a too high level of harm from heterosexual parents already.  Those poor "non consenting children"




Again you are using one deficiency to justify another which is not a valid argument, but I'm not going to argue any more, I've given my reasons why I believe the gay parenting is less desirable for children than two loving biological parents and nothing you have said has changed my mind.


----------



## Tisme (6 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Again you are using one deficiency to justify another which is not a valid argument, but I'm not going to argue any more, I've given my reasons why I believe the gay parenting is less desirable for children than two loving biological parents and nothing you have said has changed my mind.




Don't forget the studies to justify good parenting:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...not-prove-that-gay-parents-are-better-122966/


----------



## SirRumpole (6 June 2015)

*The health and well-being of the children are based upon what the parents say they are.*
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...arents-are-better-122966/#PGHT6lTfoj8TTLge.99

Yeah right. This is the biggest con of such studies. As if (any) parents are not going to exaggerate their child's health and well being to show themselves in a better light. 

These studies are rubbish.


----------



## Tisme (16 June 2015)

If a man marries his son, is that incest?


----------



## bellenuit (16 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> If a man marries his son, is that incest?




Well a marriage celebrant could marry his son to another and that would't be incest. Also, if a man was allowed to get married to his own son, that would only be incest if they had sexual relations between each other.


----------



## Tisme (16 June 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Well a marriage celebrant could marry his son to another and that would't be incest. Also, if a man was allowed to get married to his own son, that would only be incest if they had sexual relations between each other.





how so? It's not like it's real sex and the possibility of offspring from consanguinity ....


----------



## bellenuit (16 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> how so? It's not like it's real sex and the possibility of offspring from consanguinity ....




I don't get what you are asking. Getting married is not the same as incest. Marriage is just a ceremony. Incest is a sexual relationship.


----------



## Tisme (17 June 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I don't get what you are asking. Getting married is not the same as incest. Marriage is just a ceremony. Incest is a sexual relationship.




So you are saying that marriage is not a sexually based act, therefore no need to make changes to marriage act based on homo*sex*uality? 

If a woman only gives head, is she still a virgin? Did the chaste Greek girls get it wrong over the last several millennia? Was Clinton right about what constitutes real "sex" and good cigars? Are lesbians virgins? Are male homosexuals virgins?


----------



## Tink (17 June 2015)

The whole Gay Marriage is a con, about selfishness and self interest.

This self interest group, which revolves just around themselves and what they need, trying to attach themselves to the word -- Marriage.
As I said, civil unions give them all the same rights, when it comes to their partners and living together.

I am glad to see the backlash for changing Marriage from the public.

Children come last in their scheme of things, and they believe it is their right that they can buy a child, like a handbag, yet they don't realise that you can't change nature, and God's Law, (life, hope and truth), that a child will always grieve for his or her parents, and knowing their true identity.

Where were the rights of this child?

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/video-young-boy-twerking-pride-has-homophobes-outraged150615

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v...oy-twerking-at-gay-pride-as-drag-queens-cheer


----------



## bellenuit (17 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> So you are saying that marriage is not a sexually based act, therefore no need to make changes to marriage act based on homo*sex*uality?
> 
> If a woman only gives head, is she still a virgin? Did the chaste Greek girls get it wrong over the last several millennia? Was Clinton right about what constitutes real "sex" and good cigars? Are lesbians virgins? Are male homosexuals virgins?




Of course marriage is not a sexual based act. It is a ceremony with legal (and sometimes religious) significance. If it were a sexually based act you could charge for attendance at the ceremony, but might have to hold it in Kings Cross or risk falling foul of the law's indecency provisions.


----------



## Value Collector (17 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> how so? It's not like it's real sex and the possibility of offspring from consanguinity ....




as Hitch would have said,

"homosexuality is not just a type of sex, it's a type of love, and diserves our respect for that reason"


----------



## Value Collector (17 June 2015)

Tink said:


> The whole Gay Marriage is a con, about selfishness and self interest.
> 
> This self interest group, which revolves just around themselves and what they need, trying to attach themselves to the word -- Marriage.
> As I said, civil unions give them all the same rights, when it comes to their partners and living together.
> ...




The whole Catholic Church is a con, about selfishness and self interest.

This self interest group, which revolves just around themselves and what they need, trying to attach themselves to the word -- Marriage.

I am glad to see the support for changing Marriage from the public.

Children come last in their churches scheme of things, and they believe it is their right to act as they like, yet they don't realise that you can't change nature, homosexuality is part of nature, and individuals diserve respect, (life, hope and truth).


----------



## DB008 (21 June 2015)

This issue has kind of faded (for now).

Some people were calling for a referendum, if that is the case, why not have a referendum on a few topics/issues at once? Save money and clear the air in one go.

Gay marriage
Euthanasia
Republic
Cannabis


----------



## Tisme (21 June 2015)

DB008 said:


> This issue has kind of faded (for now).
> 
> Some people were calling for a referendum, if that is the case, why not have a referendum on a few topics/issues at once? Save money and clear the air in one go.
> 
> ...




Can we add prevention of oligopolies in politics?


----------



## luutzu (21 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> Can we add prevention of oligopolies in politics?




What oligopolies? It's always been one dollar one vote (stolen from Stiglitz).


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

luutzu said:


> What oligopolies? It's always been one dollar one vote (stolen from Stiglitz).




Once a threshold is attained, otherwise it's quid pro quo politics.

The Gay marriage thing is gaining traction because both majors see the Greens are stealing donations and gay sympathisers from their rightful benefactors. Last election the Labor Party only garnered  33.4% of the vote and the Libs 32%, the Nationals would always be opposed to gay anything, because as rural folk they know the value of a gay ram in a paddock of ewes. 

But the two majors are both imposters of their original skins who are really just an oligopoly in my view. They set the agenda and squeal like stuck pigs when someone democratically disagrees with it. In the case of Bill Shorten, I should probably give him credit due, he doesn't squeal, he just lays down with Mr Misere.

I pay good money through my taxes for politicians to defend my principles, my forefather's principles, etc.,  but enmasse they seem to be jumping the fence into the paddock of gay marriages instead... in a chase for votes.


----------



## Tink (25 June 2015)

*Austria*: National Assembly votes 110-26 against same-sex “marriage”


----------



## Tisme (25 June 2015)

Tink said:


> *Austria*: National Assembly votes 110-26 against same-sex “marriage”




They can't have realised we are now in the 21st Century!


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> They can't have realised we are now in the 21st Century!




They may have fewer fairies at the bottom of the garden.


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 June 2015)

I guess the conservatives can put this one with the no climate change denials, 



> No evidence that children of same sex couples negatively impacted, study shows
> 
> A new study from the University of Colorado Denver finds that scientists agree that children of same-sex parents experience "no difference" on a range of social and behavioural outcomes compared to children of heterosexual or single parents.
> 
> I found overwhelming evidence that scientists agree that there is not a negative impact to children of same-sex couples


----------



## Tisme (25 June 2015)

Trembling Hand said:


> I guess the conservatives can put this one with the no climate change denials,
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615103946.htm




I often wonder how raw the data is kept when making up these studies. Do they weed out down syndrome kids, autistic kids, left handers, bloodnuts or are same sex couples blessed with perfect kids who would do well without anything in the way of parenting?

Interesting court document here:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEQQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2FObergefellHodges%2FAmicusBriefs%2F14-556_American_College_of_Pediatricians.pdf&ei=YFqLVb2gIcHQmAXqkqWIDA&usg=AFQjCNEp2aWh4ZbT2JvupMC1_ZhO8illig


----------



## Tisme (25 June 2015)

Rather concerning:


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2015)

Worse than that Tisme will be the names of the kids !! I can just see little "Harper" or "Gideon" (same sex parents) getting picked on at school by some schmo kid called "Bruce" (opposite sex parents)


----------



## DB008 (25 June 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Worse than that Tisme will be the names of the kids !! I can just see little "Harper" or "Gideon" (same sex parents) getting picked on at school by some schmo kid called "Bruce" (opposite sex parents)








Anyways, the whole same sex marriage thing doesn't really bother me.

If 2 people are in love, then so be it. Who am I (or you?) to say no to that?


----------



## sydboy007 (25 June 2015)

Tink said:


> The whole Gay Marriage is a con, about selfishness and self interest.
> 
> This self interest group, which revolves just around themselves and what they need, trying to attach themselves to the word -- Marriage.
> As I said, civil unions give them all the same rights, when it comes to their partners and living together.
> ...




As opposed to the selfish people who believe denying a group the ability to use a single word to recognise their relationship as equal with the rest of the community.

Do you hear yourself Tink.  Saying homosexuals put children last, when I doubt you'd have a basic understanding of what life is like for a minority group.  Certainly easier these days, but we still face violence and intolerance from society at large.  

Have you forgotten the thousands upon thousands of lives forever damaged due to various religious organisations perpetually covering up the abuse of Children?  I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest the Catholic church has been a bane to Children over many decades.

It would be better if you could base your comments on facts.  the facts stand that children have faced greater harm from your Church than they have from gay marriage.


----------



## Tink (26 June 2015)

Syd, I am standing up for Marriage, and keeping it as it is for our children and future generations.
You have civil unions which gives you the same as marriage.

Equal is..
Mother, father, child, no one is excluded -- the gold standard -- is the original and the best.
Male and Female.

Opening the door to everyone that wants to get married is not what it is about.
There is a reason that Marriage is the way it is.

Syd, as I have said before, everyone that has come to this country has been through something, so just saying I want Marriage because I want to be equal, is not truth.

Rather than talking about the Catholic Church, why don't you say how it is going to make society better, and what this is really all about?
I know many people that are against changing marriage that aren't even religious.
I even know gays that think it shouldn't be changed - it's the core family institution.

I think it is time that the Gay Activists come out and say what this is really all about, and it is not just about Marriage.
It is about destroying the family structure.

Gender neutral, social constructs, pornography, prostitution, the list goes on.
Anyone that hasn't looked into this, needs to look deeper.
PC has stopped these discussions, but thankfully there are some that have come out and put some truth on the table, rather than tip toeing on eggshells.

_Erasing gender distinctions, especially as they apply to childbearing and rearing, would serve to legally un-define what it means to be human. A new legal definition of human””as neither male nor female””would apply to you whether you like it or not. Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere “social constructs.”_



Tink said:


> *Austria*: National Assembly votes 110-26 against same-sex “marriage”




I was going to post this yesterday, but was too late to add it.
Beautiful.


----------



## Logique (26 June 2015)

The new oppression we can expect. My bolds.  

Sure, it's just about equality. Unless you deviate from the collective line, then look out.



> Injustice cuts both ways
> 
> http://www.dailyadvertiser.com.au/story/3167799/letters-to-the-editor/?cs=150
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (26 June 2015)

Logique said:


> The new oppression we can expect. My bolds.
> 
> Sure, it's just about equality. Unless you deviate from the collective line, then look out.




I think we all know it for what it is ...vandalism and decay


----------



## bellenuit (26 June 2015)

I always admire Thailand for the acceptance they show to others who elsewhere would be called sexual deviants (ladyboys etc.). I doubt if you will hear people complaining about being forced to sell transgender clothing to transexuals because it goes against the sellers religious principles.

*Thailand's Bangkok University transgenders get their own school uniforms*

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/thailands-...genders-get-their-own-school-uniforms-1506524


----------



## sydboy007 (26 June 2015)

Logique said:


> The new oppression we can expect. My bolds.
> 
> Sure, it's just about equality. Unless you deviate from the collective line, then look out.




What a load of cods wallop.

Unless you're expecting Australian society to turn into a form of Fascism, religious people not agreeing to perform marriages will continue to occur.  Why would you want to involve someone on your wedding day that has a sour face and cherry picks versus out of a book they choose to "follow" while also turning their back on others, or flip flopping on their choice of what to do based on what's convenient to them.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Syd, I am standing up for Marriage, and keeping it as it is for our children and future generations.
> You have civil unions which gives you the same as marriage.
> 
> Equal is..
> ...





I suppose when sexual deviancy and indecency within religious organisations is finally under control, they can start to worry about the broader society.  Best one get their own house in order before trying to cast the first stone in a glass house.

You're arguments are reminiscent of the war on Christmas, or the persecution of white Christians.  I have lots of Muslim friends and they all like Christmas, heck I have pictures of one friend dressed up as an elf handing out little gifts to children in a Malaysian hospital from a couple of years back.

So many straw man arguments, so much angst over something that will not change what you have, but will change immensely the way homosexual relationships are viewed by society at large.  Words have power, otherwise terms like ****** or faggot wouldn't be considered impolite these days, then again you might just feel that's the PC police forcing people to stay quiet?

Heterosexuals are doing quite nicely destroying the family structure.  Japan is on a baby strike, so is Italy, Germany, and until recently even Australia.  Divorce rates on the way up, dysfunctional families on the news in pretty much every country.  Gay marriage in no way will get in the way of heterosexual families to continue demeaning the institution of marriage.


----------



## Logique (26 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> What a load of cods wallop.
> 
> Unless you're expecting Australian society to turn into a form of *Fascism*, religious people not agreeing to perform marriages will continue to occur. Why would you want to involve someone on your wedding day that has a sour face and cherry picks versus out of a book they choose to "follow" while also turning their back on others, or flip flopping on their choice of what to do based on what's convenient to them.



I think you mean _Collectivism_.  Nice try, but it would be a 'PC Police' fiesta. There is a long track record on Leftist social issues.  

Perhaps you have missed Fairfax'/ABC relentless persecution of Cardinal Pell?


----------



## sydboy007 (26 June 2015)

Logique said:


> I think you mean _Collectivism_.  Nice try, but it would be a 'PC Police' fiesta. There is a long track record on Leftist social issues.
> 
> Perhaps you have missed Fairfax'/ABC relentless persecution of Cardinal Pell?




WOW.  if the stories from victims are even half as bad as we've been told, then Pell acted so far out of kilter with his professed Christian values he should hold hsi head in shame and leave the Church.


----------



## Trembling Hand (26 June 2015)

Tink said:


> I think it is time that the Gay Activists come out and say what this is really all about, and it is not just about Marriage.
> It is about destroying the family structure.




You are being hysterical. Seriously how is it going to destroy anything?


----------



## Trembling Hand (26 June 2015)

Logique said:


> Perhaps you have missed Fairfax'/ABC relentless persecution of Cardinal Pell?




I don't know if its been persecution but thankfully someone is putting pressure on him. Because his own team certainty have given him a free pass to add to the long list of Catholics who shamelessly do not care about their victims.

He is a disgrace.


----------



## ftw129 (27 June 2015)

A victory for love.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/26/gay-marriage-legal-supreme-court

God bless America and a president we will never forget.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKPOyhBcR78

Peace.

#lovewins


----------



## Value Collector (27 June 2015)

ftw129 said:


> A victory for love.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am so happy for them.

Obama is a champ, so a rational guy.


----------



## Value Collector (27 June 2015)

Tink said:


> I was going to post this yesterday, but was too late to add it.
> Beautiful.





it's funny how you are normally so opposed to communism and socialism, but when a backward little socialist country seems to support your bigoted views suddenly you love them, lol.

Any way, if this debate is a poker game, then I guess I see your Austria, and raise you one United States, lol.


----------



## bellenuit (27 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am so happy for them.
> 
> Obama is a champ, so a rational guy.




No words needed......


----------



## SirRumpole (27 June 2015)

A 5-4 decision is hardly a ringing endorsement. But perhaps we won't get this stuffed down our throats as much now.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 June 2015)

1989 - Denmark legally recognises same sex marriages.  The first country in modern times to do so.

1993 - Norway becomes the second country to legalise gay marriage.

1994 - Sweden comes to the party

1996 - Greenland and Iceland show their progressive outlook

2000 - Belgium legalises gay marriage.

I wont go on, but I'd like someone to show that these countries have declined, that the family structure has been under constant attack, that these countries have somehow suffered because of gay marriage.  Show me proof that the claims made to deny same sex marriage in Australia have occurred in other countries that have, in some cases, had same sex marriage for over 2 decades, and well over 1.

The above countries generally rate as some of the best places to live in the world, yet people on this forum would have us believe that they should be crumbling with social disruption as the family structure is destroyed.


----------



## MrBurns (27 June 2015)

No issue with Gays getting hitched but why do they have to hijack the existing marriage model ?
Anyway looks like they have so  that's the end of it
Perhaps now we can move on to world hunger


----------



## Tink (28 June 2015)

Exactly right, Mr Burns, why do they have to redefine Marriage, that has been here for years.
How marriage gets taught in our schools.

Our children deserve the same as what we grew up with, the truth, not this over riding everything and everyone.
This is totalitarian.

No one is complaining about Civil Unions.

Agree, Logique, they have been relentless in their persecution of the Christians on the ABC, and even if Abbott mentions 'Jesus', it is on the front page.

Well said Tisme -- Vandalism and Decay.

VC, the Sound of Music was based in Austria, a true story, and since this year is the 50th anniversary of this 'Timeless Classic' of a movie, I thought I would add it. 
Perfect timing, and I say good on them for standing up for their values.
Have you seen it, I am sure everyone has seen it -- pure elegance, class and decency.

As for socialism, isn't that where we are heading here?
All these same people were relentless in upping the price of alcohol etc for health, but yet they shut their eyes to what they are trying to push here.

TH, they are not asking for equality, they are asking to REDEFINE marriage. 
As I have said, they have civil unions, which gives them the same rights.

Bellenuit, Thailand doesn't have same sex marriage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Thailand


----------



## sydboy007 (28 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> No issue with Gays getting hitched but why do they have to hijack the existing marriage model ?
> Anyway looks like they have so  that's the end of it
> Perhaps now we can move on to world hunger






Tink said:


> Exactly right, Mr Burns, why do they have to redefine Marriage, that has been here for years.
> How marriage gets taught in our schools.




I think you are being a bit unfair in that some of the earliest marriages we have records for were actually for same sex people.

It was just hundreds of years of religious persecution and intolerance of homosexuality that has allowed the various major religions to put a false claim on marriage as something they own.

Tink

would you like to show how gay marriage has been used to white ant civil society and the family structure in Denmark / Norway / Sweden?  Surely there's plenty of evidence on the trauma caused to children having to relearn what marriage is?  What was the cost for schools having to change their text books about marriage?  I'll admit my memory ain't the best, but I really don't remember having specific classes about marriage at school.  Maybe that's something you only get within a faith based schooling environment?

Surely with up to a quarter of a century of gay marriage in some countries, it should be easy enough to provide specific examples of how this has harmed society.  With that long for those out to white ant the traditional family there should now be signs of their success, or possibly failure?  Maybe there wasn't / isn't any plot to destroy the family / attack the values of society, and the issue truly is about bringing our societies forward and publicly recognising that love been a same sex couple is truly the same as the love between a heterosexual couple.

If jesus was alive today, I believe h'd have been marching with me in early 90s to have the anti vilification legislation enacted in NSW to make it a crime to incite violence against others.  I also believe he'd have been out helping the marginalised, just as you should know was written in the bible.  Considering he never mentioned homosexuality, I take that as meaning he wasn't particularly worried about it.  Certainly he saw more pressing issues at the time that warranted speaking out about.

So, as the T Shirt slogan says, _What would Jesus do_ on this issue.   

_Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres._  If that is not a good basis for a marriage, I don't know what is.  It certainly doesn't proscribe who can provide the love, or who can receive the love.


----------



## MrBurns (28 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I think you are being a bit unfair in that some of the earliest marriages we have records for were actually for same sex people.
> 
> It was just hundreds of years of religious persecution and intolerance of homosexuality that has allowed the various major religions to put a false claim on marriage as something they own.
> 
> .




Oh bulldust.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, if gays want to get legally connected call it something else.


----------



## bellenuit (28 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, if gays want to get legally connected call it something else.




"Marriage" is what we chose it to be. In Australia, it is currently a union of a man and a woman. In Ireland and many Scandinavian countries, it is a union of two people, without regards to their sex.

Nothing is set in stone.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Oh bulldust.
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, if gays want to get legally connected call it something else.




Can you clarify what exactly I said was bull dust.

Do you deny that there are recorded marriages from over 1000 years ago?  Do you deny it was the Catholic Church that basically set about the persecution of homosexuals and banned gay marriages?

Do you have any examples of how the various countries which have had same sex marriage for 15+ years have in some way been negatively affected?


----------



## MrBurns (28 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Can you clarify what exactly I said was bull dust.
> 
> Do you deny that there are recorded marriages from over 1000 years ago?  Do you deny it was the Catholic Church that basically set about the persecution of homosexuals and banned gay marriages?
> 
> Do you have any examples of how the various countries which have had same sex marriage for 15+ years have in some way been negatively affected?







> I think you are being a bit unfair in that some of the earliest marriages we have records for were actually for same sex people.




Bulldust.

The Catholic Church has persecuted everyone from time to time and I couldn't care less about whether gay marriage has negatively effected any particular country.


----------



## Duckman#72 (28 June 2015)

Trembling Hand said:


> I don't know if its been persecution but thankfully someone is putting pressure on him. Because his own team certainty have given him a free pass to add to the long list of Catholics who shamelessly do not care about their victims.
> 
> He is a disgrace.




Yes unfortunately the "accusations" make the headlines, the actual facts not shouted so loudly. 

In the latest case, a victim of rape by a local priest said that he directly reported the crime to Pell and he did nothing. He was adamant it was Pell and of the year this occurred - 1969. This was broadcast far and wide.

Unfortunately passport records that prove Pell was not even in Australia during 1969 haven't been broadcast as loudly.

Doesn't matter............it's "the vibe of it" that counts.

Duckman


----------



## galumay (28 June 2015)

One really easy way to fix the marriage mess is to remove the legal and state concept of marriage from the religious one.

This would be consistent with the separation of powers concept regarding the state and religion.

In countries like Turkey, Japan and France (and maybe many others), marriage is something defined and run by the state, to be officially married it must be done by a state official, usually the mayor or their proxy. The rights and responsobilities as well as the benefits of marriage flow from this civil union.

If people have some particular religious belief then once they are married properly they can go and have whatever form of ceremony they want with their religion.

But being married in the church carries no weight with the state - as it should be. So if you married in the church you would get none of the things that flow from being officially married.

That gets religion's nose out of the whole issue and then the issue of gay marriage is really irrelevant, why on earth would it matter whether you were gay or not?


----------



## MrBurns (28 June 2015)

Now the USA has done it Tony will have to stand aside and just let it happen, he's just one vote after all.


----------



## Trembling Hand (28 June 2015)

Duckman#72 said:


> Yes unfortunately the "accusations" make the headlines, the actual facts not shouted so loudly.
> 
> In the latest case, a victim of rape by a local priest said that he directly reported the crime to Pell and he did nothing. He was adamant it was Pell and of the year this occurred - 1969. This was broadcast far and wide.
> 
> ...




Cods wollop!!

I was talking about the relentless fight against fair compensation and a fair, caring and just outcome for the victims. He's only care has been the minimisation both financially and the image of the church. 

You only have to look at the suicide rate for anyone who had the terrible misfortune of relying on the church to care and protect  them as children. To then survive that and run in to this nasty piece of work is indeed a tragic life

A disgrace.


----------



## awg (28 June 2015)

Trembling Hand said:


> You only have to look at the suicide rate for anyone who had the terrible misfortune of relying on the church to care and protect  them as children. To then survive that and run in to this nasty piece of work is indeed a tragic life
> A disgrace.




I made a post years ago about these priests, I have no doubt whatsoever that Pell, a man of great intellect, and power would have known chapter and verse of what occured, only to the extent he would have taken precautions to insulate himself from provably knowing, (just like the mafia does).

In my experience where priests or teachers were interfering with children, this was suspected by various persons, including other adults in authority, but it seemed to me they sometimes turned a blind eye

On gay marriage, I used to be against, but when I had my own children, and asked myself what
I would say if they said they wanted to marry someone, well how could you say no?

Dont think even Abbot can stop it here since it got passed in USA


----------



## sydboy007 (28 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Bulldust.
> 
> The Catholic Church has persecuted everyone from time to time and I couldn't care less about whether gay marriage has negatively effected any particular country.




Then why should I care that some people don't want to progress past the 1950s.

Other countries have allowed same sex marriage and moved on.  If there'd been any negative impacts I'm sure the Christian right of the USA would have funded some documentaries on it.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 June 2015)

galumay said:


> One really easy way to fix the marriage mess is to remove the legal and state concept of marriage from the religious one.
> 
> This would be consistent with the separation of powers concept regarding the state and religion.
> 
> ...




It's the same in Australia.  The wedding ceremony is inconsequential as far as the state is concerned.

The religious and conservatives like to pretend that churches have a monopoly on marriage.  It's not the case.  The paperwork filed with the Govt is what counts for legal recognition of a marriage.

https://www.ag.gov.au/familiesandmarriage/marriage/pages/gettingmarriedinaustralia.aspx

To be legally married in Australia, a man and woman must:


not be married to someone else
not be marrying a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother or sister
be at least eighteen years old, unless a court has approved a marriage where one party is aged between sixteen and eighteen years old
understand what marriage means and freely consent to becoming husband and wife
use specific words during the ceremony
give written notice of their intention to marry to their authorised celebrant.

After you are married

On the day of your wedding, you will sign three marriage certificates. Each certificate should be signed by you, your celebrant and two witnesses. Your celebrant will give you one of the certificates as a record of your marriage.

Your celebrant must register your marriage with the registry of births, deaths and marriages in the state or territory it took place within fourteen days.

The certificate issued by the registry of births, deaths and marriages is required for many official purposes. You should apply for a copy of this certificate from the registry after your wedding.


----------



## Tink (29 June 2015)

It wasn't just homosexuality, Syd.
Polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest, were all not allowed.
As I said, it was for society and keeping families together.
Responsibility and accountability.

We were brought up to respect everyone, we are all God's children, so no, I don't agree with violence or harm.
That still doesnt change my mind to do with Marriage.
As I said, there is a reason that Marriage is the way it is.

Each parent plays a specific role and I believe a child needs both.
I don't believe a father is not needed.
I don't believe a mother is not needed.
They are both important in a child's life.

As I have said before, children should not be medical or social experiments.

We have children bought and sold, through surrogacy, being taken away from their siblings -- and parents, for money. 
We have adults buying these children, then decide that they don't want twins, or they don't want a son or daughter.
We have people picking and choosing the gender of the child, and discarding the ones they don't want, to being stateless, or even worse.
As I said, this is becoming like a puppy farm.

The connection between parents and their children is above all.
That is God's Laws.
That bond is unbreakable, and it shows by the extents people go to find each other.

I don't agree with gender neutral, social constructs etc which will be pushed on the children, if Marriage is redefined. 
This is wrong and confusing for them.

As for love, there is different measures of love, be it a couple that marry, male and female, and have their children, the love of a mother/father and their child, the love of your pets, the love of your friends.

Love your neighbour, does not mean take it to the next level, it means caring for them.
Discipline and Boundaries.

*A tyranny of judges forces same-sex marriage on US voters*
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...judges_forces_same_sex_marriage_on_us_voters/

_At present, no one””including social scientists, philosophers, and historians””can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment. The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials.”_

The rise and fall of Western Civilization.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Each parent plays a specific role and I believe a child needs both.
> I don't believe a father is not needed.
> I don't believe a mother is not needed.
> They are both important in a child's life.
> ...




Well said Tink, I too am concerned about kids forced to be parented by same sex couples, it is NOT the way it was meant to be but it's already happening, too late now to stop it, the law is on their side.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Well said Tink, I too am concerned about kids forced to be parented by same sex couples, it is NOT the way it was meant to be but it's already happening, too late now to stop it, the law is on their side.




+1 re concern, but it's not too late. Ban surrogacy, gay adoption and IVF.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> +1 re concern, but it's not too late. Ban surrogacy, gay adoption and IVF.




Gay adoption is legal in a few states already - I think it's a tragic mistake.

Same sex couple adoptions[edit]



> Main article: LGBT rights in Australia  § Adoption and laws relating to having children
> 
> Adoption for same-sex couples is currently available in Australian Capital Territory (since 2004), New South Wales (since 2010),[7] Western Australia (since 2002),[8] and to a limited extent in Tasmania (since 2013).[9] In Queensland, Northern Territory, Victoria and South Australia, same-sex couples cannot adopt a child,[10] but can become foster carers.[11] South Australia is reviewing the legislation[12] and Victoria is also reviewing the legislation.[13] Both the Queensland and Northern Territory governments have no plans to review or change the law, to allow same sex couples to adopt.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_Australia#Same_sex_couple_adoptions


----------



## sydboy007 (29 June 2015)

Tink said:


> It wasn't just homosexuality, Syd.
> Polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest, were all not allowed.
> As I said, it was for society and keeping families together.
> Responsibility and accountability.




I don't see anyone arguing that we want polygamy or incest in this country.  You really need to take a deep breath and remember that Jesus would have embraced the homosexuals and transvestites, and polygamy was pretty much an institution of marriage of his times.



Tink said:


> We were brought up to respect everyone, we are all God's children, so no, I don't agree with violence or harm.
> That still doesnt change my mind to do with Marriage.
> As I said, there is a reason that Marriage is the way it is.




What version of marriage?  It has changed so many times over the last couple of millennia.   Women have gone from breeding stock to chattels to being independent in their own right over the course of history.  Should marriage still be the same as it was in biblical times?  Why did we need to change it?



Tink said:


> The connection between parents and their children is above all.
> That is God's Laws.
> That bond is unbreakable, and it shows by the extents people go to find each other.




Then explain to me how it was acceptable for God to request Abraham to sacrifice his own son? 

We also have these wonderful instructions in the bible on how to raise children:


He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17 
The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. -- Exodus 12:29-30
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. -- 2 Kings 2:23-24

God supports cannibalism, and maybe infanticide?? 

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53


Then we have this gem.  I mean seriously, how could you write something so twisted, yet it's just accepted as the infallible word of God.

*Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9*



Tink said:


> As for love, there is different measures of love, be it a couple that marry, male and female, and have their children, the love of a mother/father and their child, the love of your pets, the love of your friends.
> 
> Love your neighbour, does not mean take it to the next level, it means caring for them.
> Discipline and Boundaries.




I see the love of a same sex couple doesn't even make it onto your measurement of love scale.



Tink said:


> _At present, no one””including social scientists, philosophers, and historians””can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment. The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials.”_
> 
> The rise and fall of Western Civilization.




If it was going to lead to a fall of a civilisation then why are we not seeing the seeds of that destruction in the countries that have had same sex marriages for 15+ years.  How long is this destruction going to take?  If we don't know what will happen from the change, then how can you say with such certainty it will be a negative?


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I don't see anyone arguing that we want polygamy or incest in this country.  You really need to take a deep breath and remember that Jesus would have embraced the homosexuals and transvestites, and polygamy was pretty much an institution of marriage of his times.
> 
> What version of marriage?  It has changed so many times over the last couple of millennia.   Women have gone from breeding stock to chattels to being independent in their own right over the course of history.  Should marriage still be the same as it was in biblical times?  Why did we need to change it?
> 
> ...




Your tactic of boring everyone into submission will not work Syd, support Gays by all means but not their supposed right to enslave children to satisfy their need to feel like a normal family.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Your tactic of boring everyone into submission will not work Syd, support Gays by all means but not their supposed right to enslave children to satisfy their need to feel like a normal family.




Tink's the one who brings God into the equation.

Most of your arguments against gay marriage just really boil down to "I want marriage to stay the same as I believe it has been all of my life"

You are fine with discriminating against a minority group for no good reason.  You support Government sticking it's nose into the private affairs of people and stopping them from doing something that harms no one.  Interesting that Liberal supporters are so illiberal on this issue.

Decades of research has shown children raised by same sex couples are not impacted in any negative ways.

You have admitted you have no interest in how these changes have affected society in other countries with decades of experience, yet you are willing to make grandiose statements on the decline of civilisation should gay marriage occur.  The same base arguments were made about most changes in society, from outlawing slavery, to allowing women to vote, to revoking racial segregation.  The children of gen y and the millenials will shake their heads and wonder why it was made such a contentious issue.

Homosexuality is no longer a crime (it should never have been), is not a sexual deviancy or mental illness, cannot be transmitted to someone.  A same sex couple is not going to try and make a child into something they are not.  Sexuality is more genetic than nurture, though I can see children from same sex couples being in an environment where they don't have to be 1 or 0, but can accept they are somewhere along the sexuality gradient and be happy with themselves for it.

Possibly you and Tink will agree with Justice Thomas from his dissenting view on marriage equality in the USA

_“human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity … because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity…”_

Would be interesting to have words with some Vietnam and WWII vets who survived interment camps on their views regarding their dignity.  Maybe some of the child slave labor making our cheap clothes in the third world may have some views on the issue too.

I'd argue that Govt has no right to interfere with self-regarding acts ie those that only affect the individual - except in circumstances of suicide not due to terminal illness.  The Govt has a right to makes laws around other-regarding acts that do affect others.   IF what you do is not harming others, then as a liberal democracy why should the Govt be able to stick it's nose into your personal affairs?  IF they do, have far do they encroach?  Migrating from the bedroom to the living room, then onto the kitchen perhaps?

Gay marriage does no harm to those that don't want or have such a marriage.  The same reasons why biracial marriages are OK support allowing gay marriage.

Getting down to it, interfering in other people's personal lives for no valid reason, it's just bigotry ie you know better than the individual.  Religious disapproval, or as George Takei says "The ICK factor", doesn't give you or anyone else the right to say how a person can live their lives if they are not doing anything that would impinge on you living your life as you so wish.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Tink's the one who brings God into the equation.
> 
> Most of your arguments against gay marriage just really boil down to "I want marriage to stay the same as I believe it has been all of my life"
> 
> ...





That's right stop interfering in the lives of people who value the meaning of marriage.
As for your decades of study, I call b******* rigged by interest groups.

Anyway no point arguing, we each have our own opinions.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Well said Tink, I too am concerned about kids forced to be parented by same sex couples, it is NOT the way it was meant to be but it's already happening, too late now to stop it, the law is on their side.






> Your tactic of boring everyone into submission will not work Syd, support Gays by all means but not their supposed right to enslave children to satisfy their need to feel like a normal family




Gay Marriage has nothing to do with children.

Gays are already allowed to have children.

No one here in all the weeks I have been reading this thread has come up with a valid reason to ban gay marriage, It's all just either homophobic hysteria or some slippery slope argument about children.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Gay Marriage has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Gays are already allowed to have children.




Yes I know , tragic isn't it.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> That's right stop interfering in the lives of people who value the meaning of marriage.
> .




Please tell how allowing gay couples to get married would affect the meaning of your marriage?


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> , tragic isn't it.




Nope.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Please tell how allowing gay couples to get married would affect the meaning of your marriage?




Marriage has been between a man and a woman not 2 men or 2 women, simple...

I don't really care, it does create problems for the Catholic church, but they deserve it


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nope.




I think giving gays the right to "own" children is tragic.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> I think giving gays the right to "own" children is tragic.




So do I.

They are just 'pretend' parents, meanwhile the child has to grow up on the fringes of society and without the male/female role models that children need.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Marriage has been between a man and a woman not 2 men or 2 women, simple...
> 
> I don't really care, it does create problems for the Catholic church, but they deserve it




But would allowing same sex couples to be married harm *your* marriage?

How would it harm society?

I really want to get to the bottom of how you think you will be personally harmed by giving same sex couples the right to marry.

And if there is no harm to you, what's the problem, what's the harm for society?


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> I think giving gays the right to "own" children is tragic.




We aren't giving them the right to "own" children.

 I guess it's tragic if you feel you own your children.

They already have the right to raise children. And the children debate has nothing to do with gay marriage, because as pointed out already its a separate topic and they already have that right.


----------



## ftw129 (29 June 2015)




----------



## luutzu (29 June 2015)

ftw129 said:


> View attachment 63176




Sounds like a boring movie.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> But would allowing same sex couples to be married harm *your* marriage?
> 
> How would it harm society?
> 
> ...




My main concern is the children that are handed over to same sex couples as their "right"

This is already legal in a number of states and I think it's just wrong, in years to come the Govt will have to apologise to people harmed by being given to homosexuals much the same as apologising for forced adoption.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> My main concern is the children that are handed over to same sex couples as their "right"
> 
> This is already legal in a number of states and I think it's just wrong, in years to come the Govt will have to apologise to people harmed by being given to homosexuals much the same as apologising for forced adoption.




OK, so that is a red herring in this thread, Because this about gay marriage, not the rights of gays to raise children.

Marriage and raising children are two separate topics, especially because as already pointed out, they already have the right to raise children.

Do you have anything against same sex marriage?


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Do you have anything against same sex marriage?




No, but I do think they possibly should have created their own unique way of doing it rather than insisting on stepping on so many sensitivities in the community.


----------



## Trembling Hand (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> No, but I do think they possibly should have created their own unique way of doing it rather than insisting on stepping on so many sensitivities in the community.




Yeah kinda like the blacks should have got their own buses instead of rubbing whites nose in it by sitting up the front with the whites and forcing the US supreme court to make a call on it.

How insensitive of the blacks.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> No, but I do think they possibly should have created their own unique way of doing it rather than insisting on stepping on so many sensitivities in the community.




So when inter racial marriages were illegal, do you think the best solution would have been to introduce a new version of marriage for the mixed couples, rather than insisting on stepping on so many sensitivities?

how is it different?

Some sensitivities need to be stepped on.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

Trembling Hand said:


> Yeah kinda like the blacks should have got their own buses instead of rubbing whites nose in it by sitting up the front with the whites and forcing the US supreme court to make a call on it.
> How insensitive of the blacks.




Congrats on finding a totally unsuitable analogy.
The bus was never built for whites only, however marriage was the exclusive domain of men and women only.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> That's right stop interfering in the lives of people who value the meaning of marriage.
> As for your decades of study, I call b******* rigged by interest groups.
> 
> Anyway no point arguing, we each have our own opinions.




Then simply observer from afar Norawy, Denmark, Sweden and see how their societies have declined, or not, since they legalised same sex marriage.

It shouldn't be a controversial issue.  My same sex marriage has no impact on your choice to marry or not marry.

I'm sure the Govt will be happy to keep the issue going, at least till they've stuck us in the neck with the TPP.  Now that's something people should be marching in the streets against.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So when inter racial marriages were illegal, do you think the best solution would have been to introduce a new version of marriage rather than insisting on stepping on so many sensitivities?
> 
> how is it different?
> 
> Some sensitivities need to be stepped on.




I think people see interracial relationships differently to homosexual ones, well obviously they do.


----------



## galumay (29 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> It's the same in Australia.  .




The difference is that in Australia you can get married in a church or other religious institution and the state recognises that. The difference in the countries I mentioned is if you got married in a religious institution the state does not recognise it - you have to get married by the appointed state official, usually the mayor.


----------



## galumay (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> I think people see interracial relationships differently to homosexual ones, well obviously they do.




I think you mean "some" people. Its pretty clear the majority of people see relationships as relationships, gender, sexuality, race, dont come into it.

If you dont agree with gay marriage, then dont marry a man. I really dont get what the fuss is about.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

galumay said:


> I think you mean "some" people. Its pretty clear the majority of people see relationships as relationships, gender, sexuality, race, dont come into it.
> .




I think you're very wrong there....


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

galumay said:


> I think you mean "some" people. Its pretty clear the majority of people see relationships as relationships, gender, sexuality, race, dont come into it.
> 
> If you dont agree with gay marriage, then dont marry a man. I really dont get what the fuss is about.




I certainly agree with you there



MrBurns said:


> I think you're very wrong there....




the vast majority of people under 40 agree with him.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> I think people see interracial relationships differently to homosexual ones, well obviously they do.




60 years ago, there was violent opposition against Mix race marriages, many of the same arguments were made against it, especially the fear for children etc.

But anyway, except for the fact that you don't want to step on the "Sensitivities" of some groups in the community, you can't see a problem with allowing same sex couples to marry, am I right?


----------



## pixel (29 June 2015)

galumay said:


> The difference is that in Australia you can get married in a church or other religious institution and the state recognises that. The difference in the countries I mentioned is if you got married in a religious institution the state does not recognise it - you have to get married by the appointed state official, usually the mayor.




Not quite true, galumay

For a marriage to be legal and recognised by the State, the celebrant must be State-authorised.
It just so happens that certain religious officials are also authorised celebrants who, apart from religious mumbo-jumbo, can execute the required paperwork for the civil part to be legal as well.
Check http://www.ag.gov.au/familiesandmarriage/marriage/pages/gettingmarriedinaustralia.aspx and look up the section about authorised celebrants.


----------



## galumay (29 June 2015)

pixel said:


> Not quite true, galumay




Thanks pixel, i see the distinction - in Australia a religious 'leader' can be an authorised celebrant. In the truly secular states religious leaders cannot be authorised celebrants, they have to be the state official eg Mayor.


----------



## galumay (29 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> I think you're very wrong there....




No, its you who are wrong. Polling shows 72% of Australians in favour, although the % of older people in favour was lower it was still a majority.

http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/


----------



## awg (29 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So do I.
> 
> They are just 'pretend' parents, meanwhile the child has to grow up on the fringes of society and without the male/female role models that children need.




I used to think that way, and in an ideal world, still think that a loving family environment, with mother and father is "preferable"..however, there are so many instances were the ideal does not occur, or is not "ideal" at all, that I changed...what about grandparents for instance?...some kids see them, some not..very important imo

I personally could have just as many concerns, if not more, about adoption, both local and OS.

In the end, whatever my opinion, I cant come at foisting it on some other poor bastad just trying to get thru life  (apart from whinging here

Organised religion makes me sick with hypocrisy


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2015)

galumay said:


> In the truly secular states religious leaders cannot be authorised celebrants, they have to be the state official eg Mayor.




A religious person can perform a marriage in a secular state. The fact that a person is religious doesn't stop them filling out government paper work, I mean the government paper work side of things is all secular, the theme of the ceremony is up to you, some people want a priest, some people want an Elvis Impersonator, as long as the person is recognised by the state to perform the required government documentation, the mumbo jumbo theming doesn't matter.

ie,  the religious Vows, or the Darth Vader commentary or Elvis flare doesn't actually count for anything as far as the government is concerned. You become married when the celebrant takes you off to the side where you sign the paper work, the rest is just for show.

To me all the religious nonsense at weddings is just as silly as the jedi talk at a star wars themed wedding, except the star wars theming probably brings a smile to more faces.


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2015)

galumay said:


> No, its you who are wrong. Polling shows 72% of Australians in favour, although the % of older people in favour was lower it was still a majority.
> 
> http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/




That poll was for same sex marriage not marriage for all the other scenarios mentioned.


----------



## galumay (30 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> A religious person can perform a marriage in a secular state.




Well they might be able to in some states that call themselves secular, but as i said, in a *true* secular state thay cant. (and I gave some examples of countries where religious persons cant perfom marriages that are official in the eyes of the state.)



> To me all the religious nonsense at weddings is just as silly as the jedi talk at a star wars themed wedding, except the star wars theming probably brings a smile to more faces.




On that point we are in total agreement!


----------



## galumay (30 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> That poll was for same sex marriage not marriage for all the other scenarios mentioned.




Oh come on, 72% support gay marriage, including a majority in all age groups. Are you seriously suggesting that there are still such high majorities of numbers that oppose interracial marriage that it would make the overall numbers in favour less than 50%?

I said _"Its pretty clear the majority of people see relationships as relationships, gender, sexuality, race, dont come into it."_

You replied, _"I think you are very wrong"_

If I am not wrong about sexuality/gender as the poll shows, that only leaves race. I think its clear who is wrong.

Once again, if you dont like gay marriage, dont marry a man.


----------



## Tink (30 June 2015)

Depends which poll you look at -- take it to a plebiscite.

_The further that a society drifts away from the truth, the more they will hate those who speak it 

Defend traditional moral values and they will mock, demonise, and censor you. 
The politically correct hordes are ruthless, pervasive practitioners._


----------



## Tisme (30 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Depends which poll you look at -- take it to a plebiscite.
> 
> _The further that a society drifts away from the truth, the more they will hate those who speak it
> 
> ...





I haven't met one person who agrees with gays marrying. The only place I see agreement is in discussion boards.  The best I have garnered is a pair of gay friends who at best prevaricate, otherwise no one.


----------



## Hodgie (30 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> I haven't met one person who agrees with gays marrying. The only place I see agreement is in discussion boards.  The best I have garnered is a pair of gay friends who at best prevaricate, otherwise no one.




That's probably a generational thing. I'm gen Y and I don't know anyone that opposes it. I bet in another 50 years people will be wondering why we even made such a big fuss about it.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2015)

Tink said:


> .
> 
> _The further that a society drifts away from the truth, the more they will hate those who speak it
> 
> ._




the societies that have drifted the furthest from the truth are the religious ones, and you are right, they hate people that speak the truth, a lot (including yours) have a long history of killing those who spoke the truth.



> Defend traditional moral values and they will mock, demonise, and censor you.
> The politically correct hordes are ruthless, pervasive practitioners




"Traditional" and "moral" don't really go together, because "Traditionally" society has been very immoral without realising it. 

Traditionally Blacks weren't classed as people
Traditionally women couldn't vote
Traditionally Young Single mothers had their babies stripped away
Traditionally Slavery was accepted
Traditionally rape victims had to marry their attackers
Traditionally Blasphemy was punishable by death

and the list really does go on.

Over time we have slowly dropped those things and adopted better values, and anyone who wanted to stay "Traditional" was in the wrong. Gay marriage is just another step in the right direction.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> I haven't met one person who agrees with gays marrying. The only place I see agreement is in discussion boards.  The best I have garnered is a pair of gay friends who at best prevaricate, otherwise no one.




I would be surprised if that were true.

I think if you actually asked every one you met throughout each day you would find you are surrounded by people who agree with gay marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I would be surprised if that were true.
> 
> I think if you actually asked every one you met throughout each day you would find you are surrounded by people who agree with gay marriage.




I think most people don't really care, but just want it off the agenda so we can talk about more important things nationally, like the attempts by the Right to destroy university education, or how we can solve the deficit problems.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think most people don't really care, but just want it off the agenda so we can talk about more important things nationally, like the attempts by the Right to destroy university education, or how we can solve the deficit problems.




I'd argue the histrionics of those opposed to same sex marriage is why it's still being debated.

When it's true that my gay marriage has no impact on your marriage or choice to marriage, then there's really no valid argument for opposition.  I'm sure some farriers and chimney sweeps lamented the changing times, but societies are forever changing as the beliefs of the masses change them from within.


----------



## ftw129 (30 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm sure some farriers and chimney sweeps lamented the changing times, but societies are forever changing as the beliefs of the masses change them from within.


----------



## bellenuit (30 June 2015)

Two interesting reads.......

*Captive virgins, polygamy and sex slaves: What marriage would look like if we actually followed the Bible*

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/cap...-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/

*Lies of Biblical Proportion*

http://www.mahablog.com/2015/06/28/lies-of-biblical-proportion/


----------



## trainspotter (30 June 2015)

MMA get's in on the act ...



> Romero may have slightly tarnished his reputation after the fight however, coming out with a rather absurd string of broken English during the post-fight interview.
> Wearing a sweat band embroided with the bible verse “John 3:16”, the Cuban fighter called out to the American crowd, apparently in religious opposition to the recent passing of the marriage equality bill.
> “What happened to you USA?” Romero said.
> *“Wake up USA, go for Jesus, don’t go for gay Jesus people.”*




http://www.news.com.au/sport/ufc/ro...with-heavy-elbow/story-fnkjww7x-1227418773407

Not sure if the bible verse “John 3:16” was the correct script to be using?

I would have thought "Leviticus 18-22" was the passage he was referring to.


----------



## Ald123 (30 June 2015)

One day we all die. On that day we might find heaven, we might find hell or there will be nothing to find and no existence. All I know is that I am not God and that everything I am, everything that exists, was given to me. I did not ask for it.

I also know from nature and evolution that there exists for some reason male and female and they have different but utterly compatible sexual organs that evolved for their coupling. 

As a human being I wish to live in accordance with nature. If others have a different desire that's for them to worry about. 

What i know for a fact however is that nature is mastered by obeying its laws. Sustainability is to obey natures laws.


----------



## MrBurns (30 June 2015)

Yes everything that lives must die if you want to  know what that's like just remember the year before you were borne .....


----------



## moXJO (30 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> I haven't met one person who agrees with gays marrying. The only place I see agreement is in discussion boards.  The best I have garnered is a pair of gay friends who at best prevaricate, otherwise no one.






SirRumpole said:


> I think most people don't really care, but just want it off the agenda so we can talk about more important things nationally, like the attempts by the Right to destroy university education, or how we can solve the deficit problems.





How the hell you two left leaning fairies aren't running around covered in glitter, in your rainbow undies, with a I support gay marriage is beyond me.

But seriously, you two come across as a lot more open minded in other threads. What gives?


----------



## sydboy007 (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> What i know for a fact however is that nature is mastered by obeying its laws. Sustainability is to obey natures laws.




Heading towards 8 billion humans on the planet. Natural ecosystems collapsing under our demands. The oceans turning into desserts from our plundering.

Yes, humans natural tendencies to procreate uncontrollably is certainly sustainable.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> One day we all die. On that day we might find heaven, we might find hell or there will be nothing to find and no existence. All I know is that I am not God and that everything I am, everything that exists, was given to me. I did not ask for it.
> 
> I also know from nature and evolution that there exists for some reason male and female and they have different but utterly compatible sexual organs that evolved for their coupling.
> 
> ...




Nature creates both straight and gay individuals, who are we to stop same sex couples from living the way nature made them, no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

Seems a bit elitist to say your preferred version of love is better than some one else's.

yes, we will all die our own deaths, so we must live our own lives, so why deny others who are not harming you or any one else rights?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2015)

moXJO said:


> How the hell you two left leaning fairies aren't running around covered in glitter, in your rainbow undies, with a I support gay marriage is beyond me.
> 
> But seriously, you two come across as a lot more open minded in other threads. What gives?




Speaking for myself it doesn't really bother me if two consenting same sex people want to get married, I don't think it's the business of governments to tell consenting adults of sufficient mental capacity what to do. I am , however sick of seeing and hearing the subject discussed as though it's the most important thing in the world. 

I'm also sick (almost literally) of seeing men hugging and kissing each other and trying to pretend it's normal. It may be for them, but not for most of us. If people want to practise minority behaviour, don't do it on my TV screen thanks.

I also am concerned about children being forced to be brought up in what the vast majority of us would consider an un-natural environment. I understand that its difficult for homosexuals to be bought up in an environment that seems abnormal to them, but that's no reason to force a similar environment onto children who will most likely turn out heterosexual, and will  belong to a different family environment and they deserve the attentions of both a mother and father.


----------



## bellenuit (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I also know from nature and evolution that there exists *for some reason* male and female and they have different but utterly compatible sexual organs that evolved *for their coupling*.




Evolution doesn't have a purpose, just an outcome. It is like saying giraffes *grew* long necks so that they could reach the leaves of tall trees enabling them to survive in times of undersupply of accessible vegetation. What happened was that when accessible vegetation was in short supply, those giraffes with longer necks survived and reproduced, passing on the DNA for longer necks to their offspring. Over time that DNA predominated in the giraffe population (because those without it didn't survive), so that giraffe's gradually *as a consequence* ended up with longer necks.



> As a human being I wish to live in accordance with nature. If others have a different desire that's for them to worry about.
> 
> What i know for a fact however is that nature is mastered by obeying its laws. Sustainability is to obey natures laws.




Our nature, for use of a better word, is both physical and psychological. Often the two are at odds. A prime example is those who feel their physical body doesn't match their psychological "being". Males who psychologically feel female and vice versa. How then do you live in accordance with nature? Which law do you obey? There is a lot of evidence to suggest that following your psychological feelings is better than trying to fit your persona into its physical representation in such circumstances. That is why you hear that people in this situation who have changed genders are happier for making the change. They have often gone from being suicidal in their pre-physical change state to being content as one could possibly be in the transgender state (even accepting the rejection they experience from family, friends or society in general).

It is lucky for you that your physical, psychological and sexual orientation are all aligned with what we normally regard as heterosexual. But don't confuse what you regard as "natural" as being "natural" for others.


----------



## galumay (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I also am concerned about children being forced to be brought up in what the vast majority of us would consider an un-natural environment.




I suspect you will find the majority of us dont consider that to be an un-natural environment.



> but that's no reason to force a similar environment onto children who will most likely turn out heterosexual, and will  belong to a different family environment and they deserve the attentions of both a mother and father.




Straight marriage is no gaurantee that kids will have the attention of a mother and a father. 

What really matters is that kids grow up in a loving and supportive environment, there is no reason to think that is less likely with gay parents. 

Many gay couples are particular to provide gender role models, my sister and her partner have had 2 children now, using the same male as a sperm donor. They have involved him in the kids upbringing as a male role model - so they have 2 mums and a dad!

Finally the whole parenting thing is really irrelevant to gay marriage, gay couples will have kids whether or not they are allowed to get married.

(I too was surprised at your attitude to this issue given you have shown your self otherwise to be an open minded and progressive thinker.)


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Yes everything that lives must die if you want to  know what that's like just remember the year before you were borne .....




Well the problem with that is that it's a bit like when I was under anaesthetic in hospital recently. I did not remember a thing, but when I woke up I had needle holes all up and down my arm, ripped skin above my lip where some nurse or doctor just ripped a tape attached tube from my mouth in the rush to get me out and the next dollar making patient in, plus a great big wound where they cut into my body. As far as I was concerned I never existed, but it didn't stop the nurse shoving a big ass catheter up my ....



At this point in time I kind of understand those alien abductee victims who claim a ufo took them away and shoved metal rods up where the sun don't shine. But I am glad you know exactly what it's like before you were born and after you die. 

Another person I met and became close friends with, well one day after many years of knowing him, he shared a highly personal account of a time in his life with me,  that he was clinically dead for 45 minutes in a car crash said that while he was "dead" his life flashed before his eyes. Then he claimed he eventually spoke with God after first experiencing himself alone in a void of utterly unbearable loneliness while fully conscious in some afterlife state which he states ended after he made an act of faith in a relationship with God and this resulted in him experiencing utter paradise plus God and given the choice to return to life and amend his ways. He chose to return and complete his life's work. He has since passed away again but in life he was the most generous and kind, deep person I have ever met and he would try to uphold all the virtues to the best of his abilities. 

I guess we have to wait and see if it is what we believe or know in life that determines what we get in the after life. 

It's a bit like trading, you just don't know what that share price is going to be.


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Heading towards 8 billion humans on the planet. Natural ecosystems collapsing under our demands. The oceans turning into desserts from our plundering.
> 
> Yes, humans natural tendencies to procreate uncontrollably is certainly sustainable.




Yes I completely agree with you. 

I think that the governments, contraception pill manufacturers, media, condoms, males and especially the abortion clinics have been a great failure in human civilisation that have done nothing to truly liberate women and give them the choices, freedom  and support that they need to be female. But very little people would have the capacity to deeply consider the matter and come to the same conclusion.

To be truly liberated women need to reliably know when it is they are ovulating and to avoid sexual intercourse at those times and be internally free psychologically to take decisions at such a time that are about respecting themselves and the people they care about. Of course this is not something anybody wants to talk about because everyone wants instant gratification. To get rich quick so to speak. 

There was a brilliant doctor in Melbourne who was involved in building a monitor that would analyse chemically the type of vaginal mucus a woman was experiencing and which would clearly indicate ovulation and what stage in her cycle she was in. It's a pity that research like this doesn't get supported and absolutely demanded by women. In a monitor like this would lie the only true women's liberation. Everything else is BS. There is no contraceptive method that works except the one that knows every individual women's cycle perfectly and knows what period of days she is fertile.

There is a problem of sustainability on the planet related to the sheer numbers of people on earth, but there is a bigger problem related to the fact that the children that are born in their billions are not loved properly and cared for and nurtured and raised to be good human beings. If this was done, there would be much fewer unhappy people in the world who start wars from their poverty (ISIS, Somalian pirates, etc,.) or from their egos ( Americans bombing civilians in the thousands, husseins and Bin ladins and their types) or indeed from their desire to be rich and powerful (weapons manufacturers, politicians) 

Ideally you want two people a mom and dad that deeply love each other, that are capable of love, capable of raising children perfectly and lovingly, living in a society that loves its children, with a government that loves its people's children and supports their families having as many children as they can truly love perfectly. If we had such a system the worlds population would be a lot smaller and society would be healthier and the world would be an enjoyable place. But we prefer eating from the pig trough which is why the world is the way it is.


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nature creates both straight and gay individuals, who are we to stop same sex couples from living the way nature made them, no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> Seems a bit elitist to say your preferred version of love is better than some one else's.
> 
> yes, we will all die our own deaths, so we must live our own lives, so why deny others who are not harming you or any one else rights?




I am not convinced that nature has anything to do with creating gay people, I can accept this as a possibility, but that is less important then truly understanding gay people and what they experience especially their difficulties. My gay friends have told me that their problem was with their parents, specifically a very dysfunctional relationship with a dysfunctional father. What I would call abuse was also involved in other cases.  My view at the moment is that this is more likely the cause of being gay based on what they have told me. My one gay friend yearned for time with his father which was denied him and he feels that this harmed him in some way. It's heartbreaking to hear.

I also observed how other people are able to acquire the desire to become gay due to needing to be loved and accepted by somebody. Others have the sexual urge directed towards this at some point in their lives and acquire a taste for it just like people are known to acquire sexual  feelings towards objects.


I would say, who are we that we do not support gay people with their difficulties. I would say that it is extremely egoistical to assume that nobody is harmed by same sex marriage. I would say that with rights come responsibilities and that we can't talk about or understand which rights we can grant unless we have the ability and capacity to address the responsibilities. I was shocked to learn that a couple of pedophiles were granted the right to adopt children and these guys were pimping their toddler son all over the world for money to be abused by others. in the same way we have aboriginal children in communities with drunk parents, while we pretend that we are not abusing another stolen generation. We have refugee children being abused in concentration camps. Everyone is very quick to talk about their rights but not about their responsibilities. We have a responsibility to ensure that children are loved and cared for but children's rights in most countries are ignored. 

We don't live our own lives, this is a fiction, what I do directly impacts my neighbour. 

I think that if gay people want to have civil unions and equal benefits they should be granted this but without then ignoring or neglecting the real families who battle to raise children without any support from anyone.

Where is everybody doing the Children Pride marches? demanding that children are given their rights? 
It's time to fight for children's rights, they are the great unseen neglected little people that have no voice in society and are treated with contempt.


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Evolution doesn't have a purpose, just an outcome. It is like saying giraffes *grew* long necks so that they could reach the leaves of tall trees enabling them to survive in times of undersupply of accessible vegetation. What happened was that when accessible vegetation was in short supply, those giraffes with longer necks survived and reproduced, passing on the DNA for longer necks to their offspring. Over time that DNA predominated in the giraffe population (because those without it didn't survive), so that giraffe's gradually *as a consequence* ended up with longer necks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The purpose in nature stems from the fact that nature exists.  Not because your long necked giraffes were the ones that survived. Existence serves a purpose in itself, we may not understand what that purpose is but by its fact proves it. 

Without belittling or taking away anything from your very well written post, there are statistics that suggest that with time and old age people that have undergone sex changes eventually regret their decisions. Indeed I feel fortunate that I am not one that had to endure that particular personal difficulty, nor do I want people who do endure  that difficulty to be neglected by society or given poor choices with how to live in dignity with that difficulty or to find the solution for them. I don't think that replacing one tragedy with another by finding the quick fix is the solution even though I can accept that for some cases the quick fix is indeed the solution for that particular individual.

But happiness is something else. 

You can give somebody happiness. You can learn how to be happy. (Assuming no physical disorder) This I think is fundamental.  

I am not anti-gay, please I want this to be absolutely clear. I don't stick my head in the sand and pretend however, I see that happiness is a right and I wish it for everybody.


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

galumay said:


> I suspect you will find the majority of us dont consider that to be an un-natural environment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Wow your last statement is so incredibly disrespectful and egoistical I don't even know where to begin.


----------



## Tink (1 July 2015)

Well said, Ald.
This self interest group is all about themselves -- children's wants and needs, come last.

Civil unions are fine, but don't change Marriage.

The children are the future, and they deserve the same as what we grew up with. 
A mother and father are important in a child's life and that is what Marriage is.
.
Marriage is between a man and woman, and needs to stay this way - the gold standard - and taught in schools as is.

This trying to push no gender, and that we are all social constructs, and we can be what we want to be, in the wrong skin, in the wrong body, morals are what you want them to be.
This is confusing for these poor children.

Let them be children and enjoy their childhood.

No, it should not be changed.

Same sex, social constructs, no gender, pornography all go hand in hand.
Open your eyes people to what they are pushing.
All sexually orientated.
Pornography, prostitution.

_Political correctness is an insidious poison. 
It prevents issues of vital importance from being discussed, and lets evil flourish unchecked._


----------



## Tisme (1 July 2015)

If gay marriage goes ahead, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't support species marriages. Surely we are not so old fashioned not to consider the love of a dog, donkey or cat as just as much a personal choice and intimacy. Who are we to hold back a man from taking multiple partners in marriage, hell we could mix it up a bit and have a "menagerie au trois"

Yep I've seen the way my cat looks at me.

Things have been weirder, I mean there are a bunch of woman over the centuries who married a guy (who died about 30AD) with three personalities and those women became sisters.....say what :screwy:


----------



## moXJO (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I am not anti-gay, please I want this to be absolutely clear. I don't stick my head in the sand and pretend however, I see that happiness is a right and I wish it for everybody.




Apart from thinking that homosexuality is a mental disease. Do you believe it to be curable as well?
When that guy came back from his God experience, what were his views on gay marriage. Did God tell him to champion the cause of straightness?

Think of the children huh.
I wonder how many kids that were homosexual, necked themselves over the years with views being pushed that they are against nature and against God.


----------



## Logique (1 July 2015)

I think we're entitled to stand up for the institution of marriage, including the Marriage Act in present form, without being accused of bigotry and retrograde thinking. 

Ald made this point quite correctly. This isn't about gay bashing.  

Not anti-gay, just anti-social engineering.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2015)

> I suspect you will find the majority of us dont consider that to be an un-natural environment.




Can you supply any evidence to support that statement ? MOST of us who were bought up with a mother and father (90%+ of the population) would consider that to be the "natural" state of affairs, and regard gay households  as a deviation from the norm.

As well as the fact that two people who cannot reproduce themselves but need the assistance of others is not  a natural condition.


----------



## moXJO (1 July 2015)

Logique said:


> I think we're entitled to stand up for the institution of marriage, including the Marriage Act in present form, without being accused of bigotry and retrograde thinking.
> 
> Ald made this point quite correctly. This isn't about gay bashing.
> 
> Not anti-gay, just anti-social engineering.



Oh please what would you call it.
"No your not good enough to be married"

I'd say the higher percentage of people that divorce, treat marriage with more contempt.


----------



## MrBurns (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I also know from nature and evolution that there exists for some reason male and female and they have different but utterly compatible sexual organs that evolved for their coupling.
> .




Every time I try to explain that to women they call the police.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Speaking for myself it doesn't really bother me if two consenting same sex people want to get married, I don't think it's the business of governments to tell consenting adults of sufficient mental capacity what to do. I am , however sick of seeing and hearing the subject discussed as though it's the most important thing in the world.
> 
> I'm also sick (almost literally) of seeing men hugging and kissing each other and trying to pretend it's normal. It may be for them, but not for most of us. If people want to practise minority behaviour, don't do it on my TV screen thanks.
> 
> I also am concerned about children being forced to be brought up in what the vast majority of us would consider an un-natural environment. I understand that its difficult for homosexuals to be bought up in an environment that seems abnormal to them, but that's no reason to force a similar environment onto children who will most likely turn out heterosexual, and will  belong to a different family environment and they deserve the attentions of both a mother and father.




Just wow.  I'm sure there were plenty of southerners in the US saying exactly the same thing about mixed race couples.  totally unantural to mix the races, and the poor children seeing them show affection for each other in public will leave them emotionally disturbed.  Gosh, I feel faint.

If a person is born homosexual, how is that not natural?  Seems you view a heterosexual couple holding hands in public or on TV as the natural course of things, but a same sex couple doing the same is rubbing it in your face.

I'd say you need to look within yourself as to what's causing you so much angst, rather than telling anyone who doesn't fit your white picket fence view of society that they should not be seen, not be heard, and meekly accept what the masses choose to give them.  I'm glad those before me didn't follow your way, otherwise it would still be a crime to be homosexual, police and the general public would still be out treating gays as punching bags, and men and women forced into marriages that leave them unfilled simply to fit into what you want them to be.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I am not convinced that nature has anything to do with creating gay people, I can accept this as a possibility, but that is less important then truly understanding gay people and what they experience especially their difficulties. My gay friends have told me that their problem was with their parents, specifically a very dysfunctional relationship with a dysfunctional father. What I would call abuse was also involved in other cases.  My view at the moment is that this is more likely the cause of being gay based on what they have told me. My one gay friend yearned for time with his father which was denied him and he feels that this harmed him in some way. It's heartbreaking to hear.
> 
> I also observed how other people are able to acquire the desire to become gay due to needing to be loved and accepted by somebody. Others have the sexual urge directed towards this at some point in their lives and acquire a taste for it just like people are known to acquire sexual  feelings towards objects.
> 
> ...




If a child turns out to be gay, but is raised by heterosexual parents, what nurturing would cause this to happen?

I'm gay, had probably the ideal childhood in that my parents provided me good role models, as well as my extended families.  They worked hard, sacrificed a lot to ensure my brother and myself could go as far through the education system as we could.  I lived int he same house for all I can remember.  We struggled, grew a lot of our own food, put insulation in houses in the heat of summer, mowed countless lawns to make ends meet, but I count myself lucky that my parents didn't gamble drink or smoke.

Of all my gay friends, whether male or female, not one of them has ever said they were gay because they were molested as children.  I like asking people when did you first think you were gay.  Not when you accepted it, but when did you have thoughts that someone of the same sex had a better body shape than the opposite sex.  Generally these thoughts were from ages 5-7.

That a lot of gay children face virtual expulsion from the family happens far too often.  What greater crime is there than for a parent to turn their back on a child, not because of something they have done that's bad, but purely because they can't accept a simple thing about them?  Yet society in many cases accepts this, when really it's just the same as I don't love you because you're left handed and refuse to become right handed.

As for children's rights, well while you have the overriding adult right to procreate as much as you want, I'd say child rights will always be a secondary issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Just wow.  I'm sure there were plenty of southerners in the US saying exactly the same thing about mixed race couples.  totally unantural to mix the races, and the poor children seeing them show affection for each other in public will leave them emotionally disturbed.  Gosh, I feel faint.
> 
> If a person is born homosexual, how is that not natural?  Seems you view a heterosexual couple holding hands in public or on TV as the natural course of things, but a same sex couple doing the same is rubbing it in your face.
> 
> I'd say you need to look within yourself as to what's causing you so much angst, rather than telling anyone who doesn't fit your white picket fence view of society that they should not be seen, not be heard, and meekly accept what the masses choose to give them.  I'm glad those before me didn't follow your way, otherwise it would still be a crime to be homosexual, police and the general public would still be out treating gays as punching bags, and men and women forced into marriages that leave them unfilled simply to fit into what you want them to be.




No, that is rubbish Syd. Do what you like in private but remember that homosexuals are about 5% of the population, so you can't expect the rest of us to like what you do. If you want to see homosexual acts on TV, start your own tv station or lobby SBS to show them

The interracial marriage argument is a straw man. It's natural for a man and women of any race to mate and produce children, but two men cannot neither can two women. I don't see how a person of your intelligence can be blind to that reality. 

You may note that I said it doesn't bother me if two same sex consenting adults get married, but leave unconsenting children out of these relationships.


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

moXJO said:


> Apart from thinking that homosexuality is a mental disease. Do you believe it to be curable as well?
> When that guy came back from his God experience, what were his views on gay marriage. Did God tell him to champion the cause of straightness?
> 
> Think of the children huh.
> I wonder how many kids that were homosexual, necked themselves over the years with views being pushed that they are against nature and against God.




I am terribly sorry that you have misunderstood me. Nowhere have I advocated that homosexuality is a mental disease. 

Regarding the "guy" who came back from his God experience. He set up homes for homeless children and abused women. Places of refuge where these people who had been neglected or abused could find sanctuary. He then worked tirelessly raising funds to maintain these places of refuge. 

As far as children "necking" themselves I would ask. Where was the support in society for those children? Why did society allow them to commit suicide? Why were these children being bullied to death? Again you want to take away the true responsibility away from who was factually responsible for murdering these people and place it in somebody else's hands. 

If I am born with big ears and I am bullied at school to the point that I commit suicide. Your solution is to legislate to make big ears fashionable and desirable so that the big eared child would not encounter negativity but praise. 
I on the other hand say that the problem lies in two matters. 

1) the big eared child should have been looked after.
2) the small eared children who actually murdered the big eared child should have been raised in such a way that despite the big ears of the big eared child, the big eared child should have been accorded the courtesy of love dignity and respect. 

The people with the mental disease are the ones who killed the child . 

Don't go jumping to poor conclusions both you and I are united in that we both wish all people to be treated with dignity and respect and love. The difference is in the methods to achieve that objective. I am against half arsed appeasement , I want the truthful real solutions to the problems.


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

moXJO said:


> Oh please what would you call it.
> "No your not good enough to be married"
> 
> I'd say the higher percentage of people that divorce, treat marriage with more contempt.




I fully agree with your last sentence.


----------



## Tisme (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> . It's natural for a man and women of any race to mate and produce children, . .




As is the revulsion of sexual attraction to same genders. Can't be helped.

If "it" is a congenital disorder and can't be treated, does that mean paedophiles and any others with abnormal desires can't be treated either and that's that? We could save heaps on therapy bills and prison cells if we just accept the truth.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Speaking for myself it doesn't really bother me if two consenting same sex people want to get married, I don't think it's the business of governments to tell consenting adults of sufficient mental capacity what to do.




That's probably the smartest thing you have said in this thread.

.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I am not convinced that nature has anything to do with creating gay people, I can accept this as a possibility, but that is less important then truly understanding gay people and what they experience especially their difficulties. My gay friends have told me that their problem was with their parents, specifically a very dysfunctional relationship with a dysfunctional father. What I would call abuse was also involved in other cases.  My view at the moment is that this is more likely the cause of being gay based on what they have told me. My one gay friend yearned for time with his father which was denied him and he feels that this harmed him in some way. It's heartbreaking to hear.
> 
> .




All the evidence suggests that Gay people are born gay, so yes created by nature.



> I would say that it is extremely egoistical to assume that nobody is harmed by same sex marriage.




Who would be harmed?






> I was shocked to learn that a couple of pedophiles were granted the right to adopt children and these guys were pimping their toddler son all over the world for money to be abused by others.




Paedophiles exist in the heterosexual community also, In fact there are more heterosexual paedophiles.  




> We don't live our own lives, this is a fiction, what I do directly impacts my neighbour.




offcourse, But if you want to ban your neighbour from doing something you have to show that it causes harm to others.



> I think that if gay people want to have civil unions and equal benefits they should be granted this but without then ignoring or neglecting the real families who battle to raise children without any support from anyone.




How would allowing gay people marriage rights be neglecting the "real families"? and how is a same sex couple not a "real family"



> Where is everybody doing the Children Pride marches? demanding that children are given their rights?
> It's time to fight for children's rights, they are the great unseen neglected little people that have no voice in society and are treated with contempt




As discussed, the children issue is a red herring here, this is a discussion about marriage rights, not the rights to raise children.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Another person I met and became close friends with, well one day after many years of knowing him, he shared a highly personal account of a time in his life with me,  that he was clinically dead for 45 minutes in a car crash said that while he was "dead" his life flashed before his eyes. Then he claimed he eventually spoke with God after first experiencing himself alone in a void of utterly unbearable loneliness while fully conscious in some afterlife state which he states ended after he made an act of faith in a relationship with God and this resulted in him experiencing utter paradise plus God and given the choice to return to life and amend his ways. He chose to return and complete his life's work. He has since passed away again but in life he was the most generous and kind, deep person I have ever met and he would try to uphold all the virtues to the best of his abilities.
> 
> :




A dying brain can experience all sorts of weird stuff, it's nothing to take seriously any more than any other dream you have.

Your friend wasn't really "dead", death is a process, not a single event. I know in the medical establishment we like to pronounce people dead at a certain time, but that's not how it works, our bodies shutdown over a period of time, depending on the situation they can be restarted sometimes, all this means is that the process of  dying wasn't complete to the point where it was irreversible yet.

The experiences people say they have during the dying process of just really vivid dreams, and like all dreams, we fill in the blanks when retelling the stories later.


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Every time I try to explain that to women they call the police.




Mr Burns let me let you in on a secret. 

It is the female that chooses her mate and a male chasing after a woman is the biggest folly under the sun that a male can ever perform.

This world is far more complicated then it was decades ago. A smart young male realises the world of today is almost a trap, created to ensnare him. A smart male creates his person, cultivates and refines himself in all spheres of life until he is well on his way to becoming the best person he can be. With every step he takes in this direction he is better able to understand many more things about himself and the world. Once his brain is developed a bit more, for this is required for this world. Then from the age of 22 he can observe if there is any attractive female worthy of the dignity he has formed for himself, who has also respected herself enough to be his mate.

If she chooses him, then they can begin discovering if there is something in that meeting moving forward.


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> A dying brain can experience all sorts of weird stuff, it's nothing to take seriously any more than any other dream you have.
> 
> Your friend wasn't really "dead", death is a process, not a single event. I know in the medical establishment we like to pronounce people dead at a certain time, but that's not how it works, our bodies shutdown over a period of time, depending on the situation they can be restarted sometimes, all this means is that the process of  dying wasn't complete to the point where it was irreversible yet.
> 
> The experiences people say they have during the dying process of just really vivid dreams, and like all dreams, we fill in the blanks when retelling the stories later.




Good it's settled then. Luckily that my friend had that dream though, a lot of people got help from him. 
I must admit I am a little disappointed now that you have told me that we simply cease to exit when we die. 
I was kind of hoping for a paradise. Are you sure that there is no afterlife of sorts or reincarnation or something else?


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> If a child turns out to be gay, but is raised by heterosexual parents, what nurturing would cause this to happen?
> 
> I'm gay, had probably the ideal childhood in that my parents provided me good role models, as well as my extended families.  They worked hard, sacrificed a lot to ensure my brother and myself could go as far through the education system as we could.  I lived int he same house for all I can remember.  We struggled, grew a lot of our own food, put insulation in houses in the heat of summer, mowed countless lawns to make ends meet, but I count myself lucky that my parents didn't gamble drink or smoke.
> 
> ...




If you were a child who experienced deep love from his parents, consider your parents as always being functional and to this day can only experience deep love and gratitude for his parents and you were not abused in anyway by anybody nor subjected to some environmental exposure or exposure to sexual situations or pornography that a child should not be subjected to then I concede that your being born gay was a natural event. 

I will never ever however concede that a childs rights are a secondary issue but rather assert that they should be the highest issue. I am surprised however that you have this opinion and it leaves me curious and baffled?


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I must admit I am a little disappointed now that you have told me that we simply cease to exit when we die.




I didn't say that's what happens, it's just we have no good reason to believe other wise.



> I was kind of hoping for a paradise. Are you sure that there is no afterlife of sorts or reincarnation or something else




We have no reason to believe that any part of our personality can survive the decay of our brains.

All the evidence suggests that consciousness is a by product of the operation of a brain, and everything we think of as being us , eg thoughts, feelings, personality etc all exist in the brain, when that brain is switched off, they cease to exist.

I mean you don't even have to switch the brain off to lose some of your personality, People that suffer brain injuries or diseases can lose capacity for certain emotions, lose memories even have their entire personality change. If you believe "who you are" is not a function of the brain, and you believe it's your "soul" how can these big personality changes be explained when you damage the brain.

And if a damaged brain loses a chunk of its personality, how can this personality be preserved when the brain is destroyed?


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

Logique said:


> I think we're entitled to stand up for the institution of marriage, including the Marriage Act in present form, without being accused of bigotry and retrograde thinking.
> 
> .




I think its up to you then to provide valid reasons why the marriage act shouldn't be extended to include same sex couples.


----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I didn't say that's what happens, it's just we have no good reason to believe other wise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I did not think that it would be personality to be honest. To a large degree personality must be very specific to the body. I thought that we as persons at our fundamental could be like some pure energy form of our selves. An energy that can't be destroyed but is transferred.

 I am interested to see what happens one day when young Man A looses his head donating his body to science but ten years earlier a old Man B who lost his torso and donated his head to science. When the surgeons sew the body of A to the head of B does man B come back to life as a young man.  

If that's the case we probably have invented eternal life right? You would not expect the brain of man b to age in a young body?


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I did not think that it would be personality to be honest. To a large degree personality must be very specific to the body. I thought that we as persons at our fundamental could be like some pure energy form of our selves. An energy that can't be destroyed but is transferred.
> 
> I am interested to see what happens one day when young Man A looses his head donating his body to science but ten years earlier a old Man B who lost his torso and donated his head to science. When the surgeons sew the body of A to the head of B does man B come back to life as a young man.
> 
> If that's the case we probably have invented eternal life right? You would not expect the brain of man b to age in a young body?




This is off topic, so I will post my response in this other thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27938&page=52


----------



## pixel (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I did not think that it would be personality to be honest. To a large degree personality must be very specific to the body. I thought that we as persons at our fundamental could be like some pure energy form of our selves. An energy that can't be destroyed but is transferred.
> 
> I am interested to see what happens one day when young Man A looses his head donating his body to science but ten years earlier a old Man B who lost his torso and donated his head to science. When the surgeons sew the body of A to the head of B does man B come back to life as a young man.
> 
> If that's the case we probably have invented eternal life right? You would not expect the brain of man b to age in a young body?




Try and get a copy of Robert Heinlein's "I Will Fear No Evil"
All those questions answered....


----------



## ghotib (1 July 2015)

pixel said:


> Try and get a copy of Robert Heinlein's "I Will Fear No Evil"
> All those questions answered....



SNAP


----------



## moXJO (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I am terribly sorry that you have misunderstood me. Nowhere have I advocated that homosexuality is a mental disease.






> I am not convinced that nature has anything to do with creating gay people, I can accept this as a possibility, but that is less important then truly understanding gay people and what they experience especially their difficulties. My gay friends have told me that their problem was with their parents, specifically a very dysfunctional relationship with a dysfunctional father. What I would call abuse was also involved in other cases. My view at the moment is that this is more likely the cause of being gay based on what they have told me. My one gay friend yearned for time with his father which was denied him and he feels that this harmed him in some way. It's heartbreaking to hear.
> 
> I also observed how other people are able to acquire the desire to become gay due to needing to be loved and accepted by somebody. Others have the sexual urge directed towards this at some point in their lives and acquire a taste for it just like people are known to acquire sexual feelings towards objects.




Well daddy issues and loneliness.
I did make the assumption that you were insinuating mental instability-disease 



Ald123 said:


> As far as children "necking" themselves I would ask. Where was the support in society for those children? Why did society allow them to commit suicide? Why were these children being bullied to death? Again you want to take away the true responsibility away from who was factually responsible for murdering these people and place it in somebody else's hands.
> 
> If I am born with big ears and I am bullied at school to the point that I commit suicide. Your solution is to legislate to make big ears fashionable and desirable so that the big eared child would not encounter negativity but praise.
> I on the other hand say that the problem lies in two matters.
> ...




Yes, but Dumbo doesn't have religious nutters and government legislation telling him he is a blight against nature, backing up those against him. Society was turning a blind eye while the "poofta bashing" went on in the 70's,80's, and early 90's. It was only decriminalized in TAS back in 97. As far as social conditioning goes, pretty sure homosexuals have had it against them for long enough.

Basic human rights between two people that love each other is not legislating to be fashionable. Treating consenting adults as second class citizens is not on. Despite whatever my own personal opinions are on the matter.

On another issue I am against religion being anymore then a personal choice. Not a guide for the state or to be enforced on the population against their will.





> You may note that I said it doesn't bother me if two same sex consenting adults get married, but leave unconsenting children out of these relationships.




Penny Wong has a child doesn't she Rumpy. And I'm totally against it. How dare labor members raise children.

Pretty sure homosexual couples can already adopt.


----------



## Logique (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think its up to you then to provide valid reasons why the marriage act shouldn't be extended to include same sex couples.



Er..no it isn't.  I'm not the one trying to change the constitution.


----------



## galumay (1 July 2015)

Logique said:


> Er..no it isn't.  I'm not the one trying to change the constitution.




No one is trying to change the constitution, what the majority of Australians want is the legal definition of marriage to be changed. This requires an amendment to the Marriage Act 1961.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No, that is rubbish Syd. Do what you like in private but remember that homosexuals are about 5% of the population, so you can't expect the rest of us to like what you do. If you want to see homosexual acts on TV, start your own tv station or lobby SBS to show them
> 
> The interracial marriage argument is a straw man. It's natural for a man and women of any race to mate and produce children, but two men cannot neither can two women. I don't see how a person of your intelligence can be blind to that reality.
> 
> You may note that I said it doesn't bother me if two same sex consenting adults get married, but leave unconsenting children out of these relationships.




Plenty of people saw interracial marriages as unnatural, against the natural order.  Just look to apartheid south africa or the southern states in the USA.  Your sprouting the same kinds of bigotry.  if you're offended at a gay couple's publis display of affection, that says more about your lack of empathy that it does about the couple.

I don't care if you like what we do, though our lives are generally the same as yours.  I work, pay my taxes, laugh, cry just like you do.  You're basically saying homosexuals should be invisible.  That's how you'd like us to be??

What are you doing about unconsenting children from being brought into the world in loveless marriages, unconsenting children born into families that cannot financially support them?  That's a far bigger issue.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> If you were a child who experienced deep love from his parents, consider your parents as always being functional and to this day can only experience deep love and gratitude for his parents and you were not abused in anyway by anybody nor subjected to some environmental exposure or exposure to sexual situations or pornography that a child should not be subjected to then I concede that your being born gay was a natural event.
> 
> I will never ever however concede that a childs rights are a secondary issue but rather assert that they should be the highest issue. I am surprised however that you have this opinion and it leaves me curious and baffled?




You don't think that over population is not a major issue?  How many more people do you think the planet can sustainably support?  Besides China no country has actually consciously tried to limit their population.  Uncontrolled population growth like we currently have is more likely to do children harm than gay marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Plenty of people saw interracial marriages as unnatural, against the natural order.  Just look to apartheid south africa or the southern states in the USA.




Some people may have, not me. I don't care who people hitch up with as long as they don't make a song and dance about it.



> Your sprouting the same kinds of bigotry.  if you're offended at a gay couple's publis display of affection, that says more about your lack of empathy that it does about the couple.




As I said, I don't care what people do in private I don't care to watch it on TV, and that includes heterosexual sex which has been devalued by the rampant spread of pornography.



> I don't care if you like what we do, though our lives are generally the same as yours.  I work, pay my taxes, laugh, cry just like you do.  You're basically saying homosexuals should be invisible.  That's how you'd like us to be??




Not at all, I can get along with most people in the normal course of events, I just don't need to be dragged into their bedrooms.



> What are you doing about unconsenting children from being brought into the world in loveless marriages, unconsenting children born into families that cannot financially support them?  That's a far bigger issue.




Yes, they are big issues which need to be addressed, but they don't justify the deliberate deprivation of children by forcing them to be brought up in an environment that goes against their natural instincts.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

Logique said:


> Er..no it isn't.  I'm not the one trying to change the constitution.




It doesn't matter who is trying to enact change, it comes down to the side that wishes to deny freedoms to another group, has to prove that if those freedoms were allowed to that other group it would cause harm.

The default position is total freedom to everyone, laws that deny personal freedoms should only be enacted where it is shown that if those freedoms were allowed, then it would cause more harm to others.


----------



## galumay (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Some people may have, not me. I don't care who people hitch up with as long as they don't make a song and dance about it.
> 
> Are you suggesting they shouldnt be allowed to celebrate, just because they have a different sexuality to you?
> 
> ...




Again the discussion about children is a red herring when discussing gay marriage, but I struggle to see what possible harm comes from children being brought up in a loving and supportive environment - or what natural instincts that is against. Whether its a single parent family, de facto, mixed race, mixed religion, gay or straight, the real issue is the quality of parenting and thats not gauranteed in any particular form of relationship.


I cant see how my sister's children have been 'deliberatley deprived" of anything, nor do I see anything in their lives that goes against their "natural instincts". I do know plenty of kids in straight families that have much worse parenting.


----------



## Tink (1 July 2015)

Since when are laws changed to make people feel better, that is not the purpose of Marriage.

The children come first.

Not all states agree with gay adoption.

Civil unions gives them the same rights as marriage, except children.


----------



## luutzu (1 July 2015)

Tink said:


> View attachment 63218
> 
> 
> Since when are laws changed to make people feel better, that is not the purpose of Marriage....




Even if law aren't meant to be good, and marriage not meant to be for happiness, shouldn't homosexuals have to right to suffer as hetero too?


----------



## Macquack (1 July 2015)

Tink said:


> View attachment 63218
> 
> 
> Since when are laws changed to *make people feel better, that is not the purpose of Marriage*.
> ...




Reminds me of "the Simpsons".


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

Tink said:


> View attachment 63218
> 
> 
> Since when are laws changed to make people feel better, that is not the purpose of Marriage.
> ...




Laws should be changed when they are wrong

And again, this thread is about Gay marriage, not children, gays can already father or mother children, so there is no point discussing that.


----------



## ftw129 (1 July 2015)




----------



## Ald123 (1 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> You don't think that over population is not a major issue?  How many more people do you think the planet can sustainably support?  Besides China no country has actually consciously tried to limit their population.  Uncontrolled population growth like we currently have is more likely to do children harm than gay marriage.




I am not comfortable with where the population is at. Africa is destroyed, South American forests gone, Indonesian forests gone. Erosion of topsoil.  You and I probably agree on that. 

However

What we have in the world is an energy crisis. If we could lower our use of carbon and come up with a solar panel battery combination that is very efficient, we we could grow huge hydroponic farms of healthy food. So the population could be much higher. 

But I would prefer a 1 or 2 billion population of people that have evolved , and great big tracts of land filled with forests and bush and animals living freely, with oceans teeming with life.


----------



## ftw129 (1 July 2015)

It is seriously both hilarious and embarrassing reading this thread... The highlights should be printed and posted in a museum in about 20 years time... 

Do you people against same sex marriage even realise that GAY PEOPLE ALREADY LIVE TOGETHER IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS, MILLIONS OF THEM????

Do you realise that GAY PEOPLE CAN ALREADY HAVE CHILDREN IF THEY WANT TO? (most prefer a couple of Dachshunds)

Just because they get married isn't going to change a bloody thing and yet it means so much to them. It is the ultimate commitment to one another.

What is wrong with you people seriously? Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? Can you not see that this is inevitable? It is just a matter of time... You don't have to like it but you will have to accept it. You're like children that have a toy that you're bored with but you won't let the other kid have it because you can see how badly they want it.... Have a heart and and stop embarrassing yourselves. AND for gods sake stop hiding behind this "it's all about the children" argument. THIS ISN'T ABOUT LEGALISING CHILDREN INTO GAY RELATIONSHIPS, THAT ALREADY EXISTS! Open another thread if that's what your issue is! 

Be honest with yourselves and GROW THE HELL UP.... The next generation is coming


----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

ftw129 said:


> View attachment 63219




Wouldn't be too funny if it's "Two Dads" though. haha


----------



## ftw129 (2 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Wouldn't be too funny if it's "Two Dads" though. haha




Wanna bet?


----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

ftw129 said:


> Wanna bet?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 63222




haha, good one.


----------



## ftw129 (2 July 2015)




----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2015)

> I cant see how my sister's children have been 'deliberatley deprived" of anything, nor do I see anything in their lives that goes against their "natural instincts". I do know plenty of kids in straight families that have much worse parenting.




If a child is heterosexual then a homosexual environment is contrary to their natural inclinations just as is a homosexual being raised in a heterosexual environment. For a homosexual child its a quirk of nature, for a heterosexual child its a deliberate act to take them out of their natural environment so their 'parents' can pretend they are just like anyone else.


----------



## Tink (2 July 2015)

No, Luutzu, I don't agree with changing Marriage, and I have given my reasons why.

As stated in this video, there is no benefit to same sex marriage in society, it actually harms society.
I have also added more throughout this thread.

This trying to steamroll people with this victim mentality, doesn't wash.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

ftw129 said:


> It is seriously both hilarious and embarrassing reading this thread... The highlights should be printed and posted in a museum in about 20 years time...
> 
> Do you people against same sex marriage even realise that GAY PEOPLE ALREADY LIVE TOGETHER IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS, MILLIONS OF THEM????
> 
> ...




Watch and wait what happens, then you will see. 

For me it's about dilution of the value of my marriage and the dilution of a principle that should be held sacrosanct.

Nothing wrong with civil unions, between humans and animals if they so wish, I don't even give a damn about 1 woman having a civil union with ten other women and 3 men and a blue whale. Give these unions the same rights, don't allow any form of discrimination. 

But get your hands of the value of my marriage and its single meaning and the legacy of it that I want to pass down to my kids. Don't go teaching my children your views, because I care about my bloodline, it's good name and its survival down the generation. Don't go degrading my morals and my beliefs. I won't interfere in yours you leave mine alone. Go get your own name for your definition of your same sex unions and f-off from mine. 

Marriage is between a single man and a single woman, always has been, always will be. No descendant of mine will ever be taught different.

If the filthy rich lobby (probably the majority of gays who have no stress due to no family life and plenty of income due to no children) managed to get laws changed in another patently stupid country that's their problem America is a parasite anyway, which by the way if you read the opinion of the dissenting judges you see that Americans took their constitution and just threw it away into the dirt pile of being able to be changed by judges when this was only to be possible by the people.  

Get your own name for your own particular sex Union. Don't come attacking us for ours. Have some decency and respect what is ours.


----------



## Logique (2 July 2015)

Is this the future we want?  As Sen Abetz said this morning, this is a Pandoras Box. 

The case for same sex marriage has neither been fully nor honestly made. Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. 

As for a majority wanting it - you mean like the majority supposedly wanted the republic? Look how that turned out.



> http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/18/local/me-mom18
> 
> *Lesbian Sues Over Physician's Refusal to Do Insemination*
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2015)

Logique said:


> Is this the future we want?  As Sen Abetz said this morning, this is a Pandoras Box.
> 
> The case for same sex marriage has neither been fully nor honestly made. Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> 
> As for a majority wanting it - you mean like the majority supposedly wanted the republic? Look how that turned out.




Best way out is to hold a plebiscite.


----------



## Logique (2 July 2015)

galumay said:


> No one is trying to change the constitution, what the majority of Australians want is the legal definition of marriage to be changed. This requires an amendment to the Marriage Act 1961.



When the ACT legalised same sex marriage in 2013, it went to the High Court, who ruled against it as invalid under the constitution. 

This was because of the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act.  Hence, a change to the Marriage Act is a change to the constitution.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2015)

Logique said:


> When the ACT legalised same sex marriage in 2013, it went to the High Court, who ruled against it as invalid under the constitution.
> 
> This was because of the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act.  Hence, a change to the Marriage Act is a change to the constitution.




If that were the case, then the Parliament could not change the Marriage Act without a referendum. I don't think that is the case.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Logique said:


> Is this the future we want?  As Sen Abetz said this morning, this is a Pandoras Box.
> 
> The case for same sex marriage has neither been fully nor honestly made. Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> 
> As for a majority wanting it - you mean like the majority supposedly wanted the republic? Look how that turned out.




There you go an example of an lgbt who does not respect the right of another human being to have their own freedom. 

If I go to the dentist and tell the doctor to remove my front teeth and he says no he won't, I then go to court and sue him? What a terrorist this lgbt person has become. 

I go to the city with my children and I see a gay parade with such lewdness shoved into my face. I don't see a normal peaceful march, my children get scared and confused. 

I go to the local beach which has a nude section and there are only gay people openly having sex and soliciting in the dunes. Is it their right to do that and my discrimination against them if I object to my kids seeing that. 

Why are my rights not important?


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Watch and wait what happens, then you will see.
> 
> For me it's about dilution of the value of my marriage and the dilution of a principle that should be held sacrosanct.
> 
> .




How would it dilute the value of your marriage?


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> There you go an example of an lgbt who does not respect the right of another human being to have their own freedom.
> 
> If I go to the dentist and tell the doctor to remove my front teeth and he says no he won't, I then go to court and sue him? What a terrorist this lgbt person has become.
> 
> ...




Lol, maybe you should stop taking your children out to nude beaches and gay parades.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Watch and wait what happens, then you will see.
> 
> For me it's about dilution of the value of my marriage and the dilution of a principle that should be held sacrosanct.
> 
> ...




lets delver into the concept of sacrosant.  The dictionary definition is very sacred or holy; inviolable. sacrosanctity, sacrosanctness, noun. Word Origin. C17: from Latin sacrōsanctus made holy by sacred rite, from sacrō by sacred rite, from sacer holy + sanctus, from sancīre to hallow

Judging by this, there would be a religious element into you belief that the current form of marriage is how God intended?  But as others have shown, in the bible polygamy was condoned by God, even had instructions from him.  Concubines AKA sex slaves were also quite acceptable.  Even Jesus had no issues with polygamy or concubines.  So why is the current restriced form of marriage held us as the will of God, as the only for of marriage that is right?

Many gays are not filthy rich.  I don't believe there's a gay billionaire in Australia, and I don't recall there being any openly gay people on the BRW rich list here.  I know Paul Zarah is openly gay, and for a time I think he was the only oopen gay CEO on the ASX 200, though now he has Alan Joyce there with him.

Gay do have stress in life, usually due to discrimination and intolerance.  Still too many young gays face rejection by family and friends when they come out.  Gay life is certainly not all sunshine and lollipops.  There's plenty of heterosexual couples and singles who choose not to have children.  I work with some straight couples that choose not to have children.  What right do you have to judge anyone on how they choose to live their life?

So when interacial couples wanted to get married, do you think it was reasonable for those against them being able to marry had the right to say _Get your own name for your own particular sex Union. Don't come attacking us for ours. Have some decency and respect what is ours._  I'd argue since you want marriage to be sacrosanct that those who want polygamy and concubines, as the good Lord supported in both the old and new testaments, have first claim to the word marriage and those wanting to have monogamous marriages should have to call their unions something else.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

Logique said:


> Is this the future we want?  As Sen Abetz said this morning, this is a Pandoras Box.
> 
> The case for same sex marriage has neither been fully nor honestly made. Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> 
> As for a majority wanting it - you mean like the majority supposedly wanted the republic? Look how that turned out.




Just how exactly would _Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. _

No political wishy washyness please.  I'd like some specific examples of how you believe this would occur.

As for the example of the doctor you provided.  Would you support a doctor that refused life saving treatment to a homosexual on the basis of their religion?  At what point does someones religious beliefs over ride law and the secular state?  Do we renounce discriminations laws so those who don't like <insert minority group> can just tell them to F off?  Would it be OK for a gay run business to refuse to serve Christians and Muslims due to the centuries of persecution they've dished out to homosexuals?  In your doctors case, would it be Ok for a gay doctor to refuse to treat a religious person?


----------



## Trembling Hand (2 July 2015)




----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

Tink said:


> No, Luutzu, I don't agree with changing Marriage, and I have given my reasons why.
> 
> As stated in this video, there is no benefit to same sex marriage in society, it actually harms society.
> I have also added more throughout this thread.
> ...





How does gay getting married and deemed equal before the law harm society?

For one, it let the confused and gay children (the one group we're all worried about right?), it let the kids know that it's not a crime or wrong or weird or mutant or otherwise harmful if they happen to be gay, happen to be attracted to Steve instead of Eve. 

That would do wonders for gay kids mental and psychological development. Maybe even cause most of them to not be so depressed and morose as to become poets and artists 

Serious though, there are cases where young gay teens commit suicide due to bullying or just self-loathing caused by social disdain and discrimination. Making it legally and socially acceptable for homosexual to get married, have a family if they want to... that will send a good message.

But while it's tough on teen homosexuals, they have come to deal with it and I'm sure most do not grow up with this victimisation mentality - they find strength and resolve issues as we all do, then work, contribute, go about their lives, and work to forced change in the laws and institution that make them out to be some alien, some second class citizens.

Marriage is not like money or goods where if you give it to others it lessens it. And even if legalising gay marriage somehow demean the holy institution of traditional marriage where there's no abuse of children, no abuse of partners, no break-up, no divorce and all live happily ever after... homosexuals are citizens too are they not? So who the heck are we to say they can't enjoy all the natural rights all other citizens are automatically given?


----------



## Tink (2 July 2015)

Well they are on the same par, TH.

The homosexual activists and the Islamic activists are becoming almost one and the same. 
Both are using similar means to achieve similar goals.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Tink said:


> Well they are on the same par, TH.
> 
> The homosexual activists and the Islamic activists are becoming almost one and the same.
> Both are using similar means to achieve similar goals.




lol Tink, you are fast becoming one of the most hysterical religious nuts I have interacted with.


----------



## Tink (2 July 2015)

VC, you are only good at putting people down when you have nothing to say, go learn some manners.

Maybe you should think about it before mouthing off.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> How would it dilute the value of your marriage?




My marriage is a symbol for ever, to be handed down as an inheritance to my descendants, that they will be happy and our family will continue as a family supporting one another, united and not divided, if they follow my example then we can pass down the riches we accumulate to tide us over against future rascals and governments who wish to steal what my family creates. If amongst them perchance a gay member of family is born, they will be loved but their line will not prosper. It is about my right to say that in my family,  the men shall only marry women and the women shall only marry men. It is about being true and owing justice to the creator who in creation instituted it naturally to be so. I will not let it be otherwise.

Keep your hands off our marriages! Get your own word for it. 

Call it Gayrriage and go be happy I won't bother you. You can even put it into the constitution for all I care. I want it distinct from my values.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

Tink said:


> Well they are on the same par, TH.
> 
> The homosexual activists and the Islamic activists are becoming almost one and the same.
> Both are using similar means to achieve similar goals.




Actually I think you have far more in common with the activist Islamist trying to force your  religious based dogma onto the the rest of us than gays do.

What do you believe Jesus would be saying about same sex marriage?  The same Jesus that supported polygamy mind you.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Lol, maybe you should stop taking your children out to nude beaches and gay parades.




Listen I have enough respect for the dignity of the person that I can teach my children that there is nothing wrong with nudity and that it is the natural way of a person. If they become doctors or nurses they will see naked people all the time. I don't raise children with the fault of a prudish mind. Go read up on the harm prudity does in the professional literature and how it creates problems of body image. Body shapes come in all sizes and shapes and I would not want my children to be afflicted by an incorrect philosophy. 

Live sex on the other hand is something sacred that happens between two people that love each other in the privacy of their sanctuary. 

Do you not see the difference?

Did you ever see what happens on those parades? As it turns out I don't take the children there because I have a brain. Nor do I take my children to beaches where people fornicate. But I should not be the only one protecting my children. We live in a village and everyone should be protecting the children.

Why are you so selfish that you don't want to help protect children form what they are too young to experience?


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

Tink said:


> VC, you are only good at putting people down when you have nothing to say, go learn some manners.
> 
> Maybe you should think about it before mouthing off.




Ah Tink, your level of hypocrisy on this.

On the one hand you claim gays and muslims are the same, but on the other hand you say you shouldn't put people down.

Now let me make a counter claim for you, one that is based on facts.

What does the Catholic Church and Islam have in common?  They both protect rapists and child molesters, and condemn and blame the victims.

Maybe you got too carried away with the CNN report of the ISIS flag at the London pride.  They never did apologise for the slur, nor correct their mistake for viewers.  I wont bother telling you what was actually on the flag, as you might find it offensive.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> lets delver into the concept of sacrosant.  The dictionary definition is very sacred or holy; inviolable. sacrosanctity, sacrosanctness, noun. Word Origin. C17: from Latin sacrōsanctus made holy by sacred rite, from sacrō by sacred rite, from sacer holy + sanctus, from sancīre to hallow
> 
> Judging by this, there would be a religious element into you belief that the current form of marriage is how God intended?  But as others have shown, in the bible polygamy was condoned by God, even had instructions from him.  Concubines AKA sex slaves were also quite acceptable.  Even Jesus had no issues with polygamy or concubines.  So why is the current restriced form of marriage held us as the will of God, as the only for of marriage that is right?
> 
> ...




Actually since the beginning in the bible it was one man and one woman. The corrupt corrupted this and then in the New Testament it was corrected. It was stated that the corruption had occurred. 

Stop using things out of context.

Terrible sorry but there is a huge leap of difference between inter-racial but opposite sex marriage, and then a massive chasm to polygamy between opposite sexes and then again an Everest sized leap to discuss relations between the same sexes. 

I won't be drawn into this line of reasoning and return to the real world of biology and existence.

A male has a sexual organ used together with the female sexual organ to create a natural child, this has been a precedent nature has selected and placed upon us to bear. This Is hundreds of thousands years old and is inviolable and sacrosanct irrespective of the bible. It is sacrosanct to existence.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Tink said:


> VC, you are only good at putting people down when you have nothing to say, go learn some manners.
> 
> Maybe you should think about it before mouthing off.




I have tried to engage you many times, your arguments are circular at best, you are like a record stuck on one track that keeps playing the same logical fallacies and red herrings over and over, and when asked to back up your statements you go quite, until you burst in later with the same red herrings and logical fallacies.


----------



## Tink (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Actually I think you have far more in common with the activist Islamist trying to force your  religious based dogma onto the the rest of us than gays do.
> 
> What do you believe Jesus would be saying about same sex marriage?  The same Jesus that supported polygamy mind you.




Well from what I see, the gays are the ones suing when things don't go their way.

You are the one pushing your dogma, and what's that about tolerance?


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Just how exactly would _Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. _
> 
> No political wishy washyness please.  I'd like some specific examples of how you believe this would occur.
> 
> As for the example of the doctor you provided.  Would you support a doctor that refused life saving treatment to a homosexual on the basis of their religion?  At what point does someones religious beliefs over ride law and the secular state?  Do we renounce discriminations laws so those who don't like <insert minority group> can just tell them to F off?  Would it be OK for a gay run business to refuse to serve Christians and Muslims due to the centuries of persecution they've dished out to homosexuals?  In your doctors case, would it be Ok for a gay doctor to refuse to treat a religious person?




In your doctors case would it be ok for your gay doctor to request a religious person to be inseminated against their will?
 This is what you want from the doctor who refused the lesbians request for whatever reason. 

If someone comes into my shop and wants to buy a lolly, I have the right to not engage in business with them. 
If Mr market comes to you in the morning and says buy a 100 shares of FMG do you not have the right to refuse without being sued for whatever reason you wish.

Why do you wish for a society that is so closed and restrictive, that a lesbian with some sperm in her pocket can walk into a doctors office and demand that she be inseminated. What if she had just been sucking the president and intends to use his sperm to make some money. Would that be reason to refuse? Or is it just because it is known that the doctor was religious?

Are all atheists and gay activists so rabid that they respond like a bull to a red cape whenever they hear the world religion?

What lies behind this? What's causing you the pain that you attack people minding their own business.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> My marriage is a symbol for ever, to be handed down as an inheritance to my descendants, that they will be happy and our family will continue as a family supporting one another, united and not divided, if they follow my example then we can pass down the riches we accumulate to tide us over against future rascals and governments who wish to steal what my family creates. If amongst them perchance a gay member of family is born, they will be loved but their line will not prosper. It is about my right to say that in my family,  the men shall only marry women and the women shall only marry men. It is about being true and owing justice to the creator who in creation instituted it naturally to be so. I will not let it be otherwise.
> 
> Keep your hands off our marriages! Get your own word for it.
> 
> Call it Gayrriage and go be happy I won't bother you. You can even put it into the constitution for all I care. I want it distinct from my values.




So when God supported the Kings of the old testament, gave them many wives, sometimes hundreds of sex slave concubines as well, how does that fit into you values system that supposedly was provided to you by your creator god?


In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

Now remember from your bible studies Jesus said all the old laws are still to be obeyed



> Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"




Therefore, it would be acceptable to your god for a many to have more than one wife.  You seem to be condemning something your god supports??

Jesus allowed for a widow to marry her former husband's brother even if he were married, then this negates the Christians' claim about the Bible prohibiting polygamy.  A man can be one flesh with more than one woman.  In the case of Matthew 22:24-28, the man can be one flesh with his wife, and one flesh with his deceased brother's wife.  Also keep in mind that Exodus 21:10 allows a man to marry an infinite amount of women, and Deuteronomy 21:15 allows a man to marry more than one wife.

How is marriage and justice related?

How do you know if you had a gay child that their line will not prosper?  Unless you deliberately try to make it so, who are you to say that they will not live a good life and have a family and when they die there will be people who's memories they live on in.  You have a very cod and callous view, definitely not based on the teachings of Jesus.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> My marriage is a symbol for ever, to be handed down as an inheritance to my descendants, that they will be happy and our family will continue as a family supporting one another, united and not divided, if they follow my example then we can pass down the riches we accumulate to tide us over against future rascals and governments who wish to steal what my family creates.




How does allowing a lesbian couple on the other side of town to marry each other affect anything your family does?



> If amongst them perchance a gay member of family is born, they will be loved but their line will not prosper. It is about my right to say that in my family,  the men shall only marry women and the women shall only marry men.




I do feel sorry for the members of your family who are born gay, to be honest I don't understand why you would want to treat them differently



> It is about being true and owing justice to the creator who in creation instituted it naturally to be so. I will not let it be otherwise.




What if the creator that you believe in doesn't exist, and you live your life being unfair to gay family members for no reason?



> Keep your hands off our marriages! Get your own word for it.




Why do you not want to share the word marriage with same sex couples?


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> In your doctors case would it be ok for your gay doctor to request a religious person to be inseminated against their will?
> This is what you want from the doctor who refused the lesbians request for whatever reason.
> 
> If someone comes into my shop and wants to buy a lolly, I have the right to not engage in business with them.
> ...




I'm not proposing anyone to be inseminated against their will.

So you agree that a doctor has the right to deny care based on their religious beliefs?

Would those affected have the right to make this choice known to the wider community?  Would the community have the right to boycott the doctor since his choice conflicts with their views?

As for a shop owner, was it right for white shop owners to refuse to serve black patrons?  is it ever right to discriminate based on age race sex?  If not, why is it OK to discriminate based on sexuality?

In my job we have a number of religious based organisations.  generally Catholic institutions. Would you support me going to my employer and saying my conscience prohibits me supporting these customers due to the ongoing child abuse that was covered up over decades, that the Church's stance on abortion causes great harm to women and children whose parents may not be in a financial position to support.

Once you allow people to do things based on a discriminatory attitude, where do you draw the line?

Would it be Ok for a doctor to withold life saving treatment based on a religious view?  Is it right for a parent of the Mormon faith to let their child die by not allowing them to have a blood transfusion?  Would you support a Islamic doctor refusing to treat a Christian, or to treat a non Muslim woman?  These are just some of the pandora's box of issues you would unleash if we followed your path.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> How does gay getting married and deemed equal before the law harm society?
> 
> For one, it let the confused and gay children (the one group we're all worried about right?), it let the kids know that it's not a crime or wrong or weird or mutant or otherwise harmful if they happen to be gay, happen to be attracted to Steve instead of Eve.
> 
> ...




We have discussed this in earlier posts already. Nobody wants bullying of anyone, treat the cause not the symptoms


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Tink said:


> Well from what I see, the gays are the ones suing when things don't go their way.




that's called standing up for yourself.

The difference here is that gays are not fighting to take anything away from you, they are fighting for equal rights, how ever you are fighting for the continuation of an unjust law that denies them of rights.

Allowing Gay marriage takes absolutely nothing away from you, you are not under attack.

gays win = tink loses nothing
Tink wins = gays continue being denied rights.


----------



## Tink (2 July 2015)

The homosexual lobby wants everyone to submit to its agenda, and they are more than happy to use the force of law to achieve their aims. They want all dissent crushed 

Freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and religious freedom are all being trampled on as the homosexual activists use the heavy hand of the law to ensure that everyone submits, and no one demurs.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2015)

> Once you allow people to do things based on a discriminatory attitude, where do you draw the line?
> 
> Would it be Ok for a doctor to withold life saving treatment based on a religious view? Is it right for a parent of the Mormon faith to let their child die by not allowing them to have a blood transfusion? Would you support a Islamic doctor refusing to treat a Christian, or to treat a non Muslim woman? These are just some of the pandora's box of issues you would unleash if we followed your path.




Doctor's can choose who to treat if they are in private practise and not being paid by the taxpayer, just as patients can choose only to be treated by a particular doctor and not others if they pay for the services.

If a cake shop won't produce a wedding cake for gay people, there are plenty of other cake shops around.


----------



## Trembling Hand (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> If amongst them perchance a gay member of family is born, they will be loved but their line will not prosper. It is about my right to say that in my family,  the men shall only marry women and the women shall only marry men. It is about being true and owing justice to the creator who in creation instituted it naturally to be so. I will not let it be otherwise.




Join the two sentences I have highlighted together. If you do believe in a god as a creator then how the hell can you then say "It is about my right to say that in my family" or anyone else's family.

Religious grounds for discrimination is astoundingly hypocritical! If someone is that way then surely that is because your god made them just like that???


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Trembling Hand said:


> View attachment 63227




No, thousands of years of experience and insight and learning and observation have resulted in the situation. 

Why do you believe that you are more intelligent then billion before you who have had the experience of life.

Do you think that 2000 years ago gays were not wanting to marry and have children? 
Do you think that we ignore the fact that 2000 years ago and in every generation before and after there were gays who had unions they liked to call marriages and had children that they adopted, or whatever. 
The elders and wise saw that this was a bad idea by experience and outlawed it. We perhaps have lost their experience, I don't think so, but I don't think I am so smart as to willy nilly negate their experience.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> lol Tink, you are fast becoming one of the most hysterical religious nuts I have interacted with.




No I don't think so. 

I hear mirrors are on sale at IKEA.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Why are you so selfish that you don't want to help protect children form what they are too young to experience?




Yes, that's a perfectly valid question.  I'd like to hear those higher ups in the Catholic church answer that one.  Something along the lines of moving paedophiles from suburb to suburb comes to mind as one of the ways they protected children over the decades.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Actually I think you have far more in common with the activist Islamist trying to force your  religious based dogma onto the the rest of us than gays do.
> 
> What do you believe Jesus would be saying about same sex marriage?  The same Jesus that supported polygamy mind you.




Actually uhmm no ! 

But go read what he said. 

Try check out Matthew 9 v 1-12

But look I don't think you are a man who cares much about Jesus anyway and that's fine. 

Why should I have the LGBT activist dogmatic terrorist force their non-religious dogmas onto me?


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Just how exactly would _Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. _
> 
> No political wishy washyness please.  I'd like some specific examples of how you believe this would occur.
> 
> As for the example of the doctor you provided.  Would you support a doctor that refused life saving treatment to a homosexual on the basis of their religion?  At what point does someones religious beliefs over ride law and the secular state?  Do we renounce discriminations laws so those who don't like <insert minority group> can just tell them to F off?  Would it be OK for a gay run business to refuse to serve Christians and Muslims due to the centuries of persecution they've dished out to homosexuals?  In your doctors case, would it be Ok for a gay doctor to refuse to treat a religious person?




You know absolutely f all about life until you have married a woman, had several children your wife gave birth to in front of your eyes and nursed with her own breasts and raised till they are at least 30. It's easy to mix some powder in a bottle and throw it in a babies mouth and pretend you are a good mom if you can breastfeed and don't.


----------



## moXJO (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Live sex on the other hand is something sacred that happens between two people that love each other in the privacy of their sanctuary.
> 
> Do you not see the difference?
> 
> ...




Yes its all gay marriages fault, despite the internet being pr0n central. You waging that battle yet?

Marriage is so sacred we have:
Open marriage.
Celebrity marriage (5 year or less).
Las Vegas marriage where an Elvis impersonator will marry you.
And divorce running at what?? 50%
And plenty of affairs.
Its a joke unless they bring in a no divorce law (which would be funny).

You and your religion do not own the rights on telling other people how to live. 
Taking examples of bad behavior and then blaming the whole community as the same is a cheap way to score points.

"Think of the children" bloody hell. Next you will be insinuating anyone for gay marriage is a pedo like some of the above are trying to turn the debate. 
Heres the thing: Todays children grow up a lot more accepting. The current religious fruitloops trying to dictate everyones lives are on the losing side of the battle. And the wrong side of history. Todays kids will be tomorrows adults pushing for acceptance.

Like I said no problem if you practice your faith. But that does not hold sway over how others are allowed to live. 

The fact that those that claim to be religious here, are the ones making people suffer to prove faith, or out of hate and fear is laughable.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So when God supported the Kings of the old testament, gave them many wives, sometimes hundreds of sex slave concubines as well, how does that fit into you values system that supposedly was provided to you by your creator god?
> 
> 
> In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
> ...




Go speak to a Rabbi he will explain what all that really meant and what it means. You would need a degree in Jewish culture to explain things properly to you. And I am not demeaning you here. It's just the way it is.


----------



## Tink (2 July 2015)

moXJO, you have come in a middle of a conversation where this was mentioned



Tink said:


> Well they are on the same par, TH.
> 
> The homosexual activists and the Islamic activists are becoming almost one and the same.
> Both are using similar means to achieve similar goals.




and I have proved the point.

They are both the same in their approach.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

To give you an idea of why I support gay marriage, the below is what homosexuals still face today.



> The 22-year-old owner of Grand Central Pizzeria and Grille in Delta, Utah, was closing up shop for the night when an unknown assailant grabbed him by the head and slammed him against the wall. “I remember waking up and I was lying on the floor,” he says. “Somebody was on my chest and legs and they were trying to force me to drink bleach.”
> He returned to consciousness with a concussion and found that medical teams were already attending to his wounds. $1,300 had been stolen from the premises. Released by the hospital the next morning, Jones returned home to find the words “Die Fag” spray-painted on the garage door of his family home. Later that week, a Molotov cocktail was hurtled through Jones’ bedroom window. He put out the flames with a fire extinguisher before too much (physical) damage was done, only to find more graffiti spray-painted on the facade of his house: “You’ll Die. Burn Fag.”






> A Seattle couple who sustained multiple injuries during an attack at a Gay Pride event on Capitol Hill now face thousands of dollars in medical expenses.
> 
> Rawstory reports that Steven Briggs and Patrick Dettling had been out celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage last Sunday, when a gang of three men and two women approached them.
> 
> The situation quickly intensified, with the attackers shouting homophobic slurs as they repeated punched the two men in the face and kicked them before fleeing.






> A man was brutally beaten in Paris over the weekend in an anti-gay attack he says shows the “face of homophobia in France.” Gay rights activists say ongoing sentiment against same-sex marriage has turned into homophobic violence.
> 
> According to Wilfred de Brujin, he and his boyfriend were attacked Saturday night in the 19th arrondissement in Paris.






> The Center for Disease Control and Prevention released today its first set of national prevalence data on intimate partner violence (IPV), sexual violence (SV), and stalking victimization by sexual orientation.
> 
> *Among the study’s most disturbing findings, nearly half of female bisexual victims (48.2%) and more than one-quarter of female heterosexual victims (28.3%) experienced their first rape between the ages of 11 and 17 years old.*






> The number of hate crimes reported to U.S. law enforcement agencies decreased by 6% from 2010, while anti-LGBT violence increased slightly by 2.6%, according to a new report by the FBI.
> 
> Of the 6,222 hate crimes reported in 2011, 1,508 were based on sexual orientation, up from 1,470 in 2010. Nearly 21% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation, said the FBI, with men most often as the victims.
> 
> “FBI statistics vastly underestimate the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States,” Levin told the L.A. Times. “When the Justice Department asks victims anonymously whether they have been targeted for hate offenses, they get a figure that approaches 200,000 hate crimes annually.”






> Add Senegal to the list of places it sucks to be gay. “Even death cannot stop the violence against gays in this corner of the world any more. Madieye Diallo’s body had only been in the ground for a few hours when the mob descended on the weedy cemetery with shovels. They yanked out the corpse, spit on its torso, dragged it away and dumped it in front of the home of his elderly parents. The scene of May 2, 2009 was filmed on a cell phone and the video sold at the market. It passed from phone to phone, sowing panic among gay men who say they now feel like hunted animals. … In the past two years, at least four men suspected of being gay have been exhumed by angry mobs in cemeteries in Senegal.




Closer to home



> Stephanie McCarthy said she was waiting to perform with her band at the Town Hall Hotel in Newtown on Friday night when she was set upon by up to five men and brutally bashed in what she says was an unprovoked attack




The bigotry this violence hides behind uses some form of pseudo religious intolerance to justify it.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Doctor's can choose who to treat if they are in private practise and not being paid by the taxpayer, just as patients can choose only to be treated by a particular doctor and not others if they pay for the services.
> 
> If a cake shop won't produce a wedding cake for gay people, there are plenty of other cake shops around.




So it would make sense to have a society where the people can discriminate against each other?  

You'd not have an issue with a Muslim man refusing to serve a woman, or a Catholic standing by while a divorcee needs urgent medical help?  Would it be OK for a staunchly religious person to walk past a gay man laying in the gutter from being bashed, since they'd see what happened to the person as God's will and punishment?

Where does common decency amongst people factor into things?

A doctor who bases medical care on religion shouldn't be a doctor.  In that case I'd probably be happy they refused me treatment, and I'd certainly make it known that this is the way they treat their fellow humans.  Others should have the right to boycott the doctor if his views don't match their own.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Tink said:


> The homosexual lobby wants everyone to submit to its agenda, and they are more than happy to use the force of law to achieve their aims. They want all dissent crushed
> 
> .




And what exactly is this "Agenda"



> Freedom of conscience,




It doesn't affect your conscience, no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage.



> freedom of speech




No one is taking away your freedom of speech, you have the right to stand in any town square and state your case, but no one has to listen to you, and we are free to say you are wrong



> and religious freedom are all being trampled




I really want this one explained,

How is your religious freedom being trampled? no one is taking any of your religious freedoms away.

Please give me one example of where your religious rights have been infringed.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Actually uhmm no !
> 
> But go read what he said.
> 
> ...




I was brought up a Christian, and still hold many of the teachings from Jesus as a good way to live.

The sad fact is most Christians have little to no understanding as to how their lives based on his teachings.

Jesus was someone who accepted people.  He hung with the lepers and prostitutes.  He'd certainly not be a Creflo Dollar trying to get 50 odd million to buy the most expensive Gulf private jet on the market.  He'd certainly have stormed through the Catholic church throwing out much of the leadership for what they've done to children for decades.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If a cake shop won't produce a wedding cake for gay people, there are plenty of other cake shops around.




That's where you are wrong.

If a cake shop produces wedding cakes, and a gay couple go in an pick a standard design that is being offered for sale, the cake shop can not deny them service.

They can say they don't stock gay cake toppers if its true they don't stock them, or they can accept or reject any specialised works a person commissions, but you can not by law refuse service based on sexuality of your customer.

If a gay couple is fine with accepting a stock standard catalogue production, they can not refuse service.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Tink said:


> and I have proved the point.
> 
> They are both the same in their approach.




and this is why I say you are hysterical on this subject and have irrational fear that causes you to see things that aren't happening.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

> Why should I have the LGBT activist dogmatic terrorist force their non-religious dogmas onto me?




No one is forcing you to have a gay marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So it would make sense to have a society where the people can discriminate against each other?




There is a lot in our society that doesn't make sense. Only the strongly religious would discriminate against gays and personally I hope the ranks of the strongly religious decrease, however if they have issues dealing with gays then that's their problem and imo they should have a right not to serve people they don't want to. That's what is called freedom of religion. If they don't give a service to gay people, someone else will.



> You'd not have an issue with a Muslim man refusing to serve a woman, or a Catholic standing by while a divorcee needs urgent medical help?  Would it be OK for a staunchly religious person to walk past a gay man laying in the gutter from being bashed, since they'd see what happened to the person as God's will and punishment?




Of course I personally would have a problem with the above. People who discriminate in that way should be publicly condemned, but if they still want to do it, that's up to them. 



> Where does common decency amongst people factor into things?




Agreed, but what rights have you or I to impose our views of decency on others ?



> Others should have the right to boycott the doctor if his views don't match their own.




That is a point I made before.


----------



## ftw129 (2 July 2015)

Oh is anyone else finding this thread hilarious? Like poking an angry dog with a stick LOL



Ald123 said:


> Watch and wait what happens, then you will see.




OH I'm waiting... 



> For me it's about dilution of the value of my marriage and the dilution of a principle that should be held sacrosanct.
> 
> Nothing wrong with civil unions, between humans and animals if they so wish, I don't even give a damn about 1 woman having a civil union with ten other women and 3 men and a blue whale. Give these unions the same rights, don't allow any form of discrimination.
> 
> ...






> My marriage is a symbol for ever, to be handed down as an inheritance to my descendants, that they will be happy and our family will continue as a family supporting one another, united and not divided, if they follow my example then we can pass down the riches we accumulate to tide us over against future rascals and governments who wish to steal what my family creates. If amongst them perchance a gay member of family is born, they will be loved but their line will not prosper. It is about my right to say that in my family, the men shall only marry women and the women shall only marry men. It is about being true and owing justice to the creator who in creation instituted it naturally to be so. I will not let it be otherwise.
> 
> Keep your hands off our marriages! Get your own word for it.
> 
> Call it Gayrriage and go be happy I won't bother you. You can even put it into the constitution for all I care. I want it distinct from my values.




Ahh now we get to see your true colours.

You should print this out and stick it away in a drawer so you can look back on the person you once were.

If it's any consolation I wouldn't be too embarrassed when the time comes. It was good for a laugh!


----------



## ghotib (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> You know absolutely f all about life until you have married a woman, had several children your wife gave birth to in front of your eyes and nursed with her own breasts and raised till they are at least 30. It's easy to mix some powder in a bottle and throw it in a babies mouth and pretend you are a good mom if you can breastfeed and don't.



???

Therefore the only women who know anything about life are lesbians whose wives gave birth to several children conceived (presumably) by artificial insemination and breast fed for THIRTY YEARS.  WTF???

OK, you didn't quite say the bit about the breast feeding. 

But when it comes to knowing about life, sweetheart, I think your kids probably have a lot to teach you.


----------



## Tisme (2 July 2015)

I guess Canada still has a few people who aren't all that impressed with the idea:

"_Anyone interested in assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on public life should investigate the outcomes in three spheres: first, human rights (including impacts on freedom of speech, parental rights in public education, and the autonomy of religious institutions); second, further developments in what sorts of relationships political society will be willing to recognize as a marriage (e.g., polygamy); and third, the social practice of marriage."_

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/same-sex-marriage-ten-years-on-lessons-from-canada


----------



## ftw129 (2 July 2015)

ghotib said:


> But when it comes to knowing about life, sweetheart, I think your kids probably have a lot to teach you.




Now there's the real underlying value to this thread.


----------



## ftw129 (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Keep your hands off our marriages! Get your own word for it.


----------



## pixel (2 July 2015)

“A prude is a person who thinks that his own rules of propriety are natural laws.”
and
“Being a mother is an attitude, not a biological relation.” 
― Robert A. Heinlein


----------



## MrBurns (2 July 2015)

pixel said:


> “A prude is a person who thinks that his own rules of propriety are natural laws.”
> and
> “Being a mother is an attitude, not a biological relation.”
> ― Robert A. Heinlein




...


----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

The Elvis version is also pretty good.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

> But look I don't think you are a man who cares much about Jesus anyway and that's fine




I have found Steve Rogers (Captain America) to be a more inspiring figure than Jesus, he saved the world by selflessly crashing a plane full of nuclear weapons into the arctic ice cap, where he lay frozen for 60 years. He later went on to defeat Hydra again.

Sure Jesus turned some water into wine that sounds like a party trick, and they say he died on the cross for us, but he woke up 3 days later, Steve Rogers crashed a plane into ice for us and he didn't wake up for 60 years.

Jesus also said slaves obey your masters, Steve Rogers stands for freedom.


----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have found Steve Rogers to be a more inspiring figure than Jesus, he saved the world by selflessly crashing a plane full of nuclear weapons into the arctic ice cap, where he lay frozen for 60 years. He later went on to defeat Hydra again.
> 
> Sure Jesus turned some water into wine that sounds like a party trick, and they say he died on the cross for us, but he woke up 3 days later, Steve Rogers crashed a plane into ice for us and he didn't wake up for 60 years.
> 
> Jesus also said slaves obey your masters, Steve Rogers stands for freedom.




Then when he wakes up, Steve Rogers went on back to saving the world, again, in the awesome Winter Soldier. Neglecting to catch up on great movies like Rocky and Rambo and stuff.

Jesus woke up and go back home to daddy.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2015)

I thought Steve Rogers committed suicide.


----------



## awg (2 July 2015)

for an issue that doesnt matter, sure is a lot of discussion

a day or so ago, but MANY pages, a poster wondered whether younger people had a different attitude.


prompted me to ask my 3 sons aged 18-25 what their peers thought.

they agreed ~99% of their peers are in support, as are they.

They said the few dissenters were strong Christians, (or Muslims) BUT even they were
considered to be not fervently against.

As they sometimes use terms such as "fkn gay faggot", they are not what you would call 100% politically correct cleanskins either

My wife pointed out that this is an issue that mainly affects younger people, as they get married, but I added that older people such as me dont give a toss what other people think anyway

I predict the Libs are going to get well-and-truely jammed on this issue


----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

awg said:


> for an issue that doesnt matter, sure is a lot of discussion
> 
> a day or so ago, but MANY pages, a poster wondered whether younger people had a different attitude.
> 
> ...





Abbott is in a bit of a pickle too, with his sister, and presumably with his parents.

Would be interesting to listen to their conversation at family gathering.


Look sis, I love you and all that. But you're going to hell, as simple as that. God don't like gay people, you're gay and so, you know.


That or...

Look sis, I don't really believe in this anti-gay and bible stuff. I love you, wish you all the happiness... but see, I'm the Prime Minister and the polls and my advisors all say if I want that lifetime pension I have to win the religious votes... to do that mean I'll have to go against my true belief and throw you and your kind under the bus. That's life, that's politics and there's no soul to lose anyway so I'll be OK, will be set for this life at least.


Either way, he's not that likeable.


----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I thought Steve Rogers committed suicide.




He flew the plane into the Artic right?


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm not proposing anyone to be inseminated against their will.
> 
> So you agree that a doctor has the right to deny care based on their religious beliefs?
> 
> ...





Medical care no, but insemination is not medical care, she can inseminate herself

We discriminate against minors when we don't sell them alcohol and cigarettes 

You should go to your employer and tell him that but this day nobody gives a crap, money smells good.

But what you raise is honourable. I really hope that there is a final judgement.  The people in the Catholic Church who committed, commit and covered up child abuse, grrrrrrr. I don't want to be in their shoes and I hope those who were abused get every tear wiped away. On this point I get so angry that words fail me. I think that those abusers in the Catholic Church and Isis are brothers. To me these people are like Hitler. 

Again the Cathoilc Church and Goverment have failed women in such a way that a woman believes the lie that in having an abortion she is not killing a child. Her child. Young girls need to be given support even if it was their stupidity, and these children should be born and cared for by society. If we cannot do this then we too are Hitlers. 

There is no justification for not treating anybody due to a religious view. But suing a doctor for cosmetic or non medical procedures is ridiculous, come on be reasonable and see that we must find some consensus on that point.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> that's called standing up for yourself.
> 
> The difference here is that gays are not fighting to take anything away from you, they are fighting for equal rights, how ever you are fighting for the continuation of an unjust law that denies them of rights.
> 
> ...




Nobody is discriminating against gays, have all the rights you want, have civil unions, have a Gayrriage 
Just don't call it marriage and don't shove it down my kids throats .


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Trembling Hand said:


> Join the two sentences I have highlighted together. If you do believe in a god as a creator then how the hell can you then say "It is about my right to say that in my family" or anyone else's family.
> 
> Religious grounds for discrimination is astoundingly hypocritical! If someone is that way then surely that is because your god made them just like that???




It's about my right to listen to the creator when he says that. Thus its my right to keep that in the family when referring to other people and governments.

Listen there are many Gay Catholics who have a strong love and belief of God. They experience incredibly strong sexual feelings towards the same sex. Though it's a massive struggle especially when young, they try live chaste lives, they experience unrequited love and get their hearts broken just like other people. They hate themselves when they experience these strong feelings for the same sex because they know it's true that it's not according to Gods plan. They manage their emotions learning via maturity to take responsibility for their entire person and internal life. They don't disturb the peace of their sexual facilities and don't stimulate the facilities, after a while they are calm and pursue higher interests and friendships and become happy people.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Yes, that's a perfectly valid question.  I'd like to hear those higher ups in the Catholic church answer that one.  Something along the lines of moving paedophiles from suburb to suburb comes to mind as one of the ways they protected children over the decades.




Yup and you and me share the same outrage about that. I just hate that which they did so much , I boil. 
I wouldn't f around with child abusers. If I became president, within 3 days I would round them up and stop that. 
Enough is enough. i don't think so many kids got justice, I do t think they have been helped and the damage inside healed.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Nobody is discriminating against gays, have all the rights you want, have civil unions, have a Gayrriage
> Just don't call it marriage and don't shove it down my kids throats .




That's a bit like saying blacks can ride the bus, they have the rights, they just can't sit at the front of the bus, because that's for whites.

Why don't you make your own special type of religious marriage, you can call it holy matrimony , and it can be special thing you do at your church while you drink the blood of Jesus etc, and the rest of us will have normal lawful marriage in the eyes of the law.

just don't call your religious cults matrimony thing marriage, and don't shove it down my kids throat.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I was brought up a Christian, and still hold many of the teachings from Jesus as a good way to live.
> 
> The sad fact is most Christians have little to no understanding as to how their lives based on his teachings.
> 
> Jesus was someone who accepted people.  He hung with the lepers and prostitutes.  He'd certainly not be a Creflo Dollar trying to get 50 odd million to buy the most expensive Gulf private jet on the market.  He'd certainly have stormed through the Catholic church throwing out much of the leadership for what they've done to children for decades.




I agree with you here, they would get flayed with a whip for what they did and failed to do. Accepting people and yet not accepting some of their behaviours is a part of love.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No one is forcing you to have a gay marriage.




Yes they are, they are telling my kids and other people that there is no difference between normal marriage and gayrriage.


----------



## trainspotter (2 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Abbott is in a bit of a pickle too, with his sister, and presumably with his parents.
> 
> Would be interesting to listen to their conversation at family gathering.
> 
> ...




I will take option #2 please.

OR

Hey Sis, you know how you want me to allow the conscience vote and it will go directly against everything I believe in and what you stand for by being a carpet muncher but it is a private members bill but I want to remind you that this government was elected to turn back the boats. You can row your own boat as much as you like but the selection committee will advise me if the polls consider that to have my profile picture tinted in a rainbow flag as a sign of support for gay marriage then I will do just that. 

#POTUS says "Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else." #LoveWins

#PMOAUS says "Today the Government took an additional step to keep Australia safe"#StopBoats


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

ftw129 said:


> Oh is anyone else finding this thread hilarious? Like poking an angry dog with a stick LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Stick it in your drawer and look back one day. I can guarantee you, before your life expires you will regret these words.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

awg said:


> for an issue that doesnt matter, sure is a lot of discussion
> 
> a day or so ago, but MANY pages, a poster wondered whether younger people had a different attitude.
> 
> ...




I am a life time liberal voter, never have I thought of voting labor. But if this becomes an election issue that the Libs won't budge on, I will give labor a protest vote, and if a hardline lib supporter like me is willing to do that, I guess a lot of others will to.


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have found Steve Rogers (Captain America) to be a more inspiring figure than Jesus, he saved the world by selflessly crashing a plane full of nuclear weapons into the arctic ice cap, where he lay frozen for 60 years. He later went on to defeat Hydra again.
> 
> Sure Jesus turned some water into wine that sounds like a party trick, and they say he died on the cross for us, but he woke up 3 days later, Steve Rogers crashed a plane into ice for us and he didn't wake up for 60 years.
> 
> Jesus also said slaves obey your masters, Steve Rogers stands for freedom.




Hooray for Cap'n America !


----------



## Ald123 (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's a bit like saying blacks can ride the bus, they have the rights, they just can't sit at the front of the bus, because that's for whites.
> 
> Why don't you make your own special type of religious marriage, you can call it holy matrimony , and it can be special thing you do at your church while you drink the blood of Jesus etc, and the rest of us will have normal lawful marriage in the eyes of the law.
> 
> just don't call your religious cults matrimony thing marriage, and don't shove it down my kids throat.




I think that will be the solution in the end. I can clearly see the groundswell of support for gayrriage. 
I warned against it, so that nobody accuses me of being a misery merchant, but mark my words this will be something future generations will regret happene.


----------



## trainspotter (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am a life time liberal voter, never have I thought of voting labor. But if this becomes an election issue that the Libs won't budge on, I will give labor a protest vote, and if a hardline lib supporter like me is willing to do that, I guess a lot of others will to.




VC don't get all righteous and group all of us hardline Libs into the same pot please. 



> *Mr Abbott pushed back against those calling for debate*, and a free vote, in the Liberal party room on Thursday declaring it was "quite unusual for private member's bills to come on for debate".
> 
> "This government was elected to grow jobs, to promote the stronger economy,* to secure our nation against the various challenges that we face at home and abroad*, and that's what we are doing," he said.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...to-allow-conscience-vote-20150702-gi3l3y.html

OOooohhhh looky ... there goes a unicorn riding on a rainbow :frown:


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> It's about my right to listen to the creator when he says that. Thus its my right to keep that in the family when referring to other people and governments.
> 
> Listen there are many Gay Catholics who have a strong love and belief of God. They experience incredibly strong sexual feelings towards the same sex. Though it's a massive struggle especially when young, they try live chaste lives, they experience unrequited love and get their hearts broken just like other people. They hate themselves when they experience these strong feelings for the same sex because they know it's true that it's not according to Gods plan. They manage their emotions learning via maturity to take responsibility for their entire person and internal life. They don't disturb the peace of their sexual facilities and don't stimulate the facilities, after a while they are calm and pursue higher interests and friendships and become happy people.




Imagine if you will for a moment that that creator doesn't actually exist.

What a waste it would be to live a life without love and sex, all because of a dusty old book of myths.

It's crazy, the best thing is just to live you life in a way that makes you happy, without harming others, and without stopping others from seeking their own happiness, as long as they aren't harming others.

If there were a god, do you really think he cares who you have sex with?


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> VC don't get all righteous and group all of us hardline Libs into the same pot please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't think anything I said was putting people in the same pot.

I am talking about myself, and simply saying that if I think that way, there must be others too.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I warned against it, so that nobody accuses me of being a misery merchant, but mark my words this will be something future generations will regret happene.




Why would they regret it?

What's the worst that can come from it?


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> And what exactly is this  (gay)"Agenda
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ok so after Tink made another bunch of unjustified claims, I asked her to explain her position, but yet again she falls silent, we won't hear from her again until she bursts in again probably saying something about gay marriage being anti children or against her religious rights or some other circular arguments and logical fallacies which she will never back up.

so since she failed to answer the questions above I would like to put them to anyone that holds similar views to her.


----------



## trainspotter (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think anything I said was putting people in the same pot.
> 
> I am talking about myself, and simply saying that if I think that way, there must be others too.




For shizzle ... but the party believes in a "civil" marriage between man and a woman. Keeping of the realm and all that and you would be surprised as to how many demographics would identify themselves as "straight" ...



> More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual




http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...on-is-gay-more-than-you-think-5012467/?no-ist



> The veiled method increased self-reports of non-heterosexual identity by 65% (p<0.05) and same-sex sexual experiences by 59% (p<0.01). The veiled method also increased the rates of anti-gay sentiment. *Respondents were 67% more likely to express disapproval of an openly gay manager at work *(p<0.01) and 71% more likely to say it is okay to discriminate against lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals (p<0.01)




So let's let the Libs libel themselves up over this one now shall we?


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ok so after Tink made another bunch of unjustified claims, I asked her to explain her position, but yet again she falls silent, we won't hear from her again until she bursts in again probably saying something about gay marriage being anti children or against her religious rights or some other circular arguments and logical fallacies which she will never back up.
> 
> so since she failed to answer the questions above I would like to put them to anyone that holds similar views to her.




She has an opinion as do you have yours. I spoke with my partner about this and my partner answered thusly ... "You don't see this happening in the wild do you? I mean do you see male lions cohabitating with other male lions and expect the species to survive" (She actually used a lot more expletives and made funny gestures with her pelvis in a thrusting motion)

Yes you do have fish and frogs that change sex due to seasonal adjustments (Darwinsm?) but also the brain influences sexual development depending on the social environment. This is due to genetics.

Us homo sapiens are hardwired to be male or female in the brain. The body is the hinderance hence why we are having this discussion.

Check it out ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justi...d-the-rise-of-the-alpha-female_b_4968667.html


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> For shizzle ... but the party believes in a "civil" marriage between man and a woman. Keeping of the realm and all that and you would be surprised as to how many demographics would identify themselves as "straight" ...
> 
> So let's let the Libs libel themselves up over this one now shall we?




I am not really sure what you are talking about, or how it relates to what I said, I was making a comment on anger statement that the Libs were getting themselves into a pickle with voters.

I simply said that I am a life time liberal voter, and would never previously have thought to vote labor, however if gay marriage becomes an election issue, that the Libs don't want to budge on, I would vote against them.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> She has an opinion as do you have yours. I spoke with my partner about this and my partner answered thusly ... "You don't see this happening in the wild do you? I mean do you see male lions cohabitating with other male lions and expect the species to survive" (She actually used a lot more expletives and made funny gestures with her pelvis in a thrusting motion)
> 
> Yes you do have fish and frogs that change sex due to seasonal adjustments (Darwinsm?) but also the brain influences sexual development depending on the social environment. This is due to genetics.
> 
> ...




As it turns out your partner is just uneducated on the matter.


> Both male and female lions have been seen to interact homosexually.[86][87] Male lions pair-bond for a number of days and initiate homosexual activity with affectionate nuzzling and caressing, leading to mounting and thrusting. About 8% of mountings have been observed to occur with other males. Pairings between females are held to be fairly common in captivity but have not been observed in the wild.




There is actually Wikipedia article that states that same sex sexual behaviour has been observed in over 500 species including, apes, monkeys, elephants, Dolphins, sheep just to name a few of the mammals.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am not really sure what you are talking about, or how it relates to what I said, I was making a comment on anger statement that the Libs were getting themselves into a pickle with voters.
> 
> I simply said that I am a life time liberal voter, and would never previously have thought to vote labor, however if gay marriage becomes an election issue, that the Libs don't want to budge on, I would vote against them.




Good for you. I am a lifetime Liberal voter and if TA keels over and let's his carpet muncher sister destroy matrimonial harmony for the sake of the minority for a few lousy votes then I am voting against him as well and hang whatever happens when the lunatics are on the grass. 

I posted how many men and women affiniare themselves as being in the minority ... I am all for their rights to be the same as currently enjoyed under the word "marriage" ... my anger statement is towards the legislation involved with "defacto" relationships. Man and woman AOK. Man and man NOT AOK and vici versa. Just give "them" the same legal rights and this is a non sequitur. 

To be "married" under the guise of the law is a crock of excrement as it a LEGAL term. To be "married" under the guise of the Church is a LOVE thing. Which one are you arguing for?


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As it turns out you partner is just uneducated on the matter.
> 
> The is actually Wikipedia article that states that same sex sexual behaviour has been observed in over 500 species.




As it turns out you failed to understand what my uneducated partner was thrusting about _*" and expect the species to survive"*_ I believe they call it procreation. You will figure it out eventually.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> As it turns out you failed to understand what my uneducated partner was thrusting about _*" and expect the species to survive"*_ I believe they call it procreation. You will figure it out eventually.




A species can survive quite well with a certain percentage of the population being gay ( no one is suggesting we are all going to be gay), and given that so much of the talk here against gay marriage is about children, it turns out a lot of people are worried that gay's will breed.

But sure a homosexual couple can't give birth, but a lesbian couple could give birth to double the number of children that a straight couple that only has 1 womb could, all they need is a sperm doner.


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am a life time liberal voter, never have I thought of voting labor. But if this becomes an election issue that the Libs won't budge on, I will give labor a protest vote, and if a hardline lib supporter like me is willing to do that, I guess a lot of others will to.




Going over to the Dark Side, threaten to, do you? 
Ultimatum giving you are. Hmm?

The force is strong with this one. But anger lead to ultimatum; ultimatum results in banishment; banishment to rebellion. 


You guys are about to ruin the Lion King for me.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Imagine if you will for a moment that that creator doesn't actually exist.
> 
> What a waste it would be to live a life without love and sex, all because of a dusty old book of myths.
> 
> ...




That depends you see. I have met a man so incredibly brilliantly gifted in every single facet of life, he could play chess with the devil himself and win. Luckily he was a person who experienced God. 
Had he not done so, for such a person to Wander the world, is like letting ten nuclear bombs on the world. He could achieve whatever he wanted. When I saw this power, I quickly realised that things are not as they seem. 
Don't worry God exists.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Good for you. I am a lifetime Liberal voter and if TA keels over and let's his carpet muncher sister destroy matrimonial harmony for the sake of the minority for a few lousy votes
> 
> I posted how many men and women affiniare themselves as being in the minority ... I am all for their rights to be the same as currently enjoyed under the word "marriage" ... my anger statement is towards the legislation involved with "defacto" relationships. Man and woman AOK. Man and man NOT AOK and vici versa. Just give "them" the same legal rights and this is a non sequitur.
> 
> To be "married" under the guise of the law is a crock of excrement as it a LEGAL term. To be "married" under the guise of the Church is a LOVE thing. Which one are you arguing for?




I don't want Tony to allow gay marriage for votes, I want him to allow it because it's the right thing to do.

Who cares how many gays there are, the fact that they are a minority is irrelevant.

people get married because they love each other, regardless if it's in a church or not, this debate is about whether the government should recognise these marriages or not.

We presently recognise marriages between straights, we don't recognise the marriages between gay's, that is just plane descrimination, I don't care what the churches recognise, I don't even know which church you are talking about, I care about the legal recognition from the state, at the end of the day, the states laws matter for a whole host of reasons, the churches rules only really affect those who take the church brand seriously.

Marriage predates all the major religions.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> You guys are about to ruin the Lion King for me.




Lol, don't go to the wiki page then, it's got a picture of two male lions don't it jungle style.


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> As it turns out you failed to understand what my uneducated partner was thrusting about _*" and expect the species to survive"*_ I believe they call it procreation. You will figure it out eventually.




Homosexuals have been around since the beginning, hard to see how them being given equal rights as all adults are given would destroy or affect survival of the species.

I mean, if the wind turbine isn't going to do it...


Gay parents are not going to turn their children gay; just as heterosexual parenting haven't turn out all heterosexual children.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> A species can survive quite well with a certain percentage of the population being gay ( no one is suggesting we are all going to be gay), and given that so much of the talk here against gay marriage is about children, it turns out a lot of people are worried that gay's will breed.
> 
> But sure a homosexual couple can't give birth, but a lesbian couple could give birth to double the number of children that a straight couple that only has 1 womb could, all they need is a sperm doner.




Don't forget hermaphrodites in this statement. If people LOVE each other and celebrate their individuality then children who grow in this environment are the same as any other "LOVING" couple. Unfortunately millions of years of evolution preclude this from happening. Also since the advent of science being able to test tube spermatozoa and create a bionic womb the repercussions of what we are voting for will become self evident in about 10 years.

You are missing what I am driving up on. Is it a LEGAL thing or is it a LOVE thing?  There are many terms of engagement that require legislation FIRST rather than just a party vote behind closed doors to allow same sex marriage. 

I can hear the ministers bleat ... "Congratulations I now announce you "Partners for Life" and you may kiss your respective partner" CHURCH

I can hear the lawyers bleat ... "Congratulations I now announce you "Partners for Life" and you may will your respective partner nothing" LEGAL

So is this legislation going to clear up what I have suggested? REALLY? It takes a "marriage certificate" to do this? Why not just legislate they have the same rights as a  "married couple" and be FERKING done with it?


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> That depends you see. I have met a man so incredibly brilliantly gifted in every single facet of life, he could play chess with the devil himself and win. Luckily he was a person who experienced God.
> Had he not done so, for such a person to Wander the world, is like letting ten nuclear bombs on the world. He could achieve whatever he wanted. When I saw this power, I quickly realised that things are not as they seem.
> Don't worry God exists.




I think you are deluded. Big on claims, short on evidence. Most likely suffering from a whole host of logical fallacies.

Why don't you head over to the religion and science thread and explain why you believe your brand of God exists, I will be happy to help you identify the logical fallacies that have lead you down the wrong path, either that or you will convince me, my mind is open to be changed, but only by evidence.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Homosexuals have been around since the beginning, hard to see how them being given equal rights as all adults are given would destroy or affect survival of the species.
> 
> I mean, if the wind turbine isn't going to do it...
> 
> ...




You still are not getting it are you?

X chromosome PLUS x chromosome = 0

Y chromosome PLUS y chromosome = 0

X chromosome PLUS y chromosome = life

Y chromosome PLUS x chromosome = life

Wind turbine jibe is a sideshow ... move on.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> We presently recognise marriages between straights, we don't recognise the marriages between gay's, that is just plane descrimination, I don't care what the churches recognise, I don't even know which church you are talking about, I care about the legal recognition from the state, at the end of the day, the states laws matter for a whole host of reasons, the churches rules only really affect those who take the church brand seriously.




Ahhhhh now you are starting to understand the en globo situation at hand. The media is pushing the "gay" button and developing ground swell of the proletariat to march with them to recognise the significance of being "married" in front of your peers. Photo opportunity and I am sure there will be a thriving business of celebrants and wedding planners hacking into this phenomenon. Elton John anyone?

Internally the LEGALISE of this is much more entertaining. I am agreeing with you on the "rights" of same sex partners .... property, superannuation funds, bank accounts, executor of wills etc ad infinitum. Not the issue here ... BUT the laws that are involved to change all of this is not a mere act of parliament. Well actually it is. But more of a society that requires acceptance and by playing this as a political football while  Rome burns is a side event better than any magician worth his salt could have hoped for. 

Reminds me of Keating when he proclaimed arguing with Hewson was like "being flogged by a wet lettuce"


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> You are missing what I am driving up on. Is it a LEGAL thing or is it a LOVE thing?  There are many terms of engagement that require legislation FIRST rather than just a party vote behind closed doors to allow same sex marriage.
> 
> I can hear the ministers bleat ... "Congratulations I now announce you "Partners for Life" and you may kiss your respective partner" CHURCH
> 
> ...




Marriage for the vast majority is a love thing, 

What you have to understand is that marriage predates the major religions and all legal systems, so it is neither a church thing or a legal thing at its core, it's a primal partnership based on love and sexual attraction. 

Now as countries and religions and legal systems developed, obviously we started recording and formally recognising marriages, even though they existed for thousands of years before the modern legal system or religion, just like the concept of property ownership, as the legal system grew there became benefits to having these devices recognised.

So we are currently in the position where only straight marriages are recognised by the state, however gay marriages exist, they are just not recognised under the law yet. Changing the marriage act to recognise these marriages doesn't mean they suddenly become less about love and more about legal matters, it just means that we give the gay members of our society the dignity they diserve by recognising their marriages in the same way we recognise straight ones.

If you are trying to say a religious marriage is more about love, I think you are dead wrong, I think religious marriages and funerals are some of the worst types, most of the talk ends up being about the religion rather than the couple or the dead person.


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> You still are not getting it are you?
> 
> X chromosome PLUS x chromosome = 0
> 
> ...




Pretty sure there's no such thing as the "gay gene". So the x and y stuff would lead to what they call the "sex" of the person, not their gender. Sex would be their sexual organ and physical built, gender is... gender.

Don't remember all these genetic stuff but I did wrote a paper on the biological-psychological explanation of homosexuality (the prof. specialises in it so anyway)... 

From memory, and I've said it here before... from an evolutionary, Darwinian perspective, there is actually a purpose for homosexuality, that it contributes to the survival of the species: homosexuals are the same as the population but require less resources as it does not breed, more time to hunt and gather and provide etc.

Our society have moved beyond, most of us anyway, beyond food scarcity... that and if gays are deemed equal, they can have their own kids or adopt otherwise orphan kids... that and society also benefits by not discriminating fellow human beings for no good reason other than some personal or religious reason.

Anyway... most of us don't care of our neighbour marries Sue or Mary-Ann or that other nice lady with a sweet smile we'd prefered him to. Beats me why we'd care of he love and want to marry Steve or John or Joe. The important thing is the lawn are mowed and the house is clean, alright? haha


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Your flippant response perturbs me. It is not about lawns being mowed. It is about "gay rights" and I have stated is it a show of hands that a ceremony has been performed in the eyes of God before a Church to make this legal or is it a function of parliament to vote and give the same rights to same sex couples as do hetero's enjoy?

If it is the latter then a simple change of context to include the minority is a very easy matter. 

You seem to have a difference between Church and State legislation. It is the moral ground that this is being fought upon and I am sure that this will not be given up easy by US Liberal voters.


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Your flippant response perturbs me. It is not about lawns being mowed. It is about "gay rights" and I have stated is it a show of hands that a ceremony has been performed in the eyes of God before a Church to make this legal or is it a function of parliament to vote and give the same rights to same sex couples as do hetero's enjoy?
> 
> If it is the latter then a simple change of context to include the minority is a very easy matter.
> 
> You seem to have a difference between Church and State legislation. It is the moral ground that this is being fought upon and I am sure that this will not be given up easy by US Liberal voters.




If it's ever made on moral ground, banning or in any way discriminating against any segment of society cannot be said to be "moral". Religious, yes, moral no.

In the US, it's not just about the ceremony and the party. In states where gay marriage is not recognised, gay couples living together all their lives are not considered married or defacto and that have a lot of consequences in terms of legal rights to property, taxes and all that.

Alright, it's wrong to be flippant about it. But it is somewhat ridiculous that there's even a debate as to whether or not gay brother or gay sister should be permitted to get married, that it could harm society and ruin the children.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Pretty sure there's no such thing as the "gay gene". So the x and y stuff would lead to what they call the "sex" of the person, not their gender. Sex would be their sexual organ and physical built, gender is... gender.
> 
> Don't remember all these genetic stuff but I did wrote a paper on the biological-psychological explanation of homosexuality (the prof. specialises in it so anyway)...




Once again I reiterate to what you have typed. You suggested my partner was uneducated to the prolonging of the species in relation to the lions quote. She made it very clear that you NEED a Mummy & a Daddy for any kind of life to begin. Jack and Jill went up the hill kinda simplistic stuff. But she is uneducated 

I also wrote this:-



> Yes you do have fish and frogs that change sex due to seasonal adjustments (Darwinsm?) *but also the brain influences sexual development *depending on the social environment. This is due to genetics.
> 
> Us homo sapiens are hardwired to be male or female in the brain. The body is the hinderance hence why we are having this discussion.




There is no GAY gene ... stop arguing semantics. Just give the same rights under legislation without the fanfare and we can all move on. It is rapidly moving ground and pretty soon you will realise that gay/straight/transgender/Caitlyn Jenner will not mean much in the long run when a lawyer gets hold of this and starts picking apart how much a "GAY" couple loves each other when it comes to separating the matrimonial home and kids and dogs and Swarovski crystal collections.


----------



## bellenuit (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> As it turns out you failed to understand what my uneducated partner was thrusting about _*" and expect the species to survive"*_ I believe they call it procreation. You will figure it out eventually.




*Scientists Discover Evolutionary Advantage For Homosexuality*

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...iscover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sex


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

bellenuit said:


> *Scientists Discover Evolutionary Advantage For Homosexuality*
> 
> http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...iscover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sex




Fruit flies ... REALLY?



> The final stage of the investigation involved performing experimental crosses of flies from both of these identified lines and examining the resulting offspring. More specifically, they wanted to see whether coming from a genetic background associated with high levels of SSB affected reproductive rates in female offspring.




Brundle FLY is what you are talking about 

Cross colonisation of an experimental species with a genetic risk? Is this GAY marriage at it's finest?


----------



## bellenuit (3 July 2015)

This would appear to be off topic on this thread, but considering some of the posts made here yesterday, it seems very very appropriate.





_Happy 60th birthday to Ruby Bridges! As a six-year-old, Ruby Bridges famously became the first African American child to desegregate an all-white elementary school in the South. When the 1st grader walked to William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans on November 14, 1960 surrounded by a team of U.S. Marshals, she was met by a vicious mob shouting and throwing objects at her. 

One of the federal marshals, Charles Burks, who served on her escort team, recalls Bridges' courage in the face of such hatred: "For a little girl six years old going into a strange school with four strange deputy marshals, a place she had never been before, she showed a lot of courage. She never cried. She didn't whimper. She just marched along like a little soldier. We were all very proud of her."

Once Ruby entered the school, she discovered that it was devoid of children because they had all been removed by their parents due to her presence. The only teacher willing to have Ruby as a student was Barbara Henry, who had recently moved from Boston. Ruby was taught by herself for her first year at the school due to the white parents' refusal to have their children share a classroom with a black child. 

Despite daily harassment, which required the federal marshals to continue escorting her to school for months; threats towards her family; and her father's job loss due to his family's role in school integration, Ruby persisted in attending school. The following year, when she returned for second grade, the mobs were gone and more African American students joined her at the school. The pioneering school integration effort was a success due to Ruby Bridges' inspiring courage, perseverance, and resilience._


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

integration is a way of adding slices to find the whole.


----------



## bellenuit (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Fruit flies ... REALLY?




The point you are missing Trainspotter is the veracity of this comment from your partner.

_As it turns out you failed to understand what my uneducated partner was thrusting about " and expect the species to survive" I believe they call it procreation. You will figure it out eventually._

Homosexuality in humans has been observed for as long as humans have been observed and still the species has survived. Of course, if everyone were homosexual and didn't have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex, then our species would not survive. But so what? If everyone were celibate priests or nuns, we would have the same situation. There is no need for everyone to procreate for our species to survive. In fact, as some comments on the carbon emissions threads indicate, our species may be more at risk from excessive procreation in the immediate term than from global warming or other potential natural disasters.

If the issue you and your partner is concerned about is survival of our species, then please explain how this is put at risk by allowing gays to marry? We are talking about a civil ceremony that has significance to those concerned, but has zero impact on the ability of our species to survive.


----------



## Tink (3 July 2015)

VC, if you can't think outside the square, and your thinking doesn't go very deep, that is your problem. 
I have freedom of speech until now, and I am allowed to use it, so stop trying to silence me, it won't work.

One thing with women, we like to talk and give our opinion, whether you want to hear it or not.

Well said, Ald, tradition, hand me downs, social order, are all things that are important for the next generation.
Trying to destroy centuries of tradition and our inheritance for our children.

Gay Marriage brings in an incestuous backdrop.

Submit to their ideology, accept it, or be fined, this is totalitarian.
Trying to brainwash the next generation to run by their rules with no morals and no gender is wrong.
We are allowed to stand up to this for now while our country doesn't have gay marriage.

As I said, I am all for Civil Unions, but don't change Marriage.

Infiltrating all the schools that this is the way they have to think.
No gender, social constructs where they can be what they want to be, if they are in the wrong skin, change it, wrong sex, change it.

As I said, same sex, pornography, prostitution all go hand in hand
Shoving this garbage in childrens faces is wrong.

Yes, marriage is private, but the gays are making it public, where we all need to succumb to their rules.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Why would they regret it?
> 
> What's the worst that can come from it?




Irreplaceable damage to the structure of family.

Look already today, people in countries like Australia really think twice about children. 
It is so hard to raise children, there are so many attacks on the family, there is no help only hindrance, 
it is so expensive. Up until age three raising a child for a women is so hard especially if she has more than one young child. There are absolutely NO affordable facilities. The benefits you get are not worth taking and the centre link forms are nearly a 100 pages long with so much work to fill out it takes weeks to get the benefits. 
Then some idiot in power tells women that they are dole bludgers. 

The people who need support now are children. Gay rights to marriage are not even important because they have them all in Australia already. They suffer no discrimination whatsoever as defactos. 


Why should my children grow up having to pay the debts of this generation? Why should they later pay the pensions of this generation when they give them NO support as children now? I will teach my children how set themselves up to pay no tax just as this current baby boomer generation has done. I will make sure that my kids don't get burdened with these selfish people who live today. 

I am sick of being attacked by people telling me "well you shouldn't have had kids", one day I will tell them, sorry my kids are not their to support you. 

I am sick of the hate towards normal families trying to raise normal children where everybodies rights except the children's is considered.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ok so after Tink made another bunch of unjustified claims, I asked her to explain her position, but yet again she falls silent, we won't hear from her again until she bursts in again probably saying something about gay marriage being anti children or against her religious rights or some other circular arguments and logical fallacies which she will never back up.
> 
> so since she failed to answer the questions above I would like to put them to anyone that holds similar views to her.




It is my religious right to teach my children that marriage is only between a man and a woman. I do this because it is a COMMAND of Christ. It is a trampling of my rights when the government stands in opposition to this teaching by telling the population that gayrriage is a good by making it a right and putting me in prison if I publicly declare to my children that what they are taught at school is wrong. In the same way it is a trampling of my religious rights when my children are taught that abortion is good when it is just plain simple infanticide and irresponsibility on the part of a woman who was not raised and supported properly. I am sick of the agenda that religion is irrelevant, nobody has the right to tell me that or tell that to my children. I am therefore sick and tired of the atheist and lgbt terrorists shoving their agenda down the throats of society just like ISIS does.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As it turns out your partner is just uneducated on the matter.
> 
> 
> There is actually Wikipedia article that states that same sex sexual behaviour has been observed in over 500 species including, apes, monkeys, elephants, Dolphins, sheep just to name a few of the mammals.




Biologists and zoologists  have known that gay behaviour occurs in animals who's social structure has been broken down. For instance when only young elephants are put on a new game reserve they wreck havoc, gay behaviours occur, rapes, fights damage. 

So we know that when the family is destroyed you get all these perversions to the good natural order. 

Expect more ills in society with every nail in the coffin of the family.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Going over to the Dark Side, threaten to, do you?
> Ultimatum giving you are. Hmm?
> 
> The force is strong with this one. But anger lead to ultimatum; ultimatum results in banishment; banishment to rebellion.
> ...




Simba you are a young king now, I am sending you to your uncle scar, you will marry him and he will mount you from behind and make gentle man lion love to you, so make sure you are on a good high fibre diet. You must not eat gazelles this week but stick to high fibre grass. I want you to have an enema to wash that pretty rear so that uncle scar can have a beautiful experience. Remember no Gazelles this week. When we find a female lion who has an extra child or two we will drop them of to scar and yourself, then you can be fathers. Simba  there have been married male lions that have lent their children out to other male lions so that they too can mount them and do so and get paid with fresh gazelle. I don't want you to do that, you may only mount other lions but don't let scar find out.


----------



## Tisme (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Best way out is to hold a plebiscite.




The public would vote it down


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Homosexuals have been around since the beginning, hard to see how them being given equal rights as all adults are given would destroy or affect survival of the species.
> 
> I mean, if the wind turbine isn't going to do it...
> 
> ...




You are wrong about that.

When I was in Paris about 22 years ago I saw an extremely rich gay guy in his 50,s walking through the the gay neighbourhood with a 17 year old boy hand in hand both were by now gay. By a coincidence I met the grandmother of the boy. I discovered that the boy was just a troubled teen who never had a father and never identified himself as gay, but who was plied with gifts and seduced. Eventually the boy acquired a taste for homosexual sex and in void of indifference where nobody told him otherwise. A couple years later the boy fell deeply in love with a women, by that time his past had turned him into a male prostitue for rich gays. She found out, too late, she got aids and died quickly. She left a child behind who did not get aids. He lived longer but eventually also died. The child was adopted by gay friends of the young man and sadly was abused. The child committed suicide. The child had also developed a taste for gay life due to the abuseand as a 14 year old had a moral breakdown about it.


----------



## Tisme (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> You are wrong about that.
> 
> When I was in Paris about 22 years ago I saw an extremely rich gay guy in his 50,s walking through the the gay neighbourhood with a 17 year old boy hand in hand both were by now gay. By a coincidence I met the grandmother of the boy. I discovered that the boy was just a troubled teen who never had a father and never identified himself as gay, but who was plied with gifts and seduced. Eventually the boy acquired a taste for homosexual sex and in void of indifference where nobody told him otherwise. A couple years later the boy fell deeply in love with a women, by that time his past had turned him into a male prostitue for rich gays. She found out, too late, she got aids and died quickly. She left a child behind who did not get aids. He lived longer but eventually also died. The child was adopted by gay friends of the young man and sadly was abused. The child committed suicide. The child had also developed a taste for gay life due to the abuseand as a 14 year old had a moral breakdown about it.





Of course not content to groom individuals, they are now grooming the entire population. I'm really worried about compulsory homosexuality ........


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think you are deluded. Big on claims, short on evidence. Most likely suffering from a whole host of logical fallacies.
> 
> Why don't you head over to the religion and science thread and explain why you believe your brand of God exists, I will be happy to help you identify the logical fallacies that have lead you down the wrong path, either that or you will convince me, my mind is open to be changed, but only by evidence.




I might just do that actually. It's very easy to be honest. Only a fool can be an atheist.


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> You are wrong about that.
> 
> When I was in Paris about 22 years ago I saw an extremely rich gay guy in his 50,s walking through the the gay neighbourhood with a 17 year old boy hand in hand both were by now gay. By a coincidence I met the grandmother of the boy. I discovered that the boy was just a troubled teen who never had a father and never identified himself as gay, but who was plied with gifts and seduced. Eventually the boy acquired a taste for homosexual sex and in void of indifference where nobody told him otherwise. A couple years later the boy fell deeply in love with a women, by that time his past had turned him into a male prostitue for rich gays. She found out, too late, she got aids and died quickly. She left a child behind who did not get aids. He lived longer but eventually also died. The child was adopted by gay friends of the young man and sadly was abused. The child committed suicide. The child had also developed a taste for gay life due to the abuseand as a 14 year old had a moral breakdown about it.




But there is also more to this very sad story..........the boy had a cat and it turned gay, then the woman's budgie died of an AID's related illness. The whole thing was tragic.

Duckman


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Ahhhhh now you are starting to understand the en globo situation at hand. The media is pushing the "gay" button and developing ground swell of the proletariat to march with them to recognise the significance of being "married" in front of your peers. Photo opportunity and I am sure there will be a thriving business of celebrants and wedding planners hacking into this phenomenon. Elton John anyone?
> 
> Internally the LEGALISE of this is much more entertaining. I am agreeing with you on the "rights" of same sex partners .... property, superannuation funds, bank accounts, executor of wills etc ad infinitum. Not the issue here ... BUT the laws that are involved to change all of this is not a mere act of parliament. Well actually it is. But more of a society that requires acceptance and by playing this as a political football while  Rome burns is a side event better than any magician worth his salt could have hoped for.
> 
> Reminds me of Keating when he proclaimed arguing with Hewson was like "being flogged by a wet lettuce"





The whole gays raise and abortion and contraception and atheism thing is just a big money spinner. It's another commodity that someone wants to make money on.

The New Zealand government legalised marriage not because of the rights of gays or to not be discriminatory or some lofty ideal. They crunched the numbers and saw that it would increase the tourism money flooding into the country by 100 of millions each year. They jumped at it purely from the business sense. They did not give a damn about rights or gays. They cared about their money. That's a fact. 

It's like ministers voting for more speed cameras, they get told how much revenue will be collected and then they all unanimously agree.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> If it's ever made on moral ground, banning or in any way discriminating against any segment of society cannot be said to be "moral". Religious, yes, moral no.
> 
> In the US, it's not just about the ceremony and the party. In states where gay marriage is not recognised, gay couples living together all their lives are not considered married or defacto and that have a lot of consequences in terms of legal rights to property, taxes and all that.
> 
> Alright, it's wrong to be flippant about it. But it is somewhat ridiculous that there's even a debate as to whether or not gay brother or gay sister should be permitted to get married, that it could harm society and ruin the children.




Without religion morality doesn't exist and makes no sense. Morality is then just the will of the majority. This is why the atheists love it. If the majority decide that it's ok to kill Jewish people again then it's moral. If another majority decided that sex with children is ok then it becomes moral. Stop being so ignorant. 
Morality exists because of the Judeo Christian tradition and earlier RELIGIOUS WISDOM BEFORE THAT.


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

Well of course, we are dealing with a couple of religious nut jobs here...

It is this kind of mentality that starts wars and drives fear, division and hate through society.



This is how ridiculous you look! CRAZINESS! 

WE'RE BREAKING FREE OF THIS KIND OF MENTALITY, ALL OF THE LIES AND IT SCARES THE SH*T OUT OF YOU.

NO LONGER WILL WE ALLOW THIS KIND OF MISERY TO BRAIN WASH OUR CHILDREN.

LOVE, TRUTH AND COMPASSION IS THE WAY GOING FORWARD.

No longer does the world want to be enslaved by YOUR NONSENSE, YOUR LIES AND YOUR HATE.

IT IS ISIS AND CHRISTIANITY THAT ARE ONE AND THE SAME!

But no more... the people are standing up for what's real, what's right and what is true. We don't need some book that makes no sense written by the deluded thousands of years ago. ALL WE NEED IS TO LOOK IN TO OUR HEARTS. That is where the truth lies.

Take your B%$*SH*T and save it for church.


----------



## Junior (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Without religion morality doesn't exist and makes no sense. Morality is then just the will of the majority. This is why the atheists love it. If the majority decide that it's ok to kill Jewish people again then it's moral. If another majority decided that sex with children is ok then it becomes moral. Stop being so ignorant.
> Morality exists because of the Judeo Christian tradition and earlier RELIGIOUS WISDOM BEFORE THAT.




Epic, epic load of horse-**** here.

This thread is going off the rails.


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)




----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

Tink said:


> Infiltrating all the schools that this is the way they have to think.
> No gender, social constructs where they can be what they want to be, if they are in the wrong skin, change it, wrong sex, change it.
> 
> As I said, same sex, pornography, prostitution all go hand in hand
> Shoving this garbage in childrens faces is wrong.




Tink, you really don't give children enough credit. Children know what's right and what's wrong in their own hearts. 

Don't treat kids as if they have no brain and can't think for themselves. 

Look in the mirror.

Teach kids to love, speak truth and have compassion.

You really should have figured this all out by now


----------



## moXJO (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Without religion morality doesn't exist and makes no sense. Morality is then just the will of the majority. This is why the atheists love it. If the majority decide that it's ok to kill Jewish people again then it's moral. If another majority decided that sex with children is ok then it becomes moral. Stop being so ignorant.
> Morality exists because of the Judeo Christian tradition and earlier RELIGIOUS WISDOM BEFORE THAT.



Lets face it old religion was to keep law and order through the masses via fear. A way to bend and shape people to what was needed at the time. 
The only things religion brought us was wars, death, fear, racisim, hatred, and denial.
Considering apparent men of God or "In Gods name" committed acts against Jews and raped children. While the faithful stood by and watched it happen or excused it away. I would say that sense of religious morality is warped. 
I don't know if the argument "Because God said so" is a legit one to make as it is used to campaign evil actions in his name. So no a good deal of evil actions were carried out because of Judeo Christian tradition.


I am happy enough for churches and their flock to reject gay marriage. And they should have a right to do so and protected from the legalities.

But religion does not hold power like it use to over the masses, nor should it.


----------



## Joe Blow (3 July 2015)

I'd just like to remind everyone to please keep the discussion civil and to avoid insults, personal attacks and labels.

While I understand that this topic, like a lot of others, can stir people's emotions, once a discussion degenerates into mud slinging it rarely recovers.

Attack the argument, not the person.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Irreplaceable damage to the structure of family.
> 
> Look already today, people in countries like Australia really think twice about children.
> It is so hard to raise children, there are so many attacks on the family, there is no help only hindrance,
> ...




Lets see.  As a society we've turned out backs on those who have children.

Ah, we have what a $250M trial to see if nannies will work in helping to provide child care for parents both working.  Then another $357M to help children in disadvantaged families.

It looks like child care funding will be roughly $8.5B by 2016-17.

Can't easily find what family tax benefits costs, but it's up there with what spend on Child care.

Then we have Govt schools providing free education for any child who enrols.

I think as a society we provide quite a lot of support to parents with children.

So you feel that a woman with more than 1 child under the age of 3 is having it really tough.  I'd prob agree with you on that.  But if the mother and father aren't willing to accept the difficulties of having children, why is that my fault?  Shouldn't parents take responsibility for the children they have?  Is it fair to complain about how expensive it is to have children, how hard it is to get day care or juggle work and family life?  Shouldn't a couple do their budget and determine if they can afford to support the family size they'd like.  If they can't should it be acceptable for them to force the rest of society to provide them with the funds to achieve their goal?

You then go on a ramble about the debts being accumulated.  How is that in any way related to gay marriage?  if you want to impart on your children a mentality of take and not give, that's sad.  Definitely not how I would want to raise my children.  Definitely wouldn't be telling them to pay as much tax as you can, but would like them to understand that part of the difference between Australia and countries that are behind us is the fact we have a reasonable tax and transfer system that tries to help those who need it and fund the community infrastructure and institutions that help keep civil society running.

Can you please provide some examples of the hate towards "normal" families.  While you're at it, could you please provide the definition of a normal family?


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

Tink said:


> Well said, Ald, tradition, hand me downs, social order, are all things that are important for the next generation.
> Trying to destroy centuries of tradition and our inheritance for our children.
> 
> Gay Marriage brings in an incestuous backdrop.
> ...




Gay marriage has nothing to do with incest.  That's a very derogatory statement.  Religious families on the other hand have quite a notoriety with incest.  In the bible there's some incestuous marriages.

Would you like to compare marriage today to marriage say 300 years ago?  Are you supporting the same thing or supporting the destruction of the traditions from your ancestors?



Tink said:


> Infiltrating all the schools that this is the way they have to think.
> No gender, social constructs where they can be what they want to be, if they are in the wrong skin, change it, wrong sex, change it.
> 
> As I said, same sex, pornography, prostitution all go hand in hand
> ...




Gays are not infiltrating schools to force anything onto children.  Unlike religious organisations we're not forcing weekly classes onto children, or as in NSW, stopping parents from knowing that instead of religious classes their children could be in an ethics class.

I doubt we'll ever have no gender, but social constructs have changed over the millennia and will continue to change.  Would you like to be a woman from 200 years ago?  They were similar to children.  To be seen and not heard.  You seem to think that how we are as individuals and a society today is how we have always been.  Look back on history and you'll see a lot of traditions like slavery, arranged marriages, dowries, are probably left in the past.  I'm glad we don't have concubines as the spoils of war any more.  I'm glad the idea of beating someone and then saying if they die more than a day later that's fine.

There's no giant conspiracy going on here.  Gay are not some frendlier version of the illuminati or jesuits out conquering the world.  We'd just like to be treated as equal members in society since we contribute on an equal basis.  Is that such a scary concept?  It goes along with one wo(man) one vote.  Equal pay for equal work.  These concepts would seem to be central to the Christian faith, but I'm starting to doubt that now.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Of course not content to groom individuals, they are now grooming the entire population. I'm really worried about compulsory homosexuality ........




Seriously.  There's been some ridiculous statements in this thread, but this would take the number 1 spot.

How is gay marriage forcing anyone to be homosexual?

So all those religious leaders that were grooming mainly young boys.  How do you explain that?  Catholic priests had what 1/5 of the global population just their for the grooming.  Plenty of them in poor countries where their priestly powers were so highly regarded they could literally get away with murder.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Without religion morality doesn't exist and makes no sense. Morality is then just the will of the majority. This is why the atheists love it. If the majority decide that it's ok to kill Jewish people again then it's moral. If another majority decided that sex with children is ok then it becomes moral. Stop being so ignorant.
> Morality exists because of the Judeo Christian tradition and earlier RELIGIOUS WISDOM BEFORE THAT.




All morality comes from religion eh.  The morality of your religion condones:

Genocide of populations.  
Concubine sex slaves.  
Slavery.
Marrying you brothers wife and getting her pregnant if he died childless


I'm evolved enough emotionally to understand the concept f I wouldn't want to be a slave for x reasons.  Other people would likely not want to be a slave for the same reasons.  It's quite likely slavery is not good.  I don't need some external source telling me right from wrong.  

I think I'm doing a better job of judging the right path than a lot of religious people.  Certainly I know that reporting the crime of child sexual offences is the right thing to do and that covering it up and moving the perpetrator from church to church is the wrong thing to do.  Definitely not rocket science, but for some reason it took decades / centuries for the Catholics to come to this understanding


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

Tink said:


> VC, if you can't think outside the square, and your thinking doesn't go very deep, that is your problem.
> I have freedom of speech until now, and I am allowed to use it, so stop trying to silence me, it won't work.
> 
> One thing with women, we like to talk and give our opinion, whether you want to hear it or not.
> ...




I am not trying to silence you, I am trying to get you to explain your position by answering the questions I asked to clarify your position.

I know women like to talk, and I support your right to talk, it's the bible that says women should be quite, not me.

I want to know what you meant when you said Gay marriage infringes on your religious rights, can you give me an example?

The vast majority of pornography is straight. Why do you think same sex marriage would increase pornography.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

The AUDACITY.  Hopefully not coming to a cinema near you

Grab your Bible, brimstone and buttered popcorn! Ray Comfort, a close personal pal of confirmed Creationist wackadoodle Kirk Cameron, is about to release a feature-length film called Audacity, which plumbs the depths of two hot-button issues: gay marriage and God’s unstoppered wrath.

Comfort (who believes bananas are incontrovertible proof of God’s existence because they fit in your hand) executive produced this tacky tale of a bike messenger/aspiring comedian (Traver Owens) who must defend his stubborn views on religion and homosexuality in the face of militant, in-yo-face gays and gay supporters. Judging by the trailer, he’s harangued by an uppity young woman with a gay sister (the audacity!), two lesbians who brightly chirp about their marriage license in the tight confines of an elevator (the audacity!), and then, just to be that way, a scary guy with a gun (the audacity!)

[video=youtube_share;xuq-k_YvEyA]http://youtu.be/xuq-k_YvEyA[/video]


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

but there's hope.  Quite amazing to se the support of a town behind a gay couple finally getting married after being together for 16 years.  Take that heterosexual divorce.

[video]http://player.vimeo.com/video/130593514[/video]


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Once again I reiterate to what you have typed. You suggested my partner was uneducated to the prolonging of the species in relation to the lions quote. She made it very clear that you NEED a Mummy & a Daddy for any kind of life to begin. Jack and Jill went up the hill kinda simplistic stuff. But she is uneducated ....




For the record, I didn't say anything about your wife.

But I don't think anyone's trying to insult or put her down either. We're all ignorant about something, wrong about some thing... your wife just happen to be wrong homosexual and lions and stuff.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

bellenuit said:


> The point you are missing Trainspotter is the veracity of this comment from your partner.
> 
> _As it turns out you failed to understand what my uneducated partner was thrusting about " and expect the species to survive" I believe they call it procreation. You will figure it out eventually._
> 
> ...




What issue are you talking about? You as well as VC have missed the point. Whoopeee they have a ceremony and now announce you gay and gayer. WHO CARES !!!

It is the LEGAL ramifications that NEEDS to be addressed but I am sick and tired of explaining this over and over to the bleeding hearts and artists who care more for the minority and a "ceremony" rather than understanding what this actually means.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> For the record, I didn't say anything about your wife.
> 
> But I don't think anyone's trying to insult or put her down either. We're all ignorant about something, wrong about some thing... your wife just happen to be wrong homosexual and lions and stuff.




You are still not getting it are you. X + y = LIFE ... GAY + GAY = 0 ... and all this from an uneducated "house frau"


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Irreplaceable damage to the structure of family.
> 
> .




How is allowing gays, who are already in relationships and living together, going to damage the structure of your family?




> Look already today, people in countries like Australia really think twice about children.
> It is so hard to raise children, there are so many attacks on the family, there is no help only hindrance,
> it is so expensive. Up until age three raising a child for a women is so hard especially if she has more than one young child. There are absolutely NO affordable facilities. The benefits you get are not worth taking and the centre link forms are nearly a 100 pages long with so much work to fill out it takes weeks to get the benefits.
> Then some idiot in power tells women that they are dole bludgers.




What does any of that have to do with Gay marriage?



> The people who need support now are children. Gay rights to marriage are not even important because they have them all in Australia already. They suffer no discrimination whatsoever as defactos.




As I said, black aren't discriminated against, they can already ride the bus, they just have to sit at the back.



> Why should my children grow up having to pay the debts of this generation? Why should they later pay the pensions of this generation when they give them NO support as children now? I will teach my children how set themselves up to pay no tax just as this current baby boomer generation has done. I will make sure that my kids don't get burdened with these selfish people who live today.




Again, nice rant. But whats it got to do with gay marriage?



> I am sick of being attacked by people telling me "well you shouldn't have had kids", one day I will tell them, sorry my kids are not their to support you.




Whats this got to do with gay marriage?



> I am sick of the hate towards normal families trying to raise normal children where everybodies rights except the children's is considered




Can you give me an example of this hate.

I can't see how allowing a gay couple to get married on the other side of town has anything to do with attacking normal families.


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> You are wrong about that.
> 
> When I was in Paris about 22 years ago I saw an extremely rich gay guy in his 50,s walking through the the gay neighbourhood with a 17 year old boy hand in hand both were by now gay. By a coincidence I met the grandmother of the boy. I discovered that the boy was just a troubled teen who never had a father and never identified himself as gay, but who was plied with gifts and seduced. Eventually the boy acquired a taste for homosexual sex and in void of indifference where nobody told him otherwise. A couple years later the boy fell deeply in love with a women, by that time his past had turned him into a male prostitue for rich gays. She found out, too late, she got aids and died quickly. She left a child behind who did not get aids. He lived longer but eventually also died. The child was adopted by gay friends of the young man and sadly was abused. The child committed suicide. The child had also developed a taste for gay life due to the abuseand as a 14 year old had a moral breakdown about it.




First, no one who support gay marriage supports child abuse or condone pedophilia or pedophile. 

Second, homosexuality is love and attraction between people of the same sex.

So what you've seen there may very well be homosexual who are also pedophiles, who abuses children. No one support or think that that is right.

And as have been said before by others here, if children of homosexual marriages/family were abused, then the law have all the right to step in and punish the abusive parent, save the children - as they would in any situation, gay or straight.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> What issue are you talking about? You as well as VC have missed the point. Whoopeee they have a ceremony and now announce you gay and gayer. WHO CARES !!!
> 
> It is the LEGAL ramifications that NEEDS to be addressed but I am sick and tired of explaining this over and over to the bleeding hearts and artists who care more for the minority and a "ceremony" rather than understanding what this actually means.




I don't care about the cereomony, people can have what ever ceremony they want, expensive / cheap, religious/star wars themed.

I just want gay marriages to be recognised in exactly the same way a straight one is, the gay marriages already exist, its just a matter of the government recognising them.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> And as have been said before by others here, if children of homosexual marriages/family were abused, then the law have all the right to step in and punish the abusive parent, save the children - as they would in any situation, gay or straight.




The fact is of course that  lot of children suffer setbacks to their upbringing, marriages break up, parents die etc, but just as governments or society in general don't encourage or condone these events I see no reason why governments or society should encourage children to be brought up without a mother or father by in any way endorsing gay parenting as an equal substitute for a loving heterosexual family upbringing.

 We should be promoting the "gold standard", not making excuses for anything less.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> It is my religious right to teach my children that marriage is only between a man and a woman. I do this because it is a COMMAND of Christ. It is a trampling of my rights when the government stands in opposition to this teaching by telling the population that gayrriage is a good by making it a right and putting me in prison if I publicly declare to my children that what they are taught at school is wrong.




No one is taking away your right to teach your children your religion. 

It's your right to believe any kooky religious mythology you want. It is not you right to try and press your Christian mythology onto the rest of society though. Legalising Gay Marriage, is not infringing on your religious rights, you can continue sitting there believing what ever you like, no one is going to force you to have a gay marriage, we are just giving you and your children the choice.

Your rights are actually being increased, because no rights are being taken away, but you are getting an extra right.



> I am sick of the agenda that religion is irrelevant, nobody has the right to tell me that or tell that to my children.




Religion in general is irrelevant to a large section of the population "Non religious" is one of the because groups.

If you are taking about you brand of religion, then that is even more irrelevant, Because your brand is not just irrelevant to the non religious, but also irrelevant to all the other brands.




> I am therefore sick and tired of the atheist and lgbt terrorists shoving their agenda down the throats of society just like ISIS does




Me saying you have no right to beat me with your religious stick, is not the same as me saying you don't have a right to a stick.

You have your religion, you build churches, you can have your faith schools. but don't try to influence the government policy with your silly religious rules, if you want to influence government do it with sound non religious arguments.


----------



## moXJO (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> You are still not getting it are you. X + y = LIFE ... GAY + GAY = 0 ... and all this from an uneducated "house frau"




Sorry TS we have been rendered obsolete



> Fertility specialists have found a way for women to have babies without men


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Without religion morality doesn't exist and makes no sense. .




Morality predates your religion, and it makes perfect sense.

Morality develops over time, we are more moral now than they were in biblical times. 

Morality can be argued with no religious arguments, and the religious arguments generally bog society down and slow the progress of moral development.



> Morality is then just the will of the majority. This is why the atheists love it. If the majority decide that it's ok to kill Jewish people again then it's moral.




If we wanted to kill, we just have to quote the religious texts. plenty of biblical laws that allow for killing.




> If another majority decided that sex with children is ok then it becomes moral. Stop being so ignorant.
> Morality exists because of the Judeo Christian tradition and earlier RELIGIOUS WISDOM BEFORE THAT




Morality has nothing to do with majority rule, any more that health does.

The judeo Christian tradition includes slavery, death for blasphemy, death for working on the Sabbath etc.

The fact that you no longer think these things are moral teachings so you ignore them, shows you are already operating using a secular moral structure that allows you to filter your religious teachings.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The fact is of course that  lot of children suffer setbacks to their upbringing, marriages break up, parents die etc, but just as governments or society in general don't encourage or condone these events I see no reason why governments or society should encourage children to be brought up without a mother or father by in any way endorsing gay parenting as an equal substitute for a loving heterosexual family upbringing.
> 
> We should be promoting the "gold standard", not making excuses for anything less.




Promoting a particular family type.  I don't know, but I have this bad feeling.  Something about how that hasn't worked out to well in our recent past

Not sure I really like the idea of Govt moulding us to fit into a certain family structure.  Harks of 1984.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> You are still not getting it are you. X + y = LIFE ... GAY + GAY = 0 ... and all this from an uneducated "house frau"




I think you are not getting the point. It doesn't matter in the slightest that gays can not breed, gays have always existed and the population has continued to grow.

Straight couples will continue breeding and producing a certain percentage of gay offspring, this gays exist and disserve the same rights and any other Australian.

If a gay couple choose to enter a consenting marriage, they disserve to have this marriage recognised under the law, on equal footing with a straight marriage.


----------



## moXJO (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The fact is of course that  lot of children suffer setbacks to their upbringing, marriages break up, parents die etc, but just as governments or society in general don't encourage or condone these events I see no reason why governments or society should encourage children to be brought up without a mother or father by in any way endorsing gay parenting as an equal substitute for a loving heterosexual family upbringing.
> 
> We should be promoting the "gold standard", not making excuses for anything less.




Yeah Rump, homosexual couples can already adopt. This arguments a little late.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

> Not sure I really like the idea of Govt moulding us to fit into a certain family structure. Harks of 1984.




Of course, that would be totally unlike gays trying to mould heterosexual children to fit into their own "family structure" wouldn't it ?


----------



## bellenuit (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> What issue are you talking about? You as well as VC have missed the point.




How have we missed the point? You have restated it in the very next post of yours.



trainspotter said:


> are still not getting it are you. X + y = LIFE ... GAY + GAY = 0 ... and all this from an uneducated "house frau"




The point you are making is that gays can't procreate, as if that is somehow significant in relation to gay marriage. Your partner raised the issue of survival of the species in that circumstance and you have been asked to show how that is put at risk by gay marriage.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

bellenuit said:


> How have we missed the point? You have restated it in the very next post of yours.
> 
> The point you are making is that gays can't procreate, as if that is somehow significant in relation to gay marriage. Your partner raised the issue of survival of the species in that circumstance and you have been asked to show how that is put at risk by gay marriage.




It is important to gay marriage. What rights do the children have? Does a baby have the right to be adopted by gay people? What happens when they grow up and say "Well I didn't WANT to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE now did I?"

This is when it goes LEGAL.

The point my uneducated partner was making out that the law of the jungle is there for a reason. If you read my posts you can clearly see that I am agreeing with the "marriage" of gay people and I want the LEGAL rights to be ironed out first other than just a "ceremony" and Whoopeee we are married.

There has been NIL discussion as to how this is going to effect property, superannuation, children's rights (adopted or by turkey baster I don't care) probate, the list goes on and on.

OK OK OK so we get married and we now have the same "rights" as hetero couples. No biggy. Start bringing children into the debate and the conversation takes on a whole new slant. Another can of worms is opened. Yep there have been studies claiming that it makes no difference if the parents are same sex and equally there has been a series of studies declaring that the children have suffered. Bad parenting or is it that Mummy and Mummy and Daddy and Daddy are not cut out for it.

Anyways if you are happy to live in a world whereby homosexuals and lesbians have the same rights as heterosexuals then be my guest. Knock yourself out. Just because I don't believe it is the right thing to do does not mean my opinion is invalid or bigoted or hate filled or whatever you want to call it it is my opinion. 

Oh look there goes a rainbow coloured unicorn ....


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

Can kids understand gay marriage, offcourse they can, its simple.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course, that would be totally unlike gays trying to mould heterosexual children to fit into their own "family structure" wouldn't it ?




You mean like religious families and their conversion therapy??


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> It is important to gay marriage. What rights do the children have? Does a baby have the right to be adopted by gay people? What happens when they grow up and say "Well I didn't WANT to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE now did I?"
> 
> This is when it goes LEGAL.
> 
> ...




Let me turn it around and say a child was adopted by parents where one party wasn't really keen but did it to keep the other one happy and never really put much effort into being their for the child.  When the child grows up and says "Well I didn't WANT to be adopted by an unloving parent but I had NO CHOICE now did I?"


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> It is important to gay marriage. What rights do the children have? Does a baby have the right to be adopted by gay people? What happens when they grow up and say "Well I didn't WANT to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE now did I?"
> 
> ]




The gay marriage issue is not about children. In a lot of places gays can already adopt children, and offcourse there is no way to stop people (especially lesbians) just having their own kids.





> The point my uneducated partner was making out that the law of the jungle is there for a reason.




Gays have always existed in the jungle, so it's a moot point.




> If you read my posts you can clearly see that I am agreeing with the "marriage" of gay people and I want the LEGAL rights to be ironed out first other than just a "ceremony" and Whoopeee we are married.
> 
> There has been NIL discussion as to how this is going to effect property, superannuation, children's rights (adopted or by turkey baster I don't care) probate, the list goes on and on.




Just make it the same as the rights of straight couples, there done. easy. no need to wonder how super will be handled.



> OK OK OK so we get married and we now have the same "rights" as hetero couples. No biggy. Start bringing children into the debate and the conversation takes on a whole new slant.




Not really, because they already have those rights, and its a separate topic anyway.






> . Just because I don't believe it is the right thing to do does not mean my opinion is invalid or bigoted or hate filled or whatever you want to call it it is my opinion.




Your opinion may or may not be based on bigotry, hence why I am trying to drill down to the nuts and bolts reasoning people have against it.

As it turns out no one is really willing to share the reasoning, except for spewing out loose ideas about it being bad for children (which is a red herring), or it is infringing their religious rights (which it doesn't) or some version of a fear of a slippery slope eg, people will marry dogs next (which is a logical fallacy) or some sort of claim about "we'll if we were all gay, there would be no breeding" (which is just a silly thing to say when discussing gay rights)


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

A challenge I have for those arguing against same sex marriage over their fear for child rights is what are you doing about the below?  Have you expended as much effort on these issues as you have over same sex marriage, which due to not actually occurring as yet has done 0 harm to children, while the below issues are and will continue to cause much harm.

Child obesity

20% of children and adolescents are overwieght or obese

At the current rate, it is predicted that 65 per cent of young Australians will be overweight or obese by 2020.

youth suicide

Suicides of 15-19 year olds make up nearly 35% of male and 26% of femal deaths.

For 15-29 year olds around 150 males and 435 females per 100,000 population end up in hospital each year due to self harm.

child poverty

ACOSS estimates over 600,000 children live in poverty
1 in 3 children of singple parents live in poverty

back home in the illawarra region something like 15% of children are living in poverty

child abuse and neglect

those who suffer abuse as a child live on average 10-20 years less than those not abused

The most recent national figures from the AIHW indicate that during 2012-13, there were 184,216 Australian children suspected of being harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect.  53,666 cases were substantiated.

So if you overarching goal is to protect children, I hope you are working on these issues just as tirelessly as you are against marriage, otherwise I'd have to think you're not really that serious about child rights and protecting them.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> You mean like religious families and their conversion therapy??




I don't agree with that either, but two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> The point my uneducated partner was making out that the law of the jungle is there for a reason.




Well you actually said your partner said this.


> "You don't see this happening in the wild do you? I mean do you see male lions cohabitating with other male lions and expect the species to survive" (She actually used a lot more expletives and made funny gestures with her pelvis in a thrusting motion




And yes she is dead wrong, we do in fact see male lions engaging in same sex sexual activity and yes we do expect the species to survive, ( as long as we humans don't kill them off)

Her opinion clearly shows she doesn't think homosexuality is natural behaviour, but she is just wrong, simple as that, a certain percentage of people will be born gay, and for them it is completely natural behaviour and it doesn't put the species at risk of extinction.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As it turns out no one is really willing to share the reasoning, except for spewing out loose ideas about it being bad for children (which is a red herring), or it is infringing their religious rights (which it doesn't) or some version of a fear of a slippery slope eg, people will marry dogs next (which is a logical fallacy) or some sort of claim about "we'll if we were all gay, there would be no breeding" (which is just a silly thing to say when discussing gay rights)




I am more than willing to share my reasoning with you. Not once have I said it was bad for children. Heck it can't be any worse then the lower socio economic breeding population spewing out kids for government grants now can it? Never mentioned religious rights and don't particularly care for organised religion myself. I read somewhere that a woman married a tree and it was the best sex she had ever had .. go figure. Not once have I mentioned that we will all turn gay and not breed. I pointed out that the LAW OF THE JUNGLE is there for a reason ..



> "NOW this is the law of the jungle, as old and as true as the sky, And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and *the strength of the wolf is the pack*.




My reasoning is that the LEGAL process has not been thought out enough. Fix this area of concern up and then no problem. I outlined a very easy scenario for you to understand that a baby who is adopted by a same sex couple ... where are their rights? Project yourself 20 years in the future and the now young person turns around and says "I did not want to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE in the matter".

Pretty simple really and also on another level it just does not sit comfortably with me as a person. I have soul searched as to why and it is my moral compass guiding me on this one. You know the ability to recognise what is right and wrong within yourself as a person. You can GAY yourself to death for all I care and marriage the hell out of whoever you like. Does it sit comfortably with me ... forever NO !

Does it mean I am ANTI gay marriage. Not at all. It does not need my approval as they do not seek mine.

Yes gay people can adopt already blah blah blah. Anyone asked the kids?

So I am running with the pack on this one.


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> A challenge I have for those arguing against same sex marriage over their fear for child rights is what are you doing about the below?




Clearly this has nothing to do with children. That's just the excuse they are hiding behind. 

AGAIN, gay couples already live as families with children. SOMEHOW if the same couples have a ceremony, exchange a couple of rings and are legally recognised, civilasation, as we know it, will end.

They're not fooling anyone but themselves and it's plain to see.

The REAL CHILDREN in all of this are plain to see. 

Let them keep digging...







THIS IS ABOUT MARRIAGE. LEAVE CHILDREN OUT OF IT. THEY ARE MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR AND WILL FIGURE OUT YOUR BS QUICKER THAN YOU DO.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Well you actually said your partner said this.
> )
> 
> And yes she is dead wrong, we do in fact see male lions engaging in sexual activity and yes we do expect the species to survive, ( as long as we humans don't kill them off)
> ...




Put the crack pipe down VC She was pointing out that if two male lions root each other then the species will not survive as in neither of them has a womb. Pretty simple really 

There was no mention that she doesn't think homosexuality is natural behaviour in any way. This is your perception of how you translate what was written. Egg + sperm = LIFE ... geddit yet


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> She was pointing out that if two male lions root each other then the species will not survive as in neither of them has a womb. Pretty simple really
> 
> :




That's assuming that those two gay lions are the last lions on the planet. Which is not the case for either humans or lions.

So the fact that a certain percentage of the lion population and the human population are gay is no danger to the species.

Gay Marriage is not a threat to the survival of the species and it is not an unnatural thing, either way your partner is still wrong.

 Pretty simple really  



> There was no mention that she doesn't think homosexuality is natural behaviour in any way




I think that's what she meant when she said "You don't see this happening in the wild do you"

I think she was completely unaware that you do see it in the wild, in around 8% of male lions.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> My reasoning is that the LEGAL process has not been thought out enough. Fix this area of concern up and then no problem. I outlined a very easy scenario for you to understand that a baby who is adopted by a same sex couple ... where are their rights? Project yourself 20 years in the future and the now young person turns around and says "I did not want to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE in the matter".
> 
> .




well again this is a red herring, for two reasons.

1, Gay Marriage is not the same topic as gay adoption.

2, No baby (or birth child) gets to choose its parents anyway.


----------



## pixel (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's assuming that those two gay lions are the last lions on the planet. Which is not the case for either humans or lions.
> So the fact that a certain percentage of the lion population and the human population are gay is no danger to the species.
> 
> Gay Marriage is not a threat to the survival of the species and it is not an unnatural thing, either way your partner is still wrong.
> ...




You also see cows at it in every paddock, yet we have yet to see a bovine deity smiting them.

As regards naming conventions, I can't see the difference it makes to a married heterosexual couple what another couple calls their relationship. If my partner and I live in a happy marriage, with or without kids, it doesn't affect us one iota if Adam and Steve or Edna and Eve are living together and calling theirs a happy marriage as well. If it makes them happy, let them also live happily married. Doesn't diminish what I feel about my partner.

What I do object to however, is the claim by a bigoted minority, who claims a god-given right to the exclusive use of the label "marriage" and accuses me of "living in sin" if my partner and I haven't had one of their Shamans utter ancient mumbo-jumbo over us.


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's assuming that those two gay lions are the last lions on the planet. Which is not the case for either humans or lions.
> 
> So the fact that a certain percentage of the lion population and the human population are gay is no danger to the species.
> 
> ...




What she was referring to is the procreation of life. Please don't twist it into something which it is not to further your own defence for gay marriage. 

You asked for my reasoning and I wrote as to WHY it does not sit comfortably with me.

By all means keep championing your cause til you are blue in the face but it will not change my mind.

As for the red herring you might want to do a bit more research ...



> _Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex_.




https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i

Written by a person who had a same sex parental upbringing no less


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The fact is of course that  lot of children suffer setbacks to their upbringing, marriages break up, parents die etc, but just as governments or society in general don't encourage or condone these events I see no reason why governments or society should encourage children to be brought up without a mother or father by in any way endorsing gay parenting as an equal substitute for a loving heterosexual family upbringing.
> 
> We should be promoting the "gold standard", not making excuses for anything less.




If we were to go for gold, I don't believe it will be going after homosexual and their parenting habits.

Tisme did show some studies that show correlation between child's happiness and parents sexual orientation right? I haven't read the study but in general, correlation do not equal causation.

Back to gold standard... there are bad parents, bad people, selfish mothers and fathers; there are parents who work too much and neglect that family balance; there are drunk and drug abusing parents; broke and poor parents; parents who are too rich and ruining their kids with great wealth and inheritance...

Such factors would be more relevant than sexuality alone. And with those factors, there's no differentiating between straight or gay.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

> As for the red herring you might want to do a bit more research ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Still a red herring.

Because gay marriage is not the same as gay adoption.

It's a separate topic and a separate debate.



> What she was referring to is the procreation of life.




Which is irrelevant when discussing the rights of same sex couples to marry, and a silly point to bring up when asked about your position on gay marriage.

I think it is you that's twisting what she said, it would be obvious to every one here that the only reason she would bring up such a silly statement is to try and say that gay relationships were some how unnatural and don't exist in the wild, you are now trying to say that's not what she was saying because her example has be shown to be false.

You say you have no problem with gay couples you just are not wanting to support gay adoption, so why not just support gay marriage and not gay adoption?


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

pixel said:


> You also see cows at it in every paddock, yet we have yet to see a bovine deity smiting them.
> 
> As regards naming conventions, I can't see the difference it makes to a married heterosexual couple what another couple calls their relationship. If my partner and I live in a happy marriage, with or without kids, it doesn't affect us one iota if Adam and Steve or Edna and Eve are living together and calling theirs a happy marriage as well. If it makes them happy, let them also live happily married. Doesn't diminish what I feel about my partner.
> 
> What I do object to however, is the claim by a bigoted minority, who claims a god-given right to the exclusive use of the label "marriage" and accuses me of "living in sin" if my partner and I haven't had one of their Shamans utter ancient mumbo-jumbo over us.




Some might need a Gold or Platinum Plaque with VIP Marriage on theirs while "the gays" and others get the normal recyled paper with no embossing. 

But there's optimism that gay marriage will happen in Australia - there's just too much money that comes with it.

There's the wedding, the photographers, some homosexual would like religious ceremonies, then there's the trusts, the wills, the divorce and legal fights... that and yea, it's morally the right thing too.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 July 2015)

According to the source below 3.8% of US citizens are gay.
For Australia it is only 1.2%, Britain 1.5%, Canada 1%.

https://carm.org/percent-population-homosexual

Is the difference due to societal pressures? Or pollution? It is well known that the US Great Lakes had high levels of oestrogen mimickers type pollution and that has caused problems with fish breeding.   

I, like most people, don't really care if it makes some homosexuals feel better to go through a marriage ceremony.
I don't think we should as taxpayers make it a right to pay for them to have kids. They can have kids but they should pay for it themselves. It's not my fault that nature doesn't work that way.


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> I don't think we should as taxpayers make it a right to pay for them to have kids. They can have kids but they should pay for it themselves. It's not my fault that nature doesn't work that way.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> According to the source below 3.8% of US citizens are gay.
> For Australia it is only 1.2%, Britain 1.5%, Canada 1%.
> 
> https://carm.org/percent-population-homosexual
> ...




Is it fair that tax payers spend quite a bit on funding IVF for heterosexual couples.  By your logic  It's not my fault that nature didn't allow them to have a child the natural way.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Is it fair that tax payers spend quite a bit on funding IVF for heterosexual couples.  By your logic  It's not my fault that nature didn't allow them to have a child the natural way.




No its not. I would be quite happy to see IVF disappear altogether. Telling children that they were hatched out of a tube instead of by a mutual act of love must be devastating to their self esteem, plus the fact that a lot of them spend years searching for their natural parents which shows how strong the DNA bonding is. Making them go through that process that the rest of us take for granted is akin to child abuse.


----------



## Logique (3 July 2015)

ftw129 said:


> View attachment 63254



The only distraction is from Bill Shorten's performance, or lack of it, as Labor leader.

We can expect gay and lesbian marriage to be trotted out whenever Bill is under pressure, which will be often. If the  issue is causing division in the Liberal party, perfect!

I'll say this for the sake of balance.  In the real world, there are lots of disfunctional and abusive hetero marriages, where the kids are the victims.  Given the alternative of two loving gay or lesbian parents, I'm sure these kids would jump at the chance.  So we mustn't deal in absolutes here.

Changing the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act isn't the way forward. The motives of most in the lobby are pure and honourable. But a scheming minority have a hidden agenda, and I don't see any plan to self-regulate this.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No its not. I would be quite happy to see IVF disappear altogether. Telling children that they were hatched out of a tube instead of by a mutual act of love must be devastating to their self esteem, plus the fact that a lot of them spend years searching for their natural parents which shows how strong the DNA bonding is. Making them go through that process that the rest of us take for granted is akin to child abuse.




What about IVF where no doner sperm or egg is used?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

> Given the alternative of two loving gay or lesbian parents, I'm sure these kids would jump at the chance. So we mustn't deal in absolutes here.




No we mustn't because not all gays or lesbians are loving parents

http://www.smh.com.au/national/couple-offered-son-to-paedophiles-20130630-2p5eg.html


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)




----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> What about IVF where no doner sperm or egg is used?




If a child cannot identify both their natural parents the same comment applies.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

Logique said:


> But a scheming minority have a hidden agenda, and I don't see any plan to self-regulate this.




That's a claim that the people against gay marriage keep trotting out, however none of them are willing to say what it is.

are you going to Man up and say what this "Hidden Agenda" is?

Or is it just another thing you guys throw out there to cast doubt? but really there is no meat there.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If a child cannot identify both their natural parents the same comment applies.




I am talking about where Ivf is used to help couples conseive and they use the couples own egg and sperm, I believe this is the majority of IVF cases.

Eg mr and mrs rumpole are having trouble getting pregnant, the doctors take a some sperm from Mr Rumpole and some eggs from Mrs Rumpole, fertilise the eggs, and plant them back into Mrs Rumpole.

Are you against IVF in this situation?


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Still a red herring.
> 
> Because gay marriage is not the same as gay adoption.
> 
> ...




so when I wrote this you just chose to ignore it?



> I posted how many men and women affiniare themselves as being in the minority ...* I am all for their rights to be the same as currently enjoyed under the word "marriage"* ... my anger statement is towards the legislation involved with "defacto" relationships. Man and woman AOK. Man and man NOT AOK and vici versa. Just give "them" the same legal rights and this is a non sequitur.




You just keep on rolling along there VC and chucking out the silly statements and may your gay right activists marriage buddies enjoy their nuptials.

I posted up a link where a child was raised by lesbians ...



> *But I am here to say no, having a mom and a dad is a precious value in its own right and not something that can be overridden,* even if a gay couple has lots of money, can send a kid to the best schools, and raises the kid to be an Eagle Scout.
> 
> It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste.
> 
> It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout. An orphan in Asia or in an American inner city has been entrusted to adoption authorities to make the best decision for the child’s life, not to meet a market demand for same-sex couples wanting children. *Whatever trauma caused them to be orphans shouldn’t be compounded with the stress of being adopted into a same-sex partnership*




https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i

But what would he know afterall he was raised by lesbians.

The two go hand in hand. Gay marriage and gay adoption. But you are more interested in being "right" and wanting to shout down anyone who has an opinion other than yours. That is your "right" ... it is my "right" to disagree with you.

As for my partner giving an example of two lions procreating ... well you know what is best for us all and we all should just toe the line now shouldn't we 

Just completely ignore billions of years of evolution.


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> so when I wrote this you just chose to ignore it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Just completely ignore billions of years of evolution.




Billions of years of evolution have lead us to the point where we have a certain percentage of the population that is gay, and we are not alone, the great apes and other mammals also.

How am I ignoring evolution? I think you may have an overly simplistic view of Evolution of species.

Evolution doesn't just select the strongest individuals, in animals that live in social groups there is group selection, generally a social group of a species share a lot of the same DNA, given that they are probably all third or fourth cousins at the most.

If a member of the group increases the over all strength of the group, he is adding to the evolutionary spread of his genes even if he ends up with no offspring, becuase his genes are carried by his cousins, whom he has help increase the survival rates off.

Eg. A mere cat that is killed fighting off a snake that was going to eat his cousins has still assisted with the spread of his DNA even though he didn't copulate, because his cousins or brothers and sisters carry the same genes as him.

So even though gay members of the group breed less frequently, they can still be ensuring their genes are maintained in the pool by increasing the survival rate of their relations.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am talking about where Ivf is used to help couples conseive and they use the couples own egg and sperm, I believe this is the majority of IVF cases.
> 
> Eg mr and mrs rumpole are having trouble getting pregnant, the doctors take a some sperm from Mr Rumpole and some eggs from Mrs Rumpole, fertilise the eggs, and plant them back into Mrs Rumpole.
> 
> Are you against IVF in this situation?




There is still a MR Rumpole and MRS Rumpole, so how does this work for gays ?


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Billions of years of evolution have lead us to the point where we have a certain percentage of the population that is gay, and we are not alone, the great apes and other mammals also.
> 
> How am I ignoring evolution? I think you may have an overly simplistic view of Evolution of species.




Flummoxed is the only word I can use to describe this missive. Until we as a human species have both male and female reproductive organs I am pretty sure it takes a set of gonads and an ovary to create an embryo.

But hey let's all get our gayness happening and get married.

Worked for this guy brilliantly ...



> Same-sex marriage would pose no problems for me if it were simply about couples being together. As a bisexual I get that. *But unfortunately the LGBT movement decided that its validation by others requires a redefinition of “marriage” to include same-sex partnerships.* So here we are, stuck having to encourage problematic lives for children in order to affirm same-sex couples the way the movement demands.
> 
> That’s why I am for civil unions but not for redefining marriage. But I suppose I don’t count””I am no doctor, judge, or television commentator, *just a kid who had to clean up the mess left behind by the sexual revolution*.




https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i

_Robert Oscar Lopez, PhD, is the author of Johnson Park and editor of the website English Manif: A Franco-American Flashpoint on Gay Rights Debates. He is launching CREFA, or Children's Rights and Ethical Family Alternatives, a new project to discuss the ethics of LGBT family-building, with Doug Mainwaring. _


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So even though gay members of the group breed less frequently, they can still be ensuring their genes are maintained in the pool by increasing the survival rate of their relations.




Nail, head , hammer. So their not really gay as such ... more bisexual then ?


----------



## moXJO (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> _Robert Oscar Lopez, PhD, is the author of Johnson Park and editor of the website English Manif: A Franco-American Flashpoint on Gay Rights Debates. He is launching CREFA, or Children's Rights and Ethical Family Alternatives, a new project to discuss the ethics of LGBT family-building, with Doug Mainwaring. _




Yeah, the guy who made his niche in aiming lectures for$ to the right wing of the US. Also knocked out a couple of books. 
And the difference between single mums who don't know the father, or single women adopting is?


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

moXJO said:


> Yeah, the guy who made his niche in aiming lectures for$ to the right wing of the US. Also knocked out a couple of books.
> And the difference between single mums who don't know the father, or single women adopting is?




He has written a book and made his niche in aiming lectures for$ to the right wing of the US.  Oh yeah also was raised by two lesbians and has a PhD. Kinda ticks the boxes as someone who would know what he is talking about.

The difference would be that it would not be confusing on Fathers Day!


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There is still a MR Rumpole and MRS Rumpole, so how does this work for gays ?




I was just interested in finding out your position on IVF in general, whether you are ok with it on the terms that the biological parents are the ones that end up raising the child. Or whether you are still against it even in that situation for some reason.

Offcourse it also leads to a question I have asked you before.

Would you be against two lesbians that used IVF if the egg was fertilised by taking the DNA from another egg, rather than from a sperm. 

so the end result is that the child has two women as biological parents.

I mean, that gets around your main objection which you say is that you won't kids to have biological parents.

It's just a thought experiment to find out if there is any other objections.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

Logique said:


> The only distraction is from Bill Shorten's performance, or lack of it, as Labor leader.
> 
> We can expect gay and lesbian marriage to be trotted out whenever Bill is under pressure, which will be often. If the  issue is causing division in the Liberal party, perfect!
> 
> ...




While Abbott will increase the terror australis alert any time he feels pressured to actually do something about the declining economy.

So what is your way forward?

Who are the scheming minority.  What is their hidden agenda?


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> While Abbott will increase the terror australis alert any time he feels pressured to actually do something about the declining economy.
> 
> So what is your way forward?
> 
> Who are the scheming minority.  What is their hidden agenda?




Upon meeting a ship load of American sailors, Tony Abbott remark what a "comforting presence" they are. Pretty gay I'd say. 

Alright, that's not fair. But it is somewhat insulting to Australian armed services though: Thank god you yanks are here, I feel much safer now.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Flummoxed is the only word I can use to describe this missive. Until we as a human species have both male and female reproductive organs I am pretty sure it takes a set of gonads and an ovary to create an embryo.




Yes, but gay's are normally produced by straight parents, it doesn't rely on gay's breeding to keep gay's in the evolutionary game.

I can see by your simplistic view of evolution you think that if a gay man dies without breeding, then it is reducing the amount of genes that lead to his creation, so evolution should be clearing out gay's over time, this May be true if he was born gay due to a mutation in his genes.

However, if a gene mutation happened in a female, causing her to produce offspring that had a 1% chance of being gay, then she could have 5 kids none of whom are gay, but they will be carrying a gene that means 1% of their kids would be gay. Those 5 kids could have 25 children who are all straight but still carrying the gene that means they have a 1% chance of producing a gay child.

it might be a number of generations before a gay child actually pops up, and by then the gene for producing them has spread quite widely among the social group. And when a gay offspring does pop up, it is not going to be a net negative on the survival of the group, he or she may stay around their brothers and sisters helping the tribe find food, protecting them etc and helping ensure the gene that is now spread thought the social group continues to survive.

The net affect is there will be more carers and resource producers ensuring the survival of the next generation who are carrying the gene that allows the production of gay's.

It could also be a net plus, because the evolutionary game isn't always won by the group that produces the most offspring, I mean look at the starving kids in Africa, it could be very helpful to a groups survival to have a few extra men or women around with no kids of their own to feed, to help feed the group. Simple producing a large number of kids doesn't help, you have to be able to feed them.



trainspotter said:


> Nail, head , hammer. So their not really gay as such ... more bisexual then ?




Why? Don't you think through the last few thousand years totally gay people have bred, I mean I am sure their were lesbians that were raped or were in forced marriages, and to this day we have gay's with wives and kids to scared to come out of the closet. 

Hence why I said gay's have bred "less frequently", but yes you are right there is also bi sexuals etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's just a thought experiment to find out if there is any other objections.




Yes, there are other objections as I've said before. Heterosexual children (in all probability) will be raised in a homosexual environment. In case you haven't noticed, the population is about 95% heterosexual and children need the influence of both a mother and a father to learn how to get on in the real world, not some dream world their parents are trying to create for themselves.

 If you have homosexual parents trying to raise a heterosexual child, that sets the child up for years of confusion and bewilderment as to why they are different from their parents and why their parents aren't the same as their friend's parents.

 They have purposely been placed on the fringes of society and used in some form of social engineering experiment and in my opinion this is psychological child abuse.


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

_(This Red Herring represents the fallacy with which people opposing same sex marriage are using to hide their real feelings about why they oppose same sex marriage. They hide behind the argument of gay parenting and the effects this will have on future generations. Gay couples can already have children and this is a fair BUT separate issue altogether. Ask most gay couples and they have no intention of ever having children. HOWEVER, the MAIN issue that is being discussed here which is about to change history in our country, is same sex couples having legally recognized marriages. Up to this point, there has not been a fair and reasonable argument as to why a marriage between two loving adults, of the same sex, should not be legal. The U.S.A (among many other countries) has used it’s resources to decide allowing same sex marriages is the right thing to do and the current outdated and discriminatory status quo, is unlawful and goes against their own constitution.)







One need only to look within, not without, and ask “What would love do now?”…

#lovewins_


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> *Yes, but gay's are normally produced by straight parents*, it doesn't rely on gay's breeding to keep gay's in the evolutionary game.
> 
> I can see by your simplistic view of evolution you think that if a gay man dies without breeding, then it is reducing the amount of genes that lead to his creation, so evolution should be clearing out gay's over time, this May be true if he was born gay due to a mutation in his genes.
> 
> ...




And around we go (my bolds) Man and woman produced ..... end of dicsussion. 

Please do not tell me how I think and that I have simplistic views. You are loading me up with words I have not typed nor even thought. You can call it what you will but PULLLLEEEZZE leave me out of fitting me up with your thoughts on how I should think. It does become irksome after a while.

Gay gene ... what gay gene ?



> After all, it’s not 1996 anymore. In 2014, the “gay gene” simply doesn’t matter.* The science behind it is narrow and inconclusive.* Its rhetorical potential—if it ever had any—has been thoroughly exhausted. And, at this point, continuing to pursue a genetic explanation for homosexuality could more harm than it does good. It doesn’t matter whether or not you were “born this way,” what matters is being accepted the way you are, however you got there.




http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/20/the-problematic-hunt-for-a-gay-gene.html

Could be environmental factors, could be conditioning, could be the possibility that variations in hormone levels in the womb or even the brain size is a factor.



> Indeed, as it has always been, the magic bullet for the acceptance of homosexuality seems to be the act of knowing an actual gay or lesbian person, not reading a study that suggests *the possibility of a shared genetic marker *on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome.




Man and man = adoption
Woman and woman = adoption
Man and woman = LIFE

Now forget all the test tubes and technologies and a gay man copulates with a donor womb ad infinitum etc ... is this a true statement?


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2015)

FTW129 FRO with the red herring Sh1te


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, there are other objections as I've said before. Heterosexual children (in all probability) will be raised in a homosexual environment. In case you haven't noticed, the population is about 95% heterosexual and children need the influence of both a mother and a father to learn how to get on in the real world, not some dream world their parents are trying to create for themselves.
> 
> If you have homosexual parents trying to raise a heterosexual child, that sets the child up for years of confusion and bewilderment as to why they are different from their parents and why their parents aren't the same as their friend's parents.
> 
> They have purposely been placed on the fringes of society and used in some form of social engineering experiment and in my opinion this is psychological child abuse.




So you're against IVF because a child may have mental distress from not knowing their biological parents.

What then for an adopted child where the biological parents do not wish to have any form of contact with the child?  Is it then abort if not too late term, or force the parents to take responsibility for the child and raise it?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

ftw129 said:


> _(This Red Herring represents the fallacy with which people opposing same sex marriage are using to hide their real feelings about why they oppose same sex marriage. They hide behind the argument of gay parenting and the effects this will have on future generations. Gay couples can already have children and this is a fair BUT separate issue altogether. Ask most gay couples and they have no intention of ever having children. HOWEVER, the MAIN issue that is being discussed here which is about to change history in our country, is same sex couples having legally recognized marriages. Up to this point, there has not been a fair and reasonable argument as to why a marriage between two loving adults, of the same sex, should not be legal. The U.S.A (among many other countries) has used it’s resources to decide allowing same sex marriages is the right thing to do and the current outdated and discriminatory status quo, is unlawful and goes against their own constitution.)
> 
> _



_

I've already said I don't care who marries who as long as gays don't try to do something for which they are not equipped, and that's their main problem, they don't want to admit that straights may have the edge over them in having and raising children.

If they want to sign a stat dec stating that they will never try to raise children, that would be fine if as you say the vast majority of them are not interested in children._


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Man and man = adoption
> Woman and woman = adoption
> Man and woman = LIFE
> 
> Now forget all the test tubes and technologies and a gay man copulates with a donor womb ad infinitum etc ... is this a true statement?




Still not quite sure how this revolves around gay marriage.  Plenty of childless couples, due to either choice or biology, so why does it matter that some people who already are unlikely to procreate can now use the term marriage to describe their partnership?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So you're against IVF because a child may have mental distress from not knowing their biological parents.
> 
> What then for an adopted child where the biological parents do not wish to have any form of contact with the child?  Is it then abort if not too late term, or force the parents to take responsibility for the child and raise it?




Talk about red herrings. IVF has nothing to do with adoption, so why confuse the issue ?

Again you are trying to say "here is one deficiency, so I'll introduce another deficiency to excuse the first deficiency".

Each situation is separate and should be treated as such.


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I've already said I don't care who marries who as long as gays don't try to do something for which they are not equipped, and that's their main problem, they don't want to admit that straights may have the edge over them in having and raising children.
> 
> If they want to sign a stat dec stating that they will never try to raise children, that would be fine if as you say the vast majority of them are not interested in children.







_(This Red Herring represents the fallacy with which people opposing same sex marriage are using to hide their real feelings about why they oppose same sex marriage. They hide behind the argument of gay parenting and the effects this will have on future generations. Gay couples can already have children and this is a fair BUT separate issue altogether. Ask most gay couples and they have no intention of ever having children. HOWEVER, the MAIN issue that is being discussed here which is about to change history in our country, is same sex couples having legally recognized marriages. Up to this point, there has not been a fair and reasonable argument to suggest that marriage equality, is a detriment to society. The U.S.A (among many other countries) has used it’s resources to decide allowing same sex marriages is the right thing to do….
One need only to look within, not without, and ask “What would love do now?”…) 

#lovewins_

*Read what you wrote and have a good think about it... Your childish comment against same sex parenting is irrelevant here...Sir. 

Go open up a "Gay Parenting" thread.*


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Talk about red herrings. IVF has nothing to do with adoption, so why confuse the issue ?
> 
> Again you are trying to say "here is one deficiency, so I'll introduce another deficiency to excuse the first deficiency".
> 
> Each situation is separate and should be treated as such.




I suppose IVF has nothing to do with gay marriage either.

But the issue you highlight in terms of gays using IVF, also occurs when a child is placed with another family via adoption.  In both cases the child has no idea who their biological parents are.

So if that is a reason to block gays from using IVF, then surely it is also a valid argument against adoption?  Surely if the harm to the child is the same, then blocking 1 cause but allowing other seems to be a bit unfair to the child.


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> FTW129 FRO with the red herring Sh1te









You keep bringing up The Herring... you will keep seeing The Herring. 

*Go open up the relevant thread. You're not on topic in here.*


----------



## moXJO (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> He has written a book and made his niche in aiming lectures for$ to the right wing of the US.  Oh yeah also was raised by two lesbians and has a PhD. Kinda ticks the boxes as someone who would know what he is talking about.
> 
> The difference would be that it would not be confusing on Fathers Day!



Has a PhD, well his parents obviously did a bad job
I'll raise your one complaining son of honey pot, with a billion complaining hetro couple kids of ****tey parenting.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose IVF has nothing to do with gay marriage either.
> 
> But the issue you highlight in terms of gays using IVF, also occurs when a child is placed with another family via adoption.  In both cases the child has no idea who their biological parents are.
> 
> So if that is a reason to block gays from using IVF, then surely it is also a valid argument against adoption?  Surely if the harm to the child is the same, then blocking 1 cause but allowing other seems to be a bit unfair to the child.




The essential difference between adoption and IVF is with adoption a child has been produced by whatever means who needs to be looked after, with IVF the argument is whether a child should be created in the first place where they are subject to deficiencies compared to naturally born children.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The essential difference between adoption and IVF is with adoption a child has been produced by whatever means who needs to be looked after, with IVF the argument is whether a child should be created in the first place where they are subject to deficiencies compared to naturally born children.




Don't see the distinction when you argument is about child welfare.  

But anyhoo, it's not relevant to the debate about gay marriage.


----------



## Tisme (3 July 2015)

Marketing 101 ...... indoctrinate the children of the next generation 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...ay-marriage-book-to-third-grade-class-140743/


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

ftw129 said:


> Well of course, we are dealing with a couple of religious nut jobs here...
> 
> It is this kind of mentality that starts wars and drives fear, division and hate through society.
> 
> ...





If it wasn't for the love that Jesus taught you wouldn't be where you are now. Your entire race would have been annihilated 6 times over. It's the Christian civilisation that triumphed because it finally unified people with morals and ideals.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

bellenuit said:


> This would appear to be off topic on this thread, but considering some of the posts made here yesterday, it seems very very appropriate.
> 
> View attachment 63235
> 
> ...




Such a brave girl, great story .


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> If it wasn't for the love that Jesus taught you wouldn't be where you are now. Your entire race would have been annihilated 6 times over. It's the Christian civilisation that triumphed because it finally unified people with morals and ideals.




Your make believe rot doesn't wash with me... move along.


----------



## Value Collector (3 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> And around we go (my bolds) Man and woman produced .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So what's your point then?

Why did you even mention evolution?

Not only does the fact that gay members of society can't breed together not have anything to do with gay marriage, but bringing up evolution doesn't mean anything either.

The existence of gay's does not go against evolution, gay's exist because of evolution.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Lets see.  As a society we've turned out backs on those who have children.
> 
> Ah, we have what a $250M trial to see if nannies will work in helping to provide child care for parents both working.  Then another $357M to help children in disadvantaged families.
> 
> ...




You know that the interest payment on 500 billion every months can build a new school or pay a years of a teachers salary. We couldn't get places in childcare in Australia except at $170 a day per child and then the government wasn't even subsidising it.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Gay marriage has nothing to do with incest.  That's a very derogatory statement.  Religious families on the other hand have quite a notoriety with incest.  In the bible there's some incestuous marriages.
> 
> Would you like to compare marriage today to marriage say 300 years ago?  Are you supporting the same thing or supporting the destruction of the traditions from your ancestors?
> 
> ...




Yes you should be treated as equal members of society, even I will fight for that with you. I just want marriage to be between man and woman and I want children's rights entrenched constitutionally and I want support to families so that the divorce rates can be minimised. If a gay couple wants a child and they adopt I want such screening and psychological evaluations so that there is no chance of abuse, and there must be grandparents aunts and uncles involved. If a lesbian wants a child she should sleep with the father and include the father,in he childs life sperm donations should be illegal. Same for gay males they must father their child. They should have blood parents living in the same street or suburb so child has mom and dad on daily basis.


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> If it wasn't for the love that Jesus taught you wouldn't be where you are now. Your entire race would have been annihilated 6 times over. It's the Christian civilisation that triumphed because it finally unified people with morals and ideals.




The thing with annihilation is it only need to be done once


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> The thing with annihilation is it only need to be done once




Touche


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Yes you should be treated as equal members of society, even I will fight for that with you. I just want marriage to be between man and woman




Ok this is good, this is great, now we're getting somewhere. There is nothing "wrong" with that we just want to understand why. So, without deflecting to an irrelevant side issue which has nothing to do with marriage just answer one thing. Why don't you want marriage to be between two men or two women? Look deep. You can't use the excuse about gay parenting because gay couples can already be parents. We are not talking about that. We are talking about a ceremony and a commitment that will be legally recognized, a couple of rings and it will all be over. Nothing else will change. What is it that you can't accept about two men or two woman getting married? Please give us an honest, relevant and direct answer to the question. You will not be told you are wrong. Just speak your own truth.


----------



## luutzu (3 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So what's your point then?
> 
> Why did you even mention evolution?
> 
> ...




We're all god's creatures, except the gays! God didn't didn't make them.

That's what Orwell meant by Double Think? Holding two contradictory views and believe they're both absolutely true.

What else...

Save the children, don't harm them... except gay children! Let them be bullied and discriminated against.

Way too many.


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

Oh Man!

This thread is going nowhere. 
Then I realised something.

There is no hope for the future of normal family life in Australia. Things have gone to far.

The ISIS that is the LGBT and atheist movement in Australia has won. There will be no traditional family values nor an understanding of morality in Australia. There will be no real religion in Australia.

If Jesus had to walk the earth in Australia he wouldn't find even twelve apostles, nobody would even bother to crucify him because they wouldn't even care what he had to say. Jesus if he arrived in Australia today would have a completely failed mission. Everyone is too egoistical and selfish.

It's hopeless, it is.

I retreat from this thread tail between my legs, head for the hills, worn down to the bone. Nothing to argument here
Good luck, but it won't come. 

It's definitely better not to bring children into this mess. It's a regret to have conceived them.
I think how deluded of me. Why did I do that?


----------



## Ald123 (3 July 2015)

ftw129 said:


> Ok this is good, this is great, now we're getting somewhere. There is nothing "wrong" with that we just want to understand why. So, without deflecting to an irrelevant side issue which has nothing to do with marriage just answer one thing. Why don't you want marriage to be between two men or two women? Look deep. You can't use the excuse about gay parenting because gay couples can already be parents. We are not talking about that. We are talking about a ceremony and a commitment that will be legally recognized, a couple of rings and it will all be over. Nothing else will change. What is it that you can't accept about two men or two woman getting married? Please give us an honest, relevant and direct answer to the question. You will not be told you are wrong. Just speak your own truth.




Let me try think again, but you are calling me back in from the hills where I have retreated. I am being asked to come back to where I don't want to be. You want me to go to the gay pride march but I want to go to the beach. 

I thought I had answered this already, but you have courteously asked me to think deep. Give me some time.


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Oh Man!
> 
> This thread is going nowhere.
> Then I realised something.
> ...




ALD just before you go let me just say one thing to you if I may and I'm not being a smart A#@ or trying to convince you of anything but just hear me out for a minute...

You have your Christian beliefs. Fine not everyone shares those beliefs. All the religions think theirs is the right way but here is the fact. Marriage pre-dates religion and served a different purpose to what the religious movement later turned it into. Here check it out http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

It was man that makes marriage whatever he wants throughout history in order to suit the cultural beliefs at the time. Times are changing again. Man made it what it was then, but it's time to adjust it to suit the times now. Logically, from a person that has no belief in your god (mine is a different story but no more valid then yours and this isn't the right thread for that conversation) we see now that yet again the time has come to adjust the meaning of marriage to suit the current times and the evolution of the human race. We (people) decide what marriage is to suit our needs. Yes marriage was seen to be between a man and a woman, imposed only by human beings and now human beings are deciding that it can be between any two loving adults. What is so wrong about that? Don't you find that to be a beautiful thing? Well maybe that's asking too much and I understand, but there is no other rational way forward. It is actually irrational to not have it this way.

That's how an innocent child sees it. That's how compassion and love see it. The alternative goes against the real human laws of love, truth and compassion. One's that have been buried under too much momentum from the past. BUT, we are evolving and seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Love is the Light at the end of the tunnel and is what will set us all free.

Let's just get on with the business of being Who We Really Are. Innocent, loving and compassionate at heart.


_#Lovewins_


----------



## sydboy007 (3 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Marketing 101 ...... indoctrinate the children of the next generation
> 
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...ay-marriage-book-to-third-grade-class-140743/




A - not relevant to the thread topic of gay marriage

B - it's only indoctrination if it doesn't agree with your view and agenda


----------



## ftw129 (3 July 2015)

I too am bowing out of this conversation now. I realise this is a forum and the conversation will continue as the pages go on but I just do not have the stomach to look at another red herring. Literally.

To anyone who is fearful of Gay Marriage, Gay Parenting or some sort of Gay Agenda (etc etc etc)... I assure you one thing and I know that if you look deep enough into your hearts, you can see it too. Gay people are not here to destroy the World or corrupt society... 

But we will try to make it FABULOUS 

Peace xx

_#Lovewins_


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> It's the Christian civilisation that triumphed because it finally unified people with morals and ideals.




Unified people with threats of death if they didn't do as they were told maybe.

As I said before, morality doesn't come from religion, otherwise your bible wouldn't be filled with so much gross immorality, the reason you are not condoning slavery like Jesus did or stoning adulterers and unbelievers is because you have a moral system that's independent of your faith, that allows you to filter out the bad biblical stuff, the more religious you are and the less secular morals you have, the closer you are to Isis, taking the texts seriously and killing people.


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2015)

ftw129 said:


> Ok this is good, this is great, now we're getting somewhere. There is nothing "wrong" with that we just want to understand why. So, without deflecting to an irrelevant side issue which has nothing to do with marriage just answer one thing. Why don't you want marriage to be between two men or two women? Look deep. You can't use the excuse about gay parenting because gay couples can already be parents. We are not talking about that. We are talking about a ceremony and a commitment that will be legally recognized, a couple of rings and it will all be over. Nothing else will change. What is it that you can't accept about two men or two woman getting married? Please give us an honest, relevant and direct answer to the question. You will not be told you are wrong. Just speak your own truth.




Yes, perfect. That's exactly what I have been trying to get out of them a straight answer.



Ald123 said:


> If Jesus had to walk the earth in Australia he wouldn't find even twelve apostles, nobody would even bother to crucify him because they wouldn't even care what he had to say. Jesus if he arrived in Australia today would have a completely failed mission. Everyone is too egoistical and selfish.




Wait hang on, isn't that a good thing that we wouldn't crucify him?

Are you saying that you wish we Australians were more in favour of public lynchings?

That seems pretty crazy to me. You can call me an Immoral Athiest if you like, but the fact that I would actually do my best to stop some one being lynched makes me a better person than some one like you that thinks it's a great thing that should be let happen.

Anyway, I am not convinced the poor delusional man claiming he was a god wouldn't be lynched by some of your religious cousins, we have Muslims that lived in Sydney fly half way round the world to cut people's heads off, I think they would have no problem killing  an eccentric rabbi with delusions of godliness such as Jesus was (if he existed at all)



Ald123 said:


> I thought I had answered this already,




No, none of you have, you all just launch into red herrings about kids and logical fallacies and slippery slope arguments.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> You know that the interest payment on 500 billion every months can build a new school or pay a years of a teachers salary. We couldn't get places in childcare in Australia except at $170 a day per child and then the government wasn't even subsidising it.




Has no relevance to the topic of same sex marriage


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Oh Man!
> 
> This thread is going nowhere.
> Then I realised something.
> ...




That's the old normal, make way for the new normal .... I'm glad I never considered marriage as anything but something to give my kids purpose of belonging. I didn't get married for a long time because I couldn't love my "partner" any more and vice versa, it really only was because we decided to form a family.

I think I might have contributed to the moral decay way back in time,  by living in sin for about five years, using contraception, really liking sex (still do), drinking, partying and swearing. It's a wonder there wasn't a catholic priest sent around to exorcise the demons.

I do feel the marriage sanctity that society once strived for, in the face of people like me, men who miss treated their wives, couples who treated marriage as a contract rather than a union, children who were deprived of love and means, etc. is pretty much over. The eagerness that people have to hand over a custom merely shows how invaluable it is to the community, regardless of the significance it has for past generations and a vast number of extant couples.


----------



## Tink (4 July 2015)

VC, as I said, this is a very divided issue, and both have their reasons for agreeing or disagreeing.

I included a video that answers all your questions, and how it harms society.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=60&p=873984&viewfull=1#post873984
It is not extending, it is REDEFINING.

Bringing in same sex marriage does not better society, it makes it worse, and moves children down to second class citizens.

What does same sex marriage encourage?
How does it better society?

I also pointed out the gays that openly said they did not agree with changing marriage, and were hijacked by the gay mafia, and their businesses boycott.
That is not a free society, when they tell you how you have to be thinking.

Syd, I mentioned incestuous backdrop because there is no social order or morality, it just becomes a mess when you dismantle the most important institution for a civilised society.
Fathers and mothers are deemed not important, and there has been an attack on the fathers of late.
Keeping marriage as it is, makes it equal for society.

Rather than talking about rights, we need to talk about responsibilities and accountabilities.


----------



## moXJO (4 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I do feel the marriage sanctity that society once strived for, in the face of people like me, men who miss treated their wives, couples who treated marriage as a contract rather than a union, children who were deprived of love and means, etc. is pretty much over. The eagerness that people have to hand over a custom merely shows how invaluable it is to the community, regardless of the significance it has for past generations and a vast number of extant couples.




One thing I agree with marriage, is it has become a look at me spectacle, followed by a quickie divorce.
Just bring in a 50% of net worth divorce tax. That will clarify the meaning of "For better or for worse".


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2015)

Tink said:


> Bringing in same sex marriage does not better society, it makes it worse,
> .




So you keep saying, but I want you to explain how



> and moves children down to second class citizens.




Does allowing a same sex couple to marry do that?

I think telling a gay child that they will never be able to marry is making them a second class citizen.




> What does same sex marriage encourage?




It encourages the formation of committed relationships, it gives gay members of our society a sense that the rest of society values their existence and recognises their relationship.



> How does it better society?




A society that rejects descrimination and values equality is a better place to live for all.



> I also pointed out the gays that openly said they did not agree with changing marriage, and were hijacked by the gay mafia, and their businesses boycott.
> That is not a free society, when they tell you how you have to be thinking.




In a free society you can boycott or do business with whom ever you want.

You have the right to say what ever you like, and I have the right to avoid doing business with you if I don't like what you are standing for. If I found out my local fish and chip guy was a racist neo nazi, I would not do business with him, I would probably go to the char grill chicken guy instead, thats my right in a free society.

I am not stopping him being a racist bigot, he still has that right. Freedom does not mean you are free from consequences. When I was is business, I have no doubt is some of my customers knew I was an athesit they would have not used my services.


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think I might have contributed to the moral decay way back in time,  by living in sin for about five years,
> .




The concept of sin is a construct, it's a way that the religious try to break your leg so they can sell you a crutch.



> using contraception




Thats not bad, thats smart. Thats called being responsible, all you guys that say you care about the children should support contraception.




> really liking sex (still do)




Again, thats not a sin, you're meant to enjoy sex. it was designed that way by evolution.



> drinking, partying and swearing



. 

None of those things are immoral, So long as your not harming anyone.





> It's a wonder there wasn't a catholic priest sent around to exorcise the demons.






> The eagerness that people have to hand over a custom merely shows how invaluable it is to the community, regardless of the significance it has for past generations and a vast number of extant couples




You say you want to continue marriage as a valued part of society, but there is a group of people fighting hard to try and take part in it, and you are resisting it.

If you are trying to promote criket as a sport, and you are afraid its significance is fading, don't cause a seen and try and ban womans criket, make it more inclusive, show the benefits of everyone living in commited marriages, I think the positive allowing gay marriage would be a net win for the whole concept of marriage.

I mean lets be real, a gays are already living together in committed longterm relationships, allowing them to marry is no going to do anything bad, it will be a public relations win for marriage in general.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 July 2015)

Tink said:


> I also pointed out the gays that openly said they did not agree with changing marriage, and were hijacked by the gay mafia, and their businesses boycott.
> That is not a free society, when they tell you how you have to be thinking.




So if some Christians agree with same sex marriage that means other Christians should be quiet and just accept gay marriage?  If you say some people are within their rights to refuse to serve gays due to religious beliefs, doesn't that mean others have the right to boycott those businesses since they conflict with their own moral code?  That's why I like anti-discrimination laws, otherwise our society fractures and we end up with smaller tribes that don't really work together.  It makes us a weaker poorer society.



Tink said:


> Syd, I mentioned incestuous backdrop because there is no social order or morality, it just becomes a mess when you dismantle the most important institution for a civilised society.
> Fathers and mothers are deemed not important, and there has been an attack on the fathers of late.
> Keeping marriage as it is, makes it equal for society.
> 
> Rather than talking about rights, we need to talk about responsibilities and accountabilities.




Marriage is not being dismantled.  The fact you cannot grasp this is why you are so concerned.  Your marriage will not change one bit.  There's no gay marriage in Iraq / Sudan / Yemen.  Are you telling me they have functional civilised societies?  People having hope and believing their children will have at least as good a future as they have had is probably the key stone to civilised society.  Take that away and then citizens will start to question why they are members of their society.  Failed states are the end game in these kinds of situations.

Without rights, there's generally no responsibilities.  Where is the responsibility for the religious to own their actions rather than trying to portray themselves as victims?

Where is the evidence that in Denmark / Norway / Sweden / Iceland / Greenland that the decay of civilised society you're so fearful of has occurred?  They are some of the richest countries in the world, with some of the best welfare metrics as well.  It's possible that gay marriage, by making them a more equal and just society, has contributed to their social and economic performance.

Give me some evidence that what your saying may be correct and I'll definitely rethink my views on same sex marriage, but just continually throwing out what ifs and possibilities is useless.  I'd argue a society that treats all members as equals is a stronger and more just society.  One that treats women as second class citizens is weaker.  One that treats minority races differently is weaker.  One that discriminates against minorities is weaker.  One that allows "I don't like you" to be a base of interaction is definitely weaker.

From the great wikipedia



> Many psychologist organizations have concluded that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents' relationship is recognized and supported by society's institutions, e.g. civil marriage. For example, the Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006 that "parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union."[19] *The CPA stated in 2003 the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent.*[19]
> 
> The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded in 2006, in an analysis published in the journal Pediatrics:[27]
> 
> There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. *More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.*


----------



## Macquack (4 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> If a lesbian wants a child she should sleep with the father and include the father,in he childs life sperm donations should be illegal. Same for gay males they must father their child. They should have blood parents living in the same street or suburb so child has mom and dad on daily basis.




Good luck with that one.

I am wondering why you have not suggested getting the gays and lesbians together? That would FIX them and there would be nothing to talk about.


----------



## Logique (4 July 2015)

Gay marriage is the new global warming, and a great distraction for a besieged federal Opposition.



> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-or-just-a-bigot/story-fni0cwl5-1227427644953
> 
> ..Just like climate change, and the push towards a republic in the late ‘90s, gay marriage has become the latest and greatest moral challenge of our times..


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2015)

Why not just abolish marriage completely, then everyone would be equal.

Really, if two people want to stay as a couple they will do do whether married or not, and plenty of people have been together a long time without getting married. 

Marriage is more an initiative by business to get more revenue, like Mother's Day, Father's Day, Valentine's day etc. It's a con which says that you can only appreciate another person on this particular day, the rest of the time you treat them like a piece of furniture.

What would be the legal ramifications of abolishing marriage ? Not many I can see if more people are finding that they can do without it.


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Why not just abolish marriage completely, then everyone would be equal.
> 
> Really, if two people want to stay as a couple they will do do whether married or not, and plenty of people have been together a long time without getting married.
> 
> ...




I see marriage differently.

To me marrage can't be abolished, because you can't stop them happening, the government could choose to stop recognising them, but it can't get rid of them, because they happen naturally.

If you having been living with your partner for 10 years, and you are committed to each other, you have a marriage, the fact that you have not had a wedding or registered you marriage with the government doesn't change the fact that you have a marriage.

This is the problem I have with not recognising gay marriages, The gay marriage already exists, to not recognise them is just pure discrimination.

This is why I say marriage predates both governments and religions, so if a government wants to be in the business of recognising them, they need to stop descriminating on which ones they recognise


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> This is why I say marriage predates both governments and religions, so if a government wants to be in the business of recognising them, they need to stop descriminating on which ones they recognise




So why should  governments be in the business of recognising marriage ? That's why I asked about the legal implications of abolishing (or not recognising ) it.


----------



## luutzu (4 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So why should  governments be in the business of recognising marriage ? That's why I asked about the legal implications of abolishing (or not recognising ) it.




Tax, property dispute, will, trusts, child support - all the lovely stuff traditional marriages apparently do go through. Then through the census can better plan, say schools, roads, infrastructure, housing.

On the economic point of view, it makes sense; from the fair society point of view, perfect sense; from the democratic point where the majority of the population supporting or not, the majority supports... But for some reason it's still being debated and rejected by the people's representative.


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So why should  governments be in the business of recognising marriage ? That's why I asked about the legal implications of abolishing (or not recognising ) it.




It makes sense for it to be in the business of recognising various private agreements.

eg, it recognises property ownership for example.

Imagine if property ownership wasn't something that the government recognised, it would be alot harder to claim the things that are yours.

I guess there will always be debate on what the government should regulate and what they shouldn't, but we should all agree that when they do decide to regualte something it needs to be done fairly, and all citizens need to have equal treatment.

I mean imagine if they chose to only issue commericial fishing licences to heterosexuals, that would be pretty weird and unfair or only allowed partnerships of one man and one woman to enter a business partner ship.


----------



## awg (4 July 2015)

further to an earlier post, I had a chance to discuss the topic with a group of 18-30 yr olds last night

They were completely unanimous and outspoken in support, saying ALL all their peers agree

A reasonably diverse group, except with a very high educational average.

I wonder if there is ANY person under 30, on this forum, who is not STRONGLY religious, who doesnt support??

If a person such as myself (old & macho) has changed mind, how can it not be soon ?

In my view, it is the conservative religious minority forcing this needless resistance

I restate my abhorrence at this hypocrisy, having been brought up in Christianity, and seeing the prevalence of homosexuality amongst the clergy.

oh yes..and that dog-whistling by several govt ministers about this being a "media driven" agenda
well maybe a bit...I think their seems to be more "gay" people in the media, and ESPECIALLY the ABC/SBS.
A sly kick ? :frown:


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2015)

> Imagine if property ownership wasn't something that the government recognised, it would be alot harder to claim the things that are yours.




Property ownership is a matter of commercial necessity to recognise, but people don't "own" their relationship partner so I don't really see the correlation.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Property ownership is a matter of commercial necessity to recognise, but people don't "own" their relationship partner so I don't really see the correlation.




Once again, you're using a very modern version of marriage.  If the state doesn't formally recognise marriages, then how do you provide say a war widows pension, or in divorce, how would you divide property?  If your partner is killed in an accident and not legally recognised as your partner, how would you be able to claim compensation?

By the 1870s the below started to be dismantled, which is relatively recent history.

Under traditional English common law, an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of feme sole, while a married woman had the status of feme covert. These terms are English spellings of medieval Anglo-Norman phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be femme seule "single woman" and femme couverte, literally "covered woman").

The principle of coverture was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century:



> By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.




It was as recent as 1922 before woman had equal inheritance rights in the UK and USA.

We're only talking going back to our great grand parents early years to get to a time when women where as close to property of their husbands.  For instance, a court case that lead to women gaining the rights they had to day:



> Millicent Fawcett had her purse snatched by a youth in London.  When the boy’s crime was read out in court Fawcett was shocked to hear him charged with stealing a purse which was ‘the property of Henry Fawcett’ (her husband).




Men may not mind going back to this traditional form of marriage, but I wonder if women would be so enamoured with it.


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Property ownership is a matter of commercial necessity to recognise, but people don't "own" their relationship partner so I don't really see the correlation.




I didn't say they own their partner, I used property ownership as one example of where we benefit from the government recognizing the existence of certain social constructs.

Marriage is a social construct, and it's one that probably existed before property ownership, having the government recognize it has many benefits, but I agree if it can't recognize it fairly it should probably stop recognizing them at all.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I didn't say they own their partner, I used property ownership as one example of where we benefit from the government recognizing the existence of certain social constructs.
> 
> Marriage is a social construct, and it's one that probably existed before property ownership, having the government recognize it has many benefits, but I agree if it can't recognize it fairly it should probably stop recognizing them at all.




Could be easily done

marriage = what ever you you believe it to be.  no recognition of the term in laws.  basically just a way to announce your relationship

civil union = the legalities behind domestic relationships.  all laws revolving around the marriages act would be changed to reflect the new term civil union.

Government steps out of any involvement in the world of marriage.  The religious can continue to pretend to own the word marriage, the conservatives can claim a victory for defeating same sex marriage becoming a legal term, while the rest of us go on as we recognise the issue was really not that difficult.


----------



## trainspotter (5 July 2015)

One last time for comedy purposes only ....

Heather has two Mommies



> Gay marriage doesn’t just redefine marriage, but also parenting. It promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don’t need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we’re not. We’re hurting.




http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

From a Queensland Doctors point of view ...



> Bertrand Russell understood that society has no interest in passing laws about people's private affairs and that the primary reason for the public contract of marriage is to bind the man to the woman for the long task of rearing their children.
> 
> As he wrote in Marriage and Morals: "It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognisance of by a legal institution."




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/same-sex-marriage-hurts-kids/story-e6frerdf-1225954219291

I agree with sydboy007 ... give same sex people the legal rights as "married" couples and be done with the lexical semantics of the word. I can just see the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee that they now have an extra 10 - 20 % of the population to feed upon when it goes belly up.


----------



## galumay (5 July 2015)

Logique said:


> When the ACT legalised same sex marriage in 2013, it went to the High Court, who ruled against it as invalid under the constitution.
> 
> This was because of the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act.  Hence, a change to the Marriage Act is a change to the constitution.




I have been offline for a few days and missed all the action recently in this thread! 

Interesting that you have proposed such an illogical conclusion - and you oppose gay marriage!

The reason the High Court declared the law unconstitutional is that the constitution says that where there is contradiction between federal and state law, the federal law shall take precedence. Because the Federal Law had been amended to restrict marriage to only being between a man and a woman, it then contradicted the ACT Law, hence the ruling.

If the Federal Law was changed back to its previous wording, or changed to specifically allow gay marriage then there would be no contradiction and no case for the High Court.

Another interesting thing i notice coming from some of the anti marriage mob is this perception that somehow because they are religious, marriage is something that 'belongs' with them and they dont want it being 'debased' by the rules being changed. Even in Australia where religious marriage has an elevated status, (religious leaders can perform legal marriages unlike many other countries where only state officials can marry people.), the laws that regulate marriage in Australia are entirely civil laws, enacted by the parliament.

In my mind the solution for those who wish to discriminate against certain people in marriage is simple, change the Marriage Act to remove the role of the church in marriage, have the role of 'celebrant' restricted to nominated state officials like the Mayor and make it a purely civil act. Then the churches can individually decide who and what they are going to discriminate against and if they want to restrict thier "marriage service" in their church to red headed, brown eyed, white skinned, right handed hetrosexuals so be it! - but they would still have to go and get married in a civil service if they wanted to be treated as 'married' by the state.

Finally, once again, if you dont like gay marriage, dont marry someone from the same gender!


----------



## DB008 (5 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> I agree with sydboy007 ... give same sex people the legal rights as "married" couples and be done with the lexical semantics of the word. I can just see the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee that they now have an extra 10 - 20 % of the population to feed upon when it goes belly up.




Divorce lawyers and wedding planners - that is where you want to be at the moment....


----------



## trainspotter (5 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Finally, once again, if you dont like gay marriage, dont marry someone from the same gender!




Post of the month and this thread


----------



## Ald123 (5 July 2015)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Here is the catholic view point out the cathechism

But my view is a bit deeper then that


----------



## IFocus (5 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Post of the month and this thread




+ 1 .................


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2015)

Gay marriage, nearly 1,500 posts, is it really that important.

I think people are going to have much more pressing problems, in the next 5 years, only my opinion of course.

On a positive note, it will help the budget.

A same sex couple living together married will only pull a $34k pension, living together as is, they pull a $44k pension.
They might want equality, until they get it, be carefull what you wish for.lol

See there is an up side.IMO

Sometimes you wonder who drives these agendas.


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Gay marriage, nearly 1,500 posts, is it really that important.
> 
> I think people are going to have much more pressing problems, in the next 5 years, only my opinion of course.
> 
> ...




Exactly.

So many more important issues.

It's gonna happen, just pass it and get it out of the farkin' way so the lawyers can make some more dosh in the divorce courts.


----------



## Ald123 (5 July 2015)

Gay marriage.

We have this universe and in this universe we have all these living beings. With reason, wisdom and knowledge we human beings specifically, who are incredibly unique relative to the other living beings, seek truthful answers as to the meaning of existence and the universe. Over the ten of thousands of years of life, we human beings have developed from this interaction with the universe and existence,  philosophies, morals and social laws, which by experience have been shown to be true.

Self knowledge and the fact of our existence and observation of the person who am I, in my inner life, leads to further truths about dignity, self love and respect, which then is accorded to fellow human beings. Now we begin to understand and nurture relationships with others, and this begins primarily in our relationships with others. Now because of the facts of this experience that we have, which is to be completely human in a universe, we understand that we have a relationship with the universe and what's behind it. We look at the best of what is in humanity and we realise that all of it is a property of the universe and that with that fact, more insights develop. These insights lead to another experience. An entirely different experience, one that is the experience of a relationship with God. 

Because we know that everything that is and who we are and what we are is a complete and utter gift, AND we know that all of it is a property of the universe, including everything about our humanity, we then get a glimmer of understanding finally that behind everything that is, there is a creator. We begin to see life not  so much from the horizontal perspective of a evolutionary timeline but of a vertical perspective, of things being as they are instead of any other way, and we see that all these things are the property of a creator. We are but a reflection of the creator that is good. We know ourselves, which part is of the creator and which part is of some intrinsic evil which we create ourselves whenever we act in opposition to the laws of the universe, not just the physical laws but also the spiritual laws. We begin to see the spiritual laws and observe them. Some human beings begin to go deeper in this and develop a very deep highly sensitive inner life that has an incredibly deep insight into moral life and experience a compass for guidance in all life situations. Such people then see what is the big picture meaning of the universe and humanities place in it and now of the creators plan that is always aligned with our true nature and the true nature of nature itself. 

From all this we have guidance as to the phenomenon of man. This phenomenon of man in universe in relationship with God and experiencing a deep inner life, that billions of other humans do not experience ,for the path is hard, results in us knowing that the love and marriage and procreation of children by functional and loving parents is the only true path and that everything else is disordered. We know that this truth is universal, natural and holy as it is deemed by a creator. For an atheist to negate this experience is to be incredibly intolerant, aggressive and discriminatory against our humanity and freedom of religion. 

When somebody therefore tells us that it is not the case, then what they demand of us is to deny our very humanity our complete understanding  and force upon us a worldview that is completely at odds with nature and also our nature and fact. They want us to negate ourselves and everything we know as fact. They want us to know instead that 1 + 1 = 3

Therefore the only way for the others is to destroy our world views and this is what atheists attempt to do. But they don't understand that this atheism will destroy them and their line anyway. Humans are tolerant, nature and spiritual laws are not. This entire universe and everything in it serves beings that are loving and good, beings that grant the courtesy of justice towards ones creator in humility and do not put themselves at odds against nature, nor don't overcome the disorder in their lives in the wrong manner. 

The emotional life of a human being, their urges and desires are all at the very heart of the matter governed by free will. If it were not so we could never be morally culpable for everything nor anything we do. There would be no free will. There is nothing in our nature that a person with a healthy functioning free will cannot overcome. To deny this is to accept that something akin to chemistry and biology or the stars and planets hold our fates in their hands like some warped form of biological astrology that can be derived from reading the horoscope in the women's magazine. 

The human being creates itself within a internal structural framework within a society and within an existence within a universe that is within something else. Our destiny as humans is to discover the deepest truth about ourselves, yet we know less about our inner lives then we know about the surface of the moon. 

A human being that loves God cannot accept gay marriage as a holy act for it is a perversion of the natural order of the universe and against the natural plan that God has for everything that occurs in this universe and whatever it is leading towards and the full reasons for which it exists. It is from this that morality is an absolute and not just a majority opinion as the atheist would have people who love God, accept.  The atheism that is attempted to be forced upon such human beings, in order to accept gay marriage is anti-existential. The atheists cannot succeed without destroying all religion and therefore they are anti-religious and trample on my very right to freedom of religion. 

Atheist just turn around and say there is no God. A person with a relationship with God just turns around and says there is a God. At this clash is a scientifically perfectly matched impasse where the atheist and the person with a relationship with God, both of them, have no scientific proof or disproof of God. But at this point the person that has the deep inner life relationship with God and experiences the soul and its deep inner movements has this as proof, which he cannot transmit to anybody but himself because the relationship is precisely only personal with God. He can't even transmit this experience of God to a mere believer, for a mere believer is almost equivalent to an atheist in practice. We can probably literally only count on our hands and feet how many humans have attained such depths of a relationship with God. "If you love me, my Father in heaven will love you and we will come and make our home within you".

For a genuine seeker of love, truth and God, a person who will never be satisfied with anything less or anything else than God himself, the path is an incredibly difficult one and few ever venture onto the path, even if it's their greatest desire. It's for people who deep inside know that life is for one purpose only and that is to have God living in the home that is deep within themselves. These people care for nothing else.  It's a path that one will never succeed on without a spiritual teacher in the first place. It's a path that God leads the person on, and not the person. 

And a atheist will just shake his head in complete disbelief and be amazed to their very core that anybody could be so deluded and speak like this or about this as fact, and that is perfectly fine. The person who has a relationship with God knows that it's like telling a person from the Sahara desert who has never seen or tasted mango ice-cream, what ice cream is, never mind what a mango is. 

I understand how a gay person can be bullied and vilified and treated with contempt. I understand that a gay person may be denied all kinds of rights. And to the best of my ability I will always try to treat gay people with the courtesy and love they deserve in their inherent dignity as human beings. I hope I will not stand by and let a person be treated in that manner. In the same way I will not allow a decent  other straight person to be treated badly by the contempt of a gay person who discriminates or abuses a straight person as is the common practice nowadays. I will not tolerate the blatant discrimination that gay people have against the people who are religious and exercising their religious freedoms. I have also learnt that judging gays, their private behaviours or life situation is far beyond what any human being is capable of, even if they are objectively wrong , who am I to judge the reasons why a specific person does what he does? 

The real problem for gays wanting marriage however is this:

It is beyond my or any other humans or collective of humans capacity to be able to grant gay people the marriage they seek. Marriage is written into existence as an existential fact to be between a male and a female, and even if the gay people attain every so called right they seek, in truth and fact their marriage never will be a true marriage anyway. For it is something that is not for a human to grant, it is a universal truth that cannot be altered and it comes ruled by spiritual laws if broken will lead to evil, which always seeks to destroy good but will only ever manage to cannibalise and destroy itself. Marriage and its meaning is simple clear and specific and it can't be altered. It is a man and a woman falling in love for eternity and participating in the act of procreating children in love and for love as part of the creators plan. 

Opponents of gay marriage warn that allowing the example of gay marriage to exist. will create disorder in existence and harm for humanity and that's why they oppose it. They can't stop it if the majority threaten them with violence and imprisonment or destruction of their family as will now occur in America, so they standby and watch it happen, as will I. 

So if by stubbornness, discrimination, abuse and persistence, gay people achieve all their aims, it's never going to be ice cream. And they know it by experience of that, which is blatantly obvious and they all know this. The reasons gay people want gay marriage, and all their gay rights and everybody to accept them and why they are so fanatical about forcing people to accept a new morality about this, is because they can never ever manage to, nor ever will, accept and love themselves. And they don't want to be reminded of this. But you cannot escape what is not created by you. Your life is a gift and how it is given was never your choice.

One becomes fully human by accepting humbly the constraints placed on us and owing justice towards ones creator.


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2015)

Could you summarise the post, I can't be bothered reading it.

I wouldn't impose that much of my opinion on you, and if I did, I wouldn't expect you to read it.

Your opinion, or my opinion, isn't that important.IMO

Jeez this is Australia, no one takes it that seriously, and I didn't even read it.

Chill out mate, it isn't that important.


----------



## luutzu (5 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Gay marriage....
> One becomes fully human by accepting humbly the constraints placed on us and owing justice towards ones creator.




Yea, gays and their so call rights! How dare they think they're just as cool and as just superior as I and all those low-life heterosexuals. Don't they know that God put them on this Earth, in this universe to be inferior, unequal, and will go to Hell soon? 


C'on man, maybe go to a different Church or something. Too intense where you're hanging.


----------



## Ald123 (5 July 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Could you summarise the post, I can't be bothered reading it.
> 
> I wouldn't impose that much of my opinion on you, and if I did, I wouldn't expect you to read it.
> 
> ...




I won't impose anymore.


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> I won't impose anymore.




You're not imposing, when you give your opinion. 
You aren't giving your opinion, when you cut and past an article, your giving someone else's opinion.
This is a chat forum, not a platform for a movement.IMO

That's only my opinion, I may be completely out of line.

However if we all go down that path, the pages will be full of cut and pasted garbage, not peoples opinions.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 July 2015)

So Asia may view us a decadent if we allow same sex marriage.  What a bizzare way to view thing.

I wonder if we're viewed as decadent for having:

A minimum wage
anti discrimination laws so adds like 18-25 chinese speaking female are not valid criteria
reasonably access to the rule of law
car safety standards so you don't end up in a concertina when in a crash
reasonably enforced environmental protection - breathable air in our cities.
The whole thing reminds me of the twitter wars over what colour the dress is. Blue and black / white and gold.


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So Asia may view us a decadent if we allow same sex marriage.  What a bizzare way to view thing.
> 
> I wonder if we're viewed as decadent for having:
> 
> ...




I agree, how Asia views us, didn't seem to matter, when we were going bananas about drug runners being excecuted.

Why has it become an issue now.

Also to think that Asia don't already see us as decadent, is a bit naive.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So Asia may view us a decadent if we allow same sex marriage.  What a bizzare way to view thing.
> 
> I wonder if we're viewed as decadent for having:
> 
> ...




That's a silly comment by Barnaby when we have just sold out our young and older tradesmen to China for a few pieces of silver. Everything is cash to this government, nothing else matters, even when our Asian trading partners are using the most underhand tactics to dominate the world.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-05/clinton-says-china-will-stop-at-nothing/6595710


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a silly comment by Barnaby when we have just sold out our young and older tradesmen to China for a few pieces of silver. Everything is cash to this government, nothing else matters, even when our Asian trading partners are using the most underhand tactics to dominate the world.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-05/clinton-says-china-will-stop-at-nothing/6595710




It's also a silly comment, to say it is party specific.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2015)

sptrawler said:


> It's also a silly comment, to say it is party specific.




I saw BJ on Insiders and agreed with some but not all of what he said about Gay marriage, but you can bet that most of the reporting of Barnaby's appearance on Insiders that will be his Gay Marriage remarks, not his agriculture report. 

That just shows that GM, despite only affecting 5% of the population is sucking the oxygen out of other things that need to be discussed. If the government needs some clear air they should do something about the issue. Probably the best they can do if they aren't going to vote for it is to promise a plebiscite at the next election. At least that will get if off the agenda for a while and a few important other matters can get discussed.


----------



## luutzu (6 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I saw BJ on Insiders and agreed with some but not all of what he said about Gay marriage, but you can bet that most of the reporting of Barnaby's appearance on Insiders that will be his Gay Marriage remarks, not his agriculture report.
> 
> That just shows that GM, despite only affecting 5% of the population is sucking the oxygen out of other things that need to be discussed. If the government needs some clear air they should do something about the issue. Probably the best they can do if they aren't going to vote for it is to promise a plebiscite at the next election. At least that will get if off the agenda for a while and a few important other matters can get discussed.




Your concern is valid, but it's based on the assumption that the gov't want the public to focus on more important things.

It may not. It may be work best if the people are focus on the trivial and the big boys get to do their work without being looked at.

Take the TPP... I haven't heard much discussion about it. The only thing that's known about it is what has been leaked. And what has been leaked is scary.


The TPP is probably the biggest, far ranging, far reaching trades agreement to date. It's all done in secret, most US Senator and Congress do not know much about it or told much about it; it's headed by "advisors" from the world's largest corporations... and its aim is to bind the entire world - literally.

It's right out of some Orwellian, conspiracy nuts' dream... but it's real.


From the Young Turks, one of the leaked discussion papers said that if the gov't decided to privatise a certain asset that asset and can never again be taken back into the public domain. So if you sell your port, sell your airline, your roads... you can't take it back.

From Joe Stiglitz... another leaked document states that no gov't can sue or cancel a project/product without due compensation - cannot do it for any reason.

So if Coal Seam Gas was granted and it turns out that the process causes too much danger to the water, the environment.. it's bad. If laws were passed to cancel that project, the gov't have to pay the company their estimated/projected profit as though the project were to go ahead and complete its projected profit gain. That is, you cannot take away their right to kill you.

Another would be patent and generic drugs... extending by 15 years before patent would expire and drug become generic... imagine how much that will costs the public healthcare system. It won't do much for innovation either.


But what's the focus we all should worry about? Terrorism, gay marriage, refugees and sovereign borders... Climate change? Didn't Joyce said the gov't is doing something about it? By saving more water, funding more water infrastructure? I guess if the water rises we just move to higher grounds; if it snow in spring just put on a jacket.


----------



## Tink (6 July 2015)

Thanks for posting those two articles, trainspotter.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=72&p=874514&viewfull=1#post874514

As I have said throughout this discussion, PC has silenced us, but more so the children. 
The first article said it very well.

Agree, Rumpole, if anything they should take it to the next election as a plebiscite.
The Libs went to the election with a NO changes, so I would hope that they stand by it for their term.


----------



## galumay (6 July 2015)

Ald123 said:


> Gay marriage.
> 
> blah, blah, blah and a lot more blah.




Summarised above for those that couldnt be bothered reading it or fell asleep in the middle.

"I believe in an imaginary person who i think made everything. My imaginary friend has decided what marriage is and it doesnt matter what anyone else thinks it is, it is as my imaginary friend says it is.

People who dont believe my imaginary person created everything and made all the rules are wrong.

Gay marriage cant exist because its not part of my imaginary friend's playworld."


----------



## Knobby22 (6 July 2015)

Nasty post.


----------



## pixel (6 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So Asia may view us a decadent if we allow same sex marriage.  What a bizzare way to view thing.




Yes, Barnaby's argument was, even by his lofty standard, the pinnacle of stupidity.
A reasonable observer would find some far more influential factors shape our neighbours' opinion of us:
How the Australian Government treats members of their race.
How the Australian Government treats members of their religion.
How the Australian Government treats refugees that try to escape suppressive regimes.
How the Australian Government respects what they consider their culture.


----------



## Value Collector (7 July 2015)

Kids React to Gay marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Kids React to Gay marriage.





There is no point in posting the opinions of children . They can be manipulated and moulded to do the bidding of whoever has control over them.


----------



## Tisme (7 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There is no point in posting the opinions of children . They can be manipulated and moulded to do the bidding of whoever has control over them.




Yes the only thing missing was the unicorn .... I wonder how the little bigots would react to this:


----------



## luutzu (7 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yes the only thing missing was the unicorn .... I wonder how the little bigots would react to this:





Man, gay and homosexuality does not equate to child molestation, pedophiles or any form of abuse. 

There are good people, there are bad people. Some of the good may be gay, some bad may also be gay; just as some old people are bigots and others are not, some young are dump and bigoted, others are not.

To say or imply that legalising gay marriage or treat homosexuals as equal somehow is child abuse and sex crimes.. .that's like saying that if we permit alcohol, we're permitting drunk driving, and encourage drunk drivers to keep an eye out for children crossing the road and run them over.


----------



## galumay (7 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yes the only thing missing was the unicorn .... I wonder how the little bigots would react to this:




I know how i would respond to such bigoted nonsense. I would respond by saying if that level of debate is the best you can come up with then you have lost the argument.

The inference appears to be that because some individual sexually abuses a child of the same gender we should not allow gay marriage. That is about as poor an argument as ... well suggesting asia might think less of us.

Lets be quite clear where the vast majority of rape and sexual assault of children by adults has occurred - inside the catholic church, by those NOT allowed to be married to anyone, let alone to another of the same gender. 

If we want to reduce the risk of homosexual rape of children then we would do best by stopping men from becoming priests rather than stopping them marrying other men.

It would be more productive to simply stick to the central question, should we continue to discriminate against gay people by not allowing them to partake of the state act of marriage? (which by the way has nothing to do with religion.)

The majority of people do not support the continuing discrimination, our general legal principles of anti-discmination do not allow it, (the discrimination in this case has had to be specifically legislated for in the Marraige Act.) and it is this question which should be considered. Not all the red herrings that the religious fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives seek to distract the discussion with.


----------



## orr (7 July 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Nasty post.




 That's a Murdoch publication, right?


----------



## Tisme (7 July 2015)

galumay said:


> I know how i would respond to such bigoted nonsense. I would respond by saying if that level of debate is the best you can come up with then you have lost the argument.
> 
> The inference appears to be that because some individual sexually abuses a child of the same gender we should not allow gay marriage. That is about as poor an argument as ... well suggesting asia might think less of us.
> 
> ...




Oh come on, It's OK for you gays to use effete individuals in support, but get upset if the it goes against your entrenched , intransigent views (i.e bigotry)? It's  a disgrace using children as exploitive propaganda, but then it just reinforces the concern for minors in the company of certain people..... where are child services when they are needed


----------



## galumay (7 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Oh come on, It's OK for you gays to use effete individuals in support, but get upset if the it goes against your entrenched , intransigent views (i.e bigotry)? It's  a disgrace using children as exploitive propaganda, but then it just reinforces the concern for minors in the company of certain people..... where are child services when they are needed




Where to begin? Yours are classic strawman arguments. I am not upset, I am simply pointing out what a poor argument was used and how irrelevant and inaccurate it was. My views are not "entrenched or intransigent" (and by the way that is not what "bigotry" means), if anyone could present an argument that was compelling enough to convince me that discriminating against people based on their sexuality was warranted then I might well change my view. 

Spare me the melodrama about using children as exploitive propoganda, that long predates the push for the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. In fact the church has been an artful exponent of exploiting children for propoganda, as has just about every marketing company in history and polititians of all colour and ilk.


----------



## Tink (8 July 2015)

There is no discrimination, so that comment is dead in the water -- they have Civil Unions which gives them all the same rights.

We are standing up for Marriage -- freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
_
Political correctness is an insidious poison.
It prevents issues of vital importance from being discussed, and lets evil flourish unchecked._


----------



## SirRumpole (8 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Spare me the melodrama about using children as exploitive propoganda, that long predates the push for the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. In fact the church has been an artful exponent of exploiting children for propoganda, as has just about every marketing company in history and polititians of all colour and ilk.




So you agree that it's ok to exploit children for whatever reason ?

The argument you seem to use is that because it happens its fine. IMO the use of children in any advertising or promotion should be banned, and I'm not too keen on them appearing in TV series either, especially considering the Hey Dad scenario.


----------



## Tisme (8 July 2015)

galumay said:


> My views are not "entrenched or intransigent" (and by the way that is not what "bigotry" means
> 
> . In fact the church has been an artful exponent of exploiting children for propoganda, as has just about every marketing company in history and polititians of all colour and ilk.




Bigotry is driven by entrenched and intransigent views that make no provision to listen to a counter argument. You are guilty of that in your desire to promote your lifestyle choice that feeds on the destruction of established norms.

Insofar as the church, you are guilty of using the  hackneyed strawman excuse yourself to justify one wrong making another wrong acceptable. The opening scenes of Tropic Thunder make an obvious statement about how many in the roman (and probably other chaste orders) church apparently  behave. Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old (we males all know the true age when we become mature and it isn't in our teens).


----------



## Tisme (8 July 2015)

Of course there is a whole generation out there that probably can't figure out why they have a strange affection for gays:

http:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXIbRjpQMNY//

the run on video is worth watching too.


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Bigotry is driven by entrenched and intransigent views that make no provision to listen to a counter argument. You are guilty of that in your desire to promote your lifestyle choice that feeds on the destruction of established norms.
> 
> Insofar as the church, you are guilty of using the  hackneyed strawman excuse yourself to justify one wrong making another wrong acceptable. The opening scenes of Tropic Thunder make an obvious statement about how many in the roman (and probably other chaste orders) church apparently  behave. Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old (we males all know the true age when we become mature and it isn't in our teens).




There is a distinction between homosexual acts and a person's sexuality.

To give you an idea of what I mean, there were straight men who used to frequent the taxi bar in Sydney.  They'd go there because you'd get a lot of trans guys there.  Even though they were technically having sex with another man ie homosexual - their own view of themselves was they were not gay / homosexual but in fact straight / heterosexual.

Could you expand on what you mean of the below:



> Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old




Rape is rape, whoever perpetuates it.  Non consexual sex is repugnant.  To try and link homosexuality and rape, now that's a straw man argument.  Why is it that religious people are generally the least likely to report the rape of a child???


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2015)

sounds similar to some of the arguments presented in this forum



and it's just amazing how worked up people are over a single word.


----------



## Tink (8 July 2015)

Why do we need to know your sexuality? Who cares.

No one walks around introducing themselves as hetero female, hetero male.

These labels are getting ridiculous.

Male, female, that's enough.


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2015)

Tink said:


> Why do we need to know your sexuality? Who cares.
> 
> No one walks around introducing themselves as hetero female, hetero male.
> 
> ...




So you never tell someone you're Catholic.  People never ask or tell what their occupation is.

i agree, sexuality should be at the same level as hair colour or your height.  It definitely doesn't define a person.

That said, religious people tend to claim that homosexuals are evil, child molesters, rapists, sinners, cause earth quakes, tornadoes and flooding.

For some reason religious people want to define "gays" based purely on their sexuality.  Are you able to explain why they do this?


----------



## Tink (8 July 2015)

No, no reason to mention things that are private, but the gays are making sure that all this is now public.

Nothing like hair colour, you see it.


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2015)

Tink said:


> No, no reason to mention things that are private, but the gays are making sure that all this is now public.
> 
> Nothing like hair colour, you see it.




Actually i think it is those against same sex marriage, and homosexuals in general, that are the ones bringing all kinds of ideas out of the bedroom.

Wasn't it Bernardi who brought beastiality into the debate?

Haven't you on many occasions brought up polygamy as to reasons to block same sex marriage?

I actually don't remember reading any gays actually broadcasting what they do in their bedrooms to further the debate on same sex marriage.  It's generally conservative and / or those of the Christian right that seem to be the ones talking most about what goes on in a same sex marriage bedroom.  believe me it's probably not as nearly as exciting as what some of the religious conservatives get up to.

here's a little of the hypocrisy out there

http://www.oddee.com/item_99094.aspx

politicians caught with male prostitute, religious leader caught fondling little boys, president of young GOP members performs unconsentual sex on sleeping man, an evangelist who says he's heterosexual with complications , another anti gay crusader caught with a male prostitute, republican candidate who used to work as a drag queen, the bishop who liked the young boys of the church to call him "Daddy", the republican lawmaker who reported a male prostitute to police because he failed to pay for the liason.

If sexuality isn't important, as you claim, why is it the main reason your against same sex marriage?


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old (we males all know the true age when we become mature and it isn't in our teens).




Tisme are you saying that molesting a child and homosexuality are the same thing?


----------



## Tink (8 July 2015)

If I didn't explain myself properly the first time.

_i agree, sexuality should be at the same level as hair colour or your height_

How can sexuality be the same as hair colour when it is a private thing.

I see your hair colour,  I don't need to know your sexuality.

We don't need labels.


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2015)

Tink said:


> If I didn't explain myself properly the first time.
> 
> _i agree, sexuality should be at the same level as hair colour or your height_
> 
> ...




Because it tells you as much about a person as their hair colour.  It does not define a person, though plenty wish to define "gays" based on their sexuality.

What labels are you talking about?


----------



## galumay (8 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Bigotry is driven by entrenched and intransigent views that make no provision to listen to a counter argument. You are guilty of that in your desire to promote your lifestyle choice that feeds on the destruction of established norms.




Again, just made up nonsense. You use words that you simply dont know what their meaning is. I am not 'guilty' of anything. I have no desire to promote my lifestyle choice. Melodramatic nonsense like "feeds on the destruction of established norms" just negates anything constructive you might have to say.



> Insofar as the church, you are guilty of using the  hackneyed strawman excuse yourself to justify one wrong making another wrong acceptable.




Again, total gibberish, what is a "hackneyed strawman excuse"? No such thing exists. I am not justifying anything by pointing out that the worst sexual assaulters of children are men of the church - not the gays that wish to see an end to discrimination on the basis of sexuality.



> The opening scenes of Tropic Thunder make an obvious statement about how many in the roman (and probably other chaste orders) church apparently  behave. Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old (we males all know the true age when we become mature and it isn't in our teens).




If you really cant see how totally illogical your statement is then i am very sorry for you. Are you really trying to argue there is no difference between raping children and consensual sex between adults?


----------



## Tisme (8 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Again, just made up nonsense. You use words that you simply dont know what their meaning is. I am not 'guilty' of anything. I have no desire to promote my lifestyle choice. Melodramatic nonsense like "feeds on the destruction of established norms" just negates anything constructive you might have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




More intolerance to common sense.


----------



## galumay (8 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> More intolerance to common sense.




I think you have well and truly proven the old adage that common sense is not at all common!

Luckily views like yours are in the minority and the removal of this discrimination will come, its simply a matter of time.


----------



## Tisme (8 July 2015)

Seems pretty common to me, maybe you are excluded form such perverse conversations incase it hurts your feelings?

This pretty much sums up what Americans are all to eager to espouse on the streets, in their homes and in their churches, regardless of their socialist el president:

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Seems pretty common to me, maybe you are excluded form such perverse conversations incase it hurts your feelings?
> 
> This pretty much sums up what Americans are all to eager to espouse on the streets, in their homes and in their churches, regardless of their socialist el president:
> 
> http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html




I doubt many americans actually agree with any of the crap in your list.

1. It Is Not Marriage

marriage is a social construct.  it does not exist outside of society.  marriage used to be 700 wives and 300 concubines.  marriaged used to be a woman disappearing in the eyes of the law and all a woman's property became her husbands.

2. It Violates Natural Law

homosexuality is natural.  therefore it cannot break natural laws

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

no evidence that this in any way harms a child's development.  

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

homosexuality is not a lifestyle.  therefore this point is invalid

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

there is nothing moral about discrimination.  there is nothing morally wrong about homosexuality

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

no one is forcing you or anyone else to have a same sex marriage.  this point is null and void

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

why should marriage be benefited to the detriment of others in society?

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

once again, it's morally wrong to discriminate.  people are free not to accept gay marriage and they don't have to have a same sex union.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

Could we argue that allowing women to own property and to have a legal self when married was the beginning of the sexual revolution?  Maybe limiting marriage to just a single woman was the beginning?

10. It Offends God

I'm sorry it offends your make believe person in the sky.  Still, we're a secular democracy so your religious beliefs have no right to enforce their views and ways on the rest of us.

Now religious leaders persecuting minorities probably does offend god.  As would molesting children, asking for money to buy the most expensive gulf stream jet for missionary work, and hoarding wealth that could be used to aid the poor.  the list goes on for what the putative righteous do that would offend their god, but that's a debate that's not relevant to same sex marriage.


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2015)

Have a referendum at the next election, get a snapshot of what people really think.

That has to be the fairest way, let the electorate decide.

If it comes out 50/50, let the pollies decide.

If it comes out 75/25 in favour pass it, if it is 75/25 against put it to bed.


----------



## galumay (8 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Seems pretty common to me, maybe you are excluded form such perverse conversations incase it hurts your feelings?




Huh? You really dont make any sense at all. You are simply making stuff up without any connection to my points raised about your previous posts. You seem to be a serial offender, everytime anyone points out one of your non-sequitors, red herrings, strawman arguments etc. your basic response is to ramble on in some unrelated way, that makes no sense, is unconnected and generally implies an ad hominem attack.



> This pretty much sums up what Americans are all to eager to espouse on the streets, in their homes and in their churches, regardless of their socialist el president:




Whaaaat??? Support for an end to discrimination against homosexuals is massive in the US, the Supreme Court made a simple and clear ruling that this discrimination is against the constitution. If you think Obama is a 'socialist' your delusion behaviour is worsening!

You will have to come up with a better list than those 10 points to stop the removal of the discrimination in this country, I think the average australian, like the average american is intelligent enough to see through such poorly articulated and structured points of view.

I dont see one argument there that is a rational and resonable ground to discriminate against someones sexuality, in fact in all the hundreds of posts in this thread, those who are against it have failed to articulate one fair argument against gay marriage.

I guess its not really possible because it doesnt actually effect anyone except those currently discriminated against. My marriage is obviously unchanged by what other people do. All the religious arguments are irrelevant because its not a religious matter in our secular society, rules of marriage are decided by the state not religious bodies. (just as well given what the bible says about marriage!). The arguments about whether there is potentially a negative impact on some children is irrelevant because the debate is about marriage not the right to have children. (which gay couples or singles already have.) 

I will be interested to see if anyone can post a valid, fair and reasonable reason that we should discriminate against people based on their sexuality when it comes to marriage. I suspect this is the key to the steadily increasing percentage of people that support gay marriage, why so many countries are changing their laws and why the issue has so much momentum - for all the 'noise' there are simply almost no rational reasons NOT to change the law.


----------



## awg (9 July 2015)

> 10. It Offends God




How can it offend God, if he made us all in his likeness and image?

Is God offended by male to female sodomy & oral sex, or just the same-sex variety?


----------



## Tisme (9 July 2015)

awg said:


> How can it offend God, if he made us all in his likeness and image?
> 
> Is God offended by male to female sodomy & oral sex, or just the same-sex variety?




Hey don't ask me, I just posted what I hear from Americans when I go over there. I'm just posting counter drivel to the drivel the pro gay marriage torch carriers are posting here. Half of them don't even recognise I'm grabbing arguments against from their own sexual clique, the ones who want to keep their identity rather than clone into hetrosexual lifestyles.


----------



## galumay (10 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Hey don't ask me, I just posted what I hear from Americans when I go over there.




Thats is an enlightening comment!



> I'm just posting counter drivel to the drivel the pro gay marriage torch carriers are posting here.




Given that i havent read one articulation of a coherent argument in favour of continuing marriage discrimination from you, i think the admission you are posting drivel is a fair reflection. 



> Half of them don't even recognise I'm grabbing arguments against from their own sexual clique, the ones who want to keep their identity rather than clone into hetrosexual lifestyles.




What does that even mean? Once again sexuality isnt a 'lifestyle'. I am sure there are gay people that dont want to get married, just as there are straight people that dont. I dont believe you would be able to find gay people that would argue that marriage discimination should continue for gay couples who DO want to marry.


----------



## Tisme (10 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Once again sexuality isnt a 'lifestyle'. .




Of course it is. You think the gay fashion, the gay lisp, the arm gesticulations are congenital? If they are it just proves how gays aren't normal, doesn't it.  It's just like the push for marriage, it's just another fad to accommodate the socialists/fabians who need to rage against the machine.

Challenging society to absorb homosexuals into hetronormative behaviours is pissing a fair few homosexuals off.

I like what one of them says in a blog:

"I am most annoyed by straight people’s calls for it. ................ Their gay friends must love the drama of it all"

Tony Abbot's looking good for my vote 

BTW You know that twerp gayboy who is doing the Optus ads ... he's a boy that was raised literally around the corner from me in QLD and his accent is one of those wonders of human creation. His brother is gay too...howse that for proof it's genetic.


----------



## Logique (10 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There is no point in posting the opinions of children . They can be manipulated and moulded to do the bidding of whoever has control over them.



Listen to yourself!  You're not serious?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 July 2015)

Logique said:


> Listen to yourself!  You're not serious?




Of course I am . 

If children could form independent opinions they would not be dependents.


----------



## Logique (10 July 2015)

galumay said:


> I have been offline for a few days and missed all the action recently in this thread!
> 
> Interesting that you have proposed such an illogical conclusion - and you oppose gay marriage!
> 
> The reason the High Court declared the law unconstitutional is that the constitution says that where there is contradiction between federal and state law, the federal law shall take precedence. Because the Federal Law had been amended to restrict marriage to only being between a man and a woman, it then contradicted the ACT Law, hence the ruling...........Finally, once again, if you dont like gay marriage, dont marry someone from the same gender!



In so many words you have confirmed the legal point I made, but you still want to discredit my opinion? 

Here's some free advice to the lesbian and gay marriage lobby. Present _all_ of the arguments, for _and_ against, with a detailed and convincing analysis of each. At this point the Australian public will know that lesbians and gays are being fair dinkum.  But this '_we should be equal_' stuff feels like a con job, superficial opportunism.  

Lesbians and gays are _already_ equal. They are not discriminated against, nobody would dare!

It's the same thing as global warming. Political power through the side door, snouts in the welfare trough, and in this case, a great big PC stick with which to beat the straights.


----------



## Tink (10 July 2015)

Changing Marriage affects us all, as it is a blanket law, it is not extending, it is redefining.

Our morality doesn't agree with the change.

Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

Civil unions are fine, but not Marriage.

Why should the government promote same sex marriage?


----------



## sydboy007 (10 July 2015)

Logique said:


> In so many words you have confirmed the legal point I made, but you still want to discredit my opinion?
> 
> Here's some free advice to the lesbian and gay marriage lobby. Present _all_ of the arguments, for _and_ against, with a detailed and convincing analysis of each. At this point the Australian public will know that lesbians and gays are being fair dinkum.  But this '_we should be equal_' stuff feels like a con job, superficial opportunism.
> 
> ...




Being gay i can tell you I still face the odd bit of discrimination.  It's certainly better than my uni days, but you still get the odd redneck or religious bigot that wishes to discriminate or shout abuse.

I have no idea how a call for treating people equally can be viewed as a con job.  One has to wonder if you were writing in to stop homosexuality from being removed from the penal code.

Exactly how is asking for marriage equality _a great big PC stick with which to beat the straights?_


----------



## SirRumpole (10 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Exactly how is asking for marriage equality _a great big PC stick with which to beat the straights?_




Would you be happy with the issue being decided by plebiscite ?


----------



## Value Collector (10 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you be happy with the issue being decided by plebiscite ?




i think it would be a step In the right direction, and would hopefully bring equal rights faster, however a plebiscite only reflects the majority position.

I say only reflects the majority position because on matters of human rights, the majority opinion doesn't matter. in fact constructional laws normally exist to protect the minorities from the majority.

Eg. If A plebiscite in Nazi Germany voted to remove rights from the Jews or a plebiscite in 1800's USA voted to maintain slavery, it would not make these things moral or right.

Slavery would still be immoral and wrong regardless of what the plebiscite outcome was, and the USA government still had an obligation to free them regardless of the majority views.


----------



## Value Collector (10 July 2015)

Tink said:


> Our morality doesn't agree with the change.




Then don't have a gay marriage.

No one is trying to force you to have a gay marriage.

Lots of things about your lifestyle probably clash with others views on morality, but you don't see them trying to legislate against you.

All the freedoms you have now will still exist, you will not lose an ounce of your rights if the marriage laws were extended to include gays.


----------



## Tink (10 July 2015)

What a load of garbage, we have seen what is happening in the countries that have taken on same sex marriage.

As I said, the activists are no different to what you complain about with ISIS, crush people that don't agree.

We lose our freedom of speech.

Vandalism and moral decay.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> i think it would be a step In the right direction, and would hopefully bring equal rights faster, however a plebiscite only reflects the majority position.





According to the Gay Marriage lobby, majority opinion is heavily in favour of Gay Marriage. However, as they say in politics "there is only one poll that counts", and given what happened in Ireland the GM lobby should be clamouring for a plebiscite, however when the plebiscite option is raised the GM lobby seems to go quiet.

Perhaps they would rather get results by hassling a few politicians instead of letting the public have a say.


----------



## Value Collector (10 July 2015)

Tink said:


> What a load of garbage, we have seen what is happening in the countries that have taken on same sex marriage.
> 
> As I said, the activists are no different to what you complain about with ISIS, crush people that don't agree.
> 
> ...




What's happening in countries that take on same sex marriage? 

Who's heads are being cut off in the name of gay marriage? Who is being crushed?

How are you losing your free speech?

How is allowing gay marriage "moral decay"?


----------



## McLovin (10 July 2015)

Logique said:


> When the ACT legalised same sex marriage in 2013, it went to the High Court, who ruled against it as invalid under the constitution.
> 
> This was because of the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act.  Hence, a change to the Marriage Act is a change to the constitution.




That is incorrect. Section 51 of the Constitution enumerates what areas the Commonwealth may legislate for, this includes marriage (xxi)*. Where a state or territory enacts its own legislation in that same area s109 of the Constitution provides that the Commonwealth's legislation prevails and the state legislation is invalid. The Constitution does not in any which way define marriage, it gives that responsibility to the Commonwealth Parliament and the Parliament effects that definition through the Marriage Act.

*It would be interesting, given the heavy influence of the US Constitution on Australia's, to know why marriage was included as a Commonwealth power.


----------



## Value Collector (10 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> According to the Gay Marriage lobby, majority opinion is heavily in favour of Gay Marriage. However, as they say in politics "there is only one poll that counts", and given what happened in Ireland the GM lobby should be clamouring for a plebiscite, however when the plebiscite option is raised the GM lobby seems to go quiet.
> 
> Perhaps they would rather get results by hassling a few politicians instead of letting the public have a say.




Yes I believe it would win at plebiscite, I am just pointing out that it doesn't really matter what the plebiscite out come is. The majority does not have the right to discriminate based on race or sexuality, regardless.


----------



## McLovin (10 July 2015)

Tink said:


> As I said, the activists are no different to what you complain about with ISIS, crush people that don't agree.




Yes, gay guys are scary!


----------



## sydboy007 (10 July 2015)

Tink said:


> What a load of garbage, we have seen what is happening in the countries that have taken on same sex marriage.
> 
> As I said, the activists are no different to what you complain about with ISIS, crush people that don't agree.
> 
> ...




So Norway / denmark / Sweeden / Iceland / Grenland

What is actually happening in these countries that you attribute to same sex marriage?

I see more moral decay in the loudly righteous than most other groups, but that's their right to say one thing and do another.

The Creflo Dollars of this world should hang their heads in shame.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> According to the Gay Marriage lobby, majority opinion is heavily in favour of Gay Marriage. However, as they say in politics "there is only one poll that counts", and given what happened in Ireland the GM lobby should be clamouring for a plebiscite, however when the plebiscite option is raised the GM lobby seems to go quiet.
> 
> Perhaps they would rather get results by hassling a few politicians instead of letting the public have a say.




It's prob the best way forward, though as VC said a plebiscite is more about what people are thinking rather than the validity of what they're voting on.

I doubt many here would agree that a plebiscite held in the south against integration would have been a valid way forward ie to keep segregation.

Havign said that, it would be good to show reasonably accurately what the general population's view on the issue is.

If there's a strong view one way or the other it will help to move things along, or not.


----------



## Logique (10 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Being gay i can tell you I still face the odd bit of discrimination.  It's certainly better than my uni days, but you still get the odd redneck or religious bigot that wishes to discriminate or shout abuse....[/I]



I do genuinely regret that Syd.   I'd gladly see that sort of idiot get a taste of their own medicine!  

Also there's a story in the SMH today about a transgender female being beaten up outside a pub in, of all places, Newtown in inner city Sydney. Really quite disgraceful by these offenders.

It's just that, and perhaps I'm overreacting, but I don't want to end up in this woman's sights.


----------



## bellenuit (10 July 2015)

*Bill Nye, 'Does Homosexuality Make Evolutionary Sense?' *

http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-homosexuality-and-evolution


----------



## galumay (10 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Of course it is. You think the gay fashion, the gay lisp, the arm gesticulations are congenital? If they are it just proves how gays aren't normal, doesn't it.  It's just like the push for marriage, it's just another fad to accommodate the socialists/fabians who need to rage against the machine.
> 
> Challenging society to absorb homosexuals into hetronormative behaviours is pissing a fair few homosexuals off.
> 
> ...




Mate you need to take a bex and have a good lie down.

You are just making a fool of yourself now, you are reinforcing the point I made that you have no valid arguments for the continuation of marriage discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

Your posts are certainly full of homophobic comments, always raises my suspicions - the most homophobic people are quite often gay themselves and torn apart by self conflict between their sexuality and their religious teaching and repressive upbringing.

The whole socialist/fabian conspiracy stuff is good for a giggle, but again it reflects very poorly on your ability to articulate any sort of rational argument.

Seriously, you will be amazed to discover that once this discrimination is removed, the sky wont fall in, straight people will still be just as married, it actually will make no difference to anyone except the gay people that chose to partake of the civil act of marriage.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Your posts are certainly full of homophobic comments, always raises my suspicions - the most homophobic people are quite often gay themselves and torn apart by self conflict between their sexuality and their religious teaching and repressive upbringing.
> 
> The whole socialist/fabian conspiracy stuff is good for a giggle, but again it reflects very poorly on your ability to articulate any sort of rational argument.




As Bill Maher recently said "If something anti-gay is always coming out of your mouth, something very gay is probably going in."

Seems to be very true in the USA.  Wouldn't surprise me if the same here too.


----------



## overhang (10 July 2015)

Tink said:


> What a load of garbage, we have seen what is happening in the countries that have taken on same sex marriage.
> 
> As I said, the activists are no different to what you complain about with ISIS, crush people that don't agree.
> 
> ...




Tink it is actually those that are opposed to marriage equality that have views more aligned with ISIS who execute those of that persuasion.  If gays were able to marry tomorrow I'm really not sure how life would change for anyone other than those that wish to have a gay marriage.


----------



## luutzu (10 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> As Bill Maher recently said "If something anti-gay is always coming out of your mouth, something very gay is probably going in."
> 
> Seems to be very true in the USA.  Wouldn't surprise me if the same here too.




While some anti-gay people may be closet gay, don't think you can generalise it. 

To say a homophobic might be gay... that's like saying the Nazi are Jewish; White Supremacists are coloured.

Sometime people just don't like another other group of people. Could be ignorance, upbringing, bad experience...


----------



## galumay (10 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> While some anti-gay people may be closet gay, don't think you can generalise it.
> 
> To say a homophobic might be gay... that's like saying the Nazi are Jewish; White Supremacists are coloured.
> 
> Sometime people just don't like another other group of people. Could be ignorance, upbringing, bad experience...




While you are correct it shouldnt be generalised, its not uncommon that the most homophobic and bigoted turn out to be actually gay themselves. As I said its probably caused by the internal conflict of being in denial of their true sexuality combined with the religious and repressive upbringing. 

Just think of the number of high profile religious homophobes that were then discovered to be homosexual themselves.

Its not really equivelent to saying Nazis are Jewish or White Supremists coloured - they are poor analogies.


----------



## luutzu (10 July 2015)

galumay said:


> While you are correct it shouldnt be generalised, its not uncommon that the most homophobic and bigoted turn out to be actually gay themselves. As I said its probably caused by the internal conflict of being in denial of their true sexuality combined with the religious and repressive upbringing.
> 
> Just think of the number of high profile religious homophobes that were then discovered to be homosexual themselves.
> 
> Its not really equivelent to saying Nazis are Jewish or White Supremists coloured - they are poor analogies.




OK, poor analogies. But I don't think it's that common. It's common on popular media, in real life people are for or against something for far more creative reasons than to hide their "true" identity.

Could be simple misunderstanding, say equating homosexuals with pedophilia and promiscuity; or simply hating something to feel better about themselves - say, I'm a poor and lowly Aryan but at least I'm part of the super race.

But I don't think you and Sydboy were serious about the point though. So any who...


----------



## galumay (11 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> But I don't think you and Sydboy were serious about the point though. So any who...




Oh I was being serious. Pastor Tom Brooks is the most high profile recent case I can think of, Republican Bob Allen was another,  but its definitely a thing. As I said it seems its a product of their religious repression of their sexuality which leads to a form of self loathing and homophobia.


----------



## Tink (11 July 2015)

overhang said:


> Tink it is actually those that are opposed to marriage equality that have views more aligned with ISIS who execute those of that persuasion.  If gays were able to marry tomorrow I'm really not sure how life would change for anyone other than those that wish to have a gay marriage.




They are one in the same, overhang, just like the islamic extremists, the homosexuals are trying to implement their lifestyle on our children.
Their activists are the same and crush people that don't agree.
They go through the same means, using PC, to silence the majority.

As I have said -- _Political correctness is an insidious poison.
It prevents issues of vital importance from being discussed, and lets evil flourish unchecked._

I am standing up for Marriage -- Civil Unions are fine.


----------



## Tisme (11 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Mate you need to take a bex and have a good lie down.
> 
> You are just making a fool of yourself now, you are reinforcing the point I made that you have no valid arguments for the continuation of marriage discrimination on the basis of sexuality.
> 
> ...





How many more hackneyed clichÃ©s do you have in that box of yours. You forgot to segue in the deep south of USA and blacks.

Why do you gays have to resort to labels when you can't come up with a valid reason for wrecking an institution that probably seeded your own births.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> While some anti-gay people may be closet gay, don't think you can generalise it.
> 
> To say a homophobic might be gay... that's like saying the Nazi are Jewish; White Supremacists are coloured.
> 
> Sometime people just don't like another other group of people. Could be ignorance, upbringing, bad experience...




Just in case you don't know who Bill maher is, he's a comedian.

But what he says has a reasonable element of truth.  So many very anti-gay preachers / politicians / state officials have been caught out with "rent boys" or with profiles on various hookup sites and apps.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> How many more hackneyed clichÃ©s do you have in that box of yours. You forgot to segue in the deep south of USA and blacks.
> 
> Why do you gays have to resort to labels when you can't come up with a valid reason for wrecking an institution that probably seeded your own births.




Why do you have to post ridiculous lists from the USA in your lack or argument against same sex marriage?

You're the one who's making chicken little claims that Australian society will collapse if we allow same sex marriage.

i know the religious right blame gays for earthquakes and floods, but I think it's a streth to blame us for the collapse of society.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2015)

Tink said:


> They are one in the same, overhang, just like the islamic extremists, the homosexuals are trying to implement their lifestyle on our children.
> Their activists are the same and crush people that don't agree.
> They go through the same means, using PC, to silence the majority.
> 
> ...




Tink, can you provide just one example of where political correctness has blocked your ability to speak your mind in public?  I know it's been asked of you a few times in the past, but it would definitely help to understand your point of view with how PC has impacted you directly.


----------



## Tisme (11 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Tink, can you provide just one example of where political correctness has blocked your ability to speak your mind in public?  I know it's been asked of you a few times in the past, but it would definitely help to understand your point of view with how PC has impacted you directly.




I think we know what Tink is on about. The prospect of forced politeness is aggravating. There are already vilification laws in place where they weren't required for multiple generations before, but for the very few who couldn't care less about being pinged in exchange for hurling abuse.

We all know that the marriage act will be changed, merely by the onslaught of the opinion leaders. It's only right those who put great importance in marriage should be able to put in the good fight and go down screaming. Any negatives and failures on future generations will be the responsibility of future generations....probably thuggery Muslim the way we are giving them guest treatment.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think we know what Tink is on about. The prospect of forced politeness is aggravating. There are already vilification laws in place where they weren't required for multiple generations before, but for the very few who couldn't care less about being pinged in exchange for hurling abuse.
> 
> We all know that the marriage act will be changed, merely by the onslaught of the opinion leaders. It's only right those who put great importance in marriage should be able to put in the good fight and go down screaming. Any negatives and failures on future generations will be the responsibility of future generations....probably thuggery Muslim the way we are giving them guest treatment.




So you don't think minorities groups need protection from people being able to stand up on their soap box and say thing like gays should be bashed or killed?  Kill the Chinks?

When you're a member of the majority it's easy to be blase about the need for protections from the majority.

I don't believe anyone has said Tink or yourself don't have the right to air your opinions.  Just as myself and others have the right to challenge the validity of what you say.

To give you an example of what I'm talking about, in the early 90s i was dating an Aboriginal guy.  He's a member of an established Aboriginal dance company.  One night after going to a movie we decided to go out to a club.  There was a few of his friends with us.  We were refused entry as we weren't members.  The interesting thing is no one was asked in the preceding 30 mins if we they were members, nor was anyone after us asked as well.  Turns out the club didn't have any form of membership.

I'm not sure why we were discriminated against.  Was it racial?  Was it the fact a couple of the guys in the group were a bit on the flamboyant side?  If discrimination based on race / sex / sexuality is OK, then it saddens me that is the society we have allowed here.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So you don't think minorities groups need protection from people being able to stand up on their soap box and say thing like gays should be bashed or killed?  Kill the Chinks?
> 
> When you're a member of the majority it's easy to be blase about the need for protections from the majority.
> 
> I don't believe anyone has said Tink or yourself don't have the right to air your opinions.  Just as myself and others have the right to challenge the validity of what you say.




If SSM went to a plebiscite and was soundly defeated, should the SSM lobby accept the result and stop campaigning ?


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2015)

i'd normally say only in america, but some of the comments here makes me think there's be omeone saying the same thing

http://www.wect.com/story/29505071/...icy-after-lifeguard-flies-lgbt-flag-off-stand



> Carolina Beach is changing town policy after a lifeguard reportedly decided to fly a rainbow flag from one of the lifeguard stands, supporting the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community on the Fourth of July.
> 
> “Pretty much immediately someone complained,” Zach Hupp said. “Told one of the other lifeguards that they thought because I was flying that flag that I would only rescue gay people.”




_I'd love to know how you'd determine if a drowning person was gay.  maybe it's the affectatious way they're signalling for help, their lisp, or some other facet of the gay lifestyle_ /sarc


----------



## Tisme (11 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So you don't think minorities groups need protection from people being able to stand up on their soap box and say thing like gays should be bashed or killed?  Kill the Chinks?
> 
> When you're a member of the majority it's easy to be blase about the need for protections from the majority.
> 
> I don't believe anyone has said Tink or yourself don't have the right to air your opinions.  Just as myself and others have the right to challenge the validity of what you say.




I'm not baiting you and of course people should be protected, including being called witch in front of Canberra Parliament. I'm just saying very few of us want to be told how to behave when it's some low life who resorts to name calling and abuse to terrify people that should be taken to account.

There certainly are a few members here who do infact travel too far from the undercroft of their bridge, instead of giving three billy goats gruff. They do resort to name calling and insult when they can't crack the obstinate egg..... I think misinterpretation of bigot is one of their favourite taunts.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If SSM went to a plebiscite and was soundly defeated, should the SSM lobby accept the result and stop campaigning ?




I don't know.  It's a bit like asking Tink to speak fro the religious right.

I'm not out marching for it like I did in the 90s for the anti vilification laws.

I do understand why quite a few want the equality afford via same sex marriage.

How would a plebiscite coming out in strong support of gay marriage cause you to change your views?


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm not baiting you and of course people should be protected, including being called witch in front of Canberra Parliament. I'm just saying very few of us want to be told how to behave when it's some low life who resorts to name calling and abuse to terrify people that should be taken to account.
> 
> There certainly are a few members here who do infact travel too far from the undercroft of their bridge, instead of giving three billy goats gruff. They do resort to name calling and insult when they can't crack the obstinate egg..... I think misinterpretation of bigot is one of their favourite taunts.




yet you claim homosexuality is a life style and go on to add



> Of course it is. You think the gay fashion, the gay lisp, the arm gesticulations are congenital? If they are it just proves how gays aren't normal, doesn't it.  It's just like the push for marriage, it's just another fad to accommodate the socialists/fabians who need to rage against the machine.




So on the one hand you feel justified to make wildly inaccurate claims, but on the other feel minorities need to be protected.

Can you explain why anyone would choose to be gay?  I think it's a lot easier for the millennials, but when I was growing up news papers ran blatantly homophobic stories and in some states it was still against the law.  bashings were still fairly commong.  My house mate was beaten to a pulb going out for his birthday in the late 90s.  I came home to find a blood trail from the gate to front door to a pool of it in the kitchen.  Freaked me out as no one was home.  His face loked like raw meat for nearly 2 weeks.  The doctor at the emergency department feared his eye might be damaged, luckily it wasn't.  A bunch of late teens to early 20s thought it was Ok to beat him up and steal his wallet simply for being gay.  They didn't understand why the police arrested them.  He was their 3rd victim of the night.  

So why would anyone want to choose to be a pariah of society, where the majority still do their darned best to link you as a paedophile if you're gay.  Quite often that's the insinuation of why gays would want to have children.  I'm not ashamed of who I am, but I do know my life would have been much much easier to navigate when I was younger had I been heterosexual.  I definitely didn't choose to be gay, yet alone to live the lifestyle.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> How would a plebiscite coming out in strong support of gay marriage cause you to change your views?




Gay Marriage doesn't particularly bother me, but gay parenting does. One may lead to a greater acceptance of the other which I think will be bad for children.

 Whatever, I think there needs to be a plebiscite with full discussion beforehand and not just the bandwagon that is being ridden on by some politicians and the media.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Gay Marriage doesn't particularly bother me, but gay parenting does. One may lead to a greater acceptance of the other which I think will be bad for children.
> 
> Whatever, I think there needs to be a plebiscite with full discussion beforehand and not just the bandwagon that is being ridden on by some politicians and the media.




Do your fears have any validity in the countries that have had SSM for a decade or more?

How old do you believe a child from a SSM would have to be before you could begin to determine any harm from only having single sex parents?

Are you against homosexuals from being foster parents?  I believe most states allow this.  There's an acute shortage of people being willing to be foster parents?  

Would you believe it preferable that children are looked after institutionally than placed with a single gay or couple?

Foster care can be for a few days to extended periods.  An aunt and uncle have taken the 3 children of drug addled relatives and will likely have them till they all grow up considering how little the biological parents want to turn their lives around.  In a situation like this would you block a same sex couple helping the children?  This is the real world we live in.

It's funny how there's so much gnashing of teeth around SSM and gay parenting, but i don't hear much from those same people about how their agitating for the harm that is currently befalling children.  Possibly over 600,000 children living in poverty.  That's a disgrace for what is one of the richest countries in the world.  over 55,000 confirmed cases of child abuse each year around the country, yet more time and effort is spent on SSM than the more pressing issue of how to protect children from real and current harm.

What ifs are easy, taking concrete action requires a bit more effort.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Do your fears have any validity in the countries that have had SSM for a decade or more?




I don't know because I don't think people have really looked at the facts, and how children raised by gay parents feel once they grow up and have children of their own (by natural means).

Here is one example (originally posted by trainspotter)

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/



> How old do you believe a child from a SSM would have to be before you could begin to determine any harm from only having single sex parents?




Once they leave their parents house and can make up their own minds.



> Are you against homosexuals from being foster parents?  I believe most states allow this.  There's an acute shortage of people being willing to be foster parents?




A good heterosexual environment would be preferable.



> Would you believe it preferable that children are looked after institutionally than placed with a single gay or couple?




Depends on circumstances. I don't believe that heterosexual kids (as most will be) should be exposed to relationships that are not in their nature.



> It's funny how there's so much gnashing of teeth around SSM and gay parenting, but i don't hear much from those same people about how their agitating for the harm that is currently befalling children.  Possibly over 600,000 children living in poverty.  That's a disgrace for what is one of the richest countries in the world.  over 55,000 confirmed cases of child abuse each year around the country, yet more time and effort is spent on SSM than the more pressing issue of how to protect children from real and current harm.
> 
> What ifs are easy, taking concrete action requires a bit more effort.




This is a bit of a red herring. Child abuse and domestic violence is a real problem and should be tackled, but there is nothing to say that gay couples are any less subject to domestic disputes that straights.


----------



## galumay (11 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> How many more hackneyed clichÃ©s do you have in that box of yours. You forgot to segue in the deep south of USA and blacks.
> 
> Why do you gays have to resort to labels when you can't come up with a valid reason for wrecking an institution that probably seeded your own births.




More shrill hysteria, what "hackneyed cliches" have i used? 

What 'labels' are you rambling on about? I dont have any valid reasons for "wrecking an institution" because I am not proposing to wreck one. 

We have repeatedley asked you to give us one reasonable justification for continuing the discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, you have abjectly failed to do so. 

In case you dont know, sex is what "seeded" our births, not marriage. 

Once again, do you have ANY plausible reason to think the civil act of marriage would be damaged, let alone 'wrecked' by removing the discrimination as proposed?


----------



## galumay (11 July 2015)

Tink said:


> They are one in the same, overhang, just like the islamic extremists, the homosexuals are trying to implement their lifestyle on our children.
> Their activists are the same and crush people that don't agree.
> They go through the same means, using PC, to silence the majority.
> 
> ...




Oh dear, bring out the tin hats! Do you really believe this conspiracy theory stuff? Do you think there are rooms full of gays and islamic extremists plotting to turn us into gay moslems!!!

(BTW, neither are "lifestyles", one is a sexuality and the other is a religion.)

Wooo...look out for the gays trying to crush people who dont agree! - why is those supporting an end to the discrimination are the reasonable and calm ones then and the religious conservatives are the conspiracy theorist, extremists who appear to have no rational arguments to support their viewpoint?

I will tell you what is an insidious poison, religious righteousness, It prevents issues of vital importance from being discussed, and lets evil flourish unchecked. 

Finally marriage is a civil union, it is legislated for by the state and religious leaders can become qualified to carry out the act of the civil union of marriage. 

You too, dont have to marry another person of the same gender if you dont want to.


----------



## Value Collector (12 July 2015)

Tink said:


> the homosexuals are trying to implement their lifestyle on our children.




Your children (or future generations of your family), will be born with whatever sexuality they are born with, no one can change that. I just support their right express their sexuality and life style in an open way.

It's actually you that is trying to force a life style on your children, not the homosexuals. 

I want equal rights, you want unequal rights, I want to give your children more freedom, you seek to deny freedoms.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Your children (or future generations of your family), will be born with whatever sexuality they are born with, no one can change that. I just support their right express their sexuality and life style in an open way.
> 
> It's actually you that is trying to force a life style on your children, not the homosexuals.
> 
> I want equal rights, you want unequal rights, I want to give your children more freedom, you seek to deny freedoms.




Do you have children VC?


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Oh dear, bring out the tin hats! Do you really believe this conspiracy theory stuff? Do you think there are rooms full of gays and islamic extremists plotting to turn us into gay moslems!!!
> 
> (BTW, neither are "lifestyles", one is a sexuality and the other is a religion.)
> 
> ...




Go and read Lord of the Flies and get a clue as to what you are debating here


----------



## Tisme (12 July 2015)

galumay said:


> More shrill hysteria, what "hackneyed cliches" have i used?
> 
> What 'labels' are you rambling on about? I dont have any valid reasons for "wrecking an institution" because I am not proposing to wreck one.
> 
> ...





LOL, it's them and us now.

It's not sexuality, it's a lifestyle choice. Just like marriage is a choice in 1st world countries, unless you live in the deep south USA and allergic to shotguns

The only thing you got right is the sex at birth = female or male


----------



## galumay (12 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> LOL, it's them and us now.




Well you do appear to be in the significant minority, so yeah.



> It's not sexuality, it's a lifestyle choice. Just like marriage is a choice in 1st world countries, unless you live in the deep south USA and allergic to shotguns




Really you do not make any sense at all, please, if you want to disagree at the very least present some sort of rational and logical point of view. Of course its sexuality - why on earth do you think its called "homosexuality". No intelligent person would seriously suggest gay people 'choose' to be gay or that it is a lifestyle choice. 

Why you would then compare sexuality to marriage i have no idea. 



> The only thing you got right is the sex at birth = female or male




If you are going to quote me, get it right at least.


----------



## galumay (12 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Go and read Lord of the Flies and get a clue as to what you are debating here




You would be drawing a very long bow to conclude that Lord of the Flies describes the sort of "tin hat" conspiracy theories being thown round by the homophobes!


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2015)

galumay said:


> You would be drawing a very long bow to conclude that Lord of the Flies describes the sort of "tin hat" conspiracy theories being thown round by the homophobes!




If you read the book you would know that one group Biguns is a "church Choir" and they descend the most rapidly into chaos.

 "He begins to sob, as do the other boys. Moved and embarrassed, the naval officer turns his back so that the boys may regain their composure."

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/flies/section12.rhtml


----------



## Tisme (12 July 2015)

galumay said:


> ". No intelligent person would seriously suggest gay people 'choose' to be gay or that it is a lifestyle choice.
> 
> 
> 
> .




I'm guessing you have an app that scores intelligence.

Why are you ashamed to admit it's a choice. You aren't compelled to play with the pinky bits of people of your same sex, just as a hetrosexual isn't made to carry out the drive. Why even try to make out it's anything but an attitude driven by a desire...... which babies don't have at birth. 

Similarly why do I have to act on your insistence you be allowed to clear fell a custom (marriage) so that we can get a good look at the alternative scene (sham marriage fad).


----------



## sydboy007 (12 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing you have an app that scores intelligence.
> 
> Why are you ashamed to admit it's a choice. You aren't compelled to play with the pinky bits of people of your same sex, just as a hetrosexual isn't made to carry out the drive. Why even try to make out it's anything but an attitude driven by a desire...... which babies don't have at birth.
> 
> Similarly why do I have to act on your insistence you be allowed to clear fell a custom (marriage) so that we can get a good look at the alternative scene (sham marriage fad).




I sometimes wonder if you're trolling or if your are serious when you say this blatantly wrong stuff.

I can picture you standing against changing marriage from polygamy to monogamous all those years ago. Claiming the world will end if married women are granted the right to own property.  Gosh, why would you let a woman vote. She'll just confirm her husband's choice so there's really no need.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I sometimes wonder if you're trolling or if your are serious when you say this blatantly wrong stuff.
> 
> I can picture you standing against changing marriage from polygamy to monogamous all those years ago. Claiming the world will end if married women are granted the right to own property.  Gosh, why would you let a woman vote. She'll just confirm her husband's choice so there's really no need.




The moral decay of society eh what old chum?


----------



## luutzu (12 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing you have an app that scores intelligence.
> 
> Why are you ashamed to admit it's a choice. You aren't compelled to play with the pinky bits of people of your same sex, just as a hetrosexual isn't made to carry out the drive. Why even try to make out it's anything but an attitude driven by a desire...... which babies don't have at birth.
> 
> Similarly why do I have to act on your insistence you be allowed to clear fell a custom (marriage) so that we can get a good look at the alternative scene (sham marriage fad).




Why would you think homosexuality is a choice?

I mean, why would anyone "choose" to feel one way or another when they can just feel it? Say a male can find a gal in a bikini and like what he sees, or see another dude in a Bonds and like what he see... why does he have to choose to like one over the other? He just know who turns him on and that's that to him.

If there's a choice, the way societal norms, familial pressures and peers bigotry have it, people would choose "not" to be homosexual, not the other way around.

That and I think all scientists on the subject does not believe it to be a choice, or a mental illness either.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> The moral decay of society eh what old chum?




The silly concept of marriage as a tradition of values that must be protected like a chaiste daughter.

Marriage is a social construct, and like the society doing the constructing, has changed dramatically over the centuries. 

So why was it ok for the social construct of marriage to have changed so much in the past, but now it's to remain static in perpetuity.

When does kanut stop flogging a dead tide :-D


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Why would you think homosexuality is a choice?
> 
> I mean, why would anyone "choose" to feel one way or another when they can just feel it? Say a male can find a gal in a bikini and like what he sees, or see another dude in a Bonds and like what he see... why does he have to choose to like one over the other? He just know who turns him on and that's that to him.
> 
> ...




luutzu I am interested in this thesis of non societal normal boundary collapse. Where does it end ? All for recognition of prejudice in society and to whose standard do we apply? The current way of thinking is to allow this "marriage" to cohabitant with the straight community and we should tolerate it whether we want to or not. 

Maybe our next discussion would be do we allow Downs syndrome people to marry and bear the right to child?

In no way am I comparing the same rights to either party ,, I am more interested are you an advocate of free speech because this is a minority vote or is it ideals you truly believe in? Or both?


----------



## luutzu (12 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> The silly concept of marriage as a tradition of values that must be protected like a chaiste daughter.
> 
> Marriage is a social construct, and like the society doing the constructing, has changed dramatically over the centuries.
> 
> ...




because we all know the younger generations will always ruin everything. Centuries after centuries, it's always the young that ruin stuff.

Some things are worth ruining though.


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> The silly concept of marriage as a tradition of values that must be protected like a chaiste daughter.
> 
> Marriage is a social construct, and like the society doing the constructing, has changed dramatically over the centuries.
> 
> ...




Then let it be exactly what you called it ... a chaiste daughter. If the LGBT lickalotofpussy wants the same rights then give it to them I say. What I fail to understand as to why you would want to call it "marriage"? As a gay person I would want my own rainblow unicorn day of self service (used to be called a wedding) day to call my special own and have the photos to prove it when it goes to court.

Andsofar to fit in with the rest of society I would demand it be called something else other than a marriage because this term is archaic and derogatory to the keepers of the realm. I would prefer to be recognised under "law marriage" subsection 2.12a appendix C to stipulate that irrespective of sex the property remains in a tenants in common split and you can nominate the percentage split in a pre nup. MAN AND WOMAN has the same rights and obligations as Xx & Yy definitions apply. (This would cover transgender and ANON's as well)

Now if you can find a celebrant or a gay priest (not many of them around now days is there?) to "marriage" you in a ceremony then who cares? As long as legally you are entitled to, under the law, that you have the same rights and OBLIGATIONS as a MAN AND WOMAN.

Joint Tenants = ERGO you can't nominate the amount to contribute to your partner. So when you say it is 50/50 as in a "marriage" and no probate then it is agreed to divide and conquer. Same rules apply if any children are involved. Love is blind.

Tenants in Common = COGNITIVE requires you to divvy up the dung heap and nominate a percentage split as in 73% / 24% and 3% to the dog/cat/hamster/whatever because we aint having kids ever. Very clear in it's intent and design don't you think?


----------



## luutzu (13 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> luutzu I am interested in this thesis of non societal normal boundary collapse. Where does it end ? All for recognition of prejudice in society and to whose standard do we apply? The current way of thinking is to allow this "marriage" to cohabitant with the straight community and we should tolerate it whether we want to or not.
> 
> Maybe our next discussion would be do we allow Downs syndrome people to marry and bear the right to child?
> 
> In no way am I comparing the same rights to either party ,, I am more interested are you an advocate of free speech because this is a minority vote or is it ideals you truly believe in? Or both?




Down syndrome people do not have the right to marry or bear children? I didn't know that. I would understand if the Down Syndrome person is to be married to a non-Down person - you can argue abuse or what not. Anyway, I don't know what Down Syndrome really is so won't be debating that.


---
Are you asking if I'm just for the underdog and no matter the issue I'd go for the "victim", the minority?
I'd like to think that I go for what is right and fair, what is reasonable. But ey, I also think I look like Pierce Brosnan James Bond too - so yea, I'm fair and balance.

Free speech is all good. No But about it. And as Galymay have summed up, if you do not like gay marriage, do not like gay getting married and have it recognised, don't marry gay people or turn gay.

You can speak your disapproval, you can quote the Bible or some aunt or uncle or parents teaching you right and wrong way back when... You have that right. Just don't impose that right against other people's right.

So minority or majority plays no part here. It's a matter of what is fair and reasonable - about justice (not of the legal kind).


As others here have said... How does a gay couple getting married harm you or harm heterosexual people and marriage? It doesn't.

Does society lose anything by gay being married? They're already living together, already being allowed to legally married elsewhere in the world, already can adopt children and raise families... Going a bit further and formalise it will somehow cause moral decay or something?

But to ban or treat homosexual as second class citizens... to deny fellow citizens and human beings of the equal rights we all enjoy... that does a heck of a lot of harm. Harm you can quantify by counting the verbal and physical and mental abuses they suffer; harm by the inequality they are facing before the law.. .and harm to our sense of social justice and equality for all and all that fluff.


As Han Fei Tzu, the ancient Chinese philosopher, once wrote: to change or not to change does not matter; what matter is whether change is necessary, whether change is crucial to the issue at hand.

Is change to the current marriage institution necessary? 

Well it already discriminate a percentage of our population, and will continue to discriminate future generations if kept as is. So yea, if you want a more equal society, want progress in civil rights... change is necessary.

You don't have to agree with it, don't have to like it, don't have to convert and be gay - So it's not the tyranny of the vocal minority against the oppressed majority - which if you look at opinion polls aren't the view of the majority anyway...

So yea, do what's right I'd say. If not for yourself, then for your children or grandchildren... because as VC and others have said, one of them might be gay and you can't control that. But you can control whether society would treat them the same or not.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 July 2015)

Maybe if Australian society wants to limit homosexuals rights as citizens, should we get like a discount on our ATO bills?

Bit like you can have 95% of the rights of citizenship so only need to pay the same ratio in tax.

Hmmm.  Depending on the tax discount, I could be temped to remain slightly excluded from society.


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

As per my above post it would also sort out the children dilemma. You signed up for 74% parental responsibility and now you are wearing it.


----------



## Tink (13 July 2015)

The bizarre family tree at the heart of an extraordinary court battle over one little girl - involving two lesbian mothers, a gay sperm donor and a transsexual lover now living with a man

- Girl is the biological child of lesbian woman and gay sperm donor
- They see her occasionally and she lives with mother's lesbian ex
- The step-mother's former partner, a transsexual, wants contact with girl
- But judge rules said that another effective parent would risk harm 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-says-judge-case-involving-four-parents.html


----------



## luutzu (13 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Maybe if Australian society wants to limit homosexuals rights as citizens, should we get like a discount on our ATO bills?
> 
> Bit like you can have 95% of the rights of citizenship so only need to pay the same ratio in tax.
> 
> Hmmm.  Depending on the tax discount, I could be temped to remain slightly excluded from society.




Afraid not buddy.

The only way a minority can get away with not paying their full share of tax is to be the 1% and own a couple corporations. For everybody else... work harder, pay more tax and complain about migrants and homosexuals ruining their life or something.


----------



## luutzu (13 July 2015)

Tink said:


> The bizarre family tree at the heart of an extraordinary court battle over one little girl - involving two lesbian mothers, a gay sperm donor and a transsexual lover now living with a man
> 
> - Girl is the biological child of lesbian woman and gay sperm donor
> - They see her occasionally and she lives with mother's lesbian ex
> ...




Wow, you haven't watch Jerry Springer or know too many heterosexual families do you?


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Do you have children VC?




Not yet, but what's that got to do with anything?

I do have nieces and nephews who I am close to.


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> As others here have said... How does a gay couple getting married harm you or harm heterosexual people and marriage? It doesn't.




Legally it will have a tremendous impact


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Why are you ashamed to admit it's a choice.




If you feel like being homosexual or heterosexual is something you have had to choose, maybe you are bi sexual.

Do you honestly feel that you had to make a choice about your sexuality? No judgement from me if you do.


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Not yet, bit what's that got to do with anything?
> 
> I do have nieces and nephews who I am close to.




It has got to do with everything VC ... EVERYTHING 

Children matter ... period. Your own flesh and blood? Watched your first born son come out of your partners vagina and cut the umbilical cord? And you say this has nothing to do with "anything" ?? For a while there I thought you had a valid point. Now it is just selfish. :frown:


----------



## luutzu (13 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Legally it will have a tremendous impact




Of course it impacts. For good or bad? to whom?

How does any one, straight or gay, getting married impact you and your family and marriage?

Unless you're invited, have to buy present, sit next to the loud speakers and eat food your allergic to... I just don't see how it will negatively impact you or anyone else personally.

What if one of your relation turns out to be gay? Say your favourite nephew or grandkid. Banning and discriminating against gay will not turn them straight.


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Of course it impacts. For good or bad? to whom?
> 
> How does any one, straight or gay, getting married impact you and your family and marriage?
> 
> ...




Have you not been reading my posts? I am agreeing with you. Marriage it up sister girl for all I care.

LEGALLY it effects me because if you read my posts you would understand what I have been saying.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> It has got to do with everything VC ... EVERYTHING
> 
> Children matter ... period. Your own flesh and blood? Watched your first born son come out of your partners vagina and cut the umbilical cord? And you say this has nothing to do with "anything" ?? For a while there I thought you had a valid point. Now it is just selfish. :frown:




No I didn't say "this has nothing to do with anything", I asked "what's that got to do with anything".

Of course children matter, I don't think watching a child of mine be born would change my opinion on what rights that child should have, if anything it would cement the idea in my head that I want my child to grow up with equal rights.

How is me wanting children who happen to be born gay, to have equal rights selfish?

I am a straight male defending the rights of the gay minority, where is the selfishness here?


----------



## Tisme (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> If you feel like being homosexual or heterosexual is something you have had to choose, maybe you are bi sexual.
> 
> Do you honestly feel that you had to make a choice about your sexuality? No judgement from me if you do.





You are splitting hairs. I am simply pointing out that acting out your desires is your choice, no matter that you are a latent homosexual. I can understand you might be curious to find out why you get aroused in the footy change rooms, but soliticing me as a possible liason ain't going to fly sunshine........ I'm ungroomable....try one of the other fellas here who is proud and loud. Don't be angry at me for your conflicts of conscience.


No judgement from me, some of my most casual friend's of a friend are gay. 

Seriously I really couldn't give a rats if you are gay, that's your choice and I do have friends who ride that trick pony. Because someone is my friend doesn't mean I have to like everyone who exhibits his peculiar trait and I wouldn't expect all those with that trait to form an army and attack the rest of society for the unfairness and "what about me?".


----------



## Tisme (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> my opinion on what rights that child should have, if anything it would cement the idea in my head that I want my child to grow up with equal rights.




Perhaps you could use your formidable rainbow skills on bettering child welfare rather than flogging an already mortally wounded horse.


----------



## Tisme (13 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> It has got to do with everything VC ... EVERYTHING
> 
> Children matter ... period. Your own flesh and blood? Watched your first born son come out of your partners vagina and cut the umbilical cord? And you say this has nothing to do with "anything" ?? For a while there I thought you had a valid point. Now it is just selfish. :frown:





It's not the final act, but the whole journey, from the initial lust, the discovery, the desire, the intimate learning of gender needs, the intimate learning of gender differences, the intimate empathy of the partner's pregnancy, the  intimacy of the pain and the birth, the intimate bond of mother and child and the imitate bond of father and mother, the total trust of the child's welfare, ....etc

Children are a treasure, not a commodity and should not be a punctuation in a stalled, staid, lazy or protest relationship.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Children are a treasure, not a commodity and should not be a punctuation in a stalled, staid, lazy or protest relationship.




+1.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I am simply pointing out that acting out your desires is your choice, no matter that you are a latent homosexual.
> 
> No judgement from me, some of my most casual friend's of a friend are gay.
> 
> .




If you were gay, why would you not want to act on it.

I know in the past there has been a taboo, but legalising gay  marriage is part of getting past that taboo, There is nothing immoral about being gay or "acting" on your feelings. 



Tisme said:


> Perhaps you could use your formidable rainbow skills on bettering child welfare rather than flogging an already mortally wounded horse.




This thread is about gay marriage, if you want to talk about child welfare, start another thread.

But on child welfare, a certain percentage of children will be gay, and I believe if they grow up in a society that respects that aspect of them, and the know they will have equal rights, they will grow up with a higher self worth and have an easier time growing up.



Tisme said:


> It's not the final act, but the whole journey, from the initial lust, the discovery, the desire, the intimate learning of gender needs, the intimate learning of gender differences, the intimate empathy of the partner's pregnancy, the  intimacy of the pain and the birth, the intimate bond of mother and child and the imitate bond of father and mother, the total trust of the child's welfare, ....etc




what does any of that have to do with my arrguements for gay marriage.


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

Try Ethiopia if you want gay discrimination. 15 years in gaol. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...vernment-cancels-anti-gay-rally-homosexuality



> What I fail to understand as to why you would want to call it "marriage"? As a gay person I would want my own rainblow unicorn day of self service (used to be called a wedding) day to call my special own and have the photos to prove it when it goes to court.
> 
> Andsofar to fit in with the rest of society I would demand it be called something else other than a marriage because this term is archaic and derogatory to the keepers of the realm. I would prefer to be recognised under "law marriage" subsection 2.12a appendix C to stipulate that irrespective of sex the property remains in a tenants in common split and you can nominate the percentage split in a pre nup. MAN AND WOMAN has the same rights and obligations as Xx & Yy definitions apply. (This would cover transgender and ANON's as well)
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> what does any of that have to do with my arrguements for gay marriage.




This is one of those gulfs that you gays do not understand and points to one reason why  you should not be buggerising around with an archaic institution that was and is an invention of hetrosexual coupling. If you can't see linkage you should refrain from arguing the toss on a logical level..... and  you wonder why I treat the movement with the flippancy it deserves


----------



## sydboy007 (13 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> As per my above post it would also sort out the children dilemma. You signed up for 74% parental responsibility and now you are wearing it.




How's that working out for heterosexuals?


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> This is one of those gulfs that you gays do not understand and points to one reason why  you should not be buggerising around with an archaic institution that was and is an invention of hetrosexual coupling. If you can't see linkage you should refrain from arguing the toss on a logical level..... and  you wonder why I treat the movement with the flippancy it deserves




My sexuality has nothing to do with this debate, however in the interests of keeping things factual, please do not write "you gays", when quoting me, I have already told you I am heterosexual. 

voting was the invention of allowing men to express their opinion, it doesn't mean it was wrong to extend this right to females in later years, and there is nothing wrong with extending the marriage rights to gays.

If there was something wrong with it you people would have better arguments, instead of all the logical fallacies and red herrings.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Try Ethiopia if you want gay discrimination. 15 years in gaol.




It wasn't that long ago it was an offence in Australia.

until 1899 it was punishable with death, in 1899 it was reduced to life in prison and the law wasn't repealed in Nsw until 1984.

Until 1992 a gay man or women couldn't serve in the military.

I think things have changed for the better, allowing gay marriages is just a natural part of the progression.


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> How's that working out for heterosexuals?




Working out well in fact. There is a legal system in place and I believe it can be modified for Tenants in common (Gay couple NOT wanting kids) as it already has an existing constraint in there for Joint tenants (married couple wanting kids) and vice versa. Pretty simple really.


----------



## Tisme (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have already told you I am heterosexual.
> 
> .




Well we just have to take your word for that, but given your inability to acquiesce on some sound views put forward by others, I could be forgiven in thinking you are still in the closet. It was you who opened the troll door with the intent to inflame in the face of my belligerence (you can call it bigotry if you like).

The strange thing for me is that it always seems to be me in a crowd, in a pub, in any gathering that puts down the loud mouths who give the obviously gay a hard time. How about you VC, you ever put yourself in real personal danger to defend a gay? That's just common decency with no other motive or agenda.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Well we just have to take your word for that, .




Not really, I don't really care what you think, but if I were I have no reason to hide it, and whether I was or wasn't has no affect on the points I make here.



> but given your inability to acquiesce on some sound views put forward by others



,

Such as?

All I have seen are red herrings about children, and slippery slope logical fallacies. 





> It was you who opened the troll door with the intent to inflame in the face of my belligerence .




How so?



> . How about you VC, you ever put yourself in real personal danger to defend a gay?




If you knew me you would know I am not the type of guy that sits back and lets the bullies walk over people. 

I have come to many peoples defence, I can't recall a situation of a gay person specifically, But I would never shy from it.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> All I have seen are red herrings about children, and slippery slope logical fallacies.




So children are now red herrings ? Their upbringing with their natural parents is of no concern, and they will be used as pawns in a game of 'social acceptance' when all they need is what any other child needs, a mother and father who love them because they are their own.


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So children are now red herrings ? Their upbringing with their natural parents is of no concern, and they will be used as pawns in a game of 'social acceptance' when all they need is what any other child needs, a mother and father who love them because they are their own.




Not sure but I am pretty confident these are two separate issues but both go intertwined.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 July 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Not sure but I am pretty confident these are two separate issues but both go intertwined.




Yes, people can get married without having children, but if Gay Marriage leads to greater acceptance of Gay Parenting, then we have taken a step back imo.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So children are now red herrings ? .




In a debate about whether consenting same sex couples should be allowed to marry, yes, bringing up children is a red herring.

Whether gay's should be allowed adopt or have children is another topic, for another debate.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> In a debate about whether consenting same sex couples should be allowed to marry, yes, bringing up children is a red herring.
> 
> Whether gay's should be allowed adopt or have children is another topic, for another debate.




You may like to separate the two issues so that you can sweep gay parenting under the carpet and ambush the debate later on eg "gay people can now get married so why can't they have children ?"

imo the two issues are linked and should be resolved at the same time.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You may like to separate the two issues so that you can sweep gay parenting under the carpet and ambush the debate later on eg "gay people can now get married so why can't they have children ?"
> 
> imo the two issues are linked and should be resolved at the same time.




It is a separate topic, gay parenting is already legal. No need to use gay marriage to shoe horn it into legislation. Gay's can already parent legally.

By bringing up gay parenting, you are not only producing a red herring, but also commuting the slippery slope fallacy, eg if we allow this, then this other thing will happen

This thread and the wider debate, is on the topic of allowing gays to marry, that's it.

If you want to ban gay parenting try and do it, but even if gay parenting was banned, that would not be enough reason to ban gay marriage.

You need separate arguments, to ban each thing, because they are separate things.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It is a separate topic, gay parenting is already legal.




There are valid reasons why it shouldn't be or should not be assisted.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> but if Gay Marriage leads to greater acceptance of Gay Parenting, then we have taken a step back imo.




That's your hypothesis, you now need to go out and prove that in the real world.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There are valid reasons why it shouldn't be or should not be assisted.




I don't get what your saying in that sentence.

If you are saying there are valid reasons to ban gay marriage, let's hear them. but please don't bring up children again.

I would like to once and for all establish that as a separate topic.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't get what your saying in that sentence.
> 
> If you are saying there are valid reasons to ban gay marriage, let's hear them. but please don't bring up children again.




I'm saying there are valid reasons to ban or not encourage gay parenting. 

Please do not instruct me not to discuss any other points that I believe are salient to the discussion. I don't have to take orders from you.



> I would like to once and for all establish that as a separate topic.




I know you would, but no one appointed you to set the rules of the debate. I'm saying gay marriage and gay parenting are linked and it's valid to discuss them at the same time.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm saying gay marriage and gay parenting are linked and it's valid to discuss them at the same time.




No it's not, because gay parenting is already legal, continuing the gay marriage ban, does not stop gay parenting.

And by not allowing gay marriage, because of concerns about gay parenting you are stopping people getting married that don't even want kids, it's completely backward.

People that want to gay parent, will have the right to parent, you won't be stopping that at all, but people that want to marry can't get married.


----------



## Value Collector (13 July 2015)

Rum pole, do you understand that there are gay people out there that want to get married, but don't want to have children?

If you do understand that, then what is your reasoning behind a continued ban on these people being legally married.

------


----------



## luutzu (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Rum pole, do you understand that there are gay people out there that want to get married, but don't want to have children?
> 
> If you do understand that, then what is your reasoning behind a continued ban on these people being legally married.
> 
> ------




I don't understand the gay parenting or straight parenting stuff. Is there a difference really?

Beside the kids being better dressed and better groomed, haha... jk.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Rum pole, do you understand that there are gay people out there that want to get married, but don't want to have children?
> 
> If you do understand that, then what is your reasoning behind a continued ban on these people being legally married.
> 
> ------




A line in the sand.

If a plebiscite was held a year ago I may have voted yes, but until some attempt is made to consider the rights of children to be raised in their natural environment and not be deprived of their heritage and biological parents then a stand must be made against the total dismantling of the natural family structure by a small minority. 

Giving some people everything they want is not necessarily good for society in general.

I would support Gay Marriage only if at the same time laws were introduced to deny gay couples access to adoption, ivf and surrogacy, the last two should be banned altogether imo.


----------



## galumay (13 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I would support Gay Marriage only if at the same time laws were introduced to deny gay couples access to adoption, ivf and surrogacy, the last two should be banned altogether imo.




Why to you continue to connect two utterly unconnected issues? It seems extrordinary to me that you would advocate continued discrimination on one issue, unless new discrimination was introduced on an entirely different issue.

How is that justifiable?

Gay people have always been able to have children, and realistically no change to the law could possibly prevent them from having children. It would likewise be impossible to prevent gay couples using surrogacy.

Perhaps you need to start another thread to discuss what appears to be an important issue to you, maybe its much broader than whether gay couples should be able to adopt or access IVF, there are plenty of straight parent and single parent families where the kids are in an unsuitable family environment. It really isnt an issue for discussion about marriage though, given that whether or not people are married has nothing to do with having kids.


----------



## Tisme (13 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> access to adoption, ivf and surrogacy, the last two should be banned altogether imo.




Yep a blight on society that has resulted in misery all round, the later creating a new slavery in third world countries as the female poor become human cows.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yep a blight on society that has resulted in misery all round, the later creating a new slavery in third world countries as the female poor become human cows.




And the male poor became human bulls


----------



## galumay (13 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> This is one of those gulfs that you gays do not understand and points to one reason why  you should not be buggerising around with an archaic institution that was and is an invention of hetrosexual coupling.




Its an archaic activity that has changed many times over the years, originally it was more to do with property rights and their transference to the male than any other factor, early forms of marriage allowed polygamy on a massive scale , more recently it changed from being a religious activity to being a civil matter, albeit where certain religious leaders were able to be registered celebrants. In more modern times as a civil activity it became more about defining what services could be accessed and certain legal responsibilities. Its a dynamic thing and will likely to change in the future as it has in the past.

It certainly wasnt an "invention of hetrosexual coupling" - that is just another of your emotional and non-sensical statements. When, how and why marriage became part of human activity is long since lost in the mists of time, but we can be reasonably sure it was a socia-economic construct related to property rights.



> If you can't see linkage you should refrain from arguing the toss on a logical level..... and  you wonder why I treat the movement with the flippancy it deserves




If you are totally incapable of arguning on a logical level, as seems apparent, you shouldnt be suprised that we continue to dismiss your red herrings, strawman and ad hominem rants!


----------



## Tisme (13 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Its an archaic activity that has changed many times over the years, originally it was more to do with property rights and their transference to the male than any other factor, early forms of marriage allowed polygamy on a massive scale , more recently it changed from being a religious activity to being a civil matter, albeit where certain religious leaders were able to be registered celebrants. In more modern times as a civil activity it became more about defining what services could be accessed and certain legal responsibilities. Its a dynamic thing and will likely to change in the future as it has in the past.
> 
> It certainly wasnt an "invention of hetrosexual coupling" - that is just another of your emotional and non-sensical statements. When, how and why marriage became part of human activity is long since lost in the mists of time, but we can be reasonably sure it was a socia-economic construct related to property rights.
> 
> ...





I've never attacked a person's character here. Can you please point to an example and explain. 'Tis you who gets all bent out of shape and sees fit to call be names in an effort to inflame and denigrate. My arguments are not fallacious ad hominem, but factual ad verecundiam ... you can't handle the truth.... I know this because I said so.


I don't know where you get your ideas about marriage origins, but they sound like made up twaffle that the rainbow movement invents to predicate other appellations of fallacy. Until you can prove your fiction as fact, let's just stick to what we know and that is that marriage is and has been for millenia an hetrosexual custom.

Contrary to your fantasy, my logic powers are well honed on a daily basis  Which is why no matter how you stack the argument, commutativity always wins out in my favour.


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

I am lost for words unlike Tisme who has swallowed a dictionary and a thesaurus in one gulp so I will let pretty pictures do the talking for me ...


----------



## sydboy007 (13 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I've never attacked a person's character here. Can you please point to an example and explain. 'Tis you who gets all bent out of shape and sees fit to call be names in an effort to inflame and denigrate. My arguments are not fallacious ad hominem, but factual ad verecundiam ... you can't handle the truth.... I know this because I said so.
> 
> 
> I don't know where you get your ideas about marriage origins, but they sound like made up twaffle that the rainbow movement invents to predicate other appellations of fallacy. Until you can prove your fiction as fact, let's just stick to what we know and that is that marriage is and has been for millenia an hetrosexual custom.
> ...




So you disregard the historical documents that show some of the earliest recorded "marriages" were for same sex couples?

You are claiming that the current version of marriage is what the Kings of Israel had as recorded in the myth filled bible?  But I thought God showed his divine glory by providing 300 wives and 700 sex slave concubines for Solomon.

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



> Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites’ departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).






> Roman social customs are relatively well known, and same-sex unions existed as high in society as among Roman emperors. Roman statesman Cicero also documented legal rights of an individual within a same-sex marriage. Female same-sex unions seemed to have been less common, but only because women enjoyed less freedom in their economic and social endeavors (Eskridge).




even the yale law school recognises the reality

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=fss_papers



> A social constructionist history emphasizes the ways in which marriage is "constructed" by society over time, with "exclusions" from the institution being viewed as reflecting larger social power relations.  Thus, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage in America is an expression of our society's persecution of sexual orientation minorities-lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.






> The early Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies that are considered important antecedents for Western culture apparently not only tolerated same-sex relationships, but also recognized such relationships in their culture, literature, and mythology. Evidence of same-sex marriage is at best indirect in these ancient societies, however. One finds slightly stronger and more direct evidence of same-sex marriages in Greek and early Roman culture, in imperial Rome, and in Western Europe for much of the Christian Middle Ages.


----------



## galumay (13 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Contrary to your fantasy, my logic powers are well honed on a daily basis  Which is why no matter how you stack the argument, commutativity always wins out in my favour.




Just read back through all your own posts on this thread, there is not a single argument based on logic. We have refuted wild statements and claims, one after another.

Sydboy007 has eloquently and succinctly dismissed your latest ones.

I think i will leave you to your homophobia and campaign for continued discrimination, you have repeatedley shown yourself incapable of presenting any valid reasons for the continuation of the discrimination. Soon enough it will be ended anyway. Your life will continue unchanged, you wont have to marry another man and if you are married you will remain married - the state will still recognise your civil union. 

In the end I feel sorry for you, so much anger, fear and hatred over something so inconsequential to you.


----------



## luutzu (13 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Just read back through all your own posts on this thread, there is not a single argument based on logic. We have refuted wild statements and claims, one after another.
> 
> Sydboy007 has eloquently and succinctly dismissed your latest ones.
> 
> ...




You guys ever wonder if Tisme is pulling your legs?


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> You guys ever wonder if Tisme is pulling your legs?




BINGO ... :holysheep:


----------



## sydboy007 (13 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> You guys ever wonder if Tisme is pulling your legs?




I've often thought he was trolling, but when you can only judge by text it's hard to know.  The odd emoji can help.

[video=youtube_share;ajdyGGt7wOE]http://youtu.be/ajdyGGt7wOE[/video]


----------



## luutzu (13 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I've often thought he was trolling, but when you can only judge by text it's hard to know.  The odd emoji can help.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;ajdyGGt7wOE]http://youtu.be/ajdyGGt7wOE[/video]




He might not be trolling, could be just bored.

But then there are people who you think must be kidding about what they're saying but turn out to actually be deadly serious about it.

Australia is a big country with a disperse population


----------



## Tink (14 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think we know what Tink is on about. The prospect of forced politeness is aggravating. There are already vilification laws in place where they weren't required for multiple generations before, but for the very few who couldn't care less about being pinged in exchange for hurling abuse.
> 
> We all know that the marriage act will be changed, merely by the onslaught of the opinion leaders. It's only right those who put great importance in marriage should be able to put in the good fight and go down screaming. Any negatives and failures on future generations will be the responsibility of future generations....probably thuggery Muslim the way we are giving them guest treatment.




That is exactly what I meant, Tisme.

As you said once, the untouchables.

Syd, I don't know how many times I have said, everyone has a story to tell that arrived in this country.

Everyone yelling out, discrimination, is becoming a joke.

I am standing up for Marriage, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.


----------



## overhang (14 July 2015)

galumay said:


> Why to you continue to connect two utterly unconnected issues? It seems extrordinary to me that you would advocate continued discrimination on one issue, unless new discrimination was introduced on an entirely different issue.
> 
> How is that justifiable?
> 
> ...




+1.  I'm so sick of hearing this is all about the children on this issue when it's a complete separate one.  

Go and ask many high school kids if there parents are still together and about a third to half are going to tell you their parents are divorced.  There is no sanctity of marriage and hasn't been for a long time, people need to stop trying to cling on to this as to avoid progress.


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2015)

Railing against the ubiquitous machine that has replaced God and w4ores itself as Democracy. The world is bored stiff and looking for things to champion.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2015)

overhang said:


> +1.  I'm so sick of hearing this is all about the children on this issue when it's a complete separate one.
> 
> Go and ask many high school kids if there parents are still together and about a third to half are going to tell you their parents are divorced.  There is no sanctity of marriage and hasn't been for a long time, people need to stop trying to cling on to this as to avoid progress.




If there is no sanctity of marriage as you put it, then what is the fuss all about ?

People who love each other will stay together regardless of whether they are married or not. Why are gays so insistent on having something of such little value ?

Hets get married and break up, and so will gays. It all seems so pointless if people don't bother keeping their marriage vows.


----------



## overhang (14 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If there is no sanctity of marriage as you put it, then what is the fuss all about ?
> 
> People who love each other will stay together regardless of whether they are married or not. Why are gays so insistent on having something of such little value ?
> 
> Hets get married and break up, and so will gays. It all seems so pointless if people don't bother keeping their marriage vows.




As far as I'm concerned if this helps one of the most marginalized groups in society feel more accepted then I'm all for it.  These people are still executed in some non-western countries and in western countries gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth.  

Perhaps this might help the sanctity of marriage as it may reduce the number of men and women that hide in the closet for years, get married start a family only to realise that they can't hide something they were naturally born with and subsequently ruin that family when they come out.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2015)

overhang said:


> As far as I'm concerned if this helps one of the most marginalized groups in society feel more accepted then I'm all for it.  These people are still executed in some non-western countries and in western countries gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth.
> 
> Perhaps this might help the sanctity of marriage as it may reduce the number of men and women that hide in the closet for years, get married start a family only to realise that they can't hide something they were naturally born with and subsequently ruin that family when they come out.




Why bring up a straw man of what happens in other countries ? It's totally irrelevant to this debate.

Gays are not marginalised in this country. They are judges, politicians, scientists, journalists, artists, musicians, businessmen and anything else you care to name. So the marginalisation argument is a straw man. 

Marriage does not guarantee fidelity. Legal considerations can be covered by civil unions. Marriage defines a family structure, mother, father, children ; something that is not applicable to SS couples.


----------



## overhang (14 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Why bring up a straw man of what happens in other countries ? It's totally irrelevant to this debate.
> 
> Gays are not marginalised in this country. They are judges, politicians, scientists, journalists, artists, musicians, businessmen and anything else you care to name. So the marginalisation argument is a straw man.
> 
> Marriage does not guarantee fidelity. Legal considerations can be covered by civil unions. Marriage defines a family structure, mother, father, children ; something that is not applicable to SS couples.




It's relevant because it shows that society as a whole collective still has trouble accepting them.

Gays certainty feel marginalised in this country-


> LGBTI people have significantly poorer mental health and higher rates of
> suicide than other Australians





> LGBTI people have the highest rates of suicidality of any
> population in Australia.Same-sex attracted Australians have up to 14x higher rates of
> suicide attempts than their heterosexual peers.
> 17
> ...



https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/...lth-and-suicide-2013-2nd-edition.pdf?sfvrsn=2


Marriage doesn't define children at all or mother and father, I don't know where you get that from, the current definition of marriage is "Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia"
Your welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2015)

> Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia"




So what legal rights IN AUSTRALIA are available to marriages BUT NOT Civil Unions ?


----------



## overhang (14 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So what legal rights IN AUSTRALIA are available to marriages BUT NOT Civil Unions ?




The legal right to have their loving relationship named the same as a loving heterosexual relationship.  This all comes back to feeling marginalised.  Again I can't see how this will impact any normal person in a negative way but goes someway to the gay and lesbian community feeling more equal in society as clearly right now as my stats have shown they have difficulty feeling accepted.


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So what legal rights IN AUSTRALIA are available to marriages BUT NOT Civil Unions ?




In your mind if a heterosexual couple said they're civil unioned, would you immediately think they're married, or would you ask them to clarify?

Prove that society would equate the two equally and you might have a decent argument against SSM.  

I doubt the top answer on family feud for a word to describe a relationship is going to be civil union.

You cannot be married and have a civil union.  

130 years ago the definition of voting was what men decide.  If you exclude a group from a process, then claim it has been this way all the time, it's not a particularly strong argument against change.

Australian law already severs marriage from its historical basis in legitimising sex and having children, and is so manifestly not interested in protecting families from real ravages (i.e. by banning gambling, alcohol, adultery etc.). But the state will give the benefits of marriage to anyone except same-sex couples. One can only conclude that the ban on same-sex couples is discrimination against homosexuals as homosexuals.

It's not sentimental to say that a right to equal treatment is a guiding principle of our liberal society - *discrimination needs good reason to be legitimate. Mere moral disapproval, even by a majority, is not grounds to forfeit this equality* - ice-addicts with criminal records can wed with the state's blessing, and I'm sure they enjoy less public approval than Penny Wong and her family.

Maybe a way forward for our secular state is how France has moved forward on the issue.

France in 1999 developed its system of civil unions as a way of allowing same-sex couples to have a formal, legally-recognised relationship with the same legal and taxation rights as a marriage.
It is known as the "Pacte civil de solidarite" or PACS.

Marriage in France was restricted to heterosexuals until May 2013, and French-style civil unions cover both heterosexual and homosexual couples .

Since 2000 France has witnessed more heterosexual couples taking up civil unions - as opposed to marriages – and relatively fewer same-sex couples taking up civil unions.

In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 percent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples, the New York Times reported on December 15, 2010.

"That trend has only strengthened since then: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 percent were between heterosexual couples," the New York Times reports http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/europe/16france.html?_r=0

Let the people choose how they want to describe their relationship.  Might make for an interesting statement on the debate if we saw a strong uptake of civil unions by heterosexuals, even if doing so limited their ability in terms of surrogacy and adoption.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2015)

> Prove that society would equate the two equally and you might have a decent argument against SSM.




If marriage and civil unions are equal in law, then I see no reason why society would not say one is as good as the other.


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If marriage and civil unions are equal in law, then I see no reason why society would not say one is as good as the other.




so social constructs are to be view only on a legal basis?  That's not how any society has worked at any time in history.

Words have connotations and history.

Not even the religious right would try the argument that civil unions and marriages are viewed as the same by society.

But leets follow the French example.  Make civil unions available to all, give them the exact same rights as under the marriage act, and lets see how individuals choose to make their way forward.  No need for a plebiscite.  No need to have ongoing debate.  Just make civil unions exactly like a marriage as viewed by the state, make the formal process as similar to marriage as possible, and be done with it.  Wont surprise me if you find the more secular will happily trade the archaic term of marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2015)

> Make civil unions available to all, give them the exact same rights as under the marriage act, and lets see how individuals choose to make their way forward.




Fine, but if this is the case, what reason has the gay lobby got left to force their way into the marriage business ?


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Fine, but if this is the case, what reason has the gay lobby got left to force their way into the marriage business ?




I suppose that's a question to be asked when it happens.

Some may still want to fight for it, others might wait and see.

Hiopefully it stops the fear mongering by those against SSM that gays are a danger to children that must be protected against.  I'm sick of being told I'm having a detrimental affect on children.  Religion has done more harm to children than gay marriage ever will.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2015)

> I'm sick of being told I'm having a detrimental affect on children.




Obviously you as an individual don't have a detrimental affect on children unless you are a pedophile and I doubt that very much, however you have said that you would not have chosen to be gay so I can't see why you are trying to force gay parents onto children who are not gay. Is this some form of reverse revenge ?


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2015)

overhang said:


> It's relevant because it shows that society as a whole collective still has trouble accepting them.
> 
> .





But that will never change. It's just natural to identify differences and apply the herd or pride prejudices, certainly subliminally if not overtly. It doesn't mean there is hate or disgust involved, but acceptance is something that cannot be legislated.


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Obviously you as an individual don't have a detrimental affect on children unless you are a pedophile and I doubt that very much, however you have said that you would not have chosen to be gay so I can't see why you are trying to force gay parents onto children who are not gay. Is this some form of reverse revenge ?




So obviously my straight parents were out to do me harm.  Are biological parents on some nasty trip sometimes making their children gay?  Sexuality is such a small part of who a person is.  I'd like to call it trivial, but too many people make it out to be otherwise for that to be true yet.

Seriously, this debate is about as far from the topic as one can get.

How about you get some evidence from the countries that have had same sex marriage and the civil union equivalent for 15-25 years.

Surely that is long enough to show some harm to children and society at large.  Surely if there was any harm to be reported the religious right in the USA would have been shouting it from the roof tops.  Denmark has had civil unions since 1999.  So before you make more unsubstantiated claims, do some research and see what their experience has been and report back on it.  Or not, because you might end up having your bigoted views challenged by facts, and as the debate on this topic has show, facts and reality are not part of the anti SSM lexicon.

We have heterosexual politicians proclaiming it's all about the children, yet they force the scourge of pokie machines onto the public, destroying the lives of how many tens of thousands?  Same politicians who fight against needle exchanges and safe injecting rooms, increasing risks and the spread of disease.  The same heterosexual people who fight against any drug policies that could save the precious lives of youth.

As for not choosing to be gay, well if we'd had a liberal society that didn't have homosexuality still illegal when I was born, didn't think pooftah bashing was a national sport and pastime during my early into teen years , where even today queers are still targets of violence, then I'd never had to even think about whether I'd choose to be different from the majority.  Certainly life is much easier for younger gays in many ways, but when they have to hear some of the crap sprouted by those against SSM, well you know you're still viewed as an outsider.


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2015)

overhang said:


> LGBTI people have the highest rates of suicidality of any
> population in Australia.Same-sex attracted Australians have up to 14x higher rates of
> suicide attempts than their heterosexual peers.
> 17
> ...




I recall going through the numbers on this on another discussion board. Coming of a very small base the suicide rate was something like 1 and a bit people per year after the natural rate across all sectors was taken out.


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So obviously my straight parents were out to do me harm.  Are biological parents on some nasty trip sometimes making their children gay?  Sexuality is such a small part of who a person is.  I'd like to call it trivial, but too many people make it out to be otherwise for that to be true yet.
> 
> Seriously, this debate is about as far from the topic as one can get.
> 
> ...





Not trying to dilute your anger at poofta bashing and the like (which is a low act), but there have been many posts here that, for example, use the deep south black suppression as example for Australia's refusal to accept gay marriage. Applying the same logic it we could say that bashing of ginger headed people around the night club precincts is predicated on the hate for gays?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2015)

> We have heterosexual politicians proclaiming it's all about the children, yet they force the scourge of pokie machines onto the public, destroying the lives of how many tens of thousands?




Poker machines ? That's more off topic than children in this debate.


----------



## overhang (14 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> But that will never change. It's just natural to identify differences and apply the herd or pride prejudices, certainly subliminally if not overtly. It doesn't mean there is hate or disgust involved, but acceptance is something that cannot be legislated.




I disagree, most people now accept and don't think anything of Aboriginals having the right to vote yet I imagine there would have been quite a lot of outrage when the idea was first put forward.  I would say the future will look back at this period and say that they can't believe it took so long for marriage equality to be passed.



Tisme said:


> I recall going through the numbers on this on another discussion board. Coming of a very small base the suicide rate was something like 1 and a bit people per year after the natural rate across all sectors was taken out.




I really need data to take this seriously, any links?


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> Not trying to dilute your anger at poofta bashing and the like (which is a low act), but there have been many posts here that, for example, use the deep south black suppression as example for Australia's refusal to accept gay marriage. Applying the same logic it we could say that bashing of ginger headed people around the night club precincts is predicated on the hate for gays?




What would the logical basis of your question be?

I think when someone is using language like fag and pooftah and homo that it's relatively easy to know what the motivation of their actions are.


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Poker machines ? That's more off topic than children in this debate.




Not really.  If the claim is to be against SSM to protect the children, but you then promote other areas of society to allow harm to children, well it's either hypocrisy or just using a red herring to divert from your true motivation.

There's plenty of politicians anti SSM but pro pokies and have actively stopped any reform.  I'd be willing to bet more children's lives are currently ruined by gambling addiction of parents at the pokies than are ruined by SSM.

So, are you willing to start having a look at Norway / Denmark / Iceland / Greenland / Sweden and show that they have suffered from the issues you believe justify your stance against SSM?  I'd think 15-25 years is long enough for your fears to have started to show an impact on their societies.


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2015)

overhang said:


> I really need data to take this seriously, any links?




i'd take beyond blue as being a reasonably reliable source.

it's hard enough trying to wrap you're mind around the fact your different that your friends and family.  harder still when so much of society is, overtly in the past and less so now, and in-overtly telling you that you don't fit in and that you're not normal.  That's a lot of stress for anyone, but more so for someone trying to find their way into their early adult lives.  

I think I kept telling  myself I was going through a phase till I was about 20 and started going to a group at the uni which helped me realise I wasn't so alone with the questions and thoughts that were racing through my head.

https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/...lth-and-suicide-2013-2nd-edition.pdf?sfvrsn=2

The mental health of LGBTI people is among the poorest in
Australia.4
• At least 36.2% of trans and 24.4% of gay, lesbian and bisexual Australians met the criteria for experiencing a major depressive episode in 2005, compared with 6.8% of the general population.5  This rate soars to 59.3% of trans women (male to female) under 30 in a La Trobe University study6

• Lesbian, gay and bisexual Australians are twice as likely to have a high/very high level of psychological distress as their heterosexual peers (18.2% v. 9.2%).7   This makes them particularly vulnerable to mental health problems. The younger the age group, the starker the differences: 55% of LGBT women aged between 16 and 24 compared with 18% in the nation as a whole and 40% of LGBT men aged 16-24 compared with 7%.  Results only begin to be similar across the population groups at age 65.8

More than twice as many homosexual/bisexual Australians experience anxiety disorders as heterosexual people (31% vs 14%) and over three times as many experience affective disorders (19% vs 6%). The rates are higher across any age group, country of birth, income level, area of residence or level of education/employment.9
 Nearly 80% of LGBT respondents reported having experienced at least one period of intense anxiety in the 12 months prior to completing a 2011 survey, with the highest proportion of those experiencing frequent episodes
of anxiety in this period being lesbian, bisexual and transwomen and transmen.10


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Not really.  If the claim is to be against SSM to protect the children, but you then promote other areas of society to allow harm to children, well it's either hypocrisy or just using a red herring to divert from your true motivation.
> 
> There's plenty of politicians anti SSM but pro pokies and have actively stopped any reform.  I'd be willing to bet more children's lives are currently ruined by gambling addiction of parents at the pokies than are ruined by SSM.
> 
> So, are you willing to start having a look at Norway / Denmark / Iceland / Greenland / Sweden and show that they have suffered from the issues you believe justify your stance against SSM?  I'd think 15-25 years is long enough for your fears to have started to show an impact on their societies.




One simple search pulled up scepticism about gay parenting in Norway which has had SSM since 2009. It seems that gays are not content with forcing their way into marriage they want to do it with parenting as well. The subject of gay parenting has divided Norwegian society and I think it will do the same here.


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2015)

overhang said:


> I disagree, most people now accept and don't think anything of Aboriginals having the right to vote yet I imagine there would have been quite a lot of outrage when the idea was first put forward.  I would say the future will look back at this period and say that they can't believe it took so long for marriage equality to be passed.




I will have to try to find the datasets I had.

Insofar as aborigines voting, you can gauge the outrage by looking up Trove, say for 1962 in WA


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> What would the logical basis of your question be?
> 
> I think when someone is using language like fag and pooftah and homo that it's relatively easy to know what the motivation of their actions are.





Do people actually direct the poofta, fag and homo tags at actual homosexuals or at hetrosexuals as a taunt?


My logical basis is self evident, just using corrolaries.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> One simple search pulled up scepticism about gay parenting in Norway which has had SSM since 2009. It seems that gays are not content with forcing their way into marriage they want to do it with parenting as well. The subject of gay parenting has divided Norwegian society and I think it will do the same here.




Link to story

http://sciencenordic.com/norwegians-worry-about-gay-and-lesbian-parenthood


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2015)

A public vote in my view is a better option than a parliamentary vote.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2015)

drsmith said:


> A public vote in my view is a better option than a parliamentary vote.




Yes, and it should be done at the next election not after it. 

Abbott is just trying to stall the inevitable. Let the people decide this one, it's not an area where any party should have a policy.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2015)

If there is to be a public vote, I don't give a toss as to whether it's at or after the next election.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Abbott is just trying to stall the inevitable. Let the people decide this one,.




That's a big call, will you shut about it, if it loses the referendum?

Better still, will the media shut up, then most others will.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> That's a big call, will you shut about it, if it loses the referendum?




No, because even if a referendum confirmed that the majority of people wanted gay marriage outlawed, it still does not make it right or lawful to outlaw it.

The majority can not choose to discriminate against a minority. 

Eg. If the southern states of the USA had a referendum and the majority voted for slavery, it still would be immoral and unlawful.

The referendum would be good though, because I believe it would confirm that the majority support gay marriage or atleast don't care enough to to ban it.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No, because even if a referendum confirmed that the majority of people wanted gay marriage outlawed, it still does not make it right or lawful to outlaw it.
> 
> The majority can not choose to discriminate against a minority.
> 
> ...




People are discriminated against in lots of ways, I know people with disabilities, who are working on minimal money, yet because they work can't access government subsidised aids and services.

There are 60 year old's who can't access a seniors card and subsidies, because age eligibility has changed, that's discrimination.

There are people who have to wait untill 60, to access their super, there are others who don't qualify for a pension untill 67, probably going up to 70. That is discrimination.

But all we hear is gays can't get married, and change the bloody flag, jeez like I said people don't have enough to do.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> People are discriminated against in lots of ways, I know people with disabilities, who are working on minimal money, yet because they work can't access government subsidised aids and services.
> 
> There are 60 year old's who can't access a seniors card and subsidies, because age eligibility has changed, that's discrimination.
> 
> ...




All the topics you just mentioned are different.

a better example would be if you knew a lady that couldn't get the aged pension because she was black, the government can set certain qualifying rules and age limits etc, that's not abusing human rights.

Saying you have to be 18 to get your drivers licence or 65 to get the aged pensionis obviously very different from saying you have to be white to have a drivers licence or the aged pension.

The my point is that the majority can not vote to descriminate against another group based on race, sexuality, religion etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The my point is that the majority can not vote to descriminate[sic] against another group based on race, sexuality, religion etc.




But a majority of politicians *can* vote to "discriminate" in this way ?

Politicians are supposed to represent us, so surely a vote of the people trumps a vote by politicians ?


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> But a majority of politicians *can* vote to "discriminate" in this way ?
> 
> Politicians are supposed to represent us, so surely a vote of the people trumps a vote by politicians ?






Politicians can't just vote to take basic human rights away. The have to follow the constitution and various international conventions.

But my point was to sprawlers question, he asked if a referendum voted down gay marriage, would we shut up.

The answer is no, because a majority vote doesn't make something right or just. In the same way I wouldn't shut up if the majority voted for slavery or racist or sexist laws.

after the vote, the anti gay marriage laws would still be wrong.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Politicians can't just vote to take basic human rights away. The have to follow the constitution and various international conventions.




The Constitution says nothing about Gay Marriage, otherwise the laws would have been challenged already. 

International "Conventions" ? Well we have self government so we don't have to take any notice of those.

And you neatly sidestepped my point which is that someone has to vote to change the Marriage Act, it's a question of whether you think that the politicians know better than the people on this issue.


----------



## Logique (12 August 2015)

Oh dear, somebody has been outmanoeuvred.  And their slip is showing, how quickly the halo slips.

Penny Wong will find it much harder to brainwash everyday Australians than a small number of timorous parliamentarians.  

You're equal Penny. But guess what, we're equal too.



> Why such rudeness, Penny?
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_such_rudeness_penny/


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> All the topics you just mentioned are different.
> 
> a better example would be if you knew a lady that couldn't get the aged pension because she was black, the government can set certain qualifying rules and age limits etc, that's not abusing human rights.
> 
> ...




Discrimination, is discrimination, you can't it tailor to suit you personal circumstances, or sexual preferences.

You can't just say its not discrimination because, it doesn't affect you, or isn't in line with your arguement.lol


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2015)

Logique said:


> Oh dear, somebody has been outmanoeuvred.  And their slip is showing, how quickly the halo slips.
> 
> Penny Wong will find it much harder to brainwash everyday Australians than a small number of timorous parliamentarians.
> 
> You're equal Penny. But guess what, we're equal too.




Sums her and Labor up beautifully, F you get out of my way, and by the way what about equality.

Beautiful, just beautiful, personifies the whole issue.

Great post.logique


----------



## Macquack (12 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Sums her and Labor up beautifully, F you get out of my way, and by the way what about equality.
> 
> Beautiful, just beautiful, personifies the whole issue.
> 
> Great post.logique




What a beat up. 

Hockey says "Hello Penny". Wong replies "Hello". What is wrong with that? 

You guys and Andrew Bolt are pathetic.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2015)

Macquack said:


> What a beat up.
> 
> Hockey says "Hello Penny". Wong replies "Hello". What is wrong with that?
> 
> You guys and Andrew Bolt are pathetic.




You didn't notice how long Hockey stood there, in a passive pose?

You didn't notice the persona of Penny, get the FF out of my way?

You really must be passive aggressive, it seems to be the new norm, but I don't think people are accepting it.

My apologies if you are Penny's partner, it is only my personal assessment, of the video content I viewed.

I in no way wish to influence any other person, in their assessment of the said video, and I am completely impartial when it comes to gay marriage and in no way wish to be sued for my comments.


----------



## Macquack (12 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> You didn't notice how long Hockey stood there, in a passive pose?
> 
> You didn't notice the persona of Penny, get the FF out of my way?




You have got absolutely NOTHING, and you need to toughen up if you get so easily scared by a lesbian senator walking through a doorway.

If she said "Hello Joe you fat c", you might have had something to work with.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2015)

Macquack said:


> You have got absolutely NOTHING, and you need to toughen up if you get so easily scared by a lesbian senator walking through a doorway.
> 
> If she said "Hello Joe you fat c", you might have had something to work with.




No need to get your knickers in a knot, it was what it was, you can make of it what you want.

It just looked to me as though she was thinking " get out of my way you fat c", she didn't actually say anything.

But a picture can say a thousand words.

Just because you want to excuse bad manners, doesn't mean we all have to.


----------



## banco (12 August 2015)

Will be interesting to see if the two closeted gay men on the front bench cross the floor.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2015)

banco said:


> Will be interesting to see if the two closeted gay men on the front bench cross the floor.




Who would they be ?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> No need to get your knickers in a knot, it was what it was, you can make of it what you want.
> 
> It just looked to me as though she was thinking " get out of my way you fat c", she didn't actually say anything.
> 
> ...




People with too much time on their hands methinks


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> People with too much time on their hands methinks




Fully agree, lol, obviously some have skin in the outcome.


----------



## noco (12 August 2015)

I agree with Tony Abbott that the people should decide...Not politicians or activity groups should be allowed to decide to change the laws in this case.

If two gays want to live with each other and have a binding relationship, how will a piece of paper keep them together/


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Discrimination, is discrimination, you can't it tailor to suit you personal circumstances, or sexual preferences.
> 
> You can't just say its not discrimination because, it doesn't affect you, or isn't in line with your arguement.lol




If you can't see a difference between setting qualification rules for something like retirement based on age, and setting qualification rules based on race or sexuality, you are either just being silly or you are genuinely stupid.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The Constitution says nothing about Gay Marriage, otherwise the laws would have been challenged already.
> 
> International "Conventions" ? Well we have self government so we don't have to take any notice of those.
> 
> And you neatly sidestepped my point which is that someone has to vote to change the Marriage Act, it's a question of whether you think that the politicians know better than the people on this issue.




I wasn't specifically talking about gay marriage, I was just saying that politicians do not have an open slate to make what ever laws they want.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> If you can't see a difference between setting qualification rules for something like retirement based on age, and setting qualification rules based on race or sexuality, you are either just being silly or you are genuinely stupid.




I wasn't setting qualification rules on retirement, I was setting qualification rules on access to entitlements.

If you can't see the difference, you are either being silly or being genuinely stupid.

But then again it doesn't support your argument, so feel free to making a baseless conclusion.

By the way isn't you statement of discrimination on race and sexuality, a personal bent on the phrase, race and sex( i.e male or female/)

By the way, you seem to flapping around, like a chook. Don't mean to be rude, but read through the posts and replies.

People joining the thread have to have some idea of context, when reading the post.IMO

By the way the post refered to was 1634 on the previous page, for anyone that is interested, which I doubt.lol


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> I wasn't setting qualification rules on retirement, I was setting qualification rules on access to entitlements.
> 
> If you can't see the difference, you are either being silly or being genuinely stupid.
> 
> ...




I said that the majority doesn't have the right to deny basic human rights to minorities.

You then made a comment saying stuff about the aged pension and discrimination based on age qualification etc, I was just pointing out that it is not the same.

There are good reasons why we need to have age limits for retirement entitlements, there is no good reason who we should deny retire entitlements to someone simply because they are black, female, gay or a Mormon.



> By the way isn't you statement of discrimination on race and sexuality, a personal bent on the phrase, race and sex( i.e male or female/)




Sexuality and sex are different things,

But I believe the government should not be denying rights to anyone based on either of them.


----------



## Tink (13 August 2015)

noco said:


> I agree with Tony Abbott that the people should decide...Not politicians or activity groups should be allowed to decide to change the laws in this case.
> 
> If two gays want to live with each other and have a binding relationship, how will a piece of paper keep them together/




+1

The majority of Australians oppose the destruction of marriage, and a referendum or plebiscite is what people have been asking for, so good on them for listening to us.


_For millennia we simply enjoyed marriage and family, and no one ever questioned these tremendous social goods, nor even dreamed of redefining them out of existence. But we live in bizarre times, where we now actually have to defend marriage and family against their many frenzied attackers.

So we have now had around 16 different bills introduced in Australia to gut the institution of marriage of its very heart. Marriage has always been about a man and a woman becoming husband and a wife, with the possibility of becoming a father and a mother.

That is what marriage is all about. It is a vital social institution which has existed long before the state even recognised it, to provide the best environment for any children conceived through the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is a pro-children institution which keeps spouses connected to each other and parents to their children.

That is what marriage is, and that is what marriage does. 

Thus far all the anti-marriage bills have been defeated, yet the activists neither eat nor sleep it seems. They are engaged in a war of attrition, seeking to wear down the other side by the constant bombardment of parliament with frivolous and time-wasting bills.

Instead of concentrating on the really vital issues of the day, the Labor party is again wasting our time with fake marriage. _


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2015)

Logique said:


> Oh dear, somebody has been outmanoeuvred.  And their slip is showing, how quickly the halo slips.
> 
> Penny Wong will find it much harder to brainwash everyday Australians than a small number of timorous parliamentarians.
> 
> You're equal Penny. But guess what, we're equal too.




Yes I had a flashback of Howard meets Latham. 

Maybe Penny would do better doing the job she was elected for rather than spending her time social engineering and grooming new rainbow members and advocates at taxpayers expense.


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I said that the majority doesn't have the right to deny basic human rights to minorities.




You continue to base you arguments on some kind of minority status due to some furphy about gayness being genetic  and innate. It's a choice, just like prisoners resort to it who would otherwise be heterosexual (or are criminals largely gay?).

The whole gene thing was a made up lie to garner recognition and the protection of the bleeding hearts:- the new global black american.

Bring on a full scale referendum with a clause that says the act cannot be revisited for a century.... that and daylight friggen saving referendums.


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2015)

noco said:


> I agree with Tony Abbott that the people should decide...Not politicians or activity groups should be allowed to decide to change the laws in this case.
> 
> /




Finally you agree with something Rumpole has been advocating for the last half decade or more


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> Finally you agree with something Rumpole has been advocating for the last half decade or more




He'll change his mind now.


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2015)

banco said:


> Will be interesting to see if the two closeted gay men on the front bench cross the floor.




If I was to go on mannerisms and looks I'd say there was a more than two:

MT, PD, HG, JF, MK, NS ?

Is Penny Wong's partner on the Lib front bench?


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> He'll change his mind now.




Did I break Princess Diana of Themyscira's lasso of truth, dammit!


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> You continue to base you arguments on some kind of minority status due to some furphy about gayness being genetic  and innate. It's a choice, just like prisoners resort to it who would otherwise be heterosexual (or are criminals largely gay?).
> 
> The whole gene thing was a made up lie to garner recognition and the protection of the bleeding hearts:- the new global black american.
> 
> Bring on a full scale referendum with a clause that says the act cannot be revisited for a century.... that and daylight friggen saving referendums.




Again, it's statements like that, that make me think you are Bisexual, because you seem to be claiming that you find Men and women equally attractive, and you have had to "make a choice" to be straight.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> You continue to base you arguments on some kind of minority status due to some furphy about gayness being genetic  and innate. It's a choice, just like prisoners resort to it who would otherwise be heterosexual (or are criminals largely gay?).
> 
> The whole gene thing was a made up lie to garner recognition and the protection of the bleeding hearts:- the new global black american.
> 
> Bring on a full scale referendum with a clause that says the act cannot be revisited for a century.... that and daylight friggen saving referendums.




Evidence?


----------



## sydboy007 (13 August 2015)

noco said:


> If two gays want to live with each other and have a binding relationship, how will a piece of paper keep them together/




If two heterosexual people want to live with each other and have a binding relationship, how will a piece of paper keep them together?


----------



## sydboy007 (13 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> If I was to go on mannerisms and looks I'd say there was a more than two:
> 
> MT, PD, HG, JF, MK, NS ?
> 
> Is Penny Wong's partner on the Lib front bench?




And there you have that background discrimination.  Not out yelling abuse, just a little tittering and finger pointing.  You have very outdated view on masculinity and gender roles.  What must you think of those fathers leaving work on time so they can see their children more and spend time with the family rather than down the pub drinking with the MEN.

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/is-there-a-gay-voice


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2015)

This is Ingrid Nilsens coming out video, my girlfriend had been a fan of Ingrid who is a you tuber for the past couple of years, this coming out video is quite moving, and it shows 2 main things 1, she new she was gay from a very young age, she didn't choose it, she was born that way, and 2, society makes it very hard for gay people to be themselves.

I am happy Ingrid has come out, and I think allowing gay marriage will end a lot of stigma that young gay people feel,

At the end of the day, is there any good reason that Ingrid shouldn't be able to marry a future girlfriend, I don't think so.
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh7WRYXVh9M[/video]


----------



## Knobby22 (14 August 2015)

So the PM is using this issue to wedge Turnbull.
He is on the same side!
This isn't student politics anymore. Why don't they get rid of him?


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Again, it's statements like that, that make me think you are Bisexual, because you seem to be claiming that you find Men and women equally attractive, and you have had to "make a choice" to be straight.





 You subscribe to the Shakespeare protest principle. 

Mate you know your latency, but refuse to accept it. It's no good trying to throw nonsense around when dealing with intelligent company.

Men and women are encoded with the procreation need. If you want to go against that and demand there are genes that are abnormal that's OK, but don't then try to say those people afflicted are just like me and every other normally functioning person, coz it just can't be the case if there's a defect. 

Get real and forget about trying to bait me, I'm comfortable expressing my entrenched hetrosexuality and happy to practice it regularly, which appears to be something of a rarity amongst my similarly old peers.


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> So the PM is using this issue to wedge Turnbull.
> He is on the same side!
> This isn't student politics anymore. Why don't they get rid of him?




He's clearing the decks of anyone who might contest leadership. It's what he does repeatably ... he was trained by Australia's own Bob Santamaria afterall.

e.g.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-choice-of-party/story-fn59niix-1226494801586


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> And there you have that background discrimination.  Not out yelling abuse, just a little tittering and finger pointing.  You have very outdated view on masculinity and gender roles.  What must you think of those fathers leaving work on time so they can see their children more and spend time with the family rather than down the pub drinking with the MEN.
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/is-there-a-gay-voice




Nothing to do with discrimination in the context you would like to apply. 

By your entrenched yardstick of what "MEN" do I would suspect you have little understanding of what the majority hetrosexual men and their families get up to. I only recently started going to a pub (for the hour before QANDA)  because I moved close to one and live alone after becoming widowed.... I'm way past the family building phase.

You are a clever bloke and I don't judge you on your persuasions, but I do expect you to be wise enough to understand none of us have to accept anything our natural instincts flag alarms over. That doesn't preclude friendships, it's just they are slightly different, just as most men have different friendship styles with women ... no biggy. And friends argue the point over lots of instransigent mindsets, they also agree on heaps of things..


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> , she new she was gay from a very young age, she didn't choose it, she was born that way,




Proof?  .... didn't think so


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> You subscribe to the Shakespeare protest principle.
> 
> Mate you know your latency, but refuse to accept it. It's no good trying to throw nonsense around when dealing with intelligent company.
> 
> ...




Well stop saying being gay is a choice and I will stop thinking that you felt you had to make a choice.

I never said being gay was a defect, it obviously provides an evolutionary benefit to society or it would have been weeded out by natural selection, only those with the most simple minded view of evolution think it's a defect.

There are completely plausible hypothesis that suggest a gene pool that produces about 1% of its population gay, would have increased chances of survival as a group.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I never said being gay was a defect, it obviously provides an evolutionary benefit to society or it would have been weeded out by natural selection, only those with the most simple minded view of evolution think it's a defect.




That assumes that the evolutionary process is now complete, which is nonsense as it continues indefinitely. A large number of genetic defects still exist , otherwise people would not continue to inherit genetic diseases.

Now that the human race has gained some influence in our own evolutionary processes, gays will most likely be bred out of society due to a combination of genetic information on fetuses and the fact that mothers and fathers would prefer to have heterosexual children so that they can pass on their genes through the generations.



> There are completely plausible hypothesis that suggest a gene pool that produces about 1% of its population gay, would have increased chances of survival as a group.




Name some.


----------



## sydboy007 (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That assumes that the evolutionary process is now complete, which is nonsense as it continues indefinitely. A large number of genetic defects still exist , otherwise people would not continue to inherit genetic diseases.
> 
> Now that the human race has gained some influence in our own evolutionary processes, gays will most likely be bred out of society due to a combination of genetic information on fetuses and the fact that mothers and fathers would prefer to have heterosexual children so that they can pass on their genes through the generations.
> 
> ...




You weren't helping to create the Aryan race by chance?  What else do you think is acceptable for parents to gene-ering into their children?  Blond hair, blue eyes, minimum 178cm tall by chance?

The ethics of what you describe.  Not much different to parents wanting a male child and drowning the baby girl that was born.

I bet most parents would prefer to count 10 fingers and 10 toes and have a child that grows up happy long before thinking about sexuality.

My Gran was saying how she doesn't understand the angst over gay marriage.  Her attitude was they're (gays) no different to the rest of us and they should be able to love and be treated like everyone else.  She's no liberal leftie either as she fondly remembers Howard, though a bit less fondly as I explain the economic ramifications of some of his policies.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> You weren't helping to create the Aryan race by chance?  What else do you think is acceptable for parents to gene-ering into their children?  Blond hair, blue eyes, minimum 178cm tall by chance?
> 
> The ethics of what you describe.  Not much different to parents wanting a male child and drowning the baby girl that was born.
> 
> ...




I wasn't suggesting that I favour aborting children on the basis of any criteria, just stating what I think will happen in the future if tests for predisposition towards homosexuality are developed.

You yourself have stated that you would not have chosen to be born gay, I think parents will take it on themselves not to have gay children for the same reasons that you decided that being gay would not have been your choice.

That's the problem when society approves of abortion on demand, the reasons for the abortion become irrelevant. The mother either wants the baby or she does not. it's HER choice right ?

Certainly up to now people accept the odds of having a gay child and should love & care for them as much as any other child, but in the future if people don't have to play the odds but can decide them, what will they do ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That assumes that the evolutionary process is now complete, which is nonsense as it continues indefinitely. A large number of genetic defects still exist , otherwise people would not continue to inherit genetic diseases.
> 
> Now that the human race has gained some influence in our own evolutionary processes, gays will most likely be bred out of society due to a combination of genetic information on fetuses and the fact that mothers and fathers would prefer to have heterosexual children so that they can pass on their genes through the generations.
> 
> ...




Firstly gay individuals are present right across the spectrum of mammal species which suggests the genes that cause them are from a very distant ancestor species and have been around for a very long time, plenty of time for natural selection to weed them out if it was a damaging defect.

Secondly, even if you could test each foetus to find out whether it were gay, it would not help "breed" them out, because it's straight people that give birth to gays, every female on the planet carries the genes that mean that 1% of her babies will be born gay, this hasn't been bred out by natural selection, because it is likely that having 1% of the population gay doesn't reduce the survival of the population and probably has advantages.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Secondly, even if you could test each foetus to find out whether it were gay, it would not help "breed" them out, because it's straight people that give birth to gays, every female on the planet carries the genes that mean that 1% of her babies will be born gay, this hasn't been bred out by natural selection, because it is *likely *that having 1% of the population gay doesn't reduce the survival of the population and *probably* has advantages.




That's pretty unintelligible to me and reliance on "probably" and "likely" without supporting evidence does not make for a convincing argument.

If you say there are hypotheses than a certain percentage of gays increases the survival ability of populations then you need to supply better evidence than "probably" or "likely".



> Firstly gay individuals are present right across the spectrum of mammal species which suggests the genes that cause them are from a very distant ancestor species and have been around for a very long time, plenty of time for natural selection to weed them out if it was a damaging defect.




As I've pointed out there are plenty of genetically inherited "damaging" diseases still around so why haven't they been weeded out ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2015)

> Name some




I have been through this on this thread, but will explain it again.

Picture a female of a social species who develops a genetic mutation the causes 1% of her offspring to be gay, in every other way she is normal, so has no reduced chance of survival.

she has five children, due to only 1% chance of a gay child being produced, none of the five are gay but all carry the gene of their mother which means their children has a 1% chance, the 5 children each have another 5 children, so now the third generation has 25 members all carrying the gene that allows the production of gays, however again none are produced.

Those 25 children have five children each, so the fourth generation is 125 and by chance the first ever gay child is born, obviously the gene is no wide spread and doesn't rely on this gay individual to survive because it is being carried by 124 of his cousins, however the fact that this gay man or women is not going to want to start a family of his own, he may stay living with some of his brothers or sisters, helping to defend, feed, shelter and increasing the survival rate of his nephews, nieces and cousins all of whom carry this gene.

So even though the gay individual never breed, their existence would have increased the survival rate of the biological relatives who carried this gene that allowed gay individuals to be produced in future generations.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have been through this on this thread, but will explain it again.
> 
> Picture a female of a social species who develops a genetic mutation the causes 1% of her offspring to be gay, in every other way she is normal, so has no reduced chance of survival.
> 
> ...




Well, you say it's better if gays don't breed but instead look after their relatives and help them to "survive" ?

I assume that means you are in favour of gays not having families of their own that case, because otherwise you would destroy your own argument ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> As I've pointed out there are plenty of genetically inherited "damaging" diseases still around so why haven't they been weeded out ?




Firstly genetic mutations happen all the time, so new genetic diseases will continually pop up, and will only be weeded out if we allow the person carrying the genes to die without passing them on. Eg if we treat a baby and allow it to survive (which is the right thing to do) then we are not going to weed them out.

Secondly, if it is a disease that doesn't show up until later in life, after breeding age, it will be very hard to weed out because the disease wont cause a weakness in an individual until after he or she has passed the gene to the next generation, eg the genetic disposition for certain cancers that pop up in people in their 50's or heart disease etc don't stop those people from breeding prolifically in their 20's


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, you say it's better if gays don't breed but instead look after their relatives and help them to "survive" ?
> 
> I assume that means you are in favour of gays not having families of their own that case, because otherwise you would destroy your own argument ?




My comments were simply explaining how a gene that creates gays could survive and potentially increase the survival rate of the population that Carries it, it's an explanation for how we got here, not how we should live.

But in a hypothetical tribe, that contained a gay couple, if the gay couple stepped in to raise a child after its parents died, that would increase the survival rate of the tribe, so yes there is evolutionary support for allowing gays to adopted.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

Daughter of Lesbians speaks out against gay marriage

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...ter-of-lesbians-gay-marriage-lateline/6694258


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Daughter of Lesbians speaks out against gay marriage
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...ter-of-lesbians-gay-marriage-lateline/6694258




Her mistake is becoming a Christian and caring what the bibles says.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Her mistake is becoming a Christian and caring what the bibles says.




She's got more credibility than you or me because she has lived the experience, and there are others like her willing to speak out as previously posted on this thread.


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> She's got more credibility than you or me because she has lived the experience, and there are others like her willing to speak out as previously posted on this thread.




If it goes to referendum there will be plenty of the silent majority willing to speak out too as the arguments ratchet up. You bet the sympathisers try everything from pouting, allegorising black southern americans,  to banners demanding "homophobes" be excluded from the mix. 

The millenium gen doesn't care so they will vote yes just to get the annoyance away from their tri lattes.


----------



## bellenuit (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> She's got more credibility than you or me because she has lived the experience, and there are others like her willing to speak out as previously posted on this thread.




Actually she hasn't. Her lesbian parents aren't married, so she has no experience of being raised in a married lesbian relationship. What she talked about was that in her opinion children need to be brought up within a heterosexual marriage structure. 

Again, the issue is gay marriage, not gay adoption. Specifically in her case, the issue wasn't even gay adoption but she addressed her own circumstances as if that were the case. What exactly were the choices:

1. She lives with the heterosexual father (and his new female partner)
2. She is adopted out to another couple.
3. She lives with her mother who is in an unmarried relationship with another lesbian
4. She lives with her mother who is in a married (if legalised) relationship with another lesbian.
5. She lives with her mother who abstains from having a relationship with another lesbian.

I fail to see where she addresses which of these would have been a better outcome and why.


----------



## sydboy007 (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I wasn't suggesting that I favour aborting children on the basis of any criteria, just stating what I think will happen in the future if tests for predisposition towards homosexuality are developed.
> 
> You yourself have stated that you would not have chosen to be born gay, I think parents will take it on themselves not to have gay children for the same reasons that you decided that being gay would not have been your choice.
> 
> ...




I was born when homosexuality was still a crime in every state of Australia.  I was born in a time when pooftah bashing was considered OK by society.

So yes, I'd preferred to have not gone through that.  At least I'm not facing being thrown off a building like some of those who've been captured by IS.

The greater acceptance today means I'd not have the same reservations to growing up gay.  It's not like I'm ashamed of who I am.  

It's not that I had an issue with it, but that the society I grew up in did.

As for your idea of eugenics creating the master race, just imagine if that capability had been around in your generation.  Parents aborting any left handed child so they would have to tie their arm and force them to use the appropriate right hand.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> As for your idea of eugenics creating the master race, just imagine if that capability had been around in your generation.  Parents aborting any left handed child so they would have to tie their arm and force them to use the appropriate right hand.




It's not MY idea as I said, but can you deny it would happen, right or wrong ? It's a potential future issue. Do you want to ban abortion on demand, or should we demand that women have a "good" reason to have an abortion ? If you go for the latter then you run up against the "pro choice" lobby, and if you want to argue with them, good luck to you.


----------



## Tink (14 August 2015)

I was going to post that too, Rumpole, I couldn't believe that it was on the ABC.
I agree with you

Transcripts here -
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4292362.htm

This is what stood out for me, as we have said before.
_
I got into this discussion primarily because what I heard from the gay lobby was that children don't care who's raising them, right? That children are just fine if it's two men or two women. And the reality is that anybody that's talked to a child who has lost a parent, whether through divorce, abandonment, third-party reproduction or death, kids absolutely care. Family structure matters to children. And so I heard the LBGT lobby saying it doesn't care - they don't care and I don't think that that's reality._

How can you say, children don't care when we have seen so many children go in search for their parents.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Actually she hasn't. Her lesbian parents aren't married, so she has no experience of being raised in a married lesbian relationship. What she talked about was that in her opinion children need to be brought up within a heterosexual marriage structure.
> 
> Again, the issue is gay marriage, not gay adoption. Specifically in her case, the issue wasn't even gay adoption but she addressed her own circumstances as if that were the case. What exactly were the choices:
> 
> ...




She was simply saying that children need a mother and a father, and I don't see how we can say she's wrong because she had an experience that most of us have not.


----------



## bellenuit (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> She was simply saying that children need a mother and a father, and I don't see how we can say she's wrong because she had an experience that most of us have not.




I didn't say she was wrong. I said she didn't explain why gay marriage was wrong, a completely different issue. That is the topic under discussion.


----------



## Macquack (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> She was simply saying that children *need a mother and a father*, and I don't see how we can say she's wrong because she had an experience that most of us have not.




I don't understand her position. From what I listened to, she was never going to have a father to raise her, so what is her point, again?

The anti-gay marriage stalwarts conveniently avoid the fact that *children of single mothers do not have a father figure in their upbringing*. Now if the anti-gay marriage crew were to say that children born to single mothers must be taken by the state and given out to heterosexual couples, then their argument would hold water.

I really could not care less, however, I do have an ethic of maintaining a fair go for all (just in case I am on the end of a raw deal and no one else gives a F).

When gay marriage is legalised I think all single mothers should be given a bottle of Dom Perignon for helping the cause.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

Macquack said:


> The anti-gay marriage stalwarts conveniently avoid the fact that *children of single mothers do not have a father figure in their upbringing*.




That's obviously not the case in most cases where parents have separated. The kids know who their father is, he most likely has access rights, sees the kids regularly and has a role in their upbringing. The male / female balance is still there, it's just less than it would be where the parents are together.


----------



## Macquack (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's obviously not the case in most cases where parents have separated. The kids know who their father is, he most likely has access rights, sees the kids regularly and has a role in their upbringing. The male / female balance is still there, it's just less than it would be where the parents are together.




Gay marriage is irrelevant to what you have just said. 

Are you talking about banning gay couples from adoption?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2015)

Macquack said:


> Gay marriage is irrelevant to what you have just said.
> 
> Are you talking about banning gay couples from adoption?




I think adoption agencies should be able to give preference to heterosexual couples without being sued for discrimination.


----------



## Macquack (14 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think adoption agencies should be able to give preference to heterosexual couples without being sued for discrimination.




I agree with you.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think adoption agencies should be able to give preference to heterosexual couples without being sued for discrimination.




Legally they're required too. Unless one partner in a gay couple is a biological parent they can't adopt. 

You continue to argue against something that is unrelated to the topic. Why not start the I don't support gay parents thread to continue your discussion against it.  Irma irrelevant to gay marriage.

They can be foster parents though. Hopefully that doesn't send you writing to your local MP to ban out unless your going to come up with a way to force more heterosexuals to provide the community service.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Legally they're required too. Unless one partner in a gay couple is a biological parent they can't adopt.
> 
> You continue to argue against something that is unrelated to the topic. Why not start the I don't support gay parents thread to continue your discussion against it.  Irma irrelevant to gay marriage.
> 
> They can be foster parents though. Hopefully that doesn't send you writing to your local MP to ban out unless your going to come up with a way to force more heterosexuals to provide the community service.




I suppose it's  a convenient tactic to shut down debate to allege that an argument is off topic, but it's a bit thin in this case.

Anyway, what are your views on a proposed plebiscite on gay marriage ? Imo it should be held at the next election so as not to drag the issue on for years. Should a bare majority decide the outcome or should it be 60-40 at least ?

As for gay foster parents, if the care agency decides that they are the best people available then that's fine by me.


----------



## Tink (15 August 2015)

I don't agree that it is not related, Syd.

Marriage is about children, and always has been.
Marriage and family are connected.
I am standing up for both.

This thread is about redefining Marriage as we know it, out of existence.

If it is not about children, then why is it to be run through public schools?
Same sex, pornography are all connected, and I don't agree with this being put to primary school children to describe their lifestyle.

My side, keeping marriage as is, needs to stop being censored.
If they want a proper debate, they need to let people talk.

As I said, I am standing up for Marriage to stay as is.


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2015)

Tink said:


> I don't agree that it is not related, Syd.
> 
> Marriage is about children, and always has been.
> .




Bingo


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2015)

Tink said:


> I don't agree that it is not related, Syd.
> 
> Marriage is about children, and always has been.
> Marriage and family are connected.
> ...




I know plenty of marriages that are not about children, and plenty of unmarried couples with children, so the two topics are not mutually exclusive.

It's not about redefining marriage out of existence, 99% of marriages will still be heterosexual, it's just extending the right to include same sex couples, you sound like a crazy person that thinks allowing people to drink vanilla coke will some how affect people who choose to drink classic coke.

What are you saying is being run through public schools?

Most pr0n is Herero sexual pr0n, and no one is suggesting putting pornography in schools, your just being silly.


----------



## Macquack (15 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> allowing people to drink vanilla coke will some how affect people who choose to drink classic coke.




They may be enticed over to the dark side. 

And we can't have sales of "classic coke" decline.

And some people even pay for bottled water, what a disgrace.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2015)

All Coke is rubbish, does that mean all marriage is rubbish ?


----------



## awg (15 August 2015)

In previous times, a "poll" could be established on this forum to "vote" ones opinions

Not sure whether this can still be done on ASF, but it would be interesting to see to results of an ASF "plebiscite"

I doubt the readers of this Stock Market forum, would be "far to the left" as a whole, probably a reasonable snapshot of slightly more conservative opinion (imo)

As I mentioned before, I havent actually come across ANY young person who are against gay marriage.

I myself am in my 50s, and support it

If it got up in Ireland and USA, its unimaginable to me a popular vote would not be well in support


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> The millenium gen doesn't care so they will vote yes just to get the annoyance away from their tri lattes.




I think you are wrong there, the millennium generation care the most, they gay marriage has huge support among the young.

Gen Y care a fair bit, lots of support.

Gen X probably don't care so much, but will vote for it just to get it done.

Then you have the baby boomers and the dying elderly, who probably have the high rates against it, but their numbers are dropping by the day, and even some of them are coming around to the idea.

you guys are fighting a losing battle, you are living in the past, you are on the wrong side of history, and soon be viewed as the bitter old people that tried to stall a great civil rights achievement.


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> She's got more credibility than you or me.




I don't know, believing in fairy tales makes you lose credibility in my opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think you are wrong there, the millennium generation care the most, they gay marriage has huge support among the young.
> 
> Gen Y care a fair bit, lots of support.
> 
> ...




My question is, what do we do after we get to Generation Z ? Go back to A , or is that when the whole world ends ?


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't know, believing in fairy tales makes you lose credibility in my opinion.




Her life with lesbian parents was no fairy tale. 

(or maybe it is ).


----------



## noco (15 August 2015)

This Gay marriage crap is nothing more than a humbug for the Government and is dividing the community.

The Government has lots more important things to do like  cleaning up the Green/Labor left wing mess from 2007/2013...it will take a decade to do it with no help from Labor.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2015)

noco said:


> This Gay marriage crap is nothing more than a humbug for the Government and is dividing the community.
> 
> The Government has lots more important things to do like  cleaning up the Green/Labor left wing mess from 2007/2013...it will take a decade to do it with no help from Labor.




Labor will be in next term to clean up the mess left by Abbott & Hockey.


----------



## bellenuit (15 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Her life with lesbian parents was no fairy tale.
> 
> (or maybe it is ).




She admitted that both lesbian parents were loving and caring to her. The only issue she seemed to have was feeling a bit intimidated to speak out against gay issues because of how her gay parents might react. She didn't, until recently, speak out against gay issues, so we do not know how her parents would actually have reacted. 

But I feel absolutely certain that such loving and caring parents would not have demonised her, rejected her heterosexuality as just being a lifestyle choice and kicked her out into the street. This is often the sad experience of gay children being brought up by some (normal) heterosexual parents. Yet, I don't see anyone out campaigning to abolish heterosexual marriage because of that.

The issue of kids holding back from their parents is not limited to the example she gave. Kids of parents with strong political views often feel intimidated from expressing a different opinion. It would even apply to families that are fanatical fans of a particular football team.

If the only issue she is complaining about (and as far as I can see, it is) is not being able to speak her mind on what it is like to live with gay parents, then she has little to complain about in comparison to gay children raised in staunchly religious families. It certainly doesn't provide any credible argument against gay marriage as that has no bearing on her circumstances.


----------



## noco (15 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Labor will be in next term to clean up the mess left by Abbott & Hockey.




Really...I don't think the Green/Labor left wing socialist would know how, given their record in the past......Labor ...big taxers and big spenders.

Off thread again Rumpy.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2015)

noco said:


> Off thread again Rumpy.




Yes, you were


But the way the Libs have handled this issue does them no good whatever. 

They say they are a party of "individualists", but on this issue everyone has to toe the line. They say they are the party of individual freedoms, except on this issue when people can't marry who they want.

Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the Liberals have shown themselves to be a party of hypocrites (among other things), and this will weigh on them at the next election.


----------



## noco (15 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, you were
> 
> 
> But the way the Libs have handled this issue does them no good whatever.
> ...




But hang on old pal.....Pleberzeck said at one stage the Labor Party would have to toe the line or get expelled....Then we had Shorten saying there should a free vote...which one is right?

We live in a democracy and it should be left for the people of Australia to decide....Not politicians...I would be happy to accept what the majority of voters think....Would you?


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2015)

noco said:


> .I would be happy to accept what the majority of voters think....Would you?




Indeed I would. I've been saying that there should be a public vote for a long time.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose it's  a convenient tactic to shut down debate to allege that an argument is off topic, but it's a bit thin in this case.
> 
> Anyway, what are your views on a proposed plebiscite on gay marriage ? Imo it should be held at the next election so as not to drag the issue on for years. Should a bare majority decide the outcome or should it be 60-40 at least ?
> 
> As for gay foster parents, if the care agency decides that they are the best people available then that's fine by me.




As has been pointed out multiple times

* You don't need to be married to have children
* You don't have to have children if you get married.
* Gay people already have children.

I'm all for a plebiscite as long as the Govt is not able to poison the well.  The way the Govt frames the question and presents it to the public will be very telling.  A simple question like

Do you support a change to the Australian marriages act from <legal definition> to <new definition including people of the same sex>

Hopefully the new rules for MP entitlements will be in place so that they can't use public funds to promote their views.  The Govt is arguing let the people decide, so my money shouldn't be used to try and lead the decision one way or the other.

So what time limit would you put on a child being in foster care with a homosexual carer?  You're argument is that all children under that scenario will be negatively affected.  How would foster care be any different to adoption?  Should there be a time limit on single foster carers as they present the same "issues" you believe will be caused by homosexual parents.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So what time limit would you put on a child being in foster care with a homosexual carer?  You're argument is that all children under that scenario will be negatively affected.  How would foster care be any different to adoption?  Should there be a time limit on single foster carers as they present the same "issues" you believe will be caused by homosexual parents.




As I suggested before, children would go to gay foster parents if there was no equivalent heterosexual parents available. If that situation changes, then the child gets moved.

 I really believe that children need the balance of both sexes for a proper upbringing in a vastly predominating heterosexual world which is the one they are most likely to be living in when they grow up.


----------



## Tink (16 August 2015)

It is not including, it is redefining - I wish these activists would tell the truth.
Their social engineering and indoctrination, that children don't need their mother and father, is disgraceful. 
The public schools, which don't teach numeracy and literacy, just how they need to think with their political correctness etc, needs a good shake up.
The dumbing down of society -
Chaos in Australian Education
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851

_If you went by the mainstream media version of events, there is only one truth out there: homosexual marriage is a must, and children do not need a mother and a father. The militants in the homosexual lobby and all their willing groupies  sing from this page incessantly.

It is the party line, and no one must divert from it. The activists and their media supporters know full well how propaganda and indoctrination works: just keep saying the same thing over and over again, while censoring out all contrary points of view._

_And that is exactly how truth is crucified and radical agendas are implemented. Keep the party line going at all costs, and refuse to run with any alternative points of view. We find this all the time in most Western media outlets.

Political correctness has signalled the death of truth in the modern age._

As I said, good on Abbott and others for standing by their party policy of NO change, not like the Labor party that have swung like the wind. 
They have done what the public wanted.

Two thirds of the party room voted to keep it as is.

_If the family collapses, communities disintegrate, society atrophies, and civilisation withers””the family is the great progenitor of order._


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> As has been pointed out multiple times
> 
> * You don't need to be married to have children
> * You don't have to have children if you get married.
> * Gay people already have children.




add:

* You don't need a licence to be able to drive a car
* You don't need a prescription to buy ICE
* Lawyers and other professionals smoke pot
* Priests fiddle with children
* US Southern black males commit crimes
* Black African men have homosexual sex and infect their wives with AIDS
* etc


I still fail to see why the push for solemnising sodomising and legislating for same gender marriage... what does it hope to achieve. There is no way it and its orbit will ever be anything more than a fiasco sideshow for the entertainment of the mainstream. Don't kid yourself that it isn't talked about widely as a joke or under breath snide remark amongst the millennium gen, coz it is; they just don't value marriage because it's already a farce due to the financial penalties of forming a relationship and trying to walk away with assets intact...... Whitlam legacy and stacking family court judiciary with feminists.

We all know it will become law to force society to accept it or else, but that does not translate to modifying our primal blueprint and natural tendency to marginalise the weak and the different from the herd....which is what the social engineering Labor Party exists for these days rather than the working class.


----------



## Macquack (16 August 2015)

Don't hold back Tisme.

Can I take it that you are against gay marriage.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2015)

Tink said:


> It is not including, it is redefining - I wish these activists would tell the truth.
> Their social engineering and indoctrination, that children don't need their mother and father, is disgraceful.
> The public schools, which don't teach numeracy and literacy, just how they need to think with their political correctness etc, needs a good shake up.
> The dumbing down of society -
> ...




Tink how about you tell the truth.

How would allowing gay couples to marry affect the 99% of other marriages?

How would it affect your marriage?

What bad effects can be seen in countries that already accept same sex marriages that you wish to avoid here?

No doubt you will avoid these questions as you always do.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> add:
> 
> * You don't need a licence to be able to drive a car




You forgot to say you don't need to take responsibility for over populating the planet either

[video]https://youtu.be/BHqgHFcmAOc[/video]


----------



## Tink (17 August 2015)

I've answered your questions in this thread, VC, and I think its time to close it.

We lose Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals in Australia.
There is no reason to change Marriage.

As Germany said, Germany does what's good for Germany.
Australia does what is good for Australia.

I won't be bullied by the Homosexual Lobby.


----------



## Tisme (17 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Tink how about you tell the truth.
> 
> How would allowing gay couples to marry affect the 99% of other marriages?
> 
> ...




At one time so many of my friends were giving up smoking I couldn't stand the wave of lectures from them about the evils of smoking, especially because I didn't smoke.... I used to quip that there was nothing worse than a reformed smoker at a party who hijacks the event and compromises the happiness of the guests by going on and fricken on about something we already know is a bad habit.  I'm thinking the homosexual movement has achieved the same on a much larger stage.

Simply put it (gay marriage) devalues the significance of real marriage for those who consider it worth keeping, even just for it's traditional role. The farcical and overt political nature of same sexual marriage relegates it to comedy and many people find this insulting and enraging. 

I don't consider marriage serves much bonding purpose if a couple loves one another, but I do believe a child should have a married hetrosexual couple as parents, free of the unbalanced gender anomaly that would otherwise permeate within the home and from peers. It's just got to have a negative impact on the, at best, half breed offspring.

Weakening something that is already tenuous doesn't equate to progress. The arguments that black people in USA were denied = wrong  and same sex people and their supporters think denial of marriage = wrong, therefore either wrong serves the other cause is ridiculous logic. Suggesting marriage was the invention of homosexuals is ludicrous and insulting to thinking people. I can't believe grown people on this forum use such kiddy logic to validate their stand.

You may been riding the bandwagon for various reason VC, including being gay yourself, a relation is gay, a friend is gay, whatever, but the truth is that many people have an innate unease and abhorrence about unnatural acts and to have it enshrined in marriage pushes all the alarm buttons at the boundaries of decency, respect for past generations and social engineering. 

Many of us have a strong instinctive male desire for (natural) procreation and survival of the species; the same argument that gays can't help the way they are must then apply to those of us who also can't help but march to the beat of millions of years of reproduction of the species.  You are obviously one of those who is betwixt between with a maternal desire to see those you consider hurt become happy, even it dilutes the herd happiness ...a sacrifice that is worth it to you and (don't get me wrong) it's not your fault you don't have a strong male genome. You clearly do not value marriage and want to rebrand it as trophy to your efforts disguised as fairness to all, that's what some people do.


and for the skyfairy adventists:

When the Mahdi comes our of the new Caliphate, marriage registries will be fertile grounds for finding the soldiers and cohorts who would defy the will of Allah; before they go after the rest of us " pigs and dogs". I think at that time (if I was gay) I would rather duck and cover and leave no trace of my unGodly existence and its repercussions on my family and friends.

Keep up the good work Tony A.

So Sayeth the Tisme


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> At one time so many of my friends were giving up smoking I couldn't stand the wave of lectures from them about the evils of smoking, especially because I didn't smoke.... I used to quip that there was nothing worse than a reformed smoker at a party who hijacks the event and compromises the happiness of the guests by going on and fricken on about something we already know is a bad habit.  I'm thinking the homosexual movement has achieved the same on a much larger stage.
> 
> Simply put it (gay marriage) devalues the significance of real marriage for those who consider it worth keeping, even just for it's traditional role. The farcical and overt political nature of same sexual marriage relegates it to comedy and many people find this insulting and enraging.
> 
> ...




How would have a married lesbian couple on the other side of town devalued your marriage?

How would allowing a gay couple to marry decrease herd happiness? Why would having a gay couple you don't even know, having a marriage ceremony you never new happened make you less happy?

There was probably 10,000 weddings across Australia this week end, I don't know the details of any of them, but say same sex marriages were legal, and 100 of them were same sex, how would that make you or the herd less happy?


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2015)

Tink said:


> I've answered your questions in this thread, VC, and I think its time to close it.
> 
> We lose Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
> 
> ...





You have never told me how it would affect your marriage.

And you have never explained how allowing gays to marry would cause you to lose your freedom of speech.

Gay marriage is good for Australia.


----------



## overhang (17 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> At one time so many of my friends were giving up smoking I couldn't stand the wave of lectures from them about the evils of smoking, especially because I didn't smoke.... I used to quip that there was nothing worse than a reformed smoker at a party who hijacks the event and compromises the happiness of the guests by going on and fricken on about something we already know is a bad habit.  I'm thinking the homosexual movement has achieved the same on a much larger stage.




It's great that all though your friends were telling you it was evil and you shouldn't smoke that you still had the option to smoke.  You're right it's just like the gay marriage movement but this time you're the one telling people not to smoke, you're the one denying someone else the personal freedom of choosing to do something they want to do but can't.  



> Simply put it (gay marriage) devalues the significance of real marriage for those who consider it worth keeping, even just for it's traditional role. The farcical and overt political nature of same sexual marriage relegates it to comedy and many people find this insulting and enraging.




Simply put but that's just a load of rubbish, the same arguments were used when Aborginals were allowed to marry in 1959, have marriages been devalued since a minority were able to marry?  Were children horrified that all of a sudden black people could commit to a relationship the same way white people could?  It must have been so damaging for that generation.....


----------



## sydboy007 (17 August 2015)

well, all those _think of the children_ campaigners fighting against gay marriage, maybe you need to expand your war to another front.  For the sake of the children of course.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/children-...socially-unsw-researcher-20150817-gj0r5z.html



> Children of shift workers have poorer academic results, worse behaviour and take more risks as teenagers, according to international research by the University of NSW and the US Economic Policy Institute.
> 
> The impact is most pronounced in the children of low income shift workers with little control over their hours.






> Toddlers are poorer at learning, verbal communication, problem solving, expressive language and the ability to memorise.
> 
> Preschoolers of parents who work shifts showed more depression, anxiety, withdrawal and aggression and adolescents were more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviour such as drinking, smoking and unsafe sexual activity.


----------



## Tisme (17 August 2015)

This is how the kids of my gay friends talk too.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> well, all those _think of the children_ campaigners fighting against gay marriage, maybe you need to expand your war to another front.  For the sake of the children of course.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/children-...socially-unsw-researcher-20150817-gj0r5z.html




So are you saying gay parents don't do shift work ?


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So are you saying gay parents don't do shift work ?




I think his point is that whether the parent is gay or straight might not be the biggest factor in balanced children.

So where you have stated that heterosexual parents should always be preferred to gay ones because that's better for the children, perhaps that's not true where the heterosexuals are shift workers.

i think it just shows there is a lot more to parenting than gender.


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> This is how the kids of my gay friends talk too.





How many gay couples with kids are you friends with?

how many of these children have expressed these views to you?

--------------------

But again this is a red herring, nothing to do with gay marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So where you have stated that heterosexual parents should always be preferred to gay ones because that's better for the children, perhaps that's not true where the heterosexuals are shift workers.
> 
> .




What if the parents are gay AND shift workers ? Then the kids will be twice as badly off.


----------



## Tisme (17 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> How many gay couples with kids are you friends with?
> 
> how many of these children have expressed these views to you?
> 
> ...





two offspring different couples. There's also a third girl who is just now hitting her teens so her opinions don't count.

I think the determination to have a counter opinion is learned from observing the dogged parents on their quest for reform. Stubborn opposition is probably a good description, but it's not hate driven, just the feeling of deprivation.


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What if the parents are gay AND shift workers ? Then the kids will be twice as badly off.




Sorry, did you say there was a study that showed children of gay parents were worse off? I must have missed it, can you link it again?

because we can't just presuppose kids of gay parents are worse off to start with.


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> two offspring different couples. There's also a third girl who is just now hitting her teens so her opinions don't count.
> 
> I think the determination to have a counter opinion is learned from observing the dogged parents on their quest for reform. Stubborn opposition is probably a good description, but it's not hate driven, just the feeling of deprivation.




So you have spoken to these children directly, and they have said they are not in favour of gay marriage?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Sorry, did you say there was a study that showed children of gay parents were worse off? I must have missed it, can you link it again?
> 
> because we can't just presuppose kids of gay parents are worse off to start with.




There are two testimonials from children of gay parents in this thread that you seem to have disregarded, not some highly biased studies that you appear to treat as gospel.


----------



## MrBurns (17 August 2015)

If you boo someone who just happens to be indigenous you're racist if you don't agree with gay couples having the right to have children you're homophobic.
These issues are just populist and trendy and that's why Adam Goodes got away with being a sook and could blame everyone else and why gay couples will get marriage rights and access to kids because they have their "rights".


----------



## sptrawler (17 August 2015)

MrBurns said:


> If you boo someone who just happens to be indigenous you're racist if you don't agree with gay couples having the right to have children you're homophobic.
> These issues are just populist and trendy and that's why Adam Goodes got away with being a sook and could blame everyone else and why gay couples will get marriage rights and access to kids because they have their "rights".




Sign of the times Mr Burns, people don't have enough to worry about, give it a few more years.


----------



## MrBurns (17 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Sign of the times Mr Burns, people don't have enough to worry about, give it a few more years.




I think it will just get worse sp everyone will be on welfare the way we're going and Govt corruption is like a runaway freight train. Maybe I'm just pessimist.


----------



## sptrawler (17 August 2015)

MrBurns said:


> I think it will just get worse sp everyone will be on welfare the way we're going and Govt corruption is like a runaway freight train. Maybe I'm just pessimist.




No I think the next election will bring it to a head. 
Funding welfare and falling standards of living, will become a bigger pain in the ar$e, than gay marriage.IMO

Not everyone is on a reporters $700,000 p.a salary, so a lot of ordinary people will question the wisdom, of listening to them.IMO


----------



## Tisme (17 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So you have spoken to these children directly, and they have said they are not in favour of gay marriage?




So now we are Perry Mason. I have told you what I have told you, just accept there are people who aren't going to think like you. You are wrong I am right ....simple, accept it and move on to more important issues like championing poverty, illiteracy, family violence ...something that builds a better society, not tearing it down because you can.


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There are two testimonials from children of gay parents in this thread that you seem to have disregarded, not some highly biased studies that you appear to treat as gospel.




Two cherry picked testimonials doesn't sound like a very scientific study, I am sure if you tried you could find two positive testimonials to offset that, but then what do you do, ignore the positive ones and just listen to the ones that go with your pre existing ideas?


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> This is how the kids of my gay friends talk too.







Tisme said:


> two offspring different couples. There's also a third girl who is just now hitting her teens so her opinions don't count.
> 
> I think the determination to have a counter opinion is learned from observing the dogged parents on their quest for reform. Stubborn opposition is probably a good description, but it's not hate driven, just the feeling of deprivation.






Tisme said:


> So now we are Perry Mason. I have told you what I have told you, just accept there are people who aren't going to think like you. You are wrong I am right ....simple, accept it and move on to more important issues like championing poverty, illiteracy, family violence ...something that builds a better society, not tearing it down because you can.




As you can see you didn't actually say what the kids said.

I just wanted to find whether the kids (if they exist) were against gays raising children or against gay marriage or both.


----------



## Tink (18 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> So now we are Perry Mason. I have told you what I have told you, just accept there are people who aren't going to think like you. You are wrong I am right ....simple, accept it and move on to more important issues like championing poverty, illiteracy, family violence ...something that builds a better society, not tearing it down because you can.




+1

Anyone that stands up for Marriage and Family, is now called a 'hate' crime.
No other view is allowed.

Media watch had how much has actually been censored, even putting themselves (ABC) down.

That is how much their indoctrination and social engineering has dumbed down society.

Did you ever think that standing up for 'Family and Marriage' -- the most important institution of keeping families together could soon be against the law.

Hopefully people start waking up to this con.


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2015)

Tink said:


> +1
> 
> Anyone that stands up for Marriage and Family, is now called a 'hate' crime.
> No other view is allowed.
> ...




You aren't standing up for marriage, you are trying to deny people the right to marry based on their sexuality.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 August 2015)

If this isn't social engineering, I don't know what is.

No wonder there is a move towards private schools.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...nt-gayby-baby-screening-in-class-time/6726354


----------



## sydboy007 (26 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If this isn't social engineering, I don't know what is.
> 
> No wonder there is a move towards private schools.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...nt-gayby-baby-screening-in-class-time/6726354




So when children being raised by gay parents are given a voice, you're against it.

But once again, raising of children by gay parents has nothing to do with marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Ah, one the one hand you're constantly asking for those affected by being raised parents to have a voice, but then when it happens you're claiming it's social engineering.
> 
> But once again, raising of children by gay parents has nothing to do with marriage.




I don't see any value in the opinions of children who are still dependent on their parents for basic needs and have probably been tutored in the "right" things to say.

I place more value on the views of adults who are no longer dependents and are able to properly evaluate their own experiences, and more of them are saying gay parenting is not all it's cracked up to be.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 August 2015)

Just the views of bigots like Piers Ackerman



> “Twelve-year-old Ebony is quoted saying: ‘It’s not normal. You’re not normal.’ They’re the kind of things that go through my head.’
> 
> “Well, Ebony, normality is the state of being usual, typical, or expected according to the Oxford Dictionary and according to the 2011 Census, there were only around 33,700 same-sex couples in Australia, with 17,600 male same-sex couples and 16,100 female same-sex couples. Same-sex couples represented about 1 per cent of all couples in Australia — which would indicate they do not meet the definition ‘normal’.”




I really hope no teens trying to find their way to understanding who they are read this.  How is it right to say something so potentially harmful in a newspaper but if he said it face to face with the girl he'd be condemned for being heartless, bordering on criminally negligent?

Note that parents were notified of the movie screening, it wasn't compulsory, and there had been no complaints till the daily terror decided to front page it. Wear it purple day has been occurring for years with no controversy.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Just the views of bigots like Piers Ackerman
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I really think this area is not a place for schools to go. Their job is to teach work skills, not advocate or condone a certain lifestyle for unconsenting children that society in general may not approve of. 

As for Piers Ackerman's (who I cannot stand) definition of 'normal', he is technically correct as long as he doesn't imply there is something wrong with being gay, something over which people have no control. eg I may usually drive to work, but if I take the train on one day, it's not normal behaviour for me, although there is nothing 'wrong' with it.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I really think this area is not a place for schools to go. Their job is to teach work skills, not advocate or condone a certain lifestyle for unconsenting children that society in general may not approve of.
> 
> As for Piers Ackerman's (who I cannot stand) definition of 'normal', he is technically correct as long as he doesn't imply there is something wrong with being gay, something over which people have no control. eg I may usually drive to work, but if I take the train on one day, it's not normal behaviour for me, although there is nothing 'wrong' with it.




Schools are much more than reading, writing and arithmetic, or do you think things like anti bullying, ethics classes, music, drama, sports have no place in schools as well.  Should teenagers go through school with no sex ed as well?

As the old saying goes we're here were queer and we're not going shopping. Showing teenagers in a school environment that being gay or having gay parents is no reason to feel as an outcast, or something to bully / tease / ostracized someone over is a good thing.

This was not forced on students, and parents were fully informed, so why do you feel you have the right to decide what someone else's children learn?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> This was not forced on students, and parents were fully informed, so why do you feel you have the right to decide what someone else's children learn?




Because my taxes help pay for it.

 Schools seem to be turning out dummies who need remedial lessons if they ever get to uni, so I think it would be good if they concentrated on the basics instead of what a few minority groups think is politically correct.


----------



## Value Collector (26 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I really think this area is not a place for schools to go. Their job is to teach work skills, not advocate or condone a certain lifestyle for unconsenting children that society in general may not approve of.
> 
> As for Piers Ackerman's (who I cannot stand) definition of 'normal', he is technically correct as long as he doesn't imply there is something wrong with being gay, something over which people have no control. eg I may usually drive to work, but if I take the train on one day, it's not normal behaviour for me, although there is nothing 'wrong' with it.




It's normal that about 1% of the population will be gay.

it may not be normal for you to catch the train, but it's normal for a certain percentage of the population to catch the train each day.

If your going to point at minorities and say they are not Normal, where do you stop, do you point at the black kid in the neighbour hood and say he or she is not normal?


----------



## Value Collector (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Because my taxes help pay for it.
> 
> Schools seem to be turning out dummies who need remedial lessons if they ever get to uni, so I think it would be good if they concentrated on the basics instead of what a few minority groups think is politically correct.




Things like Bulling, social awkwardness etc  are major causes of under performance, I don't see a problem with having 1 or 2 lessons a week where social issues are discussed.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's normal that about 1% of the population will be gay.
> 
> it may not be normal for you to catch the train, but it's normal for a certain percentage of the population to catch the train each day.
> 
> If your going to point at minorities and say they are not Normal, where do you stop, do you point at the black kid in the neighbour hood and say he or she is not normal?




You really should take some lessons in statistics. Normal means the most common. As I pointed out before (and you ignored), I said it's invalid to infer that there is anything wrong with people in minority groups, so kindly read my posts more carefully.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Things like Bulling, social awkwardness etc  are major causes of under performance, I don't see a problem with having 1 or 2 lessons a week where social issues are discussed.




"Discussion" is a long way from sending students to an obviously biased film that exploits very young children who have no idea what they are saying apart from what their elders tell them to say, and trying to pretend to students that this represents some form of balanced "discussion". 

Is the contrary case going to be put to the students ? 

Is someone like Katie Faust going to be invited along to give her view ? If not, then the whole thing is a tacky propaganda exercise.


----------



## Value Collector (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> "Discussion" is a long way from sending students to an obviously biased film that exploits very young children who have no idea what they are saying apart from what their elders tell them to say, and trying to pretend to students that this represents some form of balanced "discussion".
> 
> Is the contrary case going to be put to the students ?
> 
> Is someone like Katie Faust going to be invited along to give her view ? If not, then the whole thing is a tacky propaganda exercise.




We aren't privy to the class room discussion that lead up to or was inspired by watching the film.

but I can't see how making children aware that these types of families exist is a bad thing.


----------



## Value Collector (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You really should take some lessons in statistics. Normal means the most common. As I pointed out before (and you ignored), I said it's invalid to infer that there is anything wrong with people in minority groups, so kindly read my posts more carefully.




Normal means conforming to a standard, usual, typical, expected.

I would think having a certain percentage of any population being gay is typical and expected hence normal.

As I asked before, should a black child be considered abnormal? I mean statically there are fewer aboriginals than gays, so I guess they abnormal also?


----------



## Tink (27 August 2015)

I agree, Rumpole.

Less and less numeracy and literacy, and more and more political correctness.
And they wonder why public education is in a bad way.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851

Good on the parents for having their say in Sydney.
This should be something the parents deal with, not the schools.

Seems to be more and more state control being pushed on these parents.

As was mentioned in the ABC thread
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23929&page=112

if they want to talk about bullying, look right there, on their ABC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHhX_bUubQM


----------



## Tisme (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Because my taxes help pay for it.
> 
> Schools seem to be turning out dummies who need remedial lessons if they ever get to uni, so I think it would be good if they concentrated on the basics instead of what a few minority groups think is politically correct.




See, I would have thought your paramount opposition was to *grooming kids* to accept and/or participate in abberant sexualised  behaviours. 

It seems to me that the letters to the editor run hot on parental delinquency and dereliction of duty when it's discovered that some kid has done some deed or been subjected to some misdeed, but it's OK to use a safe house institution to instruct, guide and for all intents and purposes provide a user manual on how to walk a path that has no turning back .....  no small reason the suicide consideration rate is reported as high among affected and probably ashamed youth.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> See, I would have thought your paramount opposition was to *grooming kids* to accept and/or participate in abberant sexualised  behaviours.




It is, but then someone said what *right* do I have to express my opinion, which is when it came down to taxes being used to promote this behaviour.


----------



## Tisme (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It is, but then someone said what *right* do I have to express my opinion, which is when it came down to taxes being used to promote this behaviour.




You have a right to voice your opinion, because this is a democracy where the majority of common are supposed to have the will and elected reps are supposed to (good) govern for that will. Privileged and special classes are not supposed to exercise disproportionate influence on the majority. Taxes are of minor import, when our supposed freedom to have an opposing position is under attack.

I see the ABC news this morning is promoting another gay coupling film and Virginia as usual championing it as art, seemingly oblivious to the underlying theme of relentless misery for the characters and all those around them.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Because my taxes help pay for it.
> 
> Schools seem to be turning out dummies who need remedial lessons if they ever get to uni, so I think it would be good if they concentrated on the basics instead of what a few minority groups think is politically correct.




Obviously parents have no responsibility to ensuring their children can read write and have a basic ability with numbers.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Obviously parents have no responsibility to ensuring their children can read write and have a basic ability with numbers.




That's a bit of a red herring syd, it's well known that maths is being taught much differently to when parents were at school and most parents these days would struggle to do their kids maths homework. 

Besides it's a bit off topic don't you think ?


----------



## Value Collector (27 August 2015)

Tink said:


> I agree, Rumpole.
> 
> Less and less numeracy and literacy, and more and more political correctness.
> And they wonder why public education is in a bad way.
> ...




You are laughable tink, expecting a parent such as yourself to pass factual information about human sexuality to the adolescents in their care would be like expecting a member of the KKK to teach civil rights.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You are laughable tink, expecting a parent such as yourself to pass factual information about human sexuality to the adolescents in their care would be like expecting a member of the KKK to teach civil rights.




Wasn't it you who started a thread about bigotry a while ago ?



If your last post occurred on a footy field you would be sin binned at a minimum.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a bit of a red herring syd, it's well known that maths is being taught much differently to when parents were at school and most parents these days would struggle to do their kids maths homework.
> 
> Besides it's a bit off topic don't you think ?




So you're telling me you'd have trouble helping a 5th grader do their homework?

Sorry SR but if a child gets through primary school with issues surrounding literacy and numeracy, and it's not related to say dyslexia or similar, then the parents have to take most of the responsibility.  If a parent can't be bothered to sit and help their children learn to read and write and gain basic math skills while in primary school, don't go looking to blame the teachers.

As for being off topic, this thread has basically been off topic because you and most other try to link marriage and children, when it's been shown children can occur outside of marriage, marriages can be childless, and gay people are already having children.  You were also the one who introduced the movie into the topic of conversation.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It is, but then someone said what *right* do I have to express my opinion, which is when it came down to taxes being used to promote this behaviour.




Could you point to the post where your right to post your opinion was challenged?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

> As for being off topic, this thread has basically been off topic because you and most other try to link marriage and children,




There is a link because if gay marriage goes through, the gay population will then expect the public to be tolerant of gay parenting, whereas as I showed with the example of Norway people there are divided over gay parenting even though they accept gay marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Could you point to the post where your right to post your opinion was challenged?




you said



> This was not forced on students, and parents were fully informed, so why do you feel you have the right to decide what someone else's children learn?




Which is a roundabout way of telling me to shut up.



			
				sydboy007 said:
			
		

> Sorry SR but if a child gets through primary school with issues surrounding literacy and numeracy, and it's not related to say dyslexia or similar, then the parents have to take most of the responsibility.




Really, what has primary school got to do with this topic ? The school in question is Burwood Girls *High *School, and they should be more focussed on things that actually affect their future lives like work skills instead of PC propaganda that applies to only a tiny minority.


----------



## Value Collector (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Wasn't it you who started a thread about bigotry a while ago ?
> 
> 
> 
> If your last post occurred on a footy field you would be sin binned at a minimum.




What was bigoted about my statement?

I think it's pretty clear by her posts Tink has some anti gay views, so my anology is just to show that I don't think she and other parents with similar views are capable of providing factual teachings on the topic.

So when she said it should be left to the parents to teach, I don't think that's possible in a lot of cases.


----------



## Value Collector (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There is a link because if gay marriage goes through, the gay population will then expect the public to be tolerant of gay parenting, whereas as I showed with the example of Norway people there are divided over gay parenting even though they accept gay marriage.




gay parenting is already legal, and yes people should be tolerant of it, regardless of what happens in the gay marriage debate.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

The view of a 31 year old woman raised by lesbian parents
http://m.dailylife.com.au/life-and-...13IET000&promote_channel=edmail&mbnr=NDA4NjM5


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> you said
> 
> 
> This was not forced on students, and parents were fully informed, so why do you feel you have the right to decide what someone else's children learn?
> ...




No it's not. I doubt you have any school age children. You're the one questioning the right of the parents to allow their children to watch the movie. 

Now if had been mandatory to watch the movie you'd have an argument that's not appropriate, but you've basically challenged the right of the students parents to decide what is appropriate for them


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There is a link because if gay marriage goes through, the gay population will then expect the public to be tolerant of gay parenting, whereas as I showed with the example of Norway people there are divided over gay parenting even though they accept gay marriage.




Hasn't occurred in any other country that's legalised SSM so I doubt the laws will change any time soon on that, and to be honest even within the gay community there'd be much less support for that compared to Support for SSM.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> The view of a 31 year old woman raised by lesbian parents
> http://m.dailylife.com.au/life-and-...13IET000&promote_channel=edmail&mbnr=NDA4NjM5




"Gayby Baby director Maya Newell: I am a 'gayby' "

Says it all that this film is propaganda.

I come back to my previous statement that opposing viewpoints need to be heard if this is to be presented to students. Not to mention that it clearly exploits young children and uses them as actors reading scripts written by others.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> "Gayby Baby director Maya Newell: I am a 'gayby' "
> 
> Says it all that this film is propaganda.
> 
> I come back to my previous statement that opposing viewpoints need to be heard if this is to be presented to students. Not to mention that it clearly exploits young children and uses them as actors reading scripts written by others.




Evidence?


----------



## noco (27 August 2015)

Looks like the CFMEU have got hold of Gillard by the throat and told her fall in line with Tanya, the same as did to Billy Boy.

The ABC have goooooonnnneee all quiet about it....I wonder why?

If it had been Abbott, the leftie media would have flogged it for the next 3 weeks before the Canning by-election.

It's OK for Julia to change her mind.

Move on everybody.....nothing to see here.

*Former prime minister Julia Gillard has angered some supporters of same-sex marriage after declaring she now supports it.

Ms Gillard announced her changed position delivering the Michael Kirby Lecture on Wednesday, while warning the idea of a plebiscite or referendum on gay marriage was illogical and dangerous.

The former Labor leader, who previously voted against gay marriage in parliament, said given the chance again she would vote yes.

She admitted her previous position was considered odd and idiosyncratic given her broader values.

But Ms Gillard also defended her legacy, saying she assumed the Liberal party would permit its MPs a conscience vote and parliament would eventually allow for same-sex marriages.


https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29356898/gillard-changes-heart-on-gay-marriage/*


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Evidence?




For what ?


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

so the daily terror has been caught out lying again.  Just a giant media beat up over something the parents of the school were fully aware of and supportive off

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...complaints-from-parents-about-gayby-baby-film



> “The school has not received any complaints from Burwood girls high school parents,” the department said in a statement.
> 
> Cath Sefton, whose daughter attends the school, described the episode as a “total beatup”. “What the school is doing as part of Wear it Purple Day ... actually has nothing to do with gay marriage,” she said. “It’s about respect for diversity, about people who are different from you.
> 
> ...





Statement from Burwood girls high school prefects:



> The Prefects of BGHS wish to express their disappointment at the media coverage of the school’s intended showing of the documentary Gayby Baby.
> 
> As Burwood girls, we pride ourselves on our support of diversity - in whatever form it takes.
> 
> ...


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> For what ?




that children were exploited, that the movie is dishonest with the way the children are portrayed.

In the internet age if you spoon fed some kids it would come out pretty quickly.  Secrets don't tend to last too long these days.

You're quick to claim your voice is being blocked from being heard, but quick to dismiss the voice of anyone who doesn't agree with you on this topic.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> that children were exploited, that the movie is dishonest with the way the children are portrayed.




In the trailer for the film that was shown, the kids didn't look more than about 10. To believe that they were able to make an independent judgement of their situation when they were still dependent on their carers for the necessities of life is a long stretch. They would be parrotting what their carers told them to say, and were therefore exploited for the cause.


----------



## Tink (28 August 2015)

It was stopped in school hours in NSW, Syd, but available out of school hours.
Good on them, politics shouldn't be pushed in the school curriculum.

They had no say here in Vic with dictator Dan - Labor/Greens.
State control over the parents in public schools.
I think it is for both, primary and secondary here.

Labor/Greens are the first to call out racist, discrimination and whatever else but they never look in their own backyard at their unions and the bullying that has been going on.

While Vic is on strike, both trams and trains next week, and they keep adding more debt to our state with nothing to show, he has the gall to talk about Mike Baird.

At least parents had a say in NSW.


----------



## noco (28 August 2015)

*WHAT ABOUT JULIA?*

*Which union is the guilty one?*


----------



## wayneL (28 August 2015)

noco said:


> *WHAT ABOUT JULIA?*
> 
> *Which union is the guilty one?*




Just a transparent hatchet job on Abbott IMO.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

wayneL said:


> Just a transparent hatchet job on Abbott IMO.




She had to appease the Christian Left of the Labor Party when in office, but now she feels free to support the Sisterhood, lest it interferes with her future job prospects if she didn't.


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2015)

noco said:


> *WHAT ABOUT JULIA?*




No longer has the guidance from her father?

Obviously the attacks from Alan Jones and his disgraceful treatment of her and her recently deceased father's name, isn't enough to ingrain negative homophobia...."The old man recently died a few weeks ago of shame" is one of the lowest, uncouth things I have ever heard anyone utter.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

ok, now that we have a separate thread to discuss the issues of gay parenting, which were a continual red herring on this thread.

Can anyone think of a reason to not allow gay marriage that's not a parenting red herring or a religious reason that is meaningless in our secular society?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ok, now that we have a separate thread to discuss the issues of gay parenting, which were a continual red herring on this thread.
> 
> Can anyone think of a reason to not allow gay marriage that's not a parenting red herring or a religious reason that is meaningless in our secular society?




It's your opinion that parenting is a red herring, others may not agree.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's your opinion that parenting is a red herring, others may not agree.




It's a red herring when discussing the legality of marriage, people may disagree, but they are wrong. It's called the slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's a red herring when discussing the legality of marriage, people may disagree, but they are wrong. It's called the slippery slope fallacy.




The same "fallacy" that says privatisation of airlines would not lead to reduced passenger safety. Proven false.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The same "fallacy" that says privatisation of airlines would not lead to reduced passenger safety. Proven false.




That's not even an example of a slippery slope fallacy.

gay marriage and gay parenting are to different topics, neither relies on the other.

Eg, you can allow gay parenting while still outlawing gay marriage, and you can allow gay marriage while still outlawing gay parenting. Both topics can be legislated separately.

so it's a slippery slope fallacy to say you want one banned, because you fear the other.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 August 2015)

Tink said:


> It was stopped in school hours in NSW, Syd, but available out of school hours.
> Good on them, politics shouldn't be pushed in the school curriculum.
> 
> They had no say here in Vic with dictator Dan - Labor/Greens.
> ...




So when the royals visit a school it should be out of school hours?  

Religious studies also out of hours?

basically if it's not part of the school board approved curriculum it shouldn't be happening in school hours?

I'd prob support that because it certainly wheedle out a lot of religion from public schools.


----------



## Tisme (29 August 2015)

Venice under seige

I see that Elton just wants inclusiveness = we can join his brand and cause, not the other way around; his way or the highway 

I'm guessing the bloke who wrote this article is a homosexual too


http://www.smh.com.au/world/venice-...ith-elton-john-escalates-20150827-gj9j69.html


----------



## Tink (29 August 2015)

As much as I like Elton John's music, he is becoming a bully.

Just like with Dolce and Gabbana, when he tried to boycott their business - pfft.

They told him they were entitled to freedom of speech.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2015)

Tink said:


> As much as I like Elton John's music, he is becoming a bully.
> 
> Just like with Dolce and Gabbana, when he tried to boycott their business - pfft.
> 
> They told him they were entitled to freedom of speech.




But you support a business say not making a wedding cake for a couple as that's their right, or a venue refusing to higher out for a gay wedding.

But then you don't support someone saying I disagree with what you are saying and doing and therefore will not support your business and spend my money with a business that is more inline with my views.

The same inconsistency applies to you saying the gayby baby film should not be shown in school hours, but you fully support scripture classes in school hours, even though this is not part of the curriculum.

The rules you apply change depending on whether you agree with what's happening or not.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

What tink has to realise, is that freedom of speech means you can't be jailed of punished by the government for expressing your opinion.

You are free to express what ever racist or bigoted opinion you like, but the rest of us are also free to avoid you once we find out you're a C##t.

it would still be my duty to serve you if you came into my business, but I am not going to line up at your door, and I will certainly will voice opposition to your claims, and that's not denying your right to freedom of speech, it's express my own.


----------



## Tink (29 August 2015)

Syd, they are all gays, one agrees with you and the other two agree with me, that Marriage shouldn't be changed.
Mothers and Fathers are important.
They gave their opinions and there was no stopping to sell to anyone.

I have given my reasons why Marriage shouldn't be changed throughout this thread.

VC, you are clearly not the full quid so won't even bother answering yours.


----------



## trainspotter (30 August 2015)

Tink said:


> Syd, they are all gays, one agrees with you and the other two agree with me, that Marriage shouldn't be changed.
> 
> *Mothers and Fathers are important.*
> 
> ...




Right there is the crux of the matter at hand.


----------



## Logique (4 September 2015)

This poor woman in the US was thrown into jail, simply for standing by her Christian values, and refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

It exactly the sort of thing opponents of gay marriage in this country have been warning about.

A decent Christian woman thrown into jail, on the say so of the gays. Welcome to the Brave New World.



> Clerk Rejects Proposal to Let Deputies Issue Marriage Licenses
> By ALAN BLINDERSEPT. 3, 2015
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
> 
> ...


----------



## Tink (4 September 2015)

Agree, Logique, as I mentioned in this thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=30166&page=9&p=881676&viewfull=1#post881676

When the militant homosexual lobby and its supporters tell you no one will be adversely impacted when homosexual marriage goes through, they are lying. 

They know full well that everything changes – for the worse.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

Logique said:


> This poor woman in the US was thrown into jail, simply for standing by her Christian values, and refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> It exactly the sort of thing opponents of gay marriage in this country have been warning about.
> 
> A decent Christian woman thrown into jail, on the say so of the gays. Welcome to the Brave New World.




A gaol term is completely innappropriate in this case. I'm sure they could have shuffled her duties around so that she didn't have to hand out the certificates if it offended her. I think this reeks of some gay Nazi in the management trying to make an example of her.


----------



## bellenuit (4 September 2015)

Logique said:


> This poor woman in the US was thrown into jail, simply for standing by her Christian values, and refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> It exactly the sort of thing opponents of gay marriage in this country have been warning about.
> 
> A decent Christian woman thrown into jail, on the say so of the gays. Welcome to the Brave New World.




A complete misunderstanding of the case.

She was put in jail for contempt of court and it was not on the say so of the gays. She openly refused to carry out her duties in that civil capacity, which she had sworn an oath to do. Joe Dunman, the civil rights lawyer who represents the same-sex couples in this case, said that it was never his or his clients' desire that Davis be incarcerated. 

_"We didn't ask for it," he said. "We didn't want for her to be put in jail."

But (US District Judge) Bunning ordered her detained anyway. According to the Courier-Journal, he said he could not "condone willful disobedience."_

If you support what she did, then you would also have to support a Muslim clerk refusing to perform her sworn civil duties is she refused to serve a woman not wearing a headscarf, for instance. Or an Amish refusing to issue a war pension to an army veteran. Or a science teacher refusing to teach evolution to his class if it were part of the curriculum because he doesn't personally believe in it. The clerk in this case, was not issuing marriage licences in her personal capacity but as an agent of the state. What type of society do you think we would have if our ability to obtain rightful government entitlements were dependent on the religious whim of the person serving us. 

The point here was that the clerk had the option to either resign or request another posting within that department, but she chose to remain in her post knowing that she was the only person in the county (I think) that had authority to issue marriage licences. That would have forced gay couples, who have every right to get a marriage licence, to travel to another county to do so. Again the Christian lobby fail to see that it is they who are discriminating against the rights of others, not vice-versa. As the court ruled, the clerk does not have the right to selectively perform her duties and had sworn an oath to that effect, so her rights were not infringed. The gay couple have a right to get a marriage licence in their home county. It was their rights that were infringed.


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2015)

Logique said:


> simply for standing by her Christian values,
> .




She wasn't standing up for her Christian values, no one was trying to force her to have a gay marriage.

She was refusing to do her job, and in the process trying to deny some one else their legal rights and force her Christian values on them.

She could always just resign from her post if she can't carry out her duties.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> A gaol term is completely innappropriate in this case. I'm sure they could have shuffled her duties around so that she didn't have to hand out the certificates if it offended her. I think this reeks of some gay Nazi in the management trying to make an example of her.




There was a report of a US woman who got a job as a domestic airline flight attendant.  About 1 month before (after) she got the position she converted to Islam.  She tried to make it so that the only other flight attendant working with here would have to serve all the alcohol to customers.

She's currently on administration leave.

Do you believe that refusing to do the job you are paid for is acceptable?  Do you believe that when you have been ordered by the courts to do your job, and are fully aware of the consequences if you continue to break the law, that you should be left off with a stern look for continuing to break the law?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Do you believe that refusing to do the job you are paid for is acceptable?  Do you believe that when you have been ordered by the courts to do your job, and are fully aware of the consequences if you continue to break the law, that you should be left off with a stern look for continuing to break the law?




Since when should it be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE do refuse to do duties as directed in a job ?

It may well be a sackable offence, but to throw someone in gaol for it is criminal (pardon the pun).


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Since when should it be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE do refuse to do duties as directed in a job ?
> 
> .




Since when?

for hundreds of years, when you have sworn an oath and taken a government position, you must follow lawful orders.

If a soldier refused to obey a lawful command, he would not get the sack (not right away atleast), he would be jailed.

She at least had the option to resign, a soldier often doesn't.

In her capacity as a government official, she is there to comply with the law and conduct her duties, if she can't she can resign.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Since when?
> 
> for hundreds of years, when you have sworn an oath and taken a government position, you must follow lawful orders.
> 
> ...




And her employer had the option to sack her.

You can't compare the army where lives are at stake with handing out certificates. 

This smells like a setup to me, the certificate could have been posted out. It looks to me as though she's been singled out by some militant gays for retribution.


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And her employer had the option to sack her.
> 
> .




the employer gave her the option to resign or to comply with the lawful order.



> You can't compare the army where lives are at stake with handing out certificates.




You can be Jailed in the army for defying a lawful order when no lives are at stake. if you just called up and said, I am not coming into work anymore, you would be jailed.

We used to be told, if you don't show up for work, they will first send an army ambulance to your house and if they find you well, they will send a military police vehicle.



> This smells like a setup to me, the certificate could have been posted out. It looks to me as though she's been singled out by some militant gays for retribution




Are you kidding? it comes down to the fact that she holds a serious position in the legal system, She has certain duties to fulfil as part of that position, It is not part of her capacity to protest laws, she can do that on her own time, when she is fulfilling her role, she has to carry out her duties, if you allow the government positions to become platforms for protest and disobedience everything will go to crap.

She has to carry out her duties blindfolded to her own opinions and prejudice. if not she is going against the very core of our system of justice, that can not be taken lightly. If she isn't happy with that, she can resign, but she can not stay where she is and protest.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Since when should it be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE do refuse to do duties as directed in a job ?
> 
> It may well be a sackable offence, but to throw someone in gaol for it is criminal (pardon the pun).




It becamse a criminal offence when she disobeyed a court order.

I seem to remember one of your proposed ways to reduce child abuse was by more stricly enforcing AVOs ie enforcing a court order.

This woman is not in jail for being a Christian, nor for her Christina beliefs.  She's in jail because she has repeatedly refused to do the job she accepts money for from the tax payer, after fronting a judge who ordered her to perform her sworn duties.  It's not like she ended up in jail immediately after refusing to do the job.  She has mad a conscious decision to cross the line and now faces the punishment.

Do you believe the female FA I talked about in my prior post that converted to islam and refused to serve alcohol, a part of the job she knew before applying for the job and which she accepted to do when accepting to take the position, should be allowed to not server alcohol due to her religious beliefs, or should she have resigned / not accepted the position?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> It becamse a criminal offence when she disobeyed a court order.




Do you really believe people should be jailed for not handing a certificate to someone ?

You quite rightly protested about Border Protection who were going to do the job they were assigned interviewing people about their visas. If one of them decided that wasn't the right thing to do (even though it was legal to do so) would you criticise them ?

This jailing is an example of an extreme reaction to a minor issue, something I never expected to see in a country that prides itself on the Rights of the individual.



> Do you believe the female FA I talked about in my prior post that converted to islam and refused to serve alcohol, a part of the job she knew before applying for the job and which she accepted to do when accepting to take the position, should be allowed to not server alcohol due to her religious beliefs, or should she have resigned / not accepted the position?




Was she thrown in gaol ?


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Was she thrown in gaol ?




The airlines don't have the power to do that, But if a member of the air force defied a lawful order and was given the option to resign, but stayed and continued to defy the order they would be thrown in jail for sure.


----------



## trainspotter (4 September 2015)

I think everyone should go back and read bellenuit post #1804


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

trainspotter said:


> I think everyone should go back and read bellenuit post #1804




The court order should have been served on her employer, the State of Kentucky who is responsible for her doing her job. The State could then have sacked her or moved her elsewhere. 

It's up to the employer to enforce the law.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for her, but gaol is an over reaction if you can simply take the responsibility away from that person and give it to someone else who will do the job.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The airlines don't have the power to do that, But if a member of the air force defied a lawful order and was given the option to resign, but stayed and continued to defy the order they would be thrown in jail for sure.




Huh ?

Why wouldn't  the Air Force  dismiss the person if they didn't resign  instead of throwing them in jail ?


----------



## bellenuit (4 September 2015)

Some facts you may not be aware of:



> And her employer had the option to sack her.




Hers is an elected office. She can be impeached, but not sacked. And it is debatable if she can be assigned to another role. She could, however, resign if she finds the role she has sworn to undertake is unpalatable to her.



SirRumpole said:


> Do you really believe people should be jailed for not handing a certificate to someone ?
> 
> This jailing is an example of an extreme reaction to a minor issue, something I never expected to see in a country that prides itself on the Rights of the individual.




It is not minor.

_Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, has repeatedly refused to grant marriage licenses *to all couples* based on her religious beliefs that oppose gay marriage, despite the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to intervene in her favor. She was sued by a group of gay *and straight couples* in July and a federal judge ordered that she begin issuing the licenses._

Davis, the clerk, is the only one in that county that can issue marriage licences. She has six deputies working for her whom she could authorise to issue the licences if she didn't want to do so herself. _Davis, however, said she would not authorize the deputies to issue the licenses_. Even though the court has now ordered the deputies to issue licences, it seems that without Davis' approval those licenses may not be valid. The lack of validity would have to be tested in court.

On taking her position, Davis swore the following oath:

_"I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, *and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.*"_

If she is not being hypocritical, she might want to consider these words in the Bible:

Deuteronomy.

_When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. (23:21-23)._

Numbers.

_If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. (30:2)._

She has adopted her stance after becoming an Apostolic Christian, a group that believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible (which somehow excludes adherence to the above commands from Deuteronomy and Numbers)

And if anyone should think that she is not being used for political purposes, they should realise that she is not fighting this on her own but is being legally represented at no cost by Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian religious advocacy organisation.

She is also being supported by the usual motley collection of religious extremists in the US: Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Pat Robertson etc.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-federal-custody-contempt

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...or-denying-same-sex-marriage-licenses/6748700

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/03/christian-clerk-is-jailed-for-contempt/

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a37608/kim-davis-kentucky/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-...in-luther-king-jr_b_8084636.html?ir=Australia

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/let-explain-religious-freedom-kentucky-county-clerk-kim-davis/


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Huh ?
> 
> Why wouldn't  the Air Force  dismiss the person if they didn't resign  instead of throwing them in jail ?




They may be dismissed after they had served their sentence.

you can not defy a lawful command from the government, regardless whether your a soldier or a legal clerk.

In peacetime they may give you the option to resign your post, but you can't stay in your position and openly defy a legal order, you will comply with the order of be charged.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

> Hers is an elected office. She can be impeached, but not sacked. And it is debatable if she can be assigned to another role. She could, however, resign if she finds the role she has sworn to undertake is unpalatable to her.




Well, that's different in that case.

Funny system they have over there.


----------



## bellenuit (4 September 2015)

Some additional information on Kim Davis the Rowan County Clerk at the centre of this dispute. Many have assumed that because she has the word clerk in her description, she is probably some lowly paid lady sitting at the front office stamping applications from the public and being intimidated into doing something she doesn't want to so. 

Quite the contrary, her role is that of an elected official, and she is the only person in the county (Rowan, Kentucky) allowed to perform her role (apart from those she deputises). To obtain that position she had to get the nomination of her party (Democrats) in the primaries and then had to stand against a Republican candidate for the election to that position. Her position has a salary of $80,000+ and generous expenses. Having an elected position, she is entitled to employ family members. Her son is one of her deputies (we don't know his salary, but when Davis herself was a deputy clerk in 2011, she had an annual wage of $51,812 and an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation). So we are not talking about some lowly paid front desk form stamper.

As an elected official she must swear an oath when taking office and I have previous outlined that oath.

Davis has 6 deputies working for her. Although she cannot be sacked, just impeached (which is quite difficult to achieve) and cannot be forcefully reassigned to other duties, she could herself resign or voluntarily allocate the issuing of gay marriage licences to her deputies, if she herself really felt doing so herself a religious no-no. She has refused each of those alternative options.

Following the June 26, 2015, U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the right to marry is guaranteed to same sex couples, Davis _reacted to the ruling by forbidding her clerks from issuing any marriage licenses at all, resulting in a strained workplace atmosphere. The *Kentucky Trial Court Review* wrote that *her "conduct has terrorized not just her staff but everyone that works in the courthouse. And all for a foolish mission aided by out of state charlatan lawyers trying to raise money for their 'religious liberty' mission."*_

In August 2015, Davis refused to follow a court order requiring her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She refused on the grounds of religious freedom, stating that she was acting "under God’s authority". Some sources have questioned whether Davis, having been married four times, was acting hypocritically in the "application of her beliefs"......

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled she must issue marriage licenses to all applicants, and both that court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay that ruling pending appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court also declined to stay the District Court's ruling, and she continued her defiance of the District Court's order.......

Davis was ordered to appear with her six deputy clerks before a U.S. district court judge on September 3 in Ashland. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) *asked the court to impose a fine on Davis rather than incarcerate her*, but following the court appearance, Davis was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals and was jailed for contempt of court. The judge said she will remain incarcerated until she complies with the court's order to issue marriage licenses. *The judge reportedly said that fines were not an option "because outsiders would pay them for her."*.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)


----------



## sydboy007 (5 September 2015)

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...clines-divorce-case-citing-gay-marria/323201/

Atherton’s reasoning? In his words, the Supreme Court needs to clarify “when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”

“The conclusion reached by this court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces,” Atherton wrote in his judgment.

In other words, the judge believes SCOTUS changed the definition of marriage when it ruled in favor of nationwide marriage equality earlier this summer, therefore it must also change the definition of divorce, and until then he won’t allow anyone, same- or opposite sex, to end their unions.

Good thinking, your honor.

When asked what exactly the couple should do now that they can’t get divorced, Atherton shrugged and said: “Hopefully, they can reconcile” unwittingly letting the world know that he was substituting his judgement for the couple’s own.


----------



## Logique (5 September 2015)

bellenuit said:


> A complete misunderstanding of the case...



I don't think so. The same sex couples wanted a show trial, and that's what they got. 

We in Australia have the the opportunity to avoid this sort of consequence for innocent officials, that's the real point.  

If Australians vote for same sex marriage in a plebiscite, fair enough, but we should not be criminalizing personal conscience on this issue with a jail term.


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2015)

Logique said:


> This poor woman in the US was thrown into jail, simply for standing by her Christian values, and refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> It exactly the sort of thing opponents of gay marriage in this country have been warning about.
> 
> A decent Christian woman thrown into jail, on the say so of the gays. Welcome to the Brave New World.




I didn't know you could compelled to do unreasonable employment tasks, even under the direction of the highest court in the land.

If a judge mandated that agitating gays must dismantle their propaganda mill, I wonder if they would comply.


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> She wasn't standing up for her Christian values,.








> *For the love of Christ compels us*, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again




The bible is very clear about christianity v homosexuality, to a practicing christian.

Also the US constitution is christian based, even with reference to the "year of our Lord" and the Sunday (no business) sabbath. So the court should skew to christian rules.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 September 2015)

Maybe she feels that as an elected official rather than a mere functionary, she has a right to carry out her "policies" ?

It's an interesting situation to have elections for administrative functions. I believe the US has elections for policemen and judges. 

Does this provide a better system than what we have ?

Could be arguments both ways on that, but personally I think it could lead to administrative atrophy on a range of issues.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> The bible is very clear about christianity v homosexuality, to a practicing christian.
> 
> Also the US constitution is christian based, even with reference to the "year of our Lord" and the Sunday (no business) sabbath. So the court should skew to christian rules.




Well, Christians like tio fluip flop around.

On the one hand, a lot of the evil stuff in the old testament is said to no longer be valid and what the new testament says is how things should be.  That way Christians can get away from explaining why beating your slave so badly they die over a day later is not a crime, but then 

There is no scripture in the new testament that explicitly deals with homosexuality.  Lots of stuff about immorality, but unless you have a valid argument that homosexuality is wrong, then I don't think the bible has much to offer.

If homosexuality was as evil as many of the far right Christians say, why isn't it part of the 11 Commandments?  Seems adultery, stealing, coveting werwe all viewed by god as far greater issues than homosexuality.

There's only 7 bible passages that deal with homosexuality, though even some of them are very grey and open to interpretation.  Compare this to the sin of hatred mentioned 21 times, lying and false testimony 30 times, greed / avarice etc 40 times, theft 42, adultery 52, murder 57, *self-righteousness 79* and idolatry 169 times.

Most of the bible passages dealing with homosexuality talk about the practice in terms of breaking other important bible prohibitions eg rape, idolatry, prostitution or pederasty.

personally I feel this woman is partial to the sin of self righteousness and has been encouraged by the far right religious groups to turn herself into a martyr.  Sadly the judge sending her to jail has given the religious right exactly what hey want.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe she feels that as an elected official rather than a mere functionary, she has a right to carry out her "policies" ?
> 
> It's an interesting situation to have elections for administrative functions. I believe the US has elections for policemen and judges.
> 
> ...




There's something wrong with a system that leads to judges advertising to get elected.

John Oliver covered this topic earlier in the year

[video=youtube_share;poL7l-Uk3I8]http://youtu.be/poL7l-Uk3I8[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole (5 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> There's something wrong with a system that leads to judges advertising to get elected.
> 
> John Oliver covered this topic earlier in the year
> 
> [video=youtube_share;poL7l-Uk3I8]http://youtu.be/poL7l-Uk3I8[/video]




A very apt and incisive analysis...

Looks like it's a choice between our political judges and their corrupt ones.


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Well, Christians like tio fluip flop around.
> 
> .




No argument with you there. My stance on sky fairies is fairly consistent. 

But if this woman is driven by christian ethics and the skylord hasn't repealed pertinant old testament directives via the new testament, then things don't bode well for relations with this woman and gay couples. 

In context, anyone who has travelled the USA knows that christianity pervades society, just as judaism pervades their courts, entertainment and financial systems.


----------



## bellenuit (5 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> I didn't know you could compelled to do unreasonable employment tasks, even under the direction of the highest court in the land.
> 
> If a judge mandated that agitating gays must dismantle their propaganda mill, I wonder if they would comply.




It wasn't an unreasonable employment task. Since when is upholding the constitution a discretionary task for a state representative. How does she get to override the constitution of the USA. She is not a simple employee, but an elected official who swore under oath to carry out her duties of office. I am sure there are many tasks that she does on a day to day basis that are against her Christian principles (issuing divorces for instance), but she doesn't have an issue with those. On top of that, as I have mentioned, she is the only official in that county authorised to issue marriage licenses and even though she has the discretion to deputise that function, she has steadfastly refused to do it, thus fully frustrating the rights of others,

It should be patently obvious that she is making a political stand aided and abetted by the Christian Right in America and fully funded by a Floridian Christian group.


----------



## Value Collector (5 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> The bible is very clear about christianity v homosexuality, to a practicing christian.
> 
> .




It's also clear about divorce, her "Values" didn't stop her filing for 3 divorces, 

It's also clear about adultery, her 4th husband got her pregnant while she was still married to her 3rd husband.

I bet she would have gone nuts if people refused to file her divorce papers or other marriage papers due to their "Christian Values".



> Also the US constitution is christian based, even with reference to the "year of our Lord" and the Sunday (no business) sabbath. So the court should skew to christian rules




The USA constitution separates the church from the state, and explicitly says the government is not to be part of any religion.

Go find the word Jesus or Christian in the constitution and then come back to me.



> The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion,




Seems pretty clear to me



> prohibits, impeding the free exercise of religion,




This is the wording that people such as this clerk hide behind.

They try to say that by asking them to process marriage documents is impeding their religious freedom, but it's not. they can practice their religion how ever they want, but the can not use their position as a platform to push that religion others, otherwise you are impeding that persons religious freedoms.

eg. the gay couples god obviously doesn't have a problem with them getting married, and even if they don't believe in a god, the have a right to freedom from religion.



> Sunday (no business) sabbath. So the court should skew to christian rules




and what's the punishment for working on the Sabbath?

Do you really want courts to follow Christian values?


----------



## Value Collector (5 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> No argument with you there. My stance on sky fairies is fairly consistent.
> 
> But if this woman is driven by christian ethics and the skylord hasn't repealed pertinant old testament directives via the new testament, then things don't bode well for relations with this woman and gay couples..




Jesus himself said that none of the laws of the old testament will change,  Jesus here is stating that Jewish law will not be changed until heaven and earth disappear 



> Matthew 5: 17-20
> 
> 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled




So Christians that try and cherry pick laws and say "But that's old testament" either don't know what their home boy Jesus actually said, or are lying.

Any way, at what point in the new testament was the ban on eating bacon, shellfish, divorce or working on the Sabbath repealed ?

Seems you don't care about any of the other silly rules, just the silly rules that agree with your pre existing homophobia.

Would you be ok with a court official impeding the development of a piggery or refusing to grant fishing licences to lobster fisherman?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 September 2015)

Kentucky clerk's office ends ban on same-sex marriage licences 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...nds-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-licenses/6752096


----------



## bellenuit (5 September 2015)

Logique said:


> I don't think so. The same sex couples wanted a show trial, and that's what they got.
> 
> We in Australia have the the opportunity to avoid this sort of consequence for innocent officials, that's the real point.
> 
> If Australians vote for same sex marriage in a plebiscite, fair enough, but we should not be criminalizing personal conscience on this issue with a jail term.




Again you fail to understand what the trial was about.

The original case was not brought just by same sex couples (did you read anything that was posted in the last few days), but also by straight couples. Why straight couples?

Because Davis, the only person in the county authorised to issue marriage licences, *promised (and delivered) to stop issuing licenses to heterosexual couples as well, until such a time as the United States court system "came to its senses" and reversed its decision to allow gay marriage in every state of the Union*.

It was not just a personal choice on her behalf to not do something she felt was against her belief, but a political act to overturn a decision of the US Supreme Court.

And she is not an innocent official. She is an elected official who has sworn to undertake the duties of her position. Again this is the oath she took.....

_"I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and *will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.*"_

She swore under oath to her God to faithfully fulfil the duties of her role as required, not at her discretion. If she felt that a new task being asked of her was not something she could conscionable do, then if she felt so strongly about the issue as she claimed, she should have resigned her post. After all, breaking an oath to her God is also forbidden by the Bible. Resigning would be the only course of action consistent with her religious position.

In the US case, a plebiscite was not needed as the constitution already allowed same sex marriage. It just hadn't been tested prior to that.

Again she was not jailed for following her conscience, which clearly is very selective on what parts of the Bible to accept. She was jailed for refusing to do the duties of her office, which she had sworn to do under oath and for what she was elected to do. As mentioned, if she wanted to follow her conscience, then the right course of action was to resign.

And as the judge indicated, jailing was necessary as a fine would simply have been paid by her backers.

_As US News reported Thursday, “ACLU attorney Heather Weaver, who is working on the case, said there was testimony about fundraising efforts on Davis’ behalf, apparently a factor in the judge’s decision not to impose financial penalties.” And DailyKos noted that “Plaintiffs in the case had asked [District Court Judge David] Bunning to fine Davis, but they specifically requested that he not jail her. Bunning, though, said fines would not work because others might raise money to pay the penalty on her behalf.”

More speculatively but no less credibly, the fabulous tweets of @nexttokimdavis observed, “When #KimDavis gets out of jail, you all will move on, but she’s going to be F__KING RICH AND WORSE.”

The expectation that part of the Davis strategy included playing the victim card and letting the donations roll in has been a real and present aspect of the case. _

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/04/no_...n_the_disturbing_bigots_get_rich_quick_trend/

http://godlessliberals.com/index.php/religion/the-ugly-face-of-religious-bigotry


----------



## Macquack (5 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> personally I feel this woman is partial to the sin of self righteousness and has been *encouraged by the far right religious groups *to turn herself into a martyr.  Sadly the judge sending her to jail has given the religious right exactly what hey want.




She has obviously been 'bought and paid for".

I reckon a few on here would be happy to donate to her cause.


----------



## Tisme (6 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> J
> Any way, at what point in the new testament was the ban on eating bacon, shellfish, divorce or working on the Sabbath repealed ?
> 
> Seems you don't care about any of the other silly rules, just the silly rules that agree with your pre existing homophobia.
> ...




Is that aimed at me or the "royal" you?

Silly rules are what you decide suits your argument and position. For a christian viewing your posts, I would have no doubt you would be considered enslaved to your own silliness.

Insofar as homophobia, if you think a person is only the sum of how he or she gets their rocks off with their pinky bits, then OK it's not the kind of image I want to be thinking about and I can't modify my primal aversion to it. Your silly rules include forcing me and others to accept your rules and think star shine will intensify around the brotherhood of man.....ain't going to happen with this bigot.

You have created your own dogma and own religion with homosexuality at its core. I'm sure you will find many willing apostles out there to do you bidding. You hatred of christianity is something only you can reconcile, but remember the more you attack it the more you allow Islam to fill the cracks and that's a very intolerant,  homophobic movement, just ask wannabe Malaysian prime ministers.... one that would find you in jail for promoting the idea of  buggery.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 September 2015)

Macquack said:


> She has obviously been 'bought and paid for".
> 
> I reckon a few on here would be happy to donate to her cause.




It's quite amazing you need a flow chart to full understand her past





By now, everyone knows that Kim Davis is the face (behind bars) of anti-marriage hatred. Everyone also knows that she’s a hypocrite of the first order. Davis has been married four times (twice to the same man). Two of her divorces were separated by just two years. Just to up the Jerry Springer component, she was pregnant by her third husband while still married to the first. She gave birth to twins just five months after she married her second husband, who adopted the kids even though he wasn’t the biological father.

Now, for most reasonable people, Davis’s past would pretty much disqualify her as posing as the Saint of Rowan County. How much hypocritical can you get than proclaiming yourself the defender of marriage when you have a track record as a serial bride and adulterer to boot?

If you didn't understand the way the religious right thinks, you might wonder if they aren't just a wee bit put off by Davis’s past. Of course, you take your fundraising windfalls where you can find them, and Davis has certainly breathed financial life into some moribund outfits, like the National Organization for Marriage. But by most standards, Davis is a mighty flawed figure to be representing a cause.

But not by the religious right’s standards. The very things that make most people see Davis as a hypocrite is exactly the reason why conservative Christians love her.

The clue is in Davis’s statement about why she’s taken it upon herself to disobey the law. A lot of it is self-serving, but the most interesting part is her conversion story, which is a key component of the believer’s narrative.

“Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish,” Davis said. “There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God.”

I am forgiven. That’s why Davis is such a heroine to the religious right. There is nothing in your past that can disqualify you once you have repented. All your sins are wiped clean. In fact, that Davis once violated the sanctity of marriage with abandon actually makes her even a better heroine in the eyes of conservative Christians. She’s seen the light, proving that nothing is impossible if you only believe.

It’s the same kind of attitude that animates the ex-gay movement. The biggest prize is the penitent who recants his past. The prodigal son is the one who gets the feast. And if the penitent falls back into bad habits ”” well, you can always get forgiven all over again, and the bad habits won’t count.

Take, for instance, what her right-wing evangelical lawyer said in response to charges of hypocrisy:
*Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel insisted her marriage and childbearing history is “not really relevant” to her decision to protest the law by denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her multiple marriages are “something that happened in her past,” he said, and that when she converted to Christianity “her slate was wiped clean.”*

“She was 180 degrees changed,” he said.

For a lot of people, this sounds a bit like a theological stain remover that rewards the sloppy eater.* After all, anyone who has been through even one divorce, especially when it involves children, know that while it is a decision that sometimes must be made, it can be ugly and traumatic, and there is no “clean slate.” It reverberates for years after the actual separation. In fact, this is often the religious right’s main argument against divorce: It harms children.*

But for the world that Davis inhabits, it’s just another contradiction to sweep away. Her past doesn’t count against her because she is forgiven, no matter how much damage she has done. In fact, it makes the grace of God that much more powerful because it saved a sinner of her magnitude.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> By now, everyone knows that Kim Davis is the face (behind bars) of anti-marriage hatred.




You can pile as much vindictive as you like at an individual, the real problem is the US system that allows individuals to have so much power in the first place.

If she was an employee like in Australia instead of some kind of Statutory elected official, she could simply be sacked for not carrying out her duties instead of the whole process going before the courts.

People like her will always exist, but there needs to be clear lines of command and accountability. Politicians pass the laws, public servants implement them. The accountability should be with the employers (the State) to ensure that the laws are enforced.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You can pile as much vindictive as you like at an individual, the real problem is the US system that allows individuals to have so much power in the first place.
> 
> If she was an employee like in Australia instead of some kind of Statutory elected official, she could simply be sacked for not carrying out her duties instead of the whole process going before the courts.
> 
> People like her will always exist, but there needs to be clear lines of command and accountability. Politicians pass the laws, public servants implement them. The accountability should be with the employers (the State) to ensure that the laws are enforced.




Not vindictive.

It's the rank hypocrisy.  The way these religious groups continually try to force their own views onto society and squeal like pigs the minute anyone challenges them.  Free speech only seems to work one way for them.

That some on this site are holding her up as a martyr is exactly what the Christian Right had hoped for.

You jumped into the whole issue before you even understood the basic facts that she couldn't be sacked, that she was the only person in the country who could issue the marriage certificates, and that she repeatedly refused to delegate that authority to any of her staff.  While I might slightly agree that she had the right to refuse to do the work herself, even though her OATH of office says otherwise, she did have the obligation to delegate the work to one of her staff who didn't have the same views as her.  She does not have the right to enforce her views on the general public by denying them their lawful right to have their marriage offically recognised.

You also fail to accept that she was sent to jail due to contempt of court, and that the UCLA argued against a jail term but the judge recognised that various third parties would pay for it so that the perpetrator of the crime would receive no punishment.

The only person you seem to not blame is the actual law breaker!

You've also stooped to Abbott's level on the issue!



> I think this reeks of some gay Nazi in the management trying to make an example of her.




Continue on claiming it's a gay attack on the woman, when she was refusing to issue marriage certificates to heterosexual couples as well



> This smells like a setup to me, the certificate could have been posted out. It looks to me as though she's been singled out by some militant gays for retribution.




I doubt you'd have jumped so quickly to defend a say a muslim man for refusing to serve a woman not wearing at least a hijab, or an aethiest who refused to serve someone wearing a cross.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Not vindictive.




Pity you have to resort to ad hominem instead of addressing the issue I raised.

If the person had the same responsibilities in this country the issue would have been resolved quickly by sacking her, giving her other duties or whatever.

A system that gives such powers to an individual has faults that this issue has exposed.

And, on learning more about this issue, the woman seems like a loony.

Happy now ?


----------



## sydboy007 (6 September 2015)

Logique said:


> I don't think so. The same sex couples wanted a show trial, and that's what they got.
> 
> We in Australia have the the opportunity to avoid this sort of consequence for innocent officials, that's the real point.
> 
> If Australians vote for same sex marriage in a plebiscite, fair enough, but we should not be criminalizing personal conscience on this issue with a jail term.




Lets swap things around.  Say Kim Davis was a Lesbian, instead of a born again Christian.  It was a year before the SCOTUS marriage equality decision and to protest against the injustice of the situation her conscience told her to stop issuing marriage certificate.

She refused to allow any of her subordinates to do the work as well.  She basically did everything in her power to force her views ontot he community in violation of her official oath of office.

Gay groups came out to support her.  Fund raising ensued to ensure she had good legal defence.  The gay groups were ecstatic that the judge was threatening to jail her for contempt of court.

Gay groups were sending out propaganda across the country in support of their Kim Davis for doing what her conscience told her was right.

Eventually she was sentenced to serve jail time due to her contempt of court for failing to follow a lawful court order.

What would your views on this situation be?


----------



## sydboy007 (6 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Pity you have to resort to ad hominem instead of addressing the issue I raised.
> 
> If the person had the same responsibilities in this country the issue would have been resolved quickly by sacking her, giving her other duties or whatever.
> 
> ...




But your justifying yourself based on well if they had a different system then this wouldn't happen.

But that is the system, and that is the situation.  Saying it couldn't happen in Australia is irrelevant.  It has no bearing on your initial defence of her.

What you did in instantly attacking the gays, linking us to some form of militant Nazi agenda, before bothering to even get the basic details, shows the level of bias you have on this issue.

it's that in the back of the mind deep seated bias that still permeates most countries around the issue of homosexuality.  It's similar to how blacks are treated in the USA, and why so many of them end up dead when they come in contact with the police.


----------



## symmetry (6 September 2015)

from an article -  why Gay Marriage is wrong and will destroy our country 

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.


Please help us fight for marriage as a Guardian of Truth -- Click here for details.





2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children””all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upo Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)


----------



## Macquack (6 September 2015)

Spare us the bible bashing.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> But that is the system, and that is the situation.  Saying it couldn't happen in Australia is irrelevant.  It has no bearing on your initial defence of her.




I said she should have been sacked not jailed, that's hardly a defence your Honour.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I said she should have been sacked not jailed, that's hardly a defence your Honour.




OK

I just hope that next time you stop and think "Why am I instantly blaming the homosexuals?  I read a headline and I just know they're at fault.  There's no need to get all the facts."

Ask yourself why you did that in this around the Kim Davis issue and hopefully you'll be less likely to defame the homosexual community in future.  It's a form of homophobia.

Maybe you'll even realise that much of the criticism thrown at the gay agenda and supposed gay militism is due to too many people doing what you did and jumping to a conclusion based on their biases and own agendas.

As Hiram Johnson said "The first casualty, when war comes, is truth" and the Christian lobby definitely see this as a war.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> OK
> 
> I just hope that next time you stop and think "Why am I instantly blaming the homosexuals?  I read a headline and I just know they're at fault.  There's no need to get all the facts."
> 
> ...





There's no doubt that there is a militant homosexual lobby, like people who gather round churches and disrupt services etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA

So let's not pretend that all gays are angels and are always the ones being picked on.


----------



## symmetry (6 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There's no doubt that there is a militant homosexual lobby, like people who gather round churches and disrupt services etc.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA
> 
> So let's not pretend that all gays are angels and are always the ones being picked on.




the key point is its not a civil rights nor a legal..  its  moral issue and sexual issue , its about people who are a minority, just like the republic issue with the minority claiming the media and surveys were saying 70% people want it,  when it comes down to the people and a referendum , you will find 90%+ of people agree , its wrong and its a proven fact its not equality but lust and devalues the institution of marriage


----------



## Macquack (6 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There's no doubt that there is a militant homosexual lobby, like people who gather round churches and disrupt services etc.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA
> 
> So let's not pretend that all gays are angels and are always the ones being picked on.




Is that the best youtube video you can come up with? Piss weak.

The anti-gay protests at funerals have to be the lowest act I have ever seen.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2015)

Macquack said:


> Is that the best youtube video you can come up with? Piss weak.




I'm sure there are others if I bothered to look which I can't.

Let's just say there are radicals everywhere for every cause you can think of. None of them are any good.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There's no doubt that there is a militant homosexual lobby, like people who gather round churches and disrupt services etc.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA
> 
> So let's not pretend that all gays are angels and are always the ones being picked on.




Then let me ask, why did you blame the homosexuals in regards to Kim Davis?

Why didn't you take 2 or 3 minutes to get the facts of the story before claiming _this reeks of some gay Nazi in the management trying to make an example of her_ and still not bothering to understand the facts continue to beat blame the homosexuals with _This smells like a setup to me, the certificate could have been posted out. It looks to me as though she's been singled out by some militant gays for retribution._

You've gone over 5 hours continually blaming the wrong group.  Why?

I'd be interested to see what your response would be to the question I posed to logique - post 1841 at the top of this page.  Would you have been so quick to jump to the conclusion that it was, to paraphrase you, the militant Nazi church groups baying for her to be thrown into jail, if that had been the situation instead?

It always seems you defend bigotry towards gays by saying they're not perfect and sometimes they do the wrong thing.  So what.  It doesn't make it right to falsely blame them when it suits your particular view.  When have I or anyone else argued that homosexuality automatically makes one perfect?

I'm tired of the false claim that gays have a secret agenda to destroy the fabric of society, ar out white anting family values and marriage and....

Gays are someone's child, someone's grandchild.  Gays laugh and cry, just like you and you friends and family do.  When we're unfairly the targets of physical abuse, far more than the general community, our blood is red and we hurt just as much as you would if you had been targeted.

Start seeing us as just a one of the many sub groups within the community that wants a better future for themselves, their families and loved ones.  Stop viewing us as the enemy.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2015)

Syd,

Saying that motherhood is not important in the case of two gay men raising a child, or that fatherhood is not important in the case of two lesbians raising a child* IS *white-anting family values, no matter how much you try and pretend otherwise.

A section of the community is trying to muscle their way in to an area where they are not biologically or genetically equipped to be, and they are trying to pretend by a series of biased studies that the children and the adults that they grow into are not disadvantaged by this confected environment. 

In every other way except parenting I'm prepared to accept that gay people are just as capable as heterosexuals, but afaic the best family unit is a biological mother, father and children living in a loving family unit and there is nothing you can say that would convince me otherwise.

Gays can have marriage for all I care, as long as they don't use children as white mice in a social experiment to try and prove their "equality" in an area where it's obvious to the vast majority of the population that they are not equal.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2015)

> Would you have been so quick to jump to the conclusion that it was, to paraphrase you, the militant Nazi church groups baying for her to be thrown into jail, if that had been the situation instead?




Yes I probably would, because I dislike militant religions as much as I like dislike militant anyone elses.

They are all trying to force their opinions on others and they can all sod off afaic.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Saying that motherhood is not important in the case of two gay men raising a child, or that fatherhood is not important in the case of two lesbians raising a child* IS *white-anting family values, no matter how much you try and pretend otherwise.




Specifically what family values?

Are you saying SS parents can't pass on values like not hurting others and also standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves, being honest with others, treating everyone equally and not judging others based on race, sex, religious or sexual orientation.

Is it not possible for SS parents to impart to their children the understanding of the need for compassion to others, to being modest in relation to others, being respectful, instilling the idea of doing your best at school, that saving for the future is important, that failing is OK but to not give up, that you are responsible for your actions.

Why couldn't SS parents help their children to learn these important family and community values?



SirRumpole said:


> A section of the community is trying to muscle their way in to an area where they are not biologically or genetically equipped to be, and they are trying to pretend by a series of biased studies that the children and the adults that they grow into are not disadvantaged by this confected environment.
> 
> In every other way except parenting I'm prepared to accept that gay people are just as capable as heterosexuals, but afaic the best family unit is a biological mother, father and children living in a loving family unit and there is nothing you can say that would convince me otherwise.




Basically what I hear from this is you have a view that SS parenting is wrong, any evidence to the contrary is in someway tainted so you will ignore it, and your mind is closed on this topic.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Specifically what family values?




Things that boys can't get from their mothers, and girls can't get from their fathers and vice versa.



> Basically what I hear from this is you have a view that SS parenting is wrong, any evidence to the contrary is in someway tainted so you will ignore it, and your mind is closed on this topic.




I don't ignore evidence, but I look for biases, inconsistencies and incorrect procedures, a few of which I pointed out in that study you quoted.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Things that boys can't get from their mothers, and girls can't get from their fathers and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore evidence, but I look for biases, inconsistencies and incorrect procedures, a few of which I pointed out in that study you quoted.




But the words of what 4 children from SS parents against SS marriage are taken as gospel. The fact that katy Faust has become overtly religious didn't seem to lead you to believe she's in any way biased.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> But the words of what 4 children from SS parents against SS marriage are taken as gospel. The fact that katy Faust has become overtly religious didn't seem to lead you to believe she's in any way biased.




As someone else said, she's a point on the graph.

I also asked the question before why she became religious when her parents weren't, and she may well have got a dose of anti religion at home which you would think would have put her off religion.

It's speculation, but maybe the lack of a male role model drove her to find it in the church. Maybe there is some evidence that something was missing in her life.


----------



## Value Collector (6 September 2015)

symmetry said:


> 1. It Is Not Marriage
> 
> 
> 
> Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.




A Vegemite sandwich and a bowl of ice cream are two entirely different things, yet both are considered food.

a gold fish and a shark are both considered fish

Motorcycle and a garbage truck are not considered vehicles

Golf ball and foot ball are both considered balls

I could go on and on.

Your entire copy and pasted post is rubbish, not a single point is valid.


----------



## bellenuit (7 September 2015)

symmetry said:


> 1. It Is Not Marriage
> 
> Calling something marriage does not make it marriage.




Actually it does. Marriage is a man made construct and as such is deemed to be whatever we decide it to be. In the US, Ireland, Scandinavia and some other regions, marriage now includes same sex relationships.

Since the first statement in your epistle is patently rubbish, the rest is probably the same and not worth reading.


----------



## Tink (7 September 2015)

Logique said:


> I don't think so. The same sex couples wanted a show trial, and that's what they got.
> 
> We in Australia have the the opportunity to avoid this sort of consequence for innocent officials, that's the real point.
> 
> If Australians vote for same sex marriage in a plebiscite, fair enough, but we should not be criminalizing personal conscience on this issue with a jail term.




+1

The first thing they did was smash the ten commandments -- open slather.

_Modern Leftists are now often so consumed with self-righteousness that they can't accept that others may hold different views to their own.

The present generation is nonchalant about our noble forefathers and shrugs its shoulders at the sacrifices that they made on their behalf.

The family in addition is the first line of defence against totalitarianism.

Every totalitarian regime in the twentieth century was characterised by an obsessive desire to persecute the adherents of Christianity.

Homosexual marriage is the single best illustration we have of narcissism in the modern age.
_


----------



## sydboy007 (7 September 2015)

Tink said:


> +1
> 
> The first thing they did was smash the ten commandments -- open slather.
> 
> ...




Tink

people disagreeing with your view seems to be unacceptable.  You take it as a personal attack.  Just remember that on the issue of homosexuality the Church has a histroy about as good s it's reputation for protecting children while in it's care.

Show me how the pressent generation is thumbing it's nose at our noble forefathers?  i think it's the boomers that disappoint the "greatest" generation the most.  I see at the dawn ANZAC ceremony in martin Place so many many young people.  They are remembering those who fought and died for the freedom we enjoy.

I'd think the extremely religious family is the first line in a totalitarian state.

Maybe the persecution of christians in the past has been due to the pent up suffering they have dolled out over the centuries.  remember the Catholic church for so long supported the slave trade, all the way up to the 1890s.  Talk about being progressive thinkers.

Remember the dirty deals the Pope did with Mussolini.  Funny how the Catholic Church family didn't realise the truth of _They are slaves who will not speak, for the fallen and the weak_.

I'd have thought the biggest form of narcissism is the Christians (have to say it with a southern accent) who believe that the rapture will come in their time.

27% of US Christians are definite the rapture will occur in their lifetime, and 20% say probably it will occur, so you have nigh on half the US Christians believing God is coming for them.  Now that's narcissism.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2015)

> Modern Leftists are now often so consumed with self-righteousness that they can't accept that others may hold different views to their own




Let's not turn this into another Fabians vs the Forces of Light please. Gay Marriage/parenting is not a political issue. A lot of Labor people voted against SSM the last time it came up in Parliament.


----------



## Value Collector (7 September 2015)

Tink said:


> +1
> 
> The first thing they did was smash the ten commandments -- open slather.
> 
> ...




why should any of us that aren't part of your cult care about your 10 commandments?

A bunch of the 10 commandments are rubbish religious nonsense, and the only ones that are of any value are pretty much universal across all societies, there is nothing special about the 10 commandments.

What value do the first 4 have to some one outside of your cult?



> Homosexual marriage is the single best illustration we have of narcissism in the modern age




Homosexuality is not just a form of sex, it's a form of love, and for that reason diserves our respect.

For all the time that your cult spends professing their love of love, you guys sure spend a lot of effort into trying to restrict its definition.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Stop viewing us as the enemy.




I don't view you as the enemy, but children only have one childhood and it needs to be done properly if they are to get the best outcome.

That requires not just the qualities you mentioned, but understanding of what it's like to be a boy (not present if a boy is raised by lesbians), or what it's like to be a girl (not present if a girl is raised by gay men), or what it's like to be heterosexual (not present in any gay parent household).

Of course there are other things that are important, but good heterosexual parents will give their children those qualities also, plus the understanding I just mentioned.

So, a good heterosexual biological family provides the best that we can give to children. I see no need to settle for anything less.


----------



## Macquack (7 September 2015)

Tink said:


> _Modern Leftists are now often so consumed with self-righteousness that they *can't accept that others may hold different views to their own.*_



_

You must be joking. 

Who ever these so called "leftists" are, they must be on the ball, because the whole world (whether you like it or not) is folding against your self-righteous "righty" view. 

Classic ironic statement, and you can't even see it._


----------



## Atari rose (7 September 2015)

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...impregnated-with-black-mans-sperm-loses-case/

i hate white men
but i want white sperm

also

Cramblett told the court she loved her mixed-race daughter, Peyton, who is now three, but argued she had ‘limited cultural competency relative to African Americans’ and is undergoing a ‘steep learning curve.’
"I'm not racist, just incompetent"

I love watching the liberal ****show eat itself. What a ****ing mess. What a ****ing embarrassment, all around.


----------



## Tink (8 September 2015)

A country that prides itself as the land of the free, is not free any longer, is what I was saying, Macquack.

PC has strangled them, not just with this past event, but even with removal of century old flags.


----------



## Tisme (8 September 2015)

Tink said:


> A country that prides itself as the land of the free, is not free any longer, is what I was saying, Macquack.
> 
> PC has strangled them, not just with this past event, but even with removal of century old flags.




I think it was only a small time in the seventies and eighties when we had a degree of freedom from stifling protocols. The rise of positive discrimination, to benefit women, ethnics, coloureds, gender benders. etc. has seen a corresponding progressive strangulation of those with a voice who want to keep the comfort of their own individuality .....instead of the drone existence and acquiescence of silent majority.

to paraphrase the bard:

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and most have govt mind control foisted thrust upon them."


----------



## sydboy007 (8 September 2015)

Tink said:


> A country that prides itself as the land of the free, is not free any longer, is what I was saying, Macquack.
> 
> PC has strangled them, not just with this past event, but even with removal of century old flags.




Just wow.

I'll acknowledge the Confederate Flag, in and of itself, isn't particularly bad.

Just as the Swastika is and of itself, isn't bad.

But as a symbol in the hands of the wrong people.  

It amazes me that a Christian can continually contort themsevles so mcuh to try and justify many of the things in our society that can't be justified.

What level of cognitive dissonance do you have when you claim the family is the first line of defence against totalitarianism, but then then during a meeting at the Vatican, Pope Pius Xi said there were some people who argued that the state should be all-powerful – "totalitarian". Such an idea, he went on, was absurd, not because individual liberty was too precious to be surrendered, but because *"if there is a totalitarian regime – in fact and by right – it is the regime of the church, because man belongs totally to the church"*.  Doesn't this mean you are a member of an organisation who's goal has been total control over ones life?

This is the same pope who gave legitimacy to Mussolini and practically turned his back on the Italian Jews.  Much of fascist ideology was inspired by Catholic tradition – the authoritarianism, the intolerance of opposition and the profound suspicion of the Jews.

I highly recommend you gain some understanding of your Church's history by reading The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe by David Kertzer.

Then come back and explain why your religious myths should somehow hold any moral standing when the Catholic church has acted so immorally for so many years.


----------



## Tisme (8 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Just wow.
> 
> .............
> 
> This is the same pope who gave legitimacy to Mussolini and practically turned his back on the Italian Jews.  Much of fascist ideology was inspired by Catholic tradition – the authoritarianism, the intolerance of opposition and the profound suspicion of the Jews.




To be fair even the old testament provides stories of the Jews being a pain in the ar5e for the communities of the day....... take Egypt for example. 

Shakespeare didn't help matters for Venetian Jews.

It's what you get when you bankroll kings and princes and compromise their special connection with God .... eventually the loan payments give the divine ones the s4its and they purge the money lenders from the kingdom. Of course the Jews have discovered that distraction is the best weapon of defense, thus why they promote various generational fads and control the media/courts.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> why should any of us that aren't part of your cult care about your 10 commandments?




Why should those of us who are not Muslims have to eat Halal foods or pay for the certification ?

But that's another story.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Why should those of us who are not Muslims have to eat Halal foods or pay for the certification ?
> 
> .




you don't have to eat it no government agency is saying they will only approve halal foods, and you don't pay for the certification.

Saying why should you pay for certification is like saying.

"why should I pay for the advertising that vegemite puts on TV, I don't watch TV"

Its a silly way to look at it.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> you don't have to eat it no government agency is saying they will only approve halal foods, and you don't pay for the certification.
> 
> Saying why should you pay for certification is like saying.
> 
> ...




Is the cost of certification part of the price I pay for the product ?


Advertising is used to simply sell the product, money doesn't go to looney religions.

I like roast chicken, but apparently 80% of chicken is Halal certified and this is fact is not conveyed to the consumer. 

My main objection is that certification fees are used to spread mumbo jumbo religious nonsense.

If the whole Halal system was Catholic based instead of Muslim based and the proceeds went to building Catholic churches, would you have a different opinion considering your hatred of Catholicism ?


----------



## sydboy007 (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Is the cost of certification part of the price I pay for the product ?
> 
> 
> Advertising is used to simply sell the product, money doesn't go to looney religions.
> ...




Obviously you have the same issues around kosher foods, since there's a fee involved with certification.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Obviously you have the same issues around kosher foods, since there's a fee involved with certification.




Of course I do, any religious certification of food is bunkum.


----------



## sydboy007 (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course I do, any religious certification of food is bunkum.




The buy the cheaper product.  No one forces you to buy the more expensive certified products.  You don't ascribe to the fantasies of either religion so you must be willingly choosing to pay the extra $$$.

But this is getting way off the topic of SS marriage...unless SS marriage is the non halal / kosher form of marriage


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Is the cost of certification part of the price I pay for the product ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, it would form part of the marketing budget, and would not add to the cost of your item anymore than the cost of a tv ad, Infact things that lead to more products being sold can reduce costs due to economies of scale.

Companies pay for advertising and certification to sell more product, and make more money, it covers its own cost, otherwise they wouldn't do it.



> I like roast chicken, but apparently 80% of chicken is Halal certified and this is fact is not conveyed to the consumer.




So what?




> If the whole Halal system was Catholic based instead of Muslim based and the proceeds went to building Catholic churches, would you have a different opinion considering your hatred of Catholicism




I doubt there is much money left over once the certification bodies have paid to cover there costs.

Any way if a company pays $10,000 for certification, and then sells 2,000,000 chickens, that's 1 tenth of a cent per chicken, it's not going to affect the price.

But I don't want to talk about HALAL here, except I will make the below analogy.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

> So what?




So I expect to be given information that may affect my decision to purchase, including country of origin, and whether the food is "blessed" or not.



> I doubt there is much money left over once the certification bodies have paid to cover there costs.




Did you watch Four Corners last night ?

A $5 million mosque is being built in Indonesia on the proceeds of Halal certification.

A leading Halal certifier says there are millions to be made from the business.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Why should those of us who are not Muslims have to eat Halal foods or pay for the certification ?
> 
> But that's another story.




If you want to use Halal as an analogy for this case, the correct analogy would be this one.

Imagine a person responsible for signing off on and issuing Heath inspection compliance certifications for all food processors for the state government, Imagine this person is a devout Muslim, and due to their religious beliefs, they decide they will not issue documents to anyone who isn't making Halal food, effectively shutting down non halal industry.

this is the situation the US clerk is in, she is refuse to process documents which it is her duty to process, even though the people comply with the law, simply because it goes against her religious beliefs.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> If you want to use Halal as an analogy for this case, the correct analogy would be this one.
> 
> Imagine a person responsible for signing off on and issuing Heath inspection compliance certifications for all food processors for the state government, Imagine this person is a devout Muslim, and due to their religious beliefs, they decide they will not issue documents to anyone who isn't making Halal food, effectively shutting down non halal industry.
> 
> this is the situation the US clerk is in, she is refuse to process documents which it is her duty to process, even though the people comply with the law, simply because it goes against her religious beliefs.




I never said I agreed with her actions. I said she should have been sacked not thrown in gaol. But the Yanks have a strange way of dealing with things like that.


So are you saying that people of strong religious feelings should be banned from all positions of executive or administrative authority ?


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So I expect to be given information that may affect my decision to purchase, including country of origin, and whether the food is "blessed" or not.
> 
> .




So you want labelling showing whether the farmer has prayed for his crops?

What if the farmer pays a 10% tithe to his local church on profits made? that would dwarf the 0.001% that gets spent on halal, should there be more labelling showing where farmers donate profits? 

I mean who cares is food was "blessed" or Prayed for?


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> .
> 
> 
> So are you saying that people of strong religious feelings should be banned from all positions of executive or administrative authority ?




Not at all, If they are in the legal system, they just need to put Australian law before Biblical law.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So you want labelling showing whether the farmer has prayed for his crops?
> 
> What if the farmer pays a 10% tithe to his local church on profits made? that would dwarf the 0.001% that gets spent on halal, should there be more labelling showing where farmers donate profits?
> 
> I mean who cares is food was "blessed" or Prayed for?




So who are you to judge what should be "covered up" to the consumer and what shouldn't ? If Halal certification is so good in your opinion, why shouldn't people know about it ?

A lot of products proudly announce when some of their profits go to charity, so what has Halal got to hide ?

And again this comes back to your comment to Tink, about not belonging to cults and not caring to support their causes.

Are you prepared to call Islam a cult ?

And to a question you never answered, if Halal was a Roman Catholic organisation, would you want to know that the food you buy supports an organisation you despise ?


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So who are you to judge what should be "covered up" to the consumer and what shouldn't ?




I don't think the fact that they don't print labels saying when a farmer tithes his to his local church is a cover up. 



> If Halal certification is so good in your opinion, why shouldn't people know about it ?




I don't think its good or bad, I am indifferent to it. 

Companies do let you know about it, they print it on their labels, that the whole point of it.

If you are talking about the roast chicken example, all that probably means it that the slaughter house that kills the chickens does so it a way that complies, Most animals in Australia already get slaughtered in a way that complies.



> A lot of products proudly announce when some of their profits go to charity, so what has Halal got to hide ?




Because its not really a charity, its a certification body. Most of the revenue the certification body takes in is spent on wages, rent, phone bills, vehicles etc.



> Are you prepared to call Islam a cult




Yes, there are many Islamic cults.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> But this is getting way off the topic of SS marriage...unless SS marriage is the non halal / kosher form of marriage




You wouldn't be getting SSM under an Islamic government, that's for sure.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You wouldn't be getting SSM under an Islamic government, that's for sure.




I guess Tinks "Gold Standard" is actual Halal marriage


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I guess Tinks "Gold Standard" is actual Halal marriage




I'm just very surprised and confused that given your obviously sincere comments supporting both gay marriage and gay parenting, that you (and apparently Syd as well) would be supporting a process that sends funds to organisations that promote homophobia.


----------



## luutzu (8 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I guess Tinks "Gold Standard" is actual Halal marriage




She'd probably prefer to call it "organic"


----------



## sydboy007 (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm just very surprised and confused that given your obviously sincere comments supporting both gay marriage and gay parenting, that you (and apparently Syd as well) would be supporting a process that sends funds to organisations that promote homophobia.




Don't buy sanitarium then 

I'm a true liberal, so I don't see that labelling food as kosher or halal is in of itself dangerous.  I wont choose to purchase or boycott something because it's been prepared in a certain religious way, unless you could show a scientifically reasonable reason as to why I should.

Do I wish the world had finally moved on from believing in archaic books that are supposed to guide our morality.  For sure.  Do I have the right to force someone to give up their (IMHO) silly beliefs.  No.  Just as they don't have the right to proselyte to me or try and change the laws to fit into their medieval value system.

I can't force people to change their minds, but my hope is by challenging their backward looking views they might come to see morality comes from within, not from without.


----------



## bellenuit (8 September 2015)

Apt tweet I just read regarding some on the religious right who are comparing Kim Davis to Rosa Parks. For those who don't know her, on December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order to give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Her act of defiance became an important symbol of black liberation.

_Kim Davis is not Rosa Parks. Kim Davis is the bus driver, unjustly prevented from being able to force Rosa Parks to sit in the back._

That is "unjustly prevented" from the point of view of the driver.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

> I'm a true liberal, so I don't see that labelling food as kosher or halal is in of itself dangerous. I wont choose to purchase or boycott something because it's been prepared in a certain religious way, unless you could show a scientifically reasonable reason as to why I should.




Well, that's all fine if you are quite happy to help finance the building of Islamic schools and mosques that will teach kids that people such as yourself should be flogged, stoned or hanged.

I guess as long as it doesn't affect you personally, that's OK.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm just very surprised and confused that given your obviously sincere comments supporting both gay marriage and gay parenting, that you (and apparently Syd as well) would be supporting a process that sends funds to organisations that promote homophobia.




Religious organisations have billions of dollars invested in all sorts of businesses, I doubt it's possible to buy a single product without a religious organisation benefiting, from an ownership interest in either the product or supply chain some where.

Not to mention the tithes generated directly from wages and dividends from the companys employees and shareholders.

people have a right to be bigots, I support their right to have and practice what ever crazy stuff they want, I don't support they using these ideas to infringe on the lives of others outside their cult.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> people have a right to be bigots, I support their right to have and practice what ever crazy stuff they want, I don't support they using these ideas to infringe on the lives of others outside their cult.




Yes, sure, but it comes down to what YOU personally do in terms of your "conscience", if you think that such a thing exists.

So do you buy Halal food, *knowing* that it supports homophobic organisations ?


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> people have a right to be bigots,




Gee, thanks


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So do you buy Halal food, *knowing* that it supports homophobic organisations ?




No doubt some of the stuff I buy is halal, as I said I am completely indifferent to it, I don't look for it and a don't go out of my way to avoid it.

as I have said in the past, I own a decent investment in a company that makes a certain food product, when I heard they had gotten halal certification I called them to complain and I spoke for about 20 minutes with management, as it turns out, the cost of the certification was tiny, compared to the companies revenue it was invisible, any claims that say it would increase the cost of the product are nonsense.

I also called the certification group, and spoke to one of the certification officer there for a while, learning about what they do. 

Now if you think that when you buy a roast chicken or a jar of Vegemite, you are sending a $1 an Islamic organisation, you are just wrong.

Firstly, the fee is so small that when calculated on a per unit basis, it would be well under a cent per unit, so nothing from your purchase is going there.

Secondly, before any profits can come from the fee, the certification body has to pay its running costs, office space, wages, vehicles, website cost, publications, utilities, phones and Internet etc etc this is where most of the fee goes.

Net profit from the halal certification revenue would be dwarfed by the profits religious organisations bring in from other sources, so much so it's not even worth discussing.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Apt tweet I just read regarding some on the religious right who are comparing Kim Davis to Rosa Parks. For those who don't know her, on December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order to give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Her act of defiance became an important symbol of black liberation.
> 
> _Kim Davis is not Rosa Parks. Kim Davis is the bus driver, unjustly prevented from being able to force Rosa Parks to sit in the back._
> 
> That is "unjustly prevented" from the point of view of the driver.




I agree, she is the bus driver, she is the bus driver after the segregation of the buses had been banned, she's still there trying to make the blacks sit in the bus, after the government has outlawed that descrimination.


----------



## Tink (8 September 2015)

And what is your cult, Pol Pot, or is it Kim Jong-un, that you are standing up for?

Just to remind you --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHhX_bUubQM

Not that I care about America, these are lessons to learn for Australia.
As many others have also posted, we lose our freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, which has been shown in all countries that have taken same sex marriage.

_Political prisoner Kim Davis knows all about unjust laws, and the criminalisation of Christianity. She is not the first, nor will she be the last to experience this firsthand.
There are nearly 200 examples of Christians being jailed, fined and fired from their jobs, documented.

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

Indeed, America of course is built on the notion of resistance to tyranny, and the obligation of free men to resist oppressive states.
 The Founding Fathers, and others, spoke to this often:

“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.” -John Hancock, the first man to sign the Declaration of Independence

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” -Thomas Jefferson
_


----------



## sydboy007 (8 September 2015)

Tink said:


> And what is your cult, Pol Pot, or is it Kim Jong-un, that you are standing up




Tink

Please explain why it it's acceptable for a pope to say that the church is totalitarian.  Then we can talk about the rampant fascism you subscribe to.

Then explain why the bible says slavery is ok, that beating your slave is ok, that if they die more than a day after the beating you didn't commit a crime.  How many slaves do you own and why?

Then we can talk about how your martyr saint Kim is defying her oath do god and in defiance of the laws of the state. Did not peter say "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution"

Then maybe we can have a chat about why you feel it's ok to force your immoral biblical teachings onto the community.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2015)

Tink said:


> And what is your cult, Pol Pot, or is it Kim Jong-un, that you are standing up for?




I am not a member of a cult Tink, As much as you wish it were, atheist does not mean communist.

Next time you are on your knees in church, pretending to eat the flesh of your God, while your priest pretends to drink his blood, remember that is the craziness of a cult of mad men, you won't find me doing silly stuff like that.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2015)




----------



## Tisme (9 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am not a member of a cult Tink, As much as you wish it were, atheist does not mean communist.
> 
> Next time you are on your knees in church, pretending to eat the flesh of your God, while your priest pretends to drink his blood, remember that is the craziness of a cult of mad men, you won't find me doing silly stuff like that.




Where will we find you doing silly stuff?


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Where will we find you doing silly stuff?




I have been known to do silly stuff after drinking a lot of alcohol, but I Can't say I have ever had wine and crackers while pretending it was blood and flesh, while standing under a statue of an executed man hanging from a cross, while wearing a model of said execution device around my neck, and feeling happy that this man was tortured and killed because it some how gets rid of my sins, and the symbolic cannibalisation of his body makes me closer to him and then thinking I have some sort of superior moral code because of this craziness.

My poor attempts at drunken karaoke are certainly silly, but it's not in the same ball park as the silliness of tinks delusional blood cult.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have been known to do silly stuff after drinking a lot of alcohol, but I Can't say I have ever had wine and crackers while pretending it was blood and flesh, while standing under a statue of an executed man hanging from a cross, while wearing a model of said execution device around my neck, and feeling happy that this man was tortured and killed because it some how gets rid of my sins, and the symbolic cannibalisation of his body makes me closer to him and then thinking I have some sort of superior moral code because of this craziness.
> 
> My poor attempts at drunken karaoke are certainly silly, but it's not in the same ball park as the silliness of tinks delusional blood cult.




You were in the army weren't you ? Doing silly walks around the parade ground may be evidence of a cult behaviour.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You were in the army weren't you ? Doing silly walks around the parade ground may be evidence of a cult behaviour.




Nah, a Cult is a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

I don't think the Army would count, as for parade drill I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't being paid, I would have been silly not to do it for the money we got paid lol, and also knowing that refusal of following orders to do drill would have landed me in jail, like the county clerk we were discussing earlier in the thread.


----------



## luutzu (9 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nah, a Cult is a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
> ...




But isn't that what an army is? "my country, right or wrong", for God and country etc.

Full metal jacket: when I say jump you say how high! do you maggots understand me? The first and last word out of your mouth is "Sir, yes sir!"... 

What a great scene... anyway, that's how they break new recruits individuality and questioning authority right?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> But isn't that what an army is? "my country, right or wrong", for God and country etc.
> 
> Full metal jacket: when I say jump you say how high! do you maggots understand me? The first and last word out of your mouth is "Sir, yes sir!"...
> 
> What a great scene... anyway, that's how they break new recruits individuality and questioning authority right?




Yep, unquestioning obedience, just like religion.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> But isn't that what an army is? "my country, right or wrong", for God and country etc.
> 
> Full metal jacket: when I say jump you say how high! do you maggots understand me? The first and last word out of your mouth is "Sir, yes sir!"...
> 
> What a great scene... anyway, that's how they break new recruits individuality and questioning authority right?




basic training is one thing, but it's not like that once you are in your position, Atleast not in the Aussie army.

Offcourse you follow orders, but it's not a religion, though as I have said in other threads extreme nationalism can be a form of religion, and there are members of the army that would be like that, but that's not the organisation as a whole, I am certainly not like that.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, unquestioning obedience, just like religion.




Slight difference

At least you can get on the phone and have a chat to the head honcho in the military.

I'm pretty sure you can't do the same work most religions, though some cults you might be able to, but that doesn't prove divinity.

Any who, why is this not being discussed I the religion is crazy thread instead?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Any who, why is this not being discussed I the religion is crazy thread instead?




Thread drift



Anyway, I didn't think we were talking about gay marriage any more.

Well some aren't anyway.


----------



## Tink (10 September 2015)

It is always the same bluff in this thread, where they go on about religion, yet many aren't even religious, that have stood firm against same sex marriage.

Rather than talk about how it is suppose to benefit society,  they give you a side show.
There are no benefits to same sex marriage, and there is no reason for the government to promote this lifestyle.

Therefore, there is no reason to change marriage, as homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals in Australia.

All this does is give more government control over peoples lives.


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2015)

Tink said:


> All this does is give more government control over peoples lives.




Dilution of freedom of expression for the majority?

As a boy I disliked the autocratic seriousness of govt and process; the drone like existence of work and the limited choice. Then along came the post war baby boomer upheavals and demands for change; the down side was it opened gates to people who couldn't help themselves but make laws to force our behaviours to match their idea of polite and ordered society ... within a generation we went from working for the man to working for the man, same 54it different day, except we can no longer talk about anything without offending someone and filling out apologetic forms and attending counselling (Mao sent people on a long walk to learn how to obey oppression of expression).


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Dilution of freedom of expression for the majority?
> 
> As a boy I disliked the autocratic seriousness of govt and process; the drone like existence of work and the limited choice. Then along came the post war baby boomer upheavals and demands for change; the down side was it opened gates to people who couldn't help themselves but make laws to force our behaviours to match their idea of polite and ordered society ... within a generation we went from working for the man to working for the man, same 54it different day, except we can no longer talk about anything without offending someone and filling out apologetic forms and attending counselling (Mao sent people on a long walk to learn how to obey oppression of expression).




By that, can I infer that you think there is too much PC and too little commonsense ?


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> By that, can I infer that you think there is too much PC and too little commonsense ?




I think some people need to take the proverbial teaspoon of concrete in their coffee. As if it wasn't hard enough living up to one's mother's demands for obedience, she seems to have morphed into the ubiquitous social construct that controls politics, law and religion.... there's no escape except to the, increasingly litigious, internet with govt sticking its nose into our emails and posts.

I think history tells us that if you squeeze and squeeze freedom in the name of social cohesion, eventually society will rise up and kill itself off, if only to rid itself of the miserable suffocation.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 September 2015)

Tink said:


> It is always the same bluff in this thread, where they go on about religion, yet many aren't even religious, that have stood firm against same sex marriage.
> 
> Rather than talk about how it is suppose to benefit society,  they give you a side show.
> There are no benefits to same sex marriage, and there is no reason for the government to promote this lifestyle.
> ...




Ah there's a couple of mistakes there tink

* It's not possible to have a legally recognised same sex marriage in Australia, therefore homosexuals DO NOT have the same rights as heterosexuals

* Allowing same sex marriage gives the Govt no more control over people's lives than is currently held.

So exactly how would allowing same sex marriage affect your life.  I'd be interested to know the devastating affects you believe it will have.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think some people need to take the proverbial teaspoon of concrete in their coffee. As if it wasn't hard enough living up to one's mother's demands for obedience, she seems to have morphed into the ubiquitous social construct that controls politics, law and religion.... there's no escape except to the, increasingly litigious, internet with govt sticking its nose into our emails and posts.
> 
> I think history tells us that if you squeeze and squeeze freedom in the name of social cohesion, eventually society will rise up and kill itself off, if only to rid itself of the miserable suffocation.




Did you see that bit on News24 on the face recognition databases being used by police forces across the country ?

Might be worth starting a thread about privacy vs security.


----------



## Tink (10 September 2015)

Well you are not the same, you cannot have children on your own, so Marriage stays as is.

Equal is father, mother, child.

We have been through this, and don't give me that PC rubbish that love wins, the pedophile activists are using the same marketing skills in the UK, incest will be next.

I disagree, it is Government Control over families.
What was once private is now made public.


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Did you see that bit on News24 on the face recognition databases being used by police forces across the country ?
> 
> Might be worth starting a thread about privacy vs security.




Yes I was involved at the frontier technology that included of tagging people's whereabouts and movement control. I became very visceral about abuse of such systems when it became apparent the people funding it had more than worker welfare in mind.

The game gets more serious when rats are cornered and police can't make value judgements in the face of automated decisions and protocol. 

I think the next phase will be consolidating databases, including children's court stuff, medical reports, meta data, mobile phone tracking, sexual orientation, etc. and profiling citizens as docile or problematic. I can't see how it won't happen?


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Well you are not the same, you cannot have children on your own, so Marriage stays as is.




Neither can a lot of married straight couples, should their marriages be dissolved by the state?


----------



## sydboy007 (10 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Well you are not the same, you cannot have children on your own, so Marriage stays as is.
> 
> Equal is father, mother, child.
> 
> ...




You mean the paedophile activists within the Catholic church?

So you are saying you private life will / is now public because of the debate around SS marriage?  Could you expand on this please.


If anything, removign the restrictions around SS marriage is REDUCING Govt intervention of people's personal lives.  Isn't the Govt banning something a restriction and allowing something freedom of the people?


----------



## sydboy007 (10 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Neither can a lot of married straight couples, should their marriages be dissolved by the state?




Yes.  maybe you have to produce at least one child by "natural" processes before you can get married 

Otherwise you're not really supporting the traditional role of marriage, family etc etc.


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Neither can a lot of married straight couples, should their marriages be dissolved by the state?




Yep.

Marriage should be based on mating to procreate and nurture a family in my opinion. If grey divorce happens after that (one in four divorces are empty nest couples ) then fly be free. Even cradle Catholics are joining the  "you go your way and I'll go mine" trail.

It is fast becoming an archaic institution anyway, which is why the hipsters and milleniums tend not to value it as anything more than an excuse to have a ceremony party.

If the govt is going to continue with regulating the rules, the money shelled out should be means tested so those young struggling couples have the capacity to raise a family in the interest of the community. Those that have worked fancy free and have means should be encouraged to foot the bill for the IVF, surrogacy ,infant care, etc.


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yep.
> 
> Marriage should be based on mating to procreate and nurture a family in my opinion.




So do you think there are no benefits to marriage other than breeding?

So should we be subjecting couples to fertility testing before marriage licenses are handed out?

Perhaps part of the marriage contract should be a promise to get pregnant within a certain timeframe? And marriages between older couples should be banned.

I guess that's the difference between you and some of the others here, we actually believe there is more to a relationship and a marriage than just procreation.


----------



## Tink (10 September 2015)

I agree with, Tisme.

I see you mention Catholic again, Syd, yet you forget to mention what we saw on the ABC, with the gay pedophiles.
That blew up in their face on their ABC.
I was talking about Tom O'Carroll (pedophile) that I put up a while ago from a 60 mins show.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_O'Carroll

Syd, what I am saying is that families should be in control of their home life, not government.
They are intruding more and more where people should be free to raise their own families.

As was stated by Brendan O'Neill (NOT RELIGIOUS) which I agree with --

_It increases the state's oversight of family life rather than decreasing it

This gives the state the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage, which has been an organic thing developed over thousands of years.

For me, as a libertarian, that's a step too far and I think for you to redefine a view that was standard for thousands of years as bigotry, that in itself is a form of bigotry 

You will not tolerate traditionalists. You will not tolerate religious people. You will not tolerate Christians._

In my view, I don't agree that you are being discriminated against, in Australia.


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So do you think there are no benefits to marriage other than breeding?
> 
> So should we be subjecting couples to fertility testing before marriage licenses are handed out?
> 
> ...




You're the one that keeps banging on about the tradition so there is copious evidence to show that tribes have been arranging marriages for thousands of years to form alliances and produce common blood, kings have been at it forever, with even Henry VIII marrying a few times to conceive a non bast4rd child/heir. The Indian caste system regulates marriage and sets women alight who marry for love if not prior approved, the Arabs stone,  the Jews disown, the Italians are likely to throw a tantrum and kick the offender out, etc, etc.

God help and Anglican marrying a Catholic even one generation ago ....my God you'd have mum doing hail Marys for a year.

Even in my time I was a ground breaker in buying a house and living in sin; the gasps were palpaple.

Love is of minor importance to marriage, but it's a great feeling. Mothering and Fathering are a great pleasure and great bonding exercise all round. The best part is making the the little tykes.


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> You're the one that keeps banging on about the tradition so there is copious evidence to show that tribes have been arranging marriages for thousands of years to form alliances and produce common blood, kings have been at it forever, with even Henry VIII marrying a few times to conceive a non bast4rd child/heir. The Indian caste system regulates marriage and sets women alight who marry for love if not prior approved, the Arabs stone,  the Jews disown, the Italians are likely to throw a tantrum and kick the offender out, etc, etc.
> 
> God help and Anglican marrying a Catholic even one generation ago ....my God you'd have mum doing hail Marys for a year.
> 
> ...




Nice rant, but you avoided the question.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 September 2015)

Tink said:


> I agree with, Tisme.
> 
> I see you mention Catholic again, Syd, yet you forget to mention what we saw on the ABC, with the gay pedophiles.
> That blew up in their face on their ABC.
> ...




Who said that gays don't do bad things just like heterosexuals?  I've never.  All I've done is said there is no linkage between sexuality and paedophilia.  How does you 60 minutes report compare to the centuries of Church sanctioned child abuse?

Explain to me how allowing SS marriage is controlling your home life.  How would SS marriage impact your or anyone else in the way they raise their families?

So you admit that marriage is organic, that it's meaning has changed over thousands of years.  yet now it has to remain static and unchanging forever more.  Why is that?

I am not redfining anything.  I am asking why it is right to deny SS marriage.  It has no affect on your marriage or any marriage, except for the new marriages it will allow.

So you don't believe it is discrimination to say that homosexuals are not able to be married.  Only heterosexuals can be married.  is it discrimination for Saudi's to not allow women to drive?

I have lots of tolerance.  I have Christian friends.  I'm relatively traditional in my outlook in life.  But I'm not beholden to some archaic texts to tell me how to live a good life.  

Explain to me why I shoudl have respect for "christians" when they behave like this???

[video=youtube_share;7y1xJAVZxXg]http://youtu.be/7y1xJAVZxXg[/video]


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nice rant, but you avoided the question.




You simply didn't like the answer.... thus the snipe


----------



## Value Collector (11 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> You simply didn't like the answer.... thus the snipe




Nope, I asked if you believed there was any other benefits to marriage and you just ranted about a bunch of stuff, that's not answering the question.

The closest you came to the question was the last paragraph, where you said you personally felt raising kids was the best part of marriage.

The problem with that is, that's like saying "the best part of the weekend is Saturday morning golf, therefore weekends are about Saturday morning golf, unless you play golf you don't need weekends, your simply not capbale of enjoying weekends"

Not everyone wants kids, and you don't need to have them to enjoy or want a marriage. You are just trying to push your ideas onto others, and before you rant and say that gays are pushing their ideas onto you, realise that allowing gay marriage will not change a single aspect of straight marriage.


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So do you think there are no benefits to marriage other than breeding?




Yes



Value Collector said:


> So should we be subjecting couples to fertility testing before marriage licenses are handed out?




No



Value Collector said:


> Perhaps part of the marriage contract should be a promise to get pregnant within a certain timeframe? And marriages between older couples should be banned.




Rhetorical rant




Value Collector said:


> I guess that's the difference between you and some of the others here, we actually believe there is more to a relationship and a marriage than just procreation.




Presumptive


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2015)

What I think Tisme is trying to say, is that if two people want to stay together without having children, then marriage is irrelevant. If they want to stay together then they will, and a piece of paper doesn't matter a fig. This is happening more and more in society.

A marriage certificate though gives children some security. A claim to assets in case the parents snuff it unexpectedly, a lineage and access to family history and medical records.


So the whole question of marriage is up for grabs. Gays shouldn't feel "out of society" if they don't get married. A lot of people are realising that it may not be worth the trouble anyway.


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2015)

You need to read the posts carefully.



Value Collector said:


> Nope, I asked if you believed there was any other benefits to marriage and you just ranted about a bunch of stuff, that's not answering the question.




I did indeed: political, familiar, alliances, social



Value Collector said:


> The closest you came to the question was the last paragraph, where you said you personally felt raising kids was the best part of marriage.




No I didn't I said making them is the best part



Value Collector said:


> The problem with that is, that's like saying "the best part of the weekend is Saturday morning golf, therefore weekends are about Saturday morning golf, unless you play golf you don't need weekends, your simply not capbale of enjoying weekends"




Predicated on a falsehood



Value Collector said:


> Not everyone wants kids, and you don't need to have them to enjoy or want a marriage. You are just trying to push your ideas onto others, and before you rant and say that gays are pushing their ideas onto you, realise that allowing gay marriage will not change a single aspect of straight marriage.





Sure that is the building block of your argument ..... the greater the spread of reasons you make up the more you can dovetail your gay marriage crusade into the equation. You are not only hyper guilty of "trying to push your ideas onto others"  you are totally intolerant and disrespectful of its consequences in saying "gay marriage will not change a single aspect of straight marriage" ...of course it will change aspects of true "marriage" ... it will make a mockery of it ... you may as well sledgehammer Palmyra to get the same reaction from true believers in marriage.

Lets hope your kids see marriage as a solemn obligation in the face of the farce it will soon become.


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What I think Tisme is trying to say, is that if two people want to stay together without having children, then marriage is irrelevant. If they want to stay together then they will, and a piece of paper doesn't matter a fig. This is happening more and more in society.
> 
> A marriage certificate though gives children some security. A claim to assets in case the parents snuff it unexpectedly, a lineage and access to family history and medical records.
> 
> ...




I'm not trying to say it, I already stated it way back. My 36 year mateship with my wife was envied by all. The marriage (years after we buddied up and built a house & made a home) was indeed a commitment to our potential offspring, our love for one another was never dependent on nuptials and the like.

Kids are precious and should not be experimented with or treated as a fashion accessory. I know what it's like to be without a father and looking through the crowd for someone who looks like me, just incase he wasn't dead afterall. I know what it's like to live in poverty because of a single income. I know what its like to be approached by the cute and cuddly  homosexual paedophile. I know what it's like to see sexual discrimination first hand with my mother relegated to persona ingrata when trying to get loans and finance.... real problems, not whether two blokes who want to play with each other's starfish under the umbrella of a magic pudding marriage certificate. 

We all remember Aunt Meg and Aunt Daisy who lived together after their hubbies died of alcohol and nicotine poisoning...there was something not quite right, but the elders in the family assured us everything was fine and we should get on and develop ourselves.... a quaint notion that children should have stability, purpose, independence and individuality without the emotional baggage of their (extended) family. They certainly didn't use kids as a shield to justify their own peccadilloes.


----------



## Value Collector (11 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> No




Why not, there's a chance they may be infertile, So why let them marry unless they can prove they can have kids?

I mean you main argument is that marriage is for the production of children, if you are ok with straight couples that can't have children getting married you should be fine with gay couples getting married.


----------



## Value Collector (11 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> ...of course it will change aspects of true "marriage" ... it will make a mockery of it ....




How so?

how would have a lesbian couple getting married on the other side of town affected your marriage?


----------



## Tink (12 September 2015)

Syd, I mentioned the 60 minutes show and the pedophile advocate because of your 'love wins' marketing, read back.

Controlling peoples thoughts and homes is orwellian/authoritarian.
We should be allowed to raise our children with family values.

When you start making criminals of peoples thoughts, and calling it hate speech, you have gone too far.
The person I mentioned is a champion for freedom of speech, and against this rubbish, same sex marriage.

The TRUTH is Marriage is as is, father, mother and child, and you are changing it to exclude children from their natural parents, or a mother and father, or a man or a woman, in your mix.

*The Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay as is for all future generations.*

You are giving the state control over families and changing the natural law, and that is not on, imo.
I won't be brainwashed and indoctrinated with your/their social engineering.
Children come first, not selfish adults.

They are removing boundaries. They are removing LAW.
Man does not have the right to change it when it disadvantages one in society, especially vulnerable children.

As I have said there is no reason to change marriage because marriage means families and keeping them together.

Encouraging broken families makes it a fallen society, and in need of government intervention.
There is no reason for the government to promote broken families or your lifestyle.

Politics needs to get out of the public schools, as I have mentioned already, and back to teaching literacy and numeracy, not what and how to think.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851

I would take Mike Baird as a Premier any day over this fool we have in Melbourne, Dictator Dan and his communist Green mates.

We have done this topic to death, and people that have made up their minds are not going to change, one way or the other.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Syd, I mentioned the 60 minutes show and the pedophile advocate because of your 'love wins' marketing, read back.




I’ve never mentioned love wins.  I do take offence when you talk about homosexuality and paedophiles while supporting a church that has been, still is, riddled with them and has spent more time and effort on protecting the priests and hierarchy than the victims.



Tink said:


> Controlling peoples thoughts and homes is orwellian/authoritarian.
> We should be allowed to raise our children with family values.
> 
> When you start making criminals of peoples thoughts, and calling it hate speech, you have gone too far.
> ...




Explain to me how allowing SS marriage impacts the way you or anyone else controls peoples thoughts.  So you say it’s wrong for a Govt to control people, but it’s perfectly fine for religious sects to do it.  Double standards there.

SS marriage does not exclude children.

This whole section sounds like a classic “war on Christmas” rant

I woudl think most of the time you allow your thoughts to be controlled.  Probablly a lot easier to do with someone who's already given up their critical thinking to accept being a member of an organised religion.



Tink said:


> *The Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay as is for all future generations.*
> 
> You are giving the state control over families and changing the natural law, and that is not on, imo.
> I won't be brainwashed and indoctrinated with your/their social engineering.
> ...




What is natural law?  In your world view god created all things.  Therefore he made homosexuals.  Then this means homosexuality is part of natural law.

Once again, how does allowing a SS couple get married in say Minto or Budgewoi affect you or anyone else in their married life and the way they raise their family?

IMHO experience children can be just as selfish as adults.



Tink said:


> As I have said there is no reason to change marriage because marriage means families and keeping them together.
> 
> Encouraging broken families makes it a fallen society, and in need of government intervention.
> There is no reason for the government to promote broken families or your lifestyle.
> ...




So you’re saying that your view on marriage is the correct one, that the the historical changes in marriage are irrelevant, and that the human construct of marriage has to be forced to fit into your view.

Explain how SS marriage encourages broken families.

So you’re against politics in schools, but pro scripture classes.  As the Vatican has shown over centuries, politics and religion are like glove to hand.  But politics is part of life, part of the world.  Children should have a better understanding of how political parties will try to manipulate them.  Read my post in the Abbott Govt thread about just how many lies Abbott was telling last weekend.  I doubt many people would bother to confirm what they’re being told, but in this day of relatively easy of searching up info on the internet, it’s something we should encourage children to do.  

Then again, someone as pro religions as you are may not want Children to be critical thinkers about too much of what they’re spoon fed.  How would you have explained how the bible promotes slavery, or how it provided a loophole to see that even Jews could become life long slaves

Exodus 21:4-6  If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.  And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:  Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

How does this work with the god you say is all about family values and the saving of traditional marriage?

If you are not open to critical thinking and examining the evidence, then yes you will never change your mind.


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2015)

Tink, you say marriage is "mother, Father and child"

You seem to think Marriages must have children, How do you rationalise this with you churches crazy practice of Marrying Nuns and other virgin women to Jesus, Firstly a marriage to your imaginary friend is not going to produce a child, and secondly marrying so many women to one God, is a form of polygamy, which is one of the examples of non traditional marriage you have said you are against.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 September 2015)

I'll be interested to see what the Catholic appologists have to say on this

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-catho...t-stories-for-altar-boys-20150911-gjkrdv.html



> "The church certainly failed in their duty of care to their parishioners. If that bishop who heard the complaint had imposed some sort of rein so that Flaherty couldn't be left alone with youth the first offence may not have been repeated.
> 
> "If the church knew about him being a paedophile and moved him from one church to another to go on and abuse more people, well then the church has got a lot of questions to answer."




I find it offensive that this Church has the audacity to talk about family values, protecting our morality, standing up for the traditional role of marriage in society, when it has been countless times white anting the very families it says it's out protecting.

Not only should the perpetrators be jailed, the higher ups who did their best to cover these crimes should also be sent to jail.

How anyone can choose to remain a member of this disgusting organisation is beyond me.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Not only should the perpetrators be jailed, the higher ups who did their best to cover these crimes should also be sent to jail.
> 
> How anyone can choose to remain a member of this disgusting organisation is beyond me.




Perpetrators have been jailed, and maybe we should ask why the people who protected them have not been charged.

Is the "sanctity of the Confessional" a legal defence, or are they being protected by a "boys club" in the police and prosecutors office ? Maybe the victims or their families were either paid off, or scared off by the thought of having their children being cross examined in the witness stand.

Hopefully the RC (Royal commission) will provide a few answers.

Maybe there should also be a RC into child brides in other religions, but no doubt someone will scream "minority persecution" so it will never happen.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Perpetrators have been jailed, and maybe we should ask why the people who protected them have not been charged.
> 
> Is the "sanctity of the Confessional" a legal defence, or are they being protected by a "boys club" in the police and prosecutors office ? Maybe the victims or their families were either paid off, or scared off by the thought of having their children being cross examined in the witness stand.
> 
> ...




I have heard one defence that they felt having admitted their sins, spent a lot of time in thoughtful prayer and been granted forgiveness by the lord, the sins required no further punishment, The Catholic Church believe they are above the laws of the states they operate in.


----------



## Tink (14 September 2015)

So for what reason is Same Sex Marriage a benefit in society?

Why would the Government promote broken homes?
This creates a fallen society, where the Government needs to intervene.

As I said, the Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay that way for all future generations.

*Gay marriage isn’t about freedom, but state control.*

_ it allows the state to increase its already considerable clout over both our personal/family lives and our consciences. 
The ugly tactics of the loudest gay-marriage proponents are no accident: they speak to this illiberal heart of gay marriage. 
There’s one question I’ve asked every liberal I’ve encountered in Australia, all of whom harangue me for my views on gay marriage: why are Western governments that are so allergic to freedom and autonomy passionately embracing gay marriage? They’ve all struggled to answer. 
I think it’s because gay marriage chimes brilliantly with these governments’ insatiable desire to diminish the sovereignty of the family and intervene more in our personal lives, and to police what we think._

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/08/24/guest-post-brendan-oneill-heres-my-beef-with-gay-marriage/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e-branded-bigots/story-fnhulnf5-1227488996781

Such a classy lot -- https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...23929&page=114&p=881149&viewfull=1#post881149

- - - - - - -

_Transgenderism Is a Big Part of This Package, and how it is logically a big step to erasing all sex distinctions in law
If we become legally sexless, the implications are vast when it comes to how or whether the state will recognize family relationships such as mother, father, son, or daughter. There’s already a push to eliminate sex identification at birth.

Love’s Got Nothing to Do with State Interest in Marriage
“Love is love” is an empty slogan when it comes to state interest in marriage. How two people feel about one another is none of the state’s business. 
The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.
And it still is, whether the union happens traditionally or in a petri dish. 
Each and every one of us””equally and without exception””only exists through the heterosexual union. 
In any free and functioning society, there is a state interest in encouraging as much as possible those who sire and bear us to be responsible for raising us.

The Kids Are Not Alright.
Same-Sex Marriage Commodifies Children.
Whenever a parent is missing””for whatever reason””a child feels a primal wound. 
In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults. 
Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities.

The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound_ in silence.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2015)

Tink said:


> So for what reason is Same Sex Marriage a benefit in society?
> 
> 
> 
> .




Gays are part of our society, and it benefits them, also less discrimination benefits all.






> As I said, the Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay that way for all future generations.




Is Marrying your imaginary friend the gold standard?

How do you feel that your cult supports polygamy, how many brides does Jesus have now?

Are you going to speak out against this?


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Gays are part of our society, and it benefits them, also less discrimination benefits all.
> 
> Is Marrying your imaginary friend the gold standard?
> 
> ...




Good luck with habeas corpus on that complaint..... I doubt there is any valid marriage certificate to support your argument.


Imagine how Joseph felt when he found out 'you know who' was shagging his missus.


----------



## sydboy007 (14 September 2015)

Tink said:


> So for what reason is Same Sex Marriage a benefit in society?
> 
> Why would the Government promote broken homes?
> This creates a fallen society, where the Government needs to intervene.




Tink

explain to me why a member of an organisation that has been covering up the molestation of children for decades should in any way have standing on the debate about SS marriage.  Your support and continue to be a member that has done horrific things.  The lack of morality is appalling, yet you feel entitled to hold your views up as a beacon of light against the darkness.

Why are you FORCING your religious beliefs on the rest of the community.  Many people don't accept the teachings of your religion, heck there's so many arguments within Christianity that there's thousands of sects based on varying interpretations of what is written in the bible.  We live in a secular society, fortunately, otherwise we'd have a society similar to Arabic states where theology sets the laws, and I'd say most women wouldn't like going back to that way of life.

Organised religions are the groups most likely to try and control what people think and do.  They only survive by doing so.

So please explain in detail how the Govt allowing me to marry my partner of 15 years would affect your life, your family life, or anyone else but myself and my partner.  How is allowing me to have the same rights as heterosexual members of Australian society bad?

Your constant linkage of SS marriage and children is plainly false.  There are many marriages that are childless, whether due to biology or choice.  Should all those marriages be revoked?  Should marriage only be available for those of child bearing age?  I suppose technically men can father children at any age, but women start to have issues over the age of 40.

Do you have any non religious arguments against SS marriage?  If not, then stop forcing your religious views on others.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Tink
> 
> Why are you FORCING your religious beliefs on the rest of the community.




Maybe you can explain how expressing one's opinion on a forum is FORCING one's religious beliefs on anyone else, any more than you expressing your opinion is forcing your beliefs on others ?

If you don't like what anyone says, then you have no obligation to read it or to reply.

People expressing their opinions is what forums like this are all about.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Good luck with habeas corpus on that complaint..... I doubt there is any valid marriage certificate to support your argument.
> 
> Imagine how Joseph felt when he found out 'you know who' was shagging his missus.




Lol, I am not suggesting pressing charges, just pointing out that Tinks own club/ cult, has some pretty messed up ideas about marriage, that go directly against her gold standard, when she supports a club where people can marry their imaginary friend, I think she is being hypocritical.

Also tink has spoken out against polygamy, yet here is the figure head of her organisation taking thousands of brides. That's crazy before you even start thinking about those brides pretending to eat his flesh as priests drink his blood.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Lol, I am not suggesting pressing charges, just pointing out that Tinks own club/ cult, has some pretty messed up ideas about marriage, that go directly against her gold standard, when she supports a club where people can marry their imaginary friend, I think she is being hypocritical.




I'm sure you are clever enough to work out the distinction between philosophical marriage (eg Einstein was married to the Theory of Relativity) and physical marriage. Splitting hairs seems to be a hobby of some people here.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you can explain how expressing one's opinion on a forum is FORCING one's religious beliefs on anyone else, any more than you expressing your opinion is forcing your beliefs on others ?
> 
> If you don't like what anyone says, then you have no obligation to read it or to reply.
> 
> People expressing their opinions is what forums like this are all about.




Tink wants the government to continue banning Sydboy from being able to marry a same sex partner.

Sydboy is not trying to prevent tink from marrying or force her to marry anyone.

A guy that wants the government to ban pork, is trying to force his beliefs on others, because he wants to stop them eating pork, a guy that's saying we should have the right to eat pork if we want, is not trying to force his beliefs he is standing up for his right to have his own beliefs.

tink is in the position of the guy trying to force everyone to conform to his anti pork beliefs, No one her has ever suggested we force anyone to have a same sex marriage.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure you are clever enough to work out the distinction between philosophical marriage (eg Einstein was married to the Theory of Relativity) and physical marriage. Splitting hairs seems to be a hobby of some people here.




Do you not think that the girl in the video believes she is actually married to Christ now?

I think she is very sincere in her belief that Christ is a real being and she is physically married, she isn't making a throw away comment like "I am married to my job" she believes she is now married literally.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Tink wants the government to continue banning Sydboy from being able to marry a same sex partner.




No one is forcing gay people to break up, if they want to stay together they will, marriage is irrelevant.

The actual benefits of marriage for people without children are obscure. I see it as a "you have it so we want it" situation. Civil unions provide the same rights, so what is the problem with that ?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Do you not think that the girl in the video believes she is actually married to Christ now?
> 
> I think she is very sincere in her belief that Christ is a real being and she is physically married, she isn't making a throw away comment like "I am married to my job" she believes she is now married literally.




I don't know what any individual believes, no doubt there are many delusions but I don't think it has much to do with gay marriage.


----------



## luutzu (14 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Tink wants the government to continue banning Sydboy from being able to marry a same sex partner.
> 
> Sydboy is not trying to prevent tink from marrying or force her to marry anyone...




Tink, why do you want to do that to Sydboy? He sounds like a decent guy. 


ah man, this is nuts. Banning something without any scientific or actual evidence of it harming anyone... and in cases where individuals does cause harm they will be dealt with by the law... it should still be ban anyway.

We don't even ban smoking, or alcohol and you could make better cases why those ought to be ban than banning gay marriage. And have we seen how amazing that little black rock call coal is? Good for humanity too.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you can explain how expressing one's opinion on a forum is FORCING one's religious beliefs on anyone else, any more than you expressing your opinion is forcing your beliefs on others ?
> 
> If you don't like what anyone says, then you have no obligation to read it or to reply.
> 
> People expressing their opinions is what forums like this are all about.




There's a difference between views based on religious dogma, and views based on, for want of a better term, scientific principles.  Calling for the Govt to do things based on religious dogma is basically forcing your religious beliefs on others.  Arguing for something to be done because you believe there's evidence to support your claim is a far more rational process.

Have you actually read the claims being made?  They're hyperbole....squared.

I find it ironic that someone can complain about Govt control of lives when they are members of one of the most controlling organised religions.  The fact that the Govt is reducing it's controlling of marriages by allowing SS marriage seems to be lost.

I've still yet to hear how allowing same sex marriage will affect anyone else.

How would allowing me to marry my long term partner impact you, or tink, or my neighbour?  Haven't we as a society moved on from seeing homosexuality as deviant behaviour?  Maybe not based on some of the comments on this forum.  Then again, the "grumpy old guy" at work reckons they should just allow it, it's inevitable.  It doesn't affect him in any way so he doesn't see what all the worry is about.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No one is forcing gay people to break up, if they want to stay together they will, marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> The actual benefits of marriage for people without children are obscure. I see it as a "you have it so we want it" situation. Civil unions provide the same rights, so what is the problem with that ?




So you're saying words aren't important?

You're saying that you view a civil union in exactly the same way as marriage?

Civil unions do not confer the same rights as marriage.  From what I can tell, civil unions don't provide much of anything in terms of a legal basis.  About all they can help with is providing evidence of a defacto relationship.

What if the Govt got rid of marriages and everyone has a civil union?


----------



## Tink (15 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you can explain how expressing one's opinion on a forum is FORCING one's religious beliefs on anyone else, any more than you expressing your opinion is forcing your beliefs on others ?
> 
> If you don't like what anyone says, then you have no obligation to read it or to reply.
> 
> People expressing their opinions is what forums like this are all about.




+1

Luutzu, I have never said Syd is not a decent person, I have stood up for Marriage and it's meaning.

To redefine Marriage affects us all, as was shown by an athiest, Brendan O'Neill, a champion of freedom of speech, and is not for a totalitarian regime.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=98&p=882822&viewfull=1#post882822

It is VC and Syd that have continuously gone on about the Catholic Church.
What has that got to do with this debate.

I have asked how same sex marriage benefits society -- it doesn't.
Morality is a part of our society, which is based on Christian principles.

Brendan O'Neill and Richard Dawkins are both atheists, and have locked horns on many occasions.
Dawkins is a fundamentalist
The religion thread is here if they want to talk about religion
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27938&page=57

Agree, Rumpole, we are all entitled to freedom of speech, and it is a concern when people try to shut you down with PC.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> You're saying that you view a civil union in exactly the same way as marriage?




Yes. Imo, marriage/civil union is an agreement between two people. I don't see why government needs to interfere in either one of them unless they confer legal rights on others namely children.

So if people don't intend to have children, I see no difference between marriage & civil union.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2015)

Tink said:


> +1
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes there is no denying that our country is established on Christian principles, no matter how much people want to revise our history. Even upto the post Vietnam war, those refugees from South Vietnam were pretty much all Christians.

Of course we can't argue that Christians invented morality and ethics; which seems to be a pursuit that is central to survival of the tribe and that civility is apparently 335k years old.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2015)

​


SirRumpole said:


> I don't know what any individual believes, no doubt there are many delusions but I don't think it has much to do with gay marriage.




I am just pointing out that tinks own cult participates in polygamy, which is one of the slippery slope arguments she used against gay marriage, and it also has a definition of marriage that goes beyond Tinks gold standard.



> I see it as a "you have it so we want it" situation. Civil unions provide the same rights, so what is the problem with that ?




That's like saying.

"the blacks still get to ride the bus, the just have to sit in the back, they have the same rights to get to the destination, whats the problem with that?"


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Civil unions do not confer the same rights as marriage.  From what I can tell, civil unions don't provide much of anything in terms of a legal basis.  About all they can help with is providing evidence of a defacto relationship.




What do you want a legal basis for ? Property transfer ? There are such things as Wills.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2015)

Tink said:


> I have stood up for Marriage and it's meaning.
> 
> .




So are you against women marrying Jesus?




> To redefine Marriage affects us all,




Give me an example of how it affects you.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ​
> 
> "the blacks still get to ride the bus, the just have to sit in the back, they have the same rights to get to the destination, whats the problem with that?"




What "rights" does marriage confer on anyone that they don't already have ?


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ​
> I am just pointing out that tinks own cult participates in polygamy, which is one of the slippery slope arguments she used against gay marriage, and it also has a definition of marriage that goes beyond Tinks gold standard.
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah but you want the bus modified to cater to the special needs of the blacks at the discomfort of the majority of commuters....we all know what happens when you provide concessional tickets to those that don't need them.

Reminds me of song:



In Los Angeles the composition of bus commuters is 92% coloureds, the pale faces don't value their trips much anymore.


----------



## awg (15 September 2015)

Tink said:


> *The Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay as is for all future generations.*
> 
> 
> Encouraging broken families makes it a fallen society, and in need of government intervention.
> ...





I changed my mind, and not so long ago either!

3 adult sons, (all hetro).  No-one that knows me would say I was even slightly "politically correct"

Was bought up in the '70s, when attitudes were very homophobic. I largely subscribed to those views.

"natural law", not sure what that is, other animals (apart from human species) exibit homosexual behaviour too? 

imo morality in our society pre-dates Christian values, going back to Greek philosophers (lol greeks )

There are many things worse than gay marriage, for kids and society imo, so while I respect the right of religious and other objectors to hold their own view, the time has come.

What would be your reaction if one of your own children or grandchildren decided they wanted to marry their gay partner?

sorry and not meaning to pick on you, do not know your reasons, but I personally cannot see any other satisfactory objections except religious grounds?...and see then I dont like religous people telling ME what I am supposed to do. I was bought up with and have fair knowledge of Christian teachings.

I will end by saying that my preferred family model is traditional, in the ideal family world for me, the infant is nurtured and breast fed by the mother, and most certainly not shoved into some childcare centre, all that needs a framework of support.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yeah but you want the bus modified to cater to the special needs of the blacks at the discomfort of the majority of commuters.....




what modifications are you talking about?


and what would the discomfort be?


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What "rights" does marriage confer on anyone that they don't already have ?




What rights does sitting at the front of the bus give blacks that they didn't have before?


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> What rights does sitting at the front of the bus give blacks that they didn't have before?




You are comparing apples with oranges, not valid.

Civil Unions vs Marriage, what is the practical difference ?


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You are comparing apples with oranges, not valid.
> 
> Civil Unions vs Marriage, what is the practical difference ?




there are lots of little nuances between the two, for example just being able to answer yes to the question "are you married?" is a good feeling for some, other wise people wouldn't get married, they would all just live in defacto relationships.

But my example with blacks on the bus is true, Technically Blacks didn't get any new rights other than sitting a few seats further forward, they were just being treated as equals, which is mainly what we are after here for the gay members of our society.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> what modifications are you talking about?
> 
> 
> and what would the discomfort be?





I dunno ....  but after getting held hostage by the driver in a taxi in USA I'm not going to risk a trip on a fricken bus. I'll leave you to your expertise on the american blacks ... you certainly seem to have them on a pedestal and in high esteem as vanguards of the gay movement.


----------



## CanOz (15 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> I dunno ....  but after getting held hostage by the driver in a taxi in USA I'm not going to risk a trip on a fricken bus. I'll leave you to your expertise on the american blacks ... you certainly seem to have them on a pedestal and in high esteem as vanguards of the gay movement.




Should've Ubered


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> I dunno .... .




I am asking what modifications you expect from granting gays the right to marry.

and what discomfort this will cause the majority.



> ... you certainly seem to have them on a pedestal and in high esteem as vanguards of the gay movement




No pedestal, just equal rights. that's all.


----------



## wayneL (15 September 2015)

Right or wrong, completely ridiculous or completely natural, or anywhere in between, gay marriage is going to happen. IMO just freakin pass it and get the issue out of the way.

But I gotta say this: The gay marriage lobby has gone ape shut with the ascent of Mal. We are being bombarded with pro gaiety on the ABC and FaceAche. So here it is - it's not about you. The hope for a Turnbull gumint is about getting our country back on track, so back the #### off.

You'll get your rights to marriage, but there is more important stuff and you are detracting from that.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 September 2015)

Tink said:


> +1
> 
> Luutzu, I have never said Syd is not a decent person, I have stood up for Marriage and it's meaning.
> 
> ...




Christian morality

Ok Tink.  Explain the Christian morality that says

* beating your slave and having them die after a day or so is not murder

* The form of slavery for daughters to be sold

* the father of a female rape victim can force them to marry their rapist

* Why did God order David to kill 70,000 people for holding a census?

* What about the God sanctioned Murder, Rape, and Pillage at Jabesh-gilead.  Why do you think they only kept the virgin girls?

* In Hosea they talk about dashing the babies of Samarians against the rocks

* In deuteronomy it talks about the appropriate way to rape female captives

* Also in deuteronomy it talks about killing your unruly sons

So Tink, of the above morality sanctioned by your God, what do you currently follow?  Do you have a house slave?  Would you be Ok for one of your children to have a female slave wife, or one of your daughters to be one?

Personally, I think my morality based on the premises of do unto others as they would have you do unto them, will serve as a much better base for morality.

If religion should be discussed in the religion thread, why do you keep using it as a justification for bocking the rights of same sex couples to be married.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes. Imo, marriage/civil union is an agreement between two people. I don't see why government needs to interfere in either one of them unless they confer legal rights on others namely children.
> 
> So if people don't intend to have children, I see no difference between marriage & civil union.




Do a bit of investigation and you'll see that in terms of property rights civil unions are meaningless.

i don't think there's been been much case law created around someone in a SS relationship leaving their assets to their partner and how contestable that would be by any surviving family members.

Just for an experiment, try introducing your wife as your partner, and call your relationship a civil union.  I'm sure people will give you a befuddled look.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 September 2015)

wayneL said:


> Right or wrong, completely ridiculous or completely natural, or anywhere in between, gay marriage is going to happen. IMO just freakin pass it and get the issue out of the way.
> 
> But I gotta say this: The gay marriage lobby has gone ape shut with the ascent of Mal. We are being bombarded with pro gaiety on the ABC and FaceAche. So here it is - it's not about you. The hope for a Turnbull gumint is about getting our country back on track, so back the #### off.
> 
> You'll get your rights to marriage, but there is more important stuff and you are detracting from that.




Right.  Blame the people being discriminated against for asking to be treated the same.

This issue could have been resolved if Abbott had shown some bipartisan spirit.

i agree it's not a top order issue, but it's also not insignificant.

The fact it could be so easily resolved and then the focus on the major challenges we're going to face over the next 18-24 months could happen, seems to have been lost on you.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> This issue could have been resolved if Abbott had shown some bipartisan spirit.
> 
> .




He couldn't. History would have interpretted it as nepotism and thus compromised his sense of independence.


----------



## wayneL (15 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Right.  Blame the people being discriminated against for asking to be treated the same.
> 
> This issue could have been resolved if Abbott had shown some bipartisan spirit.
> 
> ...




Syd I understand your passion on this topic, but you really didn't read what I said.

I said let's  get the issue resolved when appropriate and soon. But  I object to the ABC presenting it as a first order priority. 

It isn't. Sorry.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Just for an experiment, try introducing your wife as your partner, and call your relationship a civil union.  I'm sure people will give you a befuddled look.




Befuddled ? People's relationships with their partners are their own business. I don't really think people care whether others are married to their partners or not. I know people who have been together for years and haven't got married and there is nothing deficient about their relationships with each other.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Befuddled ? People's relationships with their partners are their own business. I don't really think people care whether others are married to their partners or not. I know people who have been together for years and haven't got married and there is nothing deficient about their relationships with each other.




There is also nothing deficient about how other people view them.


----------



## Tisme (16 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't really think people care whether others are married to their partners or not. .




In my case there is a certain amount of care amongst my peers and friends ... they appear rather envious I am getting away with having a loving and beautiful woman companion and no ring on her finger (no way am I ever getting married in the future thankyou very much and she can live in her own house too!).


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> In my case there is a certain amount of care amongst my peers and friends ... they appear rather envious I am getting away with having a loving and beautiful woman companion and no ring on her finger (no way am I ever getting married in the future thankyou very much and she can live in her own house too!).




Glad to hear things are working out for you.


----------



## Tink (16 September 2015)

awg, you are entitled to your opinion and your thoughts, as I am mine.

I have expressed the reason why I don't agree with marriage being changed, throughout this thread.
Maybe you should look a bit deeper, exactly what all this is about, and how it affects society.
If you want the state to over rule your thoughts, then you are heading in the right direction.
Freedom of speech is a good thing, and I would like to keep it in this country.

When you start excluding children, or a mother or father, from the mix, that is not marriage, that is not truth and that is not equal.
That is lying to the children, in my view.
A father and mother have a child -- man and woman.
That is what should be taught in schools.

Natural Law includes them all, and was set up that way.

What people do in society is their business, but there is no reason for the govt to promote this.
LOVE is not a reason for marriage.
Laws are based on morals and justice.
Moving  boundaries is what this is all about for the next one to come in and say -- Love wins.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights in this country,  apart from the word 'Marriage'.
Changing Marriage changes the demographics.
Being honest is what this is about, and for the next generation.

You mentioned --

_I will end by saying that my preferred family model is traditional, in the ideal family world for me, the infant is nurtured and breast fed by the mother, and most certainly not shoved into some childcare centre, all that needs a framework of support._

So why would you change it for the next generation?
Why would you allow them to change that, where if you express those thoughts, the state will tell you that it is 'hate speech'.
You will be shut down and silenced.

Is that what you want for the next generation where they are not allowed to even think it.
This is totalitarian, not freedom.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 September 2015)

Tink said:


> awg, you are entitled to your opinion and your thoughts, as I am mine.




Tink

can you expand on what you said

_If you want the state to over rule your thoughts, then you are heading in the right direction._

Doesn’t the Church control your thoughts?  Isn’t Govt removing itself from controlling marriages a good thing?  You’re arguing for continued state control of marriages.

_When you start excluding children, or a mother or father, from the mix, that is not marriage, that is not truth and that is not equal._

So all those couples who are unable to have children are not married?  All those couple who choose not to have children are not married?

_What people do in society is their business, but there is no reason for the govt to promote this._

Allowing something is not promoting it.  The Govt allows the consumption of alcohol and tobacco, but I don't think anyone would argue that they promote it.  Same with gambling.

_LOVE is not a reason for marriage._

So love is not important in a marriage.  Good to know.  A lot of men will love that you've killed off the romantic comedy genre.  What is the most important reason for marriage then?

_Laws are based on morals and justice._

laws are based on morals, just not really based on the Biblical sense of morals as I’d say most would agree slavery and wiping out thousands of people for no good reason is not moral.  Justice is more about the fair application of laws.  You know, like when you find out about child abuse you report it to the police, not move the paedophile to another church to allow the crime to continue.  Oh wait, that is the catholic moral stance on child abuse.

_Moving boundaries is what this is all about for the next one to come in and say -- Love wins._

If moving boundaries makes for a more inclusive society then why is that a bad thing?

_Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights in this country, apart from the word 'Marriage'._

It’s very easy for someone in society who is part of the dominant race and religion to be oblivious to the discrimination that’s occurring on a daily basis.

_Changing Marriage changes the demographics._

Do you know what demographics is?  It’s just the statistical analysis of populations.  What is the relevancy to SS marriage?

_Being honest is what this is about, and for the next generation._

So what dishonesty is being told? What about the current generations?  Don’t the we of now have some rights too?


----------



## Tink (16 September 2015)

I have expanded enough, Syd, people need to look more into what you are pushing in this country.

You are entitled to your views as I am mine.

The Law is as it is --  and for a reason.


----------



## awg (16 September 2015)

Tink said:


> awg, you are entitled to your opinion and your thoughts, as I am mine.
> 
> I have expressed the reason why I don't agree with marriage being changed, throughout this thread.
> 
> ...




Thx for the reply Tink, 

your posts have been many, and I havent read them all, assume a strong Christian belief is at work

Its ironic (to me) that this issue is one to unite fundamentalist Muslims and Christians

Cant really see how gay marriage is repressing my thoughts, although I can see why some would not want to accept when the laws are changed

Not every model of marriage (or child-rearing) may get my tick of approval, but one must be pragmatic.

try mentioning my preferred model of child-rearing in an office full of professional women, and you will soon find difficulty expressing your thoughts

Love not a reason for marriage??  Now that IS radical..I really dont have a clue what you are on about there,
Are we talking arranged marriages?


----------



## Tink (16 September 2015)

Well their marketing has been 'love wins', and I don't see that as a reason to change the law.

I have given my views, and have replied.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 September 2015)

I know where Tink is coming from.

If we change the definition of marriage, debase the word if you will, which we had been doing even before the gay marriage debate, then we need a new word to mean "true marriage".

The original definition was a union for life, for good times or bad, with respect, between a man or woman, with procreation one of the main aims. That is the Christian definition which everyone said whether it was a Church wedding or not.

That definition probably changed around the 1970s with the pill. Now it is often just lets get together till I get sick of you or times get bad and swap you for a different model.


----------



## Tink (16 September 2015)

Thanks, Knobby.

That is very much what I am saying, which we have all agreed with, throughout the country.

But there is more -- and it is about freedom of speech.

Redefining is changing marriage as we know it, which they are not saying.

What we believed will be taken away -- and you will not be allowed to express it anymore. 
It will be considered as 'HATE SPEECH'.

We will not be allowed to express ourselves, we will be silenced.

This is brainwashing and social engineering.

As I said, this is totalitarian, not freedom.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Knobby.
> 
> That is very much what I am saying, which we have all agreed with, throughout the country.
> 
> ...




Tink

I've never said you can't say what you say.  I do acknowledge much of what you say I don't really understand.  When pressed to explain your logic you are unwilling to.

The definition of marriage has changed.  You posted that you agree this has happened.  Yet you now argue for a static definition of marriage.  I don't understand why you can accept the change over thousands of years but now argue for the state to continue controlling marriages, in a legal sense, and argue for a religious inspired definition of marriage in what is a secular country.

You argue for free speech, but when people are calling for change you don't like, you call it brainwashing and social engineering.  How about practising what you preach.

You are free to continue believing that marriage is only between 1 man and 1 women, though your religious teachings show no moral qualms by god or jesus about polygamy between a man and his many wives.  Changing the legal definition of marriage hs zero impact on you in your daily life.  You continually claim otherwise, but have never actually spelt out what will change in your personal situation.


----------



## Tisme (16 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Glad to hear things are working out for you.




A widower in a village of women and I bring in a out of towner a few days a week .... you figure out how things are working out for me


----------



## Tink (17 September 2015)

Syd, we are on two sides of the fence, and of course you are entitled to your view, just as I am with mine.
The problem is, you are trying to shut down mine, as hate speech.

I have told you in many posts that I do not agree with STATE CONTROL of what happens in our homes, our families, in our lives.
This is Big Brother, coming in your homes and telling you how to think, and if you don't, you will be punished.
You cannot control the way we talk and push it aside as hate speech.

This country was built on our Christian Heritage, so anyone that dismisses it as my Christian faith is like water off a ducks back for me, so don't bother.
Are you going to start calling children that go in search for their parents -- hate speech.
I can see you are, as was quite clear on their ABC that night, that you agreed with.

I have asked for what reason is same sex marriage a benefit for society, and their isn't.
We are not equal as I have pointed out why.
We have children, you don't, and that is why marriage should not be changed.
We don't change laws to make people feel better, laws are there for a reason.

Our laws were all set up based on our Christian values of morals and justice.
That includes, marriage, murder, the list goes on.
There are no variations.

When we start moving the goal posts to suit our own needs, then we start to destroy the country we live in.
The Law is there for a reason.

As stated in this post -
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=98&p=882822&viewfull=1#post882822

- - - -





We have done this debate to death.....


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2015)

So, is this a case of the many being deprived of a say for the sake of a few ?

This is what many call PC censorship. Bring on a plebiscite AT the next election.

Senate report warns same-sex marriage plebiscite could potentially harm people in LGBTI community



> A Senate report has warned the Government that a plebiscite on same-sex marriage would be too expensive and too potentially harmful to children and other vulnerable people in the gay and lesbian community.
> 
> The majority report from Labor and the crossbench recommends that a parliamentary conscience vote to change the Marriage Act be held instead.
> 
> ...


----------



## sydboy007 (17 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So, is this a case of the many being deprived of a say for the sake of a few ?
> 
> This is what many call PC censorship. Bring on a plebiscite AT the next election.




You do understand that the "queer" community, commonly referred to as the gays, lesbians, transgenders, intersex, bisexual too, face much higher degrees of violence than the general population.

The Australian human rights Commission released a report earlier this year showing ~70% of LGBTI people have been attacked, bullied or harassed.  I've faced it myself.  My housemate nearly lost an eye due to a bashing a decade ago.

I don't think it's drawing a long bow at all to believe that if a plebiscite is held that certain elements in Australia will run very negative campaigns which may encourage, for want of a better term, homophobic actions by some in the community.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I don't think it's drawing a long bow at all to believe that if a plebiscite is held that certain elements in Australia will run very negative campaigns which may encourage, for want of a better term, homophobic actions by some in the community.




I would be quite happy just to have a vote, with advertising campaigns banned or not publicly financed anyway.

Most people have decided one way or the other on this issue, we just want it resolved quickly whatever the result.

Were there "homophobic actions" in Ireland ? Why should they happen here ?


----------



## sydboy007 (17 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Syd, we are on two sides of the fence, and of course you are entitled to your view, just as I am with mine.
> The problem is, you are trying to shut down mine, as hate speech.




Pease explain how I am trying to shut down what you say as hate speech?  When have I ever said anything along those lines?

_I have told you in many posts that I do not agree with STATE CONTROL of what happens in our homes, our families, in our lives.
This is Big Brother, coming in your homes and telling you how to think, and if you don't, you will be punished.
You cannot control the way we talk and push it aside as hate speech._

Once again, you claim the Govt is controlling what you do in you home and how you think.  Please provide an example of how this would occur if SS marriage was allowed today.  How does this occur?  I truly do not understand your argument.  The state is reducing it’s control in this area.

_This country was built on our Christian Heritage, so anyone that dismisses it as my Christian faith is like water off a ducks back for me, so don't bother.
Are you going to start calling children that go in search for their parents -- hate speech.
I can see you are, as was quite clear on their ABC that night, that you agreed with._

Your Christian faith is fairly irrelevant to this debate, unless you’re saying you want to force your religious beliefs on myself and the wider community?

_I have asked for what reason is same sex marriage a benefit for society, and their isn't.
We are not equal as I have pointed out why.
We have children, you don't, and that is why marriage should not be changed.
We don't change laws to make people feel better, laws are there for a reason._

So on the one hand you say homosexuals are not discriminated against, but now you say we’re not equal.  How does that work?
Not all people who are married have children.
Not all people who have children are married.
So changing the laws to allow women to vote, Aboriginals to vote, anti discrimination laws, anti vilification and hate speech laws, they shouldn’t have been passed because they protected people and made them feel better.  I’d hate to live in a society that was controlled by people with your way of thinking.

_Our laws were all set up based on our Christian values of morals and justice.
That includes, marriage, murder, the list goes on.
There are no variations._

Why isn’t slavery legal then?  Why don’t we allow polygamy?  Are there laws against different types of cattle grazing together?  Do we prohibit growing different crops in the same field?  Do we outlaw clothes made from more than one fabric?  Do we allow people to cut their hair and shave?  Do we execute anyone for infidelity?  Do we stone to death people who claim to be psychics?  Do we bar people with flat noses, are blind or lame, from attending a Church?  Is it law that we should go to non Christian countries and engage in genocide?

All these are commanded in your biblical teachings.  Are these not the Christian values you say provide the foundation of our moral code in Australia?  Yet I don’t believe any of these are, so we have changed.  I wonder why?

_When we start moving the goal posts to suit our own needs, then we start to destroy the country we live in.
The Law is there for a reason._

Are not laws made to suit our needs.  Didn’t we create laws protecting the environment?  Didn’t we create laws so we don’t engage in brutal acts during war and created the concept of war crimes?  Have we not created laws to protect minorities within our communities?  Would you see the laws against sexual discrimination revoked, since they are relatively new?

I know you prefer the biblical way where the chosen people had one set of rules, and everyone else had different rules applied to them.  Fortunately in the modern world we at least aspire to applying the law equally to all.


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I would be quite happy just to have a vote, with advertising campaigns banned or not publicly financed anyway.
> 
> Most people have decided one way or the other on this issue, we just want it resolved quickly whatever the result.
> 
> Were there "homophobic actions" in Ireland ? Why should they happen here ?




I too disagree with a plebiscite. It should be a full on compulsory referendum that changes the constitution to the people's wishes and a lock put on its revisit for at least three generations...... and while they are at it the flag and dammed daylight saving!!! 

Our strength is our community and the community must be able to vote under the safety net of imposed responsibility to cast a vote on their views, not the two thirds turnout in Ireland where 1,201,607 won against the other 2,000,000 eligibles, two thirds of whom didn't think they needed to vote for something so obviously non catholic..... those Oirush

Full on referendum then we can get on and do something to shield us from the threats of another primitive bunch of people with arcane superstitions that want to stone us, cut off our heads like we are a hydra, and impose total intolerance of anything not written in their little book of horrors.


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Our laws were all set up based on our Christian values of morals and justice.
> That includes, marriage, murder, the list goes on.
> There are no variations.
> 
> ....




That they are Tink. 

The Church of England is/was the established church so long as we are a Monarchy and that monarch is the the Supreme Governor of the church, with Jesus the top cockey. The Anglican Church and State are linked because of this and back in the late 19th century when federation was being conceived empire was everything, even the borrows from the US constitution where based on christian equality (the US Anglicans call themselves evangelists to avoid conflicts with English haters). 

In the UK a couple of dozen Bishops, by law, sit in the House of Lords; the same mob that Bob Hawke decided to give the flick in 1986 ... not so long ago.


----------



## overhang (17 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Syd, we are on two sides of the fence, and of course you are entitled to your view, just as I am with mine.
> The problem is, you are trying to shut down mine, as hate speech.
> 
> I have told you in many posts that I do not agree with STATE CONTROL of what happens in our homes, our families, in our lives.
> ...




Tink if you don't agree with state control then you would support gay marriage.  This isn't about hate speech, you're not been forced to support gay marriage, you're not being subjected to attending a gay marriage but all that is been asked is that you don't force your personal convictions onto someone else as you believe they shouldn't have access to something that you can.  And that is what it boils down to, not about hate speech but about the government trying to control what others can do and restrict liberties.  I don't support religions and believe they're a blight on society but I don't want the government to legislate to stop people such as yourself from practicing religion as that is a personal freedom that the government shouldn't impose on others. 




> I have asked for what reason is same sex marriage a benefit for society, and their isn't.




Gay and Lesbians are 14x more likely to attempt suicide than hetrosexuals, I can't blame them when they are treated as second class citizens, marriage equality would go some way to showing that society does accept them and not try and shun them away as outcasts who aren't entitled to celebrate their love in the same way the rest of us can.  I would have thought someone who preachers morality would be all about doing everything they can to reduce that rate of suicide, these are people with mothers and fathers and friends too, suicide is devastating on communities.  





> We are not equal as I have pointed out why.
> We have children, you don't, and that is why marriage should not be changed.
> We don't change laws to make people feel better, laws are there for a reason.
> Our laws were all set up based on our Christian values of morals and justice.
> ...




You're correct, but as a female what gives you the right to comment on this, as you're part of the inferior sex we're not equal and has you're husband given you permission to speak out about this?  Are these the christian values that you refer to?  You do realise that if we used christian values that we'd still have slavery and that you as a female would be unable to vote?  It sure as hell wasn't christian values that won you the right to vote but rather common human morality that recognizing that equality is important in a civilized society.  You can't cherry pick values to support your idea of totalitarianism, stop trying to prevent others from doing what you're entitled to do.


----------



## Tink (17 September 2015)

Just some history, since Syd keeps talking about polygamy --

_Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest_

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

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ic-Church-to-Western-civilization.html?pg=all

I will answer your post shortly, overhang, but I disagree.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 September 2015)

overhang said:


> Gay and Lesbians are 14x more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals.




I will be amazed if having a few get married will change the figure one iota. 
The problems are caused by other factors. Some of which are caused by the fact they are gay, especially among men.  

Reading New Scientist recently, it appears science is showing that is a lot more than genetic factors that affect people's sexuality.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Why isn’t slavery legal then?  Why don’t we allow polygamy?  Are there laws against different types of cattle grazing together?  Do we prohibit growing different crops in the same field?  Do we outlaw clothes made from more than one fabric?  Do we allow people to cut their hair and shave?  Do we execute anyone for infidelity?  Do we stone to death people who claim to be psychics?  Do we bar people with flat noses, are blind or lame, from attending a Church?  Is it law that we should go to non Christian countries and engage in genocide?
> 
> .




I think you are completely ignorant on Christianity sydboy, which is OK, but you are wrong on all points. 
And on some, it is actually stated the direct opposite. Not sure what you are getting this from? Getting mixed up with the Jewish religion?


----------



## sydboy007 (17 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I would be quite happy just to have a vote, with advertising campaigns banned or not publicly financed anyway.
> 
> Most people have decided one way or the other on this issue, we just want it resolved quickly whatever the result.
> 
> Were there "homophobic actions" in Ireland ? Why should they happen here ?




Why do we have an issue with Alcohol?  I don't see the same problems when I'm overseas.

I'd hope the loony Christian right wouldn't go tea party negative campaign style, but it wouldn't surprise me.  Some elements from the far right in the USA have already been trying to sneak their way into the local debate.


----------



## overhang (17 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> I will be amazed if having a few get married will change the figure one iota.
> The problems are caused by other factors. Some of which are caused by the fact they are gay, especially among men.
> 
> Reading New Scientist recently, it appears science is showing that is a lot more than genetic factors that affect people's sexuality.




I doubt it will be a catalyst to lower that rate significantly however it will act as a contributing factor to making that community feel more equal in our society when most have gone through life thinking they're not.  I would imagine it mostly boils down to the feeling of shame and denial because society has long viewed them as outcasts.  I guess the same can be argued when blacks weren't allowed to drink out of the same water fountain, they had their water fountain so why wasn't that sufficient? Why did they need to drink out of the whites?  It's not like allowing them to drink out of the same water fountain would instantly solve racial discrimination but it was a step in the right direction and that's what marriage equality would achieve too. 

Perhaps it might go someway to stopping those horrible stories where marriages are ended because of one partner finally coming out after all these years due to their social rejection and feeling of the need to lie about their sexuality, in those cases you end up with emotionally distraught partners and children.

Do you have a link to that new science article?  I would be interested to read it.


----------



## sydboy007 (17 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Just some history, since Syd keeps talking about polygamy --
> 
> _Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest_
> 
> ...




So now you're saying that what the Bible prescribes is no longer relevant, and that is what the recent Church leaders say that is now to be followed?

What else do we then disregard from the bible?  Once you start cutting parts out from the old testament, the new testament sort of becomes irrelevant then, as much of the prophesy it relies on to be true comes from the old testament.

So are you not in fact advocating change to law, since you now recognise that the laws in the bible are not really applied any more.


----------



## McLovin (17 September 2015)

Calling gay marriage a battle for free speech is certainly one of the more bizarre arguments, even by the standard of this woeful thread.


----------



## sydboy007 (17 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> I think you are completely ignorant on Christianity sydboy, which is OK, but you are wrong on all points.
> And on some, it is actually stated the direct opposite. Not sure what you are getting this from? Getting mixed up with the Jewish religion?




Ah, does not the Catholic church, and most major protestant religions, base their beliefs on the bible - should that be bibles since there doesn't see to be any agreement on a standard version.

What are Christian beliefs?   Christianity is a general term denoting the historic community deriving from the original followers of Jesus of Nazareth and the institutions, social and cultural patterns, and the beliefs and doctrines evolved by this community.  I suppose you could argue the gentile version of Christianity won out, but then why hold on the bible?  Probably because it's been a handy weapon for centuries used by the Church to give itself some legitimacy over the control of people's lives.  Much of the way most Churches function is similar to how the Jewish synagogues were run.

One could argue that the early Christian Church was explicitly claiming not to be a new religion, and by conceiving itself the fulfilment of the promises in the Bible (the "Old Testament") as expressed in the covenant with the patriarchs and in the message of the prophets, the Church placed itself squarely on a Jewish foundation: it was the consummation of the biblical promise. Jesus was not just a divinely chosen saviour, but the promised Son of David, the Lord's Anointed (Mashi'aḥ ben David), and hence the Christian community, i.e., the Church, was the "true Israel" of God.

That's a carton of eggs in the omelette.

I think the concept of do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a bit, well self centred.  Why would you know how another person wants to be treated?  Better to be a bit more open minded and treat others as they would have you treat them.  Sort of fits perfectly into this debate.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Better to be a bit more open minded and treat others as they would have you treat them.




Doesn't always work. A lot of people would like to win Lotto, but James Packer doesn't agree.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> If we change the definition of marriage, debase the word if you will, which we had been doing even before the gay marriage debate, then we need a new word to mean "true marriage".
> 
> .




that's like saying when we finally decided to recognise Aboriginals as citizens, that we would need some new word to mean "true citizen" do distinguish the real Aussies from the aboriginals. It's just silly to think that way.

The fact is aboriginals are true citizens, and same sex marriages would be true marriages.


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> What else do we then disregard from the bible?




You disregard those parts of the "OLD" (Judaism) testament that are at odds with the "New" ( Christian) Testament. This  is what they teach you in Sunday School.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> You disregard those parts of the "OLD" (Judaism) testament that are at odds with the "New" ( Christian) Testament. This  is what they teach you in Sunday School.




The problem with that is that Jesus himself said he didn't come to change the laws and none of the existing laws would change until heaven and earth disappear. (Matthew 5:17 from memory, in the Serman on the mount, a speech Christians normally take very seriously)

he also said slaves obey your master, and slavery is condoned in the New Testament, so if you are against slavery, you should probably forget trying to use the bible to justify your opinions.


----------



## sydboy007 (17 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> You disregard those parts of the "OLD" (Judaism) testament that are at odds with the "New" ( Christian) Testament. This  is what they teach you in Sunday School.




Classic cherry picking by Christians. Anything a bit tricky is to be disregarded, but still used on occasion if it helps to stir up some righteous anger against various minorities.

Christians have used the bible to stir up all kinds of mischief.  From trying to block an end to slavery to blocking the right of women to vote to racial equality.

The same ad hominem arguments trundle out each time society wants to progress. The west would look far too similar to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait if the church had been able to maintain its power.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 September 2015)

The point is that it does refute what you said,Syd

That does not mean that people who call themselves Christian bloody do any of it. Look at George Bush or Tony Abbott, supposedly devout Christians getting into wars. What about the line "Blessed be the Peacemakers" I could go and refute every point but I couldn't be bothered. Unfortunately it is the human mindset to form "tribes" and use that tribe to condone behaviour like slavery, wars etc. even if pointed to the clause in the New Testament saying it is bad. Such is life.


----------



## sydboy007 (17 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> The point is that it does refute what you said,Syd
> 
> That does not mean that people who call themselves Christian bloody do any of it. Look at George Bush or Tony Abbott, supposedly devout Christians getting into wars. What about the line "Blessed be the Peacemakers"




To true. I just get sick of the cherry picking. Of wet don't like that boy on the old testament. That sounds bad. But you're a filthy homosexual and wet know what good food to the sodomites.

I just count myself lucky my indoctrination via the uniting church was fairly benign compared to what sine have gone through.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> The point is that it does refute what you said,Syd
> 
> That does not mean that people who call themselves Christian bloody do any of it. Look at George Bush or Tony Abbott, supposedly devout Christians getting into wars. What about the line "Blessed be the Peacemakers" I could go and refute every point but I couldn't be bothered. Unfortunately it is the human mindset to form "tribes" and use that tribe to condone behaviour like slavery, wars etc. even if pointed to the clause in the New Testament saying it is bad. Such is life.




I am not aware of a verse in the New Testament that bans slavery, can you point us towards one?


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The problem with that is that Jesus himself said he didn't come to change the laws and none of the existing laws would change until heaven and earth disappear. (Matthew 5:17 from memory, in the Serman on the mount, a speech Christians normally take very seriously)
> 
> he also said slaves obey your master, and slavery is condoned in the New Testament, so if you are against slavery, you should probably forget trying to use the bible to justify your opinions.




I'm not too sure of your argument, but prima facie I do recall he apparently maintained he wanted to fulfill it rather than destroy it (one for the theologians), but simply put the new testament is the new covenant between god and man and like any revised contract some clauses are disposed of or watered down or reinforced. Jesus is also quoted as saying if "you love me you will keep my commandments" and then set about putting command barriers up to restrict access to the old instruction set...e.g. love each and one another as Jesus loved us, good trounces Sabbath, truth beats everything, because God is truth, etc. 

The main argument about the blood lust is somewhat fallacious. Jesus explained that Mosaic Law was spiritual not literal and things like dragging your kid out bush to have his throat slit, while actually being punked, were tests of character and trust .. the goats, rams, lambs and things have been replaced these days by apples and oranges as the idiom props.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am not aware of a verse in the New Testament that bans slavery, can you point us towards one?




I think slavery in old language was more to do with paid servitude. When Moses asked the boss to let his people go, he was asking for the labour contracts to be be terminated after a breakdown in the EBA. That custom of servile workers lasted well into the 19th century in first world countries like UK until the union movement got up and said "let my people go FFS!".

Forced slavery like that found in USA still has its foothold in Islam and various black belts in Africa. ISIS uses it to great effect.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think slavery in old language was more to do with paid servitude. When Moses asked the boss to let his people go, he was asking for the labour contracts to be be terminated after a breakdown in the EBA. That custom of servile workers lasted well into the 19th century in first world countries like UK until the union movement got up and said "let my people go FFS!".
> 
> Forced slavery like that found in USA still has its foothold in Islam and various black belts in Africa. ISIS uses it to great effect.




Nope, it wasn't indentured servitude, that's just some thing apologists say to cover up the immorality in their own texts.

Unless the person was a Jew it was ownership of a person for life, if the person was a Jew you had to release them after 7 years, but you would still own their wife and children, if they wanted to stay with their wife and kids, they had to give them selves to you for life, and you had to mark their ear by hammering a spike through it.

Non Jewish slaves had no realease clause, they were slaves for life, they could be whipped or beaten provided them didn't lose an eye or die within 1 day of the beating. Female slaves could be used for sex.

Jesus didn't say anything against this stuff.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm not too sure of your argument, but prima facie I do recall he apparently maintained he wanted to fulfill it rather than destroy it (one for the theologians), but simply put the new testament is the new covenant between god and man and like any revised contract some clauses are disposed of or watered down or reinforced. Jesus is also quoted as saying if "you love me you will keep my commandments" and then set about putting command barriers up to restrict access to the old instruction set...e.g. love each and one another as Jesus loved us, good trounces Sabbath, truth beats everything, because God is truth, etc.
> 
> The main argument about the blood lust is somewhat fallacious. Jesus explained that Mosaic Law was spiritual not literal and things like dragging your kid out bush to have his throat slit, while actually being punked, were tests of character and trust .. the goats, rams, lambs and things have been replaced these days by apples and oranges as the idiom props.




the old, "I know it clearly says this, but what it really means is this" arrguement.

you are just cherry picking Jesus here, you are ignoring the part where he clearly says non of the laws will change until heaven and earth disappear, so far the earth hasn't disappeared.

And you are cherry picking the " love thy neighbour" but ignoring the "hate your family" things he said.

I am not interested in bible study, I am glad Christians have slowly moved away from the terrible parts and cherry pick the good, but they need to speed it up, and stop the rest of their bigotry, or atleast don't use their religion as a facade, unless they follow the rest of the stuff them selves.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think slavery in old language was more to do with paid servitude. When Moses asked the boss to let his people go, he was asking for the labour contracts to be be terminated after a breakdown in the EBA. That custom of servile workers lasted well into the 19th century in first world countries like UK until the union movement got up and said "let my people go FFS!".
> 
> Forced slavery like that found in USA still has its foothold in Islam and various black belts in Africa. ISIS uses it to great effect.




Wow. You really haven't read the bible. When the Jewish conquered they'd usually kill everything including the animals, or they might keep the virgin girls.

There was two grades of slavery. One for the Jewish where after 7 years you were released, the other for gentiles which was just as bad as the slave trade of recent history.

Bit then human ingenuity came into play and smart Jewish masters would let you find a slave wife and then have you by the short and curlies to either leave the wife and children behind or sign up to slavery for life.

It's these kinds of moral family values that is the basis of Christianity.


----------



## awg (18 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> I know where Tink is coming from.
> 
> If we change the definition of marriage, debase the word if you will, which we had been doing even before the gay marriage debate, then we need a new word to mean "true marriage".
> 
> ...





That summarises a previous valid objection I used to have and many would still share

My previous view was a civil union was a distinction that would be preferred

But it ends up being such a flimsy distinction, if they have the same rights, 
why bother, whats in a name?..let there be love

Homosexuality was illegal when I grew up in the '70s in most, if not all states
They changed the law on that

Strictly speaking, the discussion is about gay marriage, not children, or religion, 
although I agree they are related issues, and I am guilty as anyone on that point.

One interesting side issue, not commonly known, aprox 0.1% ie 1 in 1000 of births, sex cannot be fully determined, I know at least one such person, a very sad thing for them, if that what is behind some comments regarding State insisting on no sex recognition


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2015)

awg said:


> But it ends up being such a flimsy distinction, if they have the same rights,
> why bother, whats in a name?..let there be love




Why bother with either marriage or civil unions as even defacto relationships are recognised for property rights etc ?


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2015)

awg said:


> One interesting side issue, not commonly known, aprox 0.1% ie 1 in 1000 of births, sex cannot be fully determined, I know at least one such person, a very sad thing for them, if that what is behind some comments regarding State insisting on no sex recognition




Yep things are not black and white when it comes to gender and sexuality.

It's not as simple as straight and gay, the are all sorts of variations.

The best way I have heard it explained in this

 "gender is who you go to bed as, sexuality is who you go to bed with"

An example that shows this is a person born with a male body, that deeply feels that they are a woman, how ever they are not attracted to men, so are not gay man, So they may have a sex change, and live as a woman, while also sleeping with women, to get technical they were a lesbian women, born into a males body, once you understand that, you will see there are all sorts of variations.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Wow. You really haven't read the bible. .




Yeah I have actually .... but what I don't understand is how you and VC are like swarming bees even to a theist like myself. I'd hate to know how Tink feels as a practicing christian, knowing how you both were quick out of the blocks to finish me off ... and I don't give a proverbial #$^% whether people 2000 years ago were servants or not.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, it wasn't indentured servitude, that's just some thing apologists say to cover up the immorality in their own texts.
> 
> Unless the person was a Jew it was ownership of a person for life, if the person was a Jew you had to release them after 7 years, but you would still own their wife and children, if they wanted to stay with their wife and kids, they had to give them selves to you for life, and you had to mark their ear by hammering a spike through it.
> 
> ...




You may well be right ... how does that stack up against, say this site:

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm   ?

I don't think I mentioned the Hebrew slavery rules, but you might like to revisit your views having read the "implementation" of the rules here (of course this site is invalid because it doesn't meet with your stance):

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/slavery.html


----------



## sydboy007 (18 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yeah I have actually .... but what I don't understand is how you and VC are like swarming bees even to a theist like myself. I'd hate to know how Tink feels as a practicing christian, knowing how you both were quick out of the blocks to finish me off ... and I don't give a proverbial #$^% whether people 2000 years ago were servants or not.




Well if those who are religous would keep their views based on religion to themselves, we'd all be happier people.  We live in a secular society because the alternatives are too similar to saudi arabia and kuwait and their likes.

the less Kim Davis and Creflo Dollars in this world the better.

The less using 2000+ year old stories from a land time forgot would also be good, especially when it comes to homosexuality and same sex marrige.

From a moral perspective there's nothing in the bible that one cannot have without the religious parts.


----------



## Tink (18 September 2015)

Thanks, Tisme,

As I said, it is all a bluff, filling this thread with Christianity, and no mention about same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage has NO benefits in society.

A fallen society, and more Government Control in your life.

The State becomes the parents.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Tisme,
> 
> As I said, it is all a bluff, filling this thread with Christianity, and no mention about same sex marriage.
> 
> ...




Explain how the Govt stepping out of controlling the definition of marriage is increased control?

Explain why providing a marginalised group of people the same recognition of their relationships is not good for society

Explain how the State becomes the parents.

How would allowing SS marriage cause a fallen society?

Is Sweden a fallen society?  is the UK or France?  Is Denmark?  What evils have occurred in those countries due to SS marriage?

You've still not explained how SS marriage has any impact on your personal life Tink.  You regularly refer to natural law and religious morality to back up your points, but I don't recall you explaining why allowing me the choice to marry my long term partner would have any impact on anyone else.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> You may well be right ... how does that stack up against, say this site:
> 
> http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm   ?
> 
> ...




Even the sugar coating they are attempting to give slavery is still vastly immoral, and breaks all kinds of Australian and international law. 

I am sure slave owners in the USA attempted to sugar coat their slavery also, the fact is there is nothing moral about biblical slavery, and there is nothing in the bible outlawing it, so since the bible is full of immorality, you can not use it as bench mark for anything.


----------



## overhang (21 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Tisme,
> 
> As I said, it is all a bluff, filling this thread with Christianity, and no mention about same sex marriage.
> 
> ...




My bolds. Tink it is you and the government that wants to control peoples lives by preventing others from doing what you're able to do.  No one is forcing you to have a SS marriage, no one is telling you that you don't have to agree with it but what we're saying is that you have no right to control the lives of others as you want to do.  This is not the battle of freedom of speech as you call it but the battle of liberties that you want to suppress.


----------



## Tink (21 September 2015)

If you are happy with a totalitarian society, good for you, I am not.

It has been explained and I am not explaining anymore.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2015)

In the end we are going to have a plebiscite.
I think this is the best way to go and I will be happy for people to consider the two options and choose. This will take the heat out of the argument once democracy has taken place.

I think Government should get out of people's personal lives but unfortunately, in the case of marriage, it is difficult to do so. My prediction is that if this is passed, very few homosexuals will get married in any case.


----------



## overhang (21 September 2015)

Tink said:


> If you are happy with a totalitarian society, good for you, I am not.
> 
> It has been explained and I am not explaining anymore.




Tink I'm not sure totalitarian society means what you think it means.  



> Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible




That sounds a lot more like a government controlling the definition of marriage than one that says everyone is free to marry who they like.  In fact the whole history of marriage in this country has been battling the government for freedom to wed.


----------



## Value Collector (21 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> In the end we are going to have a plebiscite.
> I think this is the best way to go and I will be happy for people to consider the two options and choose.




A plebiscite is not the best option, it may work out well it the voters make the right decision and allow gay marriage, but this decision shouldn't have to come to a plebiscite.

For example, we all know slavery is morally wrong, however if it was put to a plebiscite in the southern states of the USA there is a chance that it would have been voted to keep slavery legal, this popular vote in no way would have made it morally correct to keep slaves, it is still wrong, on such human rights matters the popular opinion doesn't matter.

It's like the old example, a vote between two wolves and a sheep on what to eat for dinner would result in the wolves eating the sheep, a modern society based on equal rights under the law, no minority group should be able to lose their basic human rights due to a popular vote.


----------



## sinner (21 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Same sex marriage has NO benefits in society.
> 
> A fallen society, and more Government Control in your life.
> 
> The State becomes the parents.




Thanks Tink, but it appears you forgot to include the references to back up these statements which otherwise appear to be a serious feat of mental gymnastics (congratulations, I assume only possible through a lifetime of training).


----------



## SirRumpole (21 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> A plebiscite is not the best option, it may work out well it the voters make the right decision and allow gay marriage, but this decision shouldn't have to come to a plebiscite.




What you are really saying is that it's your way or the highway and the public at large have no right to decide what sort of society we want.



> For example, we all know slavery is morally wrong, however if it was put to a plebiscite in the southern states of the USA there is a chance that it would have been voted to keep slavery legal, this popular vote in no way would have made it morally correct to keep slaves, it is still wrong, on such human rights matters the popular opinion doesn't matter.




That rather depends on whether the slaves are allowed to vote.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> A plebiscite is not the best option, it may work out well it the voters make the right decision and allow gay marriage, but this decision shouldn't have to come to a plebiscite.




A plebiscite if passed then reflects the will of the Australian people.
If politicians do it a large minority will not accept the result.

On a side note, slavery was through all history and only ended with industrialisation due to machines doing the work.
All the empires, kingdoms etc. relied on it to achieve wealth. Maybe they were called serfs, peasants or churls instead of slaves but it was the same thing. So obviously in your logic, every civilisation before the 18th century was evil. I suggest you read some of the Roman History books, e.g. the Colleen McCullough books. Comparing it to the US slave movement would be quite illuminating.


----------



## Value Collector (21 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> A plebiscite if passed then reflects the will of the Australian people.
> If politicians do it a large minority will not accept the result.
> 
> .




Yes, it does reflect the will of the majority of Australian people, but this doesn't make something right or moral, and it doesn't give them the right to inflict that will on others when doing so takes away a human right.



> All the empires, kingdoms etc. relied on it to achieve wealth. Maybe they were called serfs, peasants or churls instead of slaves but it was the same thing. So obviously in your logic, every civilisation before the 18th century was evil



. 

Yes owning people is and always has been immoral, the word evil has a lot of baggage, so I wouldn't say they were evil, but our moral concepts have developed over time, so generally the further back you look the more immoral behaviour you will find.

Slavery didn't cause more wealth to be produced, it just concentrated the wealth produced by many men into the hands of one slave owner, so the extra "wealth" is an illusion.


----------



## Value Collector (21 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What you are really saying is that it's your way or the highway and the public at large have no right to decide what sort of society we want.
> 
> 
> 
> .




Society doesn't have the right to deny human rights to others, and people have the right not to be discriminated against because of sexuality.

Do you not understand that a plebiscite to decide whether black children should be allowed to go to state schools would be immoral, Even if the Aussie public voted to ban black kids from schools, banning them is still immoral.

What I am trying to say is that morality is not based on popular opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> What I am trying to say is that morality is not based on popular opinion.




I'm afraid it is, otherwise you are saying that only you and 2% of the population know what morality is.

Have you so little faith in the rest of society, or are you just extremely arrogant ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm afraid it is, otherwise you are saying that only you and 2% of the population know what morality is.
> 
> Have you so little faith in the rest of society, or are you just extremely arrogant ?




So in the example I gave, of the majority voting to restrict black children from attending state schools, would that be moral for the government to follow through and ban blacks from schools?

It's entirely possible for the majority to be wrong, there was a time when the majority thought the earth was flat, this popular opinion didn't change the shape of the earth, it's the same with morality, certain things are immoral, and the popular opinion doesn't change that.


----------



## Tisme (21 September 2015)

Tink said:


> If you are happy with a totalitarian society, good for you, I am not.
> 
> It has been explained and I am not explaining anymore.




I'm with you ...governance for the sake of governance annoys me greatly; it's suffocating, it's counter intuitive, it's controlling, it's a death sentence for society ....a death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So in the example I gave, of the majority voting to restrict black children from attending state schools, would that be moral for the government to follow through and ban blacks from schools?




Was such a vote ever taken or is this just a hypothetical ?

The public view of morality shifts over time and the public can make up their own minds about what is "right" or "wrong" at any particular time.



> certain things are immoral




What you may think is immoral and what I may think is immoral don't necessarily coincide. I find people using contrived methods to have children to try and prove that they are the same as everyone else to be immoral, and I don't base that on any religious text.

If the plebiscite on SSM passes I will accept it, if it doesn't will you accept the result ?

If it doesn't pass perhaps you just have to accept that it's not the right time.


----------



## Tisme (21 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So in the example I gave, of the majority voting to restrict black children from attending s.




You have a real thing for blacks and gays don't you?

Blacks can't control their skin tone. Gays, hetros and whatever is in between can control their sexual activities ... it's something most youth have to endure as they hit puberty...probably the most extreme time for a person to satisfy natural urges.

You don't know it, but everytime you throw the black fellas up as examples of our humbug and bigotted society you actually drag them down to the debate rather than allowing them singular status to pursue their genuine need for change.


----------



## Value Collector (21 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Was such a vote ever taken or is this just a hypothetical ?
> 
> The public view of morality shifts over time and the public can make up their own minds about what is "right" or "wrong" at any particular time.
> 
> ...




Yes the publics view on morality will change over time, but what is and isn't actually moral won't, its not subjective, in any given situation there is an action that is the most moral action, and this doesn't change based on popular decision, sometimes the most moral action will be the unpopular one.

I am the first to admit, that there are things I do regularly, that one day might be proven to be immoral, take eating meat for example, if it is later proved that for various reasons eating animals is immoral, that means it has always been imorral, public opinion doesn't change it.

If gay marriage is voted down, I would view it as a temporary set back, it wouldn't be a sign that banning gay marriage is the most moral action, anymore than a vote  on whether the earth is flat would change the actual physical fact of reality.

As I said, in any situation there is a non subjective action that would be most moral, opinion doesn't change it anymore than opinions change gravity, off course just as we learn more about gravity over time, we understand morality better over time,


----------



## Value Collector (21 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> You have a real thing for blacks and gays don't you?
> 
> Blacks can't control their skin tone. Gays, hetros and whatever is in between can control their sexual activities ... it's something most youth have to endure as they hit puberty...probably the most extreme time for a person to satisfy natural urges.
> 
> You don't know it, but everytime you throw the black fellas up as examples of our humbug and bigotted society you actually drag them down to the debate rather than allowing them singular status to pursue their genuine need for change.




Really, you are going to say you chose to be straight again?


----------



## Tisme (21 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Really, you are going to say you chose to be straight again?




I going to say anyone chooses what they want to do with their genitals. You have no proofs to contradict lifestyle versus genetics. Instinct drives procreation, behavioural desire drives the method of copulation. Of course you choose you actions, you aren't compelled to take a bloke to your bed.

The thing is that we have no idea if a homosexual does feel the same drives from the same urges. For all we know homosexuals may well have a negative instinct for procreation thus the aversion to reproduction plug and socket combo and the emotional safety of same sex besties playing with each others privates. 

You can and do dismiss anyone's argument, but you have yet to offer up a realistic consensus of your own making, preferring to using fallacious arguments about deep southern blacks to segue your point of view.

You throw "love" around like a mad women's underpants as a sublime excuse for marriage,  tell us all a yarn that male on male invented the thing and can't understand why someone would have the audacity to question your fantastic stories and their veracity. 

God help those who have a moral and ethical conundrum to deal with the whole concept, especially those who do find solace in a God, which for some reason is a weakness and fair game for deprecation, but let no one dare depreciate the feelings of the underdog homosexual.

You can make like you have the majority of Australians protecting your back, but that is not the same thing as agreeing with your agenda. Now we have the opportunity to put the vote to the "will of the people", we'll see what they are prepared to cough up, which we are told is a fait accompli success because 65% of the population agree.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As I said, in any situation there is a non subjective action that would be most moral, opinion doesn't change it anymore than opinions change gravity, off course just as we learn more about gravity over time, we understand morality better over time,




No you miss the point. YOU are making a judgement of what would be "most moral". Others may make the same or a different judgement. The idea that only you know what is "right" is arrogant. Morality is best determined at an appropriate time by the expression of the public will through, in the case of SSM, a plebiscite.


----------



## Value Collector (21 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No you miss the point. YOU are making a judgement of what would be "most moral". Others may make the same or a different judgement. The idea that only you know what is "right" is arrogant. Morality is best determined at an appropriate time by the expression of the public will through, in the case of SSM, a plebiscite.




Nope, I think you can test whether certain things are moral, there are certain factors that are preferable, that can be shown through logical reasoning. As I said, the actual 100% moral answer to a lot of things might elude us, but it always exists, and doesn't change due to opinion, just like gravity we can learn more about it as time goes on.

And my line of questioning throughout this whole debate has been part of that. I have constantly asked questions to the people who are against gay marriage to find out if they had any valid reasons to restrict people's rights to marry, and so far none have been given.

I don't think you have answered my question, would it be moral to ban blacks from schools if it was shown by a plebiscite that was the will of the masses?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think you have answered my question, would it be moral to ban blacks from schools if it was shown by a plebiscite that was the will of the masses?




Depends on circumstances that can only be theorised.

If there was a concerted effort by black parents to teach their kids that white schools are bad and they should disrupt them to the point where other students can't get any work done, what then ?


----------



## Tink (22 September 2015)

_Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible
_
That is what they are doing, overhang.

The Government is taking over Marriage, and brainwashing/social engineering the sheep with the new rules on how you have to think.
The truth, of a man and woman with their child, will be hate speech.

You lose your freedom of speech and your freedom of conscience.


----------



## overhang (22 September 2015)

Tink said:


> _Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible
> _
> That is what they are doing, overhang.
> 
> ...




Tink I find it amazing that you believe that the government removing one of the last bits of control they have over the definition of marriage is considered totalitarianism.  Sorry to inform you but the government has always owned marriage and citizens have fought the government for freedom to marry since the convict days and slowly wielded that power away from governments.

If the government forced Tink from ASF to have a same sex marriage then that is considered totalitarianism.  If the government doesn't stand in the way of allowing Tink from ASF to marry whoever she falls in love with regardless of race or sex then that is considered libertarianism.

I find this amazing that you keep thinking that this is an attack on freedom of speech when no one is censoring your opinion, the majority may disagree with your opinion but that isn't censorship.  Perhaps you would be better suited to a country like Russia where the state has more control over it's citizens and is a long way from ever having equal rights.  Given your hate of the ABC that could work well where the state media in Russia must spread the propaganda of the government.


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

overhang said:


> Perhaps you would be better suited to a country like Russia where the state has more control over it's citizens and is a long way from ever having equal rights




I really like this idea overhang.

Send the right wing where they belong, to places like Russia and Saudi Arabia where they share the views of the psychopaths in charge there.

That's what I always find so amusing about our irrational Western right wing, they say they hate the terrorists coming to impose Sharia on all of us, but they never seem to make the connection that most of their views are identical to the wettest dreams of the most Wahhabist of Imams.

I guess filling the brain with so much irrational hate and fear doesn't leave capacity to discover such connections.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If there was a concerted effort by black parents to teach their kids that white schools are bad and they should disrupt them to the point where other students can't get any work done, what then ?




You're clutching at straws here, because you know it wouldn't be moral to ban people from schools based on skin colour, even in the example you gave it would be wrong, the correct thing to do would be to suspend individual trouble makers, not ban a whole race.

Lets use another example, If the southern states in the USA had voted to keep slavery, would this have made slavery Moral?

or,

If Hitler held a plebiscite on whether he should commit genocide against the Jews and 51% of Germans agreed he should, would that have made the holocaust moral?

Surely you can see a majority vote doesn't change whether something is moral or not.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You're clutching at straws here, because you know it wouldn't be moral to ban people from schools based on skin colour, even in the example you gave it would be wrong, the correct thing to do would be to suspend individual trouble makers, not ban a whole race.




Well, you brought up this diversionary tactic and its pointless discussing this sort of hypothetical further.



> If Hitler held a plebiscite on whether he should commit genocide against the Jews and 51% of Germans agreed he should, would that have made the holocaust moral?
> 
> Surely you can see a majority vote doesn't change whether something is moral or not.




Do you really think that in a properly constructed plebiscite with a free vote with no intimidation that a majority would have voted for extermination of fellow human beings (when a lot of the voters would have been Jews themselves) ?

You are comparing apples with oranges again using hypotheticals that will never be carried out. We are not a Nazi country, we have a free vote and if you can't trust your fellow citizens to come to a reasoned conclusion on this issue, then there is not a lot of point living here.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you really think that in a properly constructed plebiscite with a free vote with no intimidation that a majority would have voted for extermination of fellow human beings (when a lot of the voters would have been Jews themselves) ?
> 
> .




lets say they did vote for it, would it make it moral?

I reckon there would be have been a decent chance the southern states of the us would have voted slavery in, would that have made it moral


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> lets say they did vote for it, would it make it moral?
> 
> I reckon there would be have been a decent chance the southern states of the us would have voted slavery in, would that have made it moral




Clutching at straws. The slavery vote never happened. Just trust the country to make the decision that they consider right at the time. Any other course is trying to enforce your ideas on the rest of us.


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You are comparing apples with oranges again using hypotheticals that will never be carried out. We are not a Nazi country, we have a free vote and if you can't trust your fellow citizens to come to a reasoned conclusion on this issue, then there is not a lot of point living here.




um lol, how can you twaddle this tripe and sleep at night.

This is Australia. The country that had a "White Australia Policy" up until the Racial Discrimination Act was passed in 1975, only 40 years ago. Of course my fellow citizens cannot be trusted and suggestions to piss off are the same kind of **** I used to hear in the run up to the Iraq War "if you love terrorists and hate freedom so much why not just leave then" ...

No. How about *you* leave, take your insanity with you and leave the rest of us to build the future? It'll be much quicker without you and I'm sure you'll want back in as soon as you see what you're missing.

Morality and Law are not the same thing, maybe you need to retake Logic 101 because that is when most people learn these basics of thinking.


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

overhang said:


> I find this amazing that you keep thinking that this is an attack on freedom of speech




You must be new here. Stick around. You won't find it so amazing after a while.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

sinner said:


> um lol, how can you twaddle this tripe and sleep at night.
> 
> This is Australia. The country that had a "White Australia Policy" up until the Racial Discrimination Act was passed in 1975, only 40 years ago. Of course my fellow citizens cannot be trusted and suggestions to piss off are the same kind of **** I used to hear in the run up to the Iraq War "if you love terrorists and hate freedom so much why not just leave then" ...
> 
> ...




What a load of cr@p. Your ideas of right and wrong are not sacrosanct, and I haven't even told you how I'll vote, I may well vote yes.

What you are saying is that YOU are right and everyone else can't be trusted.

 So what if there was a plebiscite and SSM was roundly supported (as apparently all the polls suggest it would be)? Would the Australian voters still be a bunch of homophobic retards ?


I would hardly be supporting a plebiscite if I was so homophobic that I would worry about a result going against me, so what are you afraid of ?

 It seems we have another one here with little faith in their fellow Australians. Why don't you move to Ireland ?


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What a load of cr@p. Your ideas of right and wrong are not sacrosanct, and I haven't even told you how I'll vote, I may well vote yes.
> 
> What you are saying is that YOU are right and everyone else can't be trusted.
> 
> ...




If the right to marry is a civil right, and I'm yet to see a coherent argument that it isn't, then voting on whether to extend or remove that right from a certain group is wholly undemocratic. A democracy is not just majority rule it's also the protection of miniority rights.

Have the ballot and get it over with, but let's not pretend it's some great exercise in democracy. It's just the remnants of a recalcitrant PM who has, thankfully, be resigned to history.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> If the right to marry is a civil right, and I'm yet to see a coherent argument that it isn't, then voting on whether to extend or remove that right from a certain group is wholly undemocratic. A democracy is not just majority rule it's also the protection of miniority rights.




Well, either the public or the politicians have to vote for it, so I can't really see that a small group of people voting on something is more democratic than the whole country voting, can you ?


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Clutching at straws. The slavery vote never happened. Just trust the country to make the decision that they consider right at the time. Any other course is trying to enforce your ideas on the rest of us.




I am not sure why you can not just admit that its possible for the popular vote to be wrong, and that sometimes the best decisions may be the unpopular one.

History is littered with concepts which can be shown to be immoral, that at the time were probably very popular concepts, and would have won a vote.

I personally feel that the pro gay marriage side would win a plebiscite, all I am saying is that whether it wins or not doesn't affect whether it is moral or not. The vote just shows whether a concept is popular.

I know you are a fan of logical fallacies, the one you have committed here is the argument from popularity, 



> You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
> 
> The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
> If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief



.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am not sure why you can not just admit that its possible for the popular vote to be wrong, and that sometimes the best decisions may be the unpopular one.
> 
> History is littered with concepts which can be shown to be immoral, that at the time were probably very popular concepts, and would have won a vote.
> 
> ...




What  I'm saying is "who should decide what is 'moral' " ?

Kindly answer that question before going off on tangents.


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, either the public or the politicians have to vote for it, so I can't really see that a small group of people voting on something is more democratic than the whole country voting, can you ?




Yes. I can. A group cannot be denied its civil rights. It is not up to the majority of the voting population to decide whether or not to enfranchise them. That's why we have a legislature an executive and a judiciary. The rights of minorities require as much protection as the rule of the majority. And it is the role of government to ensure that protection. So, like I said, unless someone can mount a reasonable argument as to why the right to marry is not universal I don't see why it shouldn't be extended universally.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> Yes. I can. A group cannot be denied its civil rights..




If marriage was a "civil right", then it's a matter that could be decided in court via the Anti Discrimination Act or the Constitution.

 The courts have said it's a matter for Parliament. The Parliament represents us, so...


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> so what are you afraid of ?




Honestly? That people like you might make up enough of our populace to be the majority and the kind of country and future that entails for the rest of us.

Stop telling me to leave. You leave, off to Saudi Arabia or Russia with the other nutjobs.


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If marriage was a "civil right", then it's a matter that could be decided in court via the Anti Discrimination Act or the Constitution.




What part of the Anti-Discrimination Act or the Constitution would be used to challenge the existing legislation?




SirRumpole said:


> The courts have said it's a matter for Parliament. The Parliament represents us, so...




So what? How does that negate anything I've said? Do you disagree that the parliament shouldn't be allowed to disenfranchise a group of people?


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

sinner said:


> Honestly? That people like you might make up enough of our populace to be the majority and the kind of country and future that entails for the rest of us.
> 
> Stop telling me to leave. You leave, off to Saudi Arabia or Russia with the other nutjobs.




You told me to leave first.

So you are gay ? 

Nothing to be afraid of if you are.

So you don't believe the polls that say that SSM is supported by a majority of the population ?

Why not ?


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> What part of the Anti-Discrimination Act or the Constitution would be used to challenge the existing legislation?




That's why I say it's not a matter for the Courts, it's not in their jurisdiction.



> So what? How does that negate anything I've said? Do you disagree that the parliament shouldn't be allowed to disenfranchise a group of people?




Well, obviously they have done just that and have decided to let us have a vote on it. I just don't see the problem with that, it's called democracy.


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, obviously they have done just that and have decided to let us have a vote on it. I just don't see the problem with that, it's called democracy.




That doesn't answer my question. If it wasn't something you disagree with would you take such a nonchalant attitude toward it? 

I guess you're OK with stripping citizens of their citizenship too. As long as their muslim. 'Cause ya know it doesn't affect you so who cares. It's called democracy!


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You told me to leave first.




This is the internet, not the schoolyard, so let me refresh your memory:



> if you can't trust your fellow citizens to come to a reasoned conclusion on this issue, then there is not a lot of point living here.




But perhaps you're not up to scratch on a basic understanding of chronology either.



> So you are gay ?
> 
> Nothing to be afraid of if you are.




Nope, not gay. Plenty of gay friends though, some of whom wish to be married but all of whom want the right to marry. I cringe with shame along with all other attendants every time I attend a heterosexual wedding (like on Friday) as the celebrant is forced to state John Howards little hetero oath.



> So you don't believe the polls that say that SSM is supported by a majority of the population ?
> 
> Why not ?




As VC and McLovin have already pointed out this is both a logical fallacy and utterly irrelevant. If you can't grasp the basics of logic or inalienable human rights (which are enshrined in the US Constitution as: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness *for all*) then what is the point of attempting to hold a rational discussion on any issue with you?


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> That doesn't answer my question. If it wasn't something you disagree with would you take such a nonchalant attitude toward it?




I don't get where you are coming from. The Parliament has repeatedly failed to resolve the SSM issue and has decided to have a vote. What is the problem ? You want to try Russia where Putin has gays thrown in gaol ?




> I guess you're OK with stripping citizens of their citizenship too. As long as their muslim. 'Cause ya know it doesn't affect you so who cares.




If people of whatever religion commit crimes here and we can get rid of them, I'm all for it.

Again , what's the problem ?


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

sinner said:


> As VC and McLovin have already pointed out this is both a logical fallacy and utterly irrelevant. If you can't grasp the basics of logic or inalienable human rights (which are enshrined in the US Constitution as: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness *for all*) then what is the point of attempting to hold a rational discussion on any issue with you?




Exactly.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

sinner said:


> [uote]
> As VC and McLovin have already pointed out this is both a logical fallacy and utterly irrelevant. If you can't grasp the basics of logic or inalienable human rights (which are enshrined in the US Constitution as: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness *for all*) then what is the point of attempting to hold a rational discussion on any issue with you?




Look the situation is this, the Parliament has not resolved the issue, the Courts can't , so who is left ?

The polls are on your side so why don't you just take the chance instead of knocking your fellow Australians ?


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Look the situation is, the Parliament has not resolved the issue, the Courts can't , so who is left ?
> 
> The polls are on your side so why don't you just take the chance instead of knocking your fellow Australians ?




*INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS*

i.e. the rights that not me, not you, not a democratic majority, *nobody* has a right to decide, give, or rescind.

I guess I knock my fellow Australians because most of what I see is mental gymnastics that would put Kafka to shame, and the little hole in my chest where pride is supposed to go has been a barren socket for so many years now.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

sinner said:


> i.e. the rights that not me, not you, not a democratic majority, *nobody* has a right to decide, give, or rescind.




I'm sorry but that is nonsensical rubbish that logic can see through immediately.

"no one has a right to give 'rights' " is what you said. If that is the case then no one has any rights at all, right ?

Someone has to give rights that are recognised in law, either via the Constitution or legislation.

It seems you are saying that rights are "God given" ?

Are you religious by any chance ?


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Someone has to give rights that are recognised in law, either via the Constitution or legislation.




Wrong.


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sorry but that is nonsensical rubbish that logic can see through immediately.




MFW SirRumpole calls a cornerstone of 200+ years of civilisation "nonsensical rubbish"







> "no one has a right to give 'rights' " is what you said.




What the hell are you talking about crazy person? Inalienable human rights. Those are rights you're born with, that nobody can take away. Inalienable. You cannot be alienated from them.



> Someone has to give rights that are recognised in law, either via the Constitution or legislation.
> It seems you are saying that rights are "God given" ?
> 
> Are you religious by any chance ?




Man. I really seriously thought I knew all of the best gymnasts on ASF, but you are really showing me how it's done. You should consider joining the Liberal party.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What  I'm saying is "who should decide what is 'moral' " ?
> 
> Kindly answer that question before going off on tangents.




It's not a matter of deciding what is moral, the moral option will always exist as the moral option, it is the duty of the people in power to decide what laws to enact or get rid of, to bring us as close to the moral option as possible with the information they have using reason and logic and passing each option through a series of filters to test if it is a more moral than another option.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> Wrong.




Fraid not.

If Rights are not legally enforceable then they are without substance.

It's the legal and judicial system that enable us to enjoy our freedoms and rights and that's what people have to change if they want their rights recognised.


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Fraid not.
> 
> If Rights are not legally enforceable then they are without substance.
> 
> It's the legal and judicial system that enable us to enjoy our freedoms and rights and that's what people have to change if they want their rights recognised.




Ahh...Goalpost shift. 

This...



> If Rights are not legally enforceable then they are without substance.





Is not that same as...




> Someone has to give rights that are recognised in law, either via the Constitution or legislation.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

sinner said:


> What the hell are you talking about crazy person? Inalienable human rights. Those are rights you're born with, that nobody can take away. Inalienable. You cannot be alienated from them.




And we only have these Rights because our legal and judicial system says we do. 

You quoted the US Constitution. 

That's where the Rights of US citizens are laid down. We don't have the same Rights here. Some people are trying the change the "presumption of innocence" in some cases. This is an example of Rights being changed by legislation, so no rights are "inalienable".

Is the Right to Free Speech inalienable ? They don't have that in North Korea.

Do you understand what I'm saying ?


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Fraid not.
> 
> If Rights are not legally enforceable then they are without substance.




Horse****. Using this logic, the right of slaves to liberty was completely without substance until the legal abolition of slavery?

That is some serious stupid thinking right there. Are you wearing some kind of hat which cuts off the supply of oxygen to your brain? My suggestion would be to remove it before more damage occurs.



> It's the legal and judicial system that enable us to enjoy our freedoms and rights and that's what people have to change if they want their rights recognised.




Uh, so now you're saying the rights do exist and are in fact inalienable, and that the legal system is merely a mechanism for recognition of those rights? 

*Agreed.*


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Is the Right to Free Speech inalienable ? They don't have that in North Korea.
> 
> Do you understand what I'm saying ?




YES. I totally understand what you are saying, since these are discussions I had many years ago when I was younger and even in high school most people around me understood the basics of modern humanity. Congratulations, you can converse at the level of a 15 year old student.

That poor North Korean peasants are being denied their inalienable human rights does not remotely imply that those rights do not exist, that they do not deserve them, nor any other stupid idiocy you can spout. All it implies is that it is possible for horrible human beings to deny other human beings their inalienable human rights through violence and subversion.

Big whoop.


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

Are we really at the point of having to explain that denying someone a right doesn't make the right cease to exist? If it does then you've just justified every tinpot dictator on Earth.


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> Are we really at the point of having to explain that denying someone a right doesn't make the right cease to exist? If it does then you've just justified every tinpot dictator on Earth.




I'm telling you dude, these people would be right at home under the thumb of a Putin or Mubarak or Baghdadi, everything just how they like it.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> Are we really at the point of having to explain that denying someone a right doesn't make the right cease to exist? If it does then you've just justified every tinpot dictator on Earth.




No I'm saying that you have to change legislation and to do that you need either the Parliament to do it or the public.

How much of your "Rights" to talk to whoever you like without being spied on by government have been denied by metadata legislation ?

What "inalienable" rights to privacy do you think you have ?


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

sinner said:


> I'm telling you dude, these people would be right at home under the thumb of a Putin or Mubarak or Baghdadi, everything just how they like it.




The point is you silly twit, SOMEONE HAD TO DECIDE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

WHO WAS IT ?


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No I'm saying that you have to change legislation and to do that you need either the Parliament to do it or the public.




No you don't. Australian Capital Television v The Commonwealth. The right to political speech existed even though it had never been enumerated in legislation or the Constitution.


----------



## sinner (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The point is you silly twit, SOMEONE HAD TO DECIDE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
> 
> WHO WAS IT ?




The enslaved want for liberty.

The silenced want for speech.

The homosexuals want the choice to marry.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> No you don't. Australian Capital Television v The Commonwealth. The right to political speech existed even though it had never been enumerated in legislation or the Constitution.




Well that's fine.

So why hasn't the gay marriage debate been decided in the Courts ?

And you will note that it took a court to say that the right to political speech existed.


----------



## Atari rose (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The point is you silly twit, SOMEONE HAD TO DECIDE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
> 
> WHO WAS IT ?




Well it sure wasn't the SSM people, or any special interest group for that matter.

 "The threat of violence is nothing in comparison to the threat we face from this law. This is just the beginning of a programme of legislation to impose the socialist ideology of one gender and to destroy the foundations of the family."


France found out the hard way.


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well that's fine.
> 
> So why hasn't the gay marriage debate been decided in the Courts ?




Because the Constitution is pretty clear that the power to legislate for marriage rests with the Parliament. And around in circles we go...That does not mean the Parliament should use its power deny a group their rights. The Parliament could tomorrow prevent blacks and whites from marrying, would that not be a denial of their civil rights? 

The notion that a government must enumerate a right for it to have affect is totally wrong.

As an aside, I'd be interested in the historical perspective of why the power to legislate for marriage was even given to the Commonwealth, considering in the US it is a state issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> The notion that a government must enumerate a right for it to have affect is totally wrong.




You may say that it's morally wrong, and I may agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that a law must be changed. 

You can whinge about it all you like but it won't make any difference. Someone has to vote on the issue and I don't see why it can't be the public as the Parliament has so far not been able to.


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You may say that it's morally wrong, and I may agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that a law must be changed.




I didn't say it was morally wrong. 



SirRumpole said:


> You can whinge about it all you like but it won't make any difference.




Trust me pal, if I wanted it to make a difference I wouldn't be wasting my time on here.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> I didn't say it was morally wrong.




So you don't think that preventing gay marriage is morally wrong ?


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You may say that it's morally wrong, and I may agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that a law must be changed.
> 
> You can whinge about it all you like but it won't make any difference. Someone has to vote on the issue and I don't see why it can't be the public as the Parliament has so far not been able to.




Yes a law must be changed, and parliament could change it tomorrow, and they should, they don't need a plebiscite. 

The whole point we are trying to get across to you, is that even if we had a plebiscite and the majority voted down the concept of SSM, denying SSM rights would still be immoral. 51% of the public voting to deny rights to 1%, does not make it moral, simple as that, you asked me if I would dump the issue it the will of the public was against it, and I said no, because I would see it in the same light as the public voting to maintain slavery.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

Atari rose said:


> to destroy the foundations of the family.




How would allowing a lesbian couple on the other side of town get married affect your family?


----------



## McLovin (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So you don't think that preventing gay marriage is morally wrong ?




It depends. If it's nothing more than the half-baked moral subjectivism in this thread then it's hard to call it anything else. Like I said, I'm all ears to hearing why gays _shouldn't_ be allowed to marry.

And that's my last post on this thread. I've well and truly overstayed!


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> It depends. If it's nothing more than the half-baked moral subjectivism in this thread then it's hard to call it anything else. Like I said, I'm all ears to hearing why gays _shouldn't_ be allowed to marry.




I'll give you one. Acceptance of gay marriage could lead to acceptance of gay parenting, and I've argued very long that gay parenting is using children as guinea pigs in a social experiment.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The whole point we are trying to get across to you, is that even if we had a plebiscite and the majority voted down the concept of SSM, denying SSM rights would still be immoral.




And as I have been trying to explain to you, you have no more God given right to decide what is moral than I do, but between 15 million of us we just might be able to get it right. If it doesn't turn out to your satisfaction then you have the rest of your life to try again.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'll give you one. Acceptance of gay marriage could lead to acceptance of gay parenting, and I've argued very long that gay parenting is using children as guinea pigs in a social experiment.




Yet again another logical fallacy is presented, this one is.



> The Slippery Slope
> 
> You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
> 
> The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.




You should really head over to this website and check out the 24 common logical fallacies.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/


----------



## Tisme (22 September 2015)

I was thinking of those identical twins used to try to find the fabled genome that causes gayness and it struck me that the half of each pair that was straight might be a little affected by the whole experience; especially under the subsequent pressure of the gay movement to do the right thing and become gay too so genes can continue to be used as an excuse for pity and acceptance.

I was also wondering why gays insist on being accepted without conforming to the established norms, but stampede to archaic hetrosexual customs such as marriage?

No logical fallacies in that because I'm not using black people to illustrate.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yet again another logical fallacy is presented, this one is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't think it's fanciful to conclude that A will lead to B in this case. Give someone an inch and they will want to go further. The gay aim has always been to be seen as "equals" in every respect, but in parenting capability I have argued that they are not.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And as I have been trying to explain to you, you have no more God given right to decide what is moral than I do, but between 15 million of us we just might be able to get it right. If it doesn't turn out to your satisfaction then you have the rest of your life to try again.




I am not claiming to have a god given right, I have said that we have to try and bring ourselves as close to the moral option as possible with the information we have using reason and logic and passing each option through a series of filters to test if it is a more moral than another option. 

there are ways to figure out whether the earth is round or whether the earth is flat, and there are ways to figure out what is the best moral option, neither rely on popular opinion.

I am happy to have a plebiscite, as I said I think we will win, all I am saying is that the outcome of the plebiscite is not what determines if something is true or false or moral or immoral.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think it's fanciful to conclude that A will lead to B in this case. Give someone an inch and they will want to go further. The gay aim has always been to be seen as "equals" in every respect, but in parenting capability I have argued that they are not.




either way, its a separate topic for a separate debate, denying people their right to do A, because some others might do B is not right, especially if you haven't proven the harm of B in the first place.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yet again another logical fallacy is presented, this one is.
> 
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/




Isn't that what you want? isn't that the main purpose of marriage? Wouldn't you say that if that right is not given then society is being immoral? 

Pol Pot thought that living in a city corrupted people. His perfect life of living off the fields was considered moral. Religion was immoral. Anyone who disagreed with him was immoral.

Morality is a human construct.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Isn't that what you want? isn't that the main purpose of marriage?
> .




Plenty of infertile couples get married, plenty of married couples never have children. 



> Wouldn't you say that if that right is not given then society is being immoral?




Potentially, but that is another debate, even if it were found that gays having children was harmful, it still would not be a valid argument to stop them getting married. 





> Pol Pot thought that living in a city corrupted people. His perfect life of living off the fields was considered moral. Religion was immoral. Anyone who disagreed with him was immoral.




Some people thought the world was flat, sometimes people are just wrong. 

A lot of religious teachings are immoral.




> Morality is a human construct




I don't think it is, at least not in the way you are implying that it is based on opinion


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think it is, [morality is a human construct] at least not in the way you are implying that it is based on opinion




Well , the only other option is that it's God given and I doubt you believe that.


----------



## Tisme (22 September 2015)

Here you go VC

a pracftical linkage between black people, homosexuality and child care you can use to promote the cause:



They whipped the 3 yearold with belt buckles, clothes hangers, etc


----------



## Knobby22 (22 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think it is, at least not in the way you are implying that it is based on opinion




Well it is. Robert Mugabe would say he is a very moral man

ZIMBABWE'S President Robert Mugabe is no stranger to the moral high ground. Since the anti-colonial struggle and his first decade in office, when most of his speeches concerned themselves with the iniquitous apartheid regime on his southern border, his natural tone has been that of the champion of right against wrong. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mugabes-illfitting-suit-of-moral-outrage-1598214.html


----------



## Macquack (22 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Here you go VC
> 
> a pracftical linkage between *black people*, homosexuality and child care you can use to promote the cause:
> 
> ...




I generally really like your work Tisme, however you have stepped over the line here.

What the f*** has this issue of "gay Marriage" got to do with the *COLOUR OF A PERSONS SKIN*?

Your underlying prejudice devalues you argument totally.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well , the only other option is that it's God given and I doubt you believe that.




Why would the only other option be a god?

When I say it's not a human construct, I mean it's not something that is based on the opinions of humans, it doesn't change based on popular votes or the opinion of a dictator. In any given situation there is an option which would be the most moral path, and other options that would be less moral, and this exists whether or not humans had discovered the concept of morality yet, it would exist if you replaced the human in the scenario with a chimp or an alien race.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Well it is. Robert Mugabe would say he is a very moral man
> 
> ZIMBABWE'S President Robert Mugabe is no stranger to the moral high ground. Since the anti-colonial struggle and his first decade in office, when most of his speeches concerned themselves with the iniquitous apartheid regime on his southern border, his natural tone has been that of the champion of right against wrong. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mugabes-illfitting-suit-of-moral-outrage-1598214.html




Are you saying what is moral changes based on who is in power or on human opinion? If that's what you are trying to say I think you are wrong.

What Mugabe believes is moral, doesn't change what actually is moral, I believe he could have sincere beliefs that the things he does is moral, but if those actions fail certain tests, then they aren't moral.


----------



## luutzu (23 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Why would the only other option be a god?
> 
> When I say it's not a human construct, I mean it's not something that is based on the opinions of humans, it doesn't change based on popular votes or the opinion of a dictator. In any given situation there is an option which would be the most moral path, and other options that would be less moral, and this exists whether or not humans had discovered the concept of morality yet, it would exist if you replaced the human in the scenario with a chimp or an alien race.




Yea, true. But the problem is people always think their beliefs are moral and just. And those with the bigger sticks tend to have their way 

I think most people are moral, even the immoral ones... just their definition of those they prejudiced against are somewhat skewed (screwed?).

So take this thing against gay marriage. All those against or unhappy with gays getting married or having children tend to do so because they do not see homosexual as equal, as the same as themselves or their fellow heterosexuals. That heterosexuals can get marry, can certainly have children if they wanted or could physically regardless of their mental or financial or other means... gays? well gays can't, shouldn't... why? Because they are not as equal or not as good as heterosexual.

Like how the Blacks (then the Coloured) were literally defined as 2/3 equal to White Americans. Or how Jews and non-MasterRace were not... not the master race... Once people buy into those definition, dehumanises another group... what they then do or permitted to be done is all very normal and very rational and moral - to them anyway.

So are homosexual equal, are just as good or as bad as the best of the heterosexuals?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Why would the only other option be a god?
> 
> When I say it's not a human construct, I mean it's not something that is based on the opinions of humans, it doesn't change based on popular votes or the opinion of a dictator. In any given situation there is an option which would be the most moral path, and other options that would be less moral, and this exists whether or not humans had discovered the concept of morality yet, it would exist if you replaced the human in the scenario with a chimp or an alien race.




Humans define what the term "morality" means, therefore it's a human construct. An alien race may define "morality" in a different way, or not at all.

 If you are talking about a "universal" morality then it has to be defined by something universal, which means a God, if one exists but until we know what that Being wants (some believe they do), then we have to stick to our own definition, which means our individual definitions or the definition as applied in law; eg if abortions are legal then they are by definition "moral" as society sees them, even though abortions are not moral to some individuals.


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2015)

Macquack said:


> What the f*** has this issue of "gay Marriage" got to do with the *COLOUR OF A PERSONS SKIN*?




Exactly Macca


Glad you agree because that is my objection to VC's constant referral to blacks as cause for homosexual marriage tolerance. It demeans Blacks IMO and I happen to like a lot of black people....so perhaps you might like to revise your attack on me and place it on someone who is the real racist culprit.

And before any of you lot decide I don't like homosexuals that is is also a "logical fallacy" ... I like the people I meet probably universally, however I'm not so tribal as to think belonging to an interest group automatically lumps you in with the best of them.....e.g. WA bogans in Bali = God help us all. 

PS I didn't beat a 3 year old to death and I would protest that two times raging female hormones looking after a tantrum prone child doesn't allow the counter balance of male hormone to modify behaviours of the carers..


----------



## Knobby22 (23 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Are you saying what is moral changes based on who is in power or on human opinion? If that's what you are trying to say I think you are wrong.
> 
> What Mugabe believes is moral, doesn't change what actually is moral, I believe he could have sincere beliefs that the things he does is moral, but if those actions fail certain tests, then they aren't moral.




So define morality then. 
Use abortion as an example. I think you will find it quite hard.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> So define morality then.
> .



principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad.

Firstly, I don't believe in moral absolutes, like some Religious people claim, and I don't claim to know what the 100% moral action is in every given instance, as I said its just our job to try and make the best moral decisions we can, based on the information we have, and using certain moral filters.

 A religious person might claim a moral absolute that it is 100% immoral to kill a human, However I believe there are situations where killing a human may be moral, eg ending the pain of a suffering cancer patient. 




> Use abortion as an example. I think you will find it quite hard




Again, there are no absolutes here either, there are situations where it is immoral and other situations where it is fine, and many situations that require a lot of debate and rational reasoned thought onto what is the best way to apply the moral principles.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Humans define what the term "morality" means, therefore it's a human construct. An alien race may define "morality" in a different way, or not at all.
> 
> .




Humans also define what the word gravity means, is gravity a Human construct.



> If you are talking about a "universal" morality then it has to be defined by something universal, which means a God, if one exists but until we know what that Being wants (some believe they do), then we have to stick to our own definition, which means our individual definitions or the definition as applied in law;




Gravity is universal, do we need a god to define that?


> eg if abortions are legal then they are by definition "moral" as society sees them, even though abortions are not moral to some individuals




Not at all, a law can be immoral, slavery wasn't moral when it was legal.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> Yea, true. But the problem is people always think their beliefs are moral and just. And those with the bigger sticks tend to have their way
> 
> I think most people are moral, even the immoral ones... just their definition of those they prejudiced against are somewhat skewed (screwed?).




I agree, a lot of other wise good people, end up committing immoral acts, because in their quest to do good, they base their actions on incorrect teachings, their concepts of what is good and bad can be tainted by things such as religion.

I actually don't think the people that flew the planes into the trade centres were evil, I think they were probably decent people doing what they thought was the right thing to do based on their faith, unfortunately for them and their victims, their faith lead them to commit an act of gross immorality. 

Its like any formula, when you put garbage in you get garbage out, when you put religious nonsense into your calculations for your moral actions, you are going to get garbage results.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Humans also define what the word gravity means, is gravity a Human construct.
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity is universal, do we need a god to define that?




Talk about straw men.

Gravity is a physical process that many different observers will measure the same, and as far as we know the laws of gravity apply everywhere in the Universe (ie Universal).

Morality as you have conceded  varies from person to person and is therefore a product of the human mind, and is not universal.

Maybe you should look at your logical fallacies.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Talk about straw men.
> 
> Gravity is a physical process that many different observers will measure the same, and as far as we know the laws of gravity apply everywhere in the Universe (ie Universal).
> 
> ...




Nope, you have got me wrong. Morality doesn't vary from person to person. what people think is moral might, but that doesn't change what the actual most moral choice would be. the fact that the 911 hijackers thought they were behaving morally, doesn't mean they were.

Peoples understanding of morality may vary, just like their understanding of gravity will vary. Most people have a lot of misconceptions about gravity, no doubt you yourself don't understand it fully and don't understand its affect, but that in no way changes it, and gravity existed before humans understood it, just like morality existed before humans understood it.

As I said there may be things I am doing today that in 100 years we have new information on and we find out it is immoral, that doesn't mean it was moral when I did it today.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, you have got me wrong. Morality doesn't vary from person to person. what people think is moral might, but that doesn't change what the actual most moral choice would be. the fact that the 911 hijackers thought they were behaving morally, doesn't mean they were.




Dear oh dear. You seem to be implying that there is a "universal morality" ? Yes or no ?

If yes, then who defines this universal morality ?



> what the actual most moral choice would be




As I've asked before and you haven't answered, *who says what the "most moral" choice is ?
*

And what is the criteria for deciding this ?


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Dear oh dear. You seem to be implying that there is a "universal morality" ? Yes or no ?
> 
> [/B]




Yes. every action will be some where on the morality scale even if the person has no concept of morals. I person doesn't have to have a concept of morals for them to act either morally or immorally. As I said slavery wasn't moral when it was legal, genocide wasn't moral when it was considered good governance, rape wasn't moral before we had laws against it.



> If yes, then who defines this universal morality




No one defines it, we discover it over time, through rational thought and an awareness of the consequences of our actions. 





> As I've asked before and you haven't answered, *who says what the "most moral" choice is ?*



*

And I have answered it before, we might not have the information we need to know the most moral choice is in every situation, but in every situation there is a most moral choice but what we have to do is pass our decisions through a series of filters using principles we have discovered through evidence based logical thinking  to try and get to the most moral decision possible based on what we know.

and example of some principles are,

more personal freedom is preferable to less personal freedom
avoiding harm is preferable to causing harm
health is preferable to sickness

etc

The point I am trying to get across is, that morality isn't something we invented, its something that we have discovered overtime, and are still working on, and we don't decide what's moral, we have to discover what's moral.

now whether a person understands this principles or not, doesn't stop the principles existing*


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

The 'filters' you describe are personal values that are capable of modification due to circumstances.

e.g.

"greater personal freedom is preferable to less personal freedom"

Should people have the freedom to walk the streets naked ? After all they are not hurting anyone, and if others get offended then it's not the naked persons fault.

etc etc.

A bloke in Britain has spent many years in gaol for exercising his personal freedom of nakedness.

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

Are his actions moral or not ?

Were his arrests moral or not ?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No one defines it, we discover it over time, through rational thought and an awareness of the consequences of our actions.




Ok, so if we have a gay marriage plebiscite and it goes down, would you agree that it was the most moral action at the time ?


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Ok, so if we have a gay marriage plebiscite and it goes down, would you agree that it was the most moral action at the time ?




No, because it can be shown through the logical reasoned application of certain moral principles we have already discovered, that banning it would be immoral. 

As I have continually said, morality is not based on popular opinion.

If you had a plebiscite, on something as simple as whether gravity pulls a 1kg hammer more than it pulls 10gram feather, we would probably get a majority vote saying the 1kg hammer gets pulled by gravity more, but the fact is it can be shown that gravity has the same effect on both, and gravity causes them to fall at the same rate, the publics misconceptions caused by various things would cause them to get the wrong answer, so they can easily get the wrong answer on a more complex topic.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The 'filters' you describe are personal values that are capable of modification due to circumstances.




no, they are not personal values, its an assessment of the consequences of certain actions in the physical world and how this affect the well being of other thinking creatures, this video explains it if you are interested.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As I have continually said, morality is not based on popular opinion.




No,  I think it's based on your opinion.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No,  I think it's based on your opinion.




I have continually said its not based on any ones opinion, you are the one that thinks its based on group opinion and law, which actually makes we think we are talking about different things.

watch the video I posted, its an intro into the discussion.


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2015)

Morality is quite a simple concept = it's based on hurt.

If it hurts someone's feelings, if it hurts children's innocence, if it steals, if it upsets, etc.

Because of this there is a perpetrator and a victim. It's the degree of suffering we are prepared the victimised to endure that sets the ubiquitous low bar of morality....set it low enough and even the victimised feel victimised they are being redefined as the bullies of those on a lower rung .....human's are so fragile.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have continually said its not based on any ones opinion, you are the one that thinks its based on group opinion and law, which actually makes we think we are talking about different things.
> 
> watch the video I posted, its an intro into the discussion.




OK, so you have a couple of blokes sitting around making rules, their rules.

In order to convert these set of rules into a morality, they have to be popularly accepted as the right set of rules for defining a moral belief system.

 People don't have to accept these rules, or they may decide to modify them. That's why we have a society and not an autocracy, and that is how laws are created, because a majority think that they are moral laws.

You may want to live by the rules set in that video, if you want others to then you need to sell them to the rest of us.

It comes down to the fact that morality has to been defined by humans according to rules made by humans, morality doesn't just exist all by itself.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> In order to convert these set of rules into a morality, they have to be popularly accepted as the right set of rules for defining a moral belief system.
> 
> .




You wouldn't be converting these ideas into a morality, morality exists independent of what people think, you would be attempting to construct a moral system, that may or may not be close to the actual objective morality that exists.



> People don't have to accept these rules, or they may decide to modify them. That's why we have a society and not an autocracy, and that is how laws are created, because a majority think that they are moral laws.




Yes but what I am saying is that when these moral principles are ignored, the system that results is a "Moral system" based on immorality , it doesn't suddenly become moral just because it is accepted by the masses, the adherents might describe the system as their moral system, but it doesn't represent morality. 

I think that's the issue we are having here, you are talking about human constructed moral systems, I am talking about the underlying objective morality, its a bit like humans have constructed our "Theory of evolution", but we didn't construct real world evolution, that's a process that operates independently. 



> You may want to live by the rules set in that video, if you want others to then you need to sell them to the rest of us.




They didn't give a set of rules, they described a way to figure out what is moral.



> It comes down to the fact that morality has to been defined by humans according to rules made by humans, morality doesn't just exist all by itself




nope, it exists independently, its just our job to try and figure out what it is and make our rules and decisions as close to it as possible. just like gravity can be defined by humans, but our definition doesn't change the physics of it.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Morality is quite a simple concept = it's based on hurt.
> 
> If it hurts someone's feelings, if it hurts children's innocence, if it steals, if it upsets, etc.
> 
> Because of this there is a perpetrator and a victim. It's the degree of suffering we are prepared the victimised to endure that sets the ubiquitous low bar of morality....set it low enough and even the victimised feel victimised they are being redefined as the bullies of those on a lower rung .....human's are so fragile.




I would say Harm is a better word than Hurt, and its one of the principles.
Along with personal freedom and a bunch of others.

Some people try and victimise them selves, in an attempt to prove they are being harmed or a losing freedom, so that they can skew the system to favour them, but that takes us away from a system based on actual morality.

In regards to Gay marriage, By allowing a gay couple to marry, we are giving them more freedom, by doing so we are acting inline with the moral principle that more freedom is preferable to less freedom.

In giving this freedom to same sex couples, no other group is losing any of their freedoms, and no other group is being harmed, So its a simple step towards making system a more moral system.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> .....human's are so fragile.




Yes, some of them believe allowing couples of the same sex marry would some how hurt them and destroy their marriage.


----------



## luutzu (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> OK, so you have a couple of blokes sitting around making rules, their rules.
> 
> In order to convert these set of rules into a morality, they have to be popularly accepted as the right set of rules for defining a moral belief system.
> 
> ...





I think what you and VC are arguing over is what they call the Natural Law vs the Legal Code. What is popular and legal is not necessarily what is moral, right? Case in point is gay marriage. How could a law that discriminate a group of people be considered moral?

I guess it would boils down to the Golden Rule - either preached by Jesus or the one by Confucius (and I am sure by many other philosophers) - that to not do unto others what you do not wish unto yourself. 

If you don't want others to oppress your views and your freedom, don't do it onto others. We can all cite the children's welfare and whatnot to go against gay marriage but those arguments just don't stick when applied some rational and logical argument to it. And if, for the sake of the children and Western civilisation, we forget about logic and sense regarding gay parenting... well you can't really do that and also considered your stance a moral one.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

> well you can't really do that and also considered your stance a moral one.




Well I think I can because I'm more concerned with children being deprived of biological parents that match the child's own sexuality and their consequent deprivation of the understanding of what it means to be heterosexual  and be raised by your biological parents than I am with adults using the children to try and prove that they (the adults) are something they aren't.



> I guess it would boils down to the Golden Rule - either preached by Jesus or the one by Confucius (and I am sure by many other philosophers) - that to not do unto others what you do not wish unto yourself.




Yes I can certainly agree with that Golden Rule. As a heterosexual I definitely would not want to be raised by gays and so I would not want to wish that on others either.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> nope, it exists independently, its just our job to try and figure out what it is and make our rules and decisions as close to it as possible. just like gravity can be defined by humans, but our definition doesn't change the physics of it.




I don't know, it's like arguing with a wall.

Can't you see the distinction between a physical law like gravity that everyone in the universe with the appropriate equipment would measure as being the same, and a set of rules devised by humans who have a different opinion of what rules make up a social system or their own individual morality ?

I've explained it enough, so I just have to assume that you are arguing for the sake of it and leave it at that.


----------



## luutzu (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well I think I can because I'm more concerned with children being deprived of biological parents that match the child's own sexuality and their consequent deprivation of the understanding of what it means to be heterosexual  and be raised by your biological parents than I am with adults using the children to try and prove that they (the adults) are something they aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can certainly agree with that Golden Rule. As a heterosexual I definitely would not want to be raised by gays and so I would not want to wish that on others either.




But you can't Rumpole.

As we've said before... if your objection against gay parenting is it's not good for the children, then you can't just stop at gay parenting. You first have to prove that gay parenting is detrimental to the child's well being - and anecdotal or a couple of cases won't be enough for that kind of proof... Then if you can prove that it's for the children's you need to apply it to other parenting style and other kind of parents too.

It can't just apply to gay parents.

Are you willing to not permit couples of low or no education to have kids? Poor couples can't have kids? How about mentally somewhat psychotic parents? Too competitive or too busy or too rich etc etc. 

Must all parents pass some kind of test to then have children? If the answer is no, if you only apply the gayness test to good/bad parenting... well that's not logical.

That would be like, say, some genius in Canberra decided that those who live in rural Australia shouldn't have kids because we all know the gold standard is children ought to be metropolitan, farming is so last century and why should the Australian taxpayers fund hospitals and infrastructures so way off the map? 

You can do that kind of stuff to the Aborigines and get away with it, maybe... but it doesn't pass the smell test man.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> But you can't Rumpole.




All the other cases you quoted, whether they are good or bad require A MAN AND A WOMAN.

Nature discriminates against gays having children. Evolution that is supposed to decide the best outcome for the species and it's been doing that for 4 billion years.

 I'm quite happy to stick with that and say that anything else is Frankenstein science designed to achieve a social objective, and that is immoral in my opinion.

And furthermore I don't think the burden of proof should be on those opposing gay parenting. It should be on those who say it does no harm. I wouldn't ask you to take a drug that may cause you harm just so I can prove that it doesn't.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know, it's like arguing with a wall.
> 
> Can't you see the distinction between a physical law like gravity that everyone in the universe with the appropriate equipment would measure as being the same, and a set of rules devised by humans who have a different opinion of what rules make up a social system or their own individual morality ?
> 
> I've explained it enough, so I just have to assume that you are arguing for the sake of it and leave it at that.




But let me ask you this

If the Universe was devoid of life would gravity still exist ?

Would morality still exist ?


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Can't you see the distinction between a physical law like gravity that everyone in the universe with the appropriate equipment would measure as being the same, and a set of rules devised by humans who have a different opinion of what rules make up a social system or their own individual morality ?
> 
> I've explained it enough, so I just have to assume that you are arguing for the sake of it and leave it at that.




I think determining what are the right moral actions and determining scientific facts about the universe are very similar, both can be appraised scientifically and what is true for us would be true for another alien race on the other side of the universe.

You can see this on earth, tribes and civilisations developed a lot of the same moral codes independently, societies the world over had rules against killing each other, stealing from each other etc


----------



## luutzu (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> All the other cases you quoted, whether they are good or bad require A MAN AND A WOMAN.
> 
> Nature discriminates against gays having children. Evolution that is supposed to decide the best outcome for the species and it's been doing that for 4 billion years.
> 
> I'm quite happy to stick with that and say that anything else is Frankenstein science designed to achieve a social objective, and that is immoral in my opinion.




Nature also has it that we live in caves, go hunt for food everday, and all die around 30 years of age due to natural causes. No medicine, no medical care and antibiotics and fancy x-rays and chemo and blood transfusion; no air conditioning, no cars, no planes, no TV, no internet...

You can pick what you like from modern science and banned the others you don't care much for. You got to have an army to do that kind of stuff


----------



## luutzu (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> But let me ask you this
> 
> If the Universe was devoid of life would gravity still exist ?
> 
> Would morality still exist ?




Of course it will still exists. 

The only thing that didn't exists until discovered are the Americas, the Native Indians, Australia and its Aborigines.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> Of course it will still exists.
> 
> The only thing that didn't exists until discovered are the Americas, the Native Indians, Australia and its Aborigines.




Morality exists in a universe devoid of life ?

Does love exist if there is no one to love ?

Come on, these are CONCEPTS not laws, they are products of sentient minds and we define them how we choose.


----------



## Value Collector (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> But let me ask you this
> 
> If the Universe was devoid of life would gravity still exist ?
> 
> Would morality still exist ?




Firstly I don't know if its possible for a universe to form without life eventually popping up, but for the sake of your thought experiment.

Yes, gravity would still exist.

Yes, I guess you could say laws of morality wouldn't exist, but only in the same way that the laws of biological evolution wouldn't exist, because offcourse with out self replicating life forms, there would be no biological evolution happening, so you could say evolution doesn't exist, you could also say the entire field of medical science doesn't exist, germ theory doesn't exist.

Perhaps you could even say in a universe devoid of water hydrology wouldn't exist, none of this means hydrology or evolution or morality is any less real or universal or is a human construct.

The tides wouldn't exist without the moon, but that doesn't mean they are real.

The fact is thinking life does exist in the universe, and certain things about the welfare of this thinking life is universal. that's all morality is concerned with, the welfare of the thinking beings that exist.


----------



## luutzu (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Morality exists in a universe devoid of life ?
> 
> Does love exist if there is no one to love ?
> 
> Come on, these are CONCEPTS not laws, they are products of sentient minds and we define them how we choose.




"The Way that can be defined is not the Original Way" - Lao Tzu

So the love that is defined by people is not True Love. True love cannot be defined. Therefore, love exists regardless of people or being exists or not to define them.

In other words, if you define love... that is your definition of love; that definition may or may not be what true love actually is. Say a person define love as that between a man and a woman... or some define love as "I love him/her because... good looks, hot body, lots of money, really really rich, can buy me lots of stuff..." to many people that's what love is.

Same with morality or any other concept. 

These concepts only get closer to the "true" meaning when it passes certain logical tests, as I think what VC is saying...


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> "The Way that can be defined is not the Original Way" - Lao Tzu
> 
> So the love that is defined by people is not True Love. True love cannot be defined. Therefore, love exists regardless of people or being exists or not to define them.




Doesn't seem logical to me Captain 

If "True Love" cannot be defined then how can we know it exists at all ?


----------



## sydboy007 (23 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Doesn't seem logical to me Captain
> 
> If "True Love" cannot be defined then how can we know it exists at all ?




The usual religious response - my personal experience.

If that's not enough proof you'll burn in hell


----------



## sydboy007 (23 September 2015)

well worth a read

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-t...tural-or-supernatural-the-craig-taylor-debate



> The second question is more serious. It’s supposed to be the same question, but you will see that it isn’t. This question is, as it was put to me: Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural? It is neither. The basis for morality is conventional, which means the rules of morality were fabricated by human beings over many generations. These rules are: to abstain from injury, to abstain from lying, theft, assault, killing, and so forth. These rules were not the invention of God. No one in this room imagines that if there were not a God to tell us these things, we would not know any better. No one in this room thinks that if God had not told us this, if God had not delivered these rules to Moses, then we would not see anything wrong with my stealing, assaulting, and killing.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> The usual religious response - my personal experience.
> 
> If that's not enough proof you'll burn in hell




Religious response !!!  Bwaaa what rot. I'm simply asking for the same proof for "true love" that you are asking for God, so I'll see you down below


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If "True Love" cannot be defined then how can we know it exists at all ?




"True" love, as apposed to what, "false" love. When dealing with loaded terms such as that each user of the word probably has a different definition, so it's probably best to get the user of the term to define it for you before they carry on with their monologue.

However, when it comes to love as with a range of other emotions, they are emergent properties of physical brains and we can see physical signs of them when we conduct brain scans, and we also see people who become incapable of certain emotions when certain parts of the brain is damaged, so I wouldn't say we can't prove its existence.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> "True" love, as apposed to what, "false" love. When dealing with loaded terms such as that each user of the word probably has a different definition, so it's probably best to get the user of the term to define it for you before they carry on with their monologue.
> 
> However, when it comes to love as with a range of other emotions, they are emergent properties of physical brains and we can see physical signs of them when we conduct brain scans, and we also see people who become incapable of certain emotions when certain parts of the brain is damaged, so I wouldn't say we can't prove its existence.




It wasn't me who introduced the term "true love", someone else did and said it couldn't be defined, therefore I ask if it really exists. It seems like a pointless argument anyway.

You point about emotions being a product of physical brains leads to the question of whether morality is also a product of brains, not an underlying quality of the Universe. I don't know whether the answer is relevant to anything or if there really is any point arguing about it.

 I think it's quite possible that a race of beings with a different brain structure may come up with a different version of morality than we do, and may use a different set of rules to do so; eg they may think that the only things that matters is survival of the species and anything that might prevent that must be destroyed. It's pretty hard to argue that that viewpoint is "wrong" from their perspective, we make our own rules so why shouldn't they be able to do the same ?


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You point about emotions being a product of physical brains leads to the question of whether morality is also a product of brains, not an underlying quality of the Universe. I don't know whether the answer is relevant to anything or if there really is any point arguing about it.
> 
> I think it's quite possible that a race of beings with a different brain structure may come up with a different version of morality than we do, and may use a different set of rules to do so; eg they may think that the only things that matters is survival of the species and anything that might prevent that must be destroyed. It's pretty hard to argue that that viewpoint is "wrong" from their perspective, we make our own rules so why shouldn't they be able to do the same ?




Physical brains are a property of the universe, life in general in a property of the universe, it's all complex chemistry, a series of self sustaining chemical reactions (don't believe me, hold your breath and how short the period is your body can go without oxygen to sustain the chemical reactions)

Morality is not affected by opinion, whether that's our opinion or the opinion of an alien race. The aliens system of right and wrong you describe would just be an immoral system. We don't make the rules of what is moral, we discover what's moral, our rules may or may not be moral.

Remember it's based on the well being of thinking beings, we don't make the rules, what will cause another thinking being to suffer and there by reducing its well being is a matter of fact not opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Morality is not affected by opinion, whether that's our opinion or the opinion of an alien race. .




That's where you are wrong.

What is moral to you may not be moral to someone else, simple as that.


----------



## Tisme (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's where you are wrong.
> 
> What is moral to you may not be moral to someone else, simple as that.




Slavery is still seen as moral by some/many. The Chinese had no problem forcing single child families. Indian men burn infant girls to death. ....... 

Morality and ethics is a culturally subjective truth, not objective and relative to that pertinent culture.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Remember it's based on the well being of thinking beings, we don't make the rules, what will cause another thinking being to suffer and there by reducing its well being is a matter of fact not opinion.




The "well being of thinking beings" can be distorted as much as you like.

e.g. The A bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The justification was that these actions would have saved many more lives. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified or not according to "your" rules ?

Other people will disagree with you whatever you say because they have their own rules. Who is to say which set of rules provides the "most moral" option ?

Secondly, how do you define "thinking being" ? Does a dog think ? A cat ? A cow ? They all have brains. Why would you eat one of them and keep the others as pets ?


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The "well being of thinking beings" can be distorted as much as you like.
> 
> e.g. The A bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The justification was that these actions would have saved many more lives. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified or not according to "your" rules ?
> 
> ...




In every situation there is a most moral option, and what determines this is not going to be opinion, but fact.

I am not claiming to know what the best moral action is, or even that it's possible to know the most moral option in every situation, all I am saying is that in every situation there is an option that would be the most moral option, and that doesn't change because of opinion it is based on the reality of the situation and real world factors and outcomes.

I don't have all the information required for me to assess the use of nuclear weapons in world war 2.

Offcourse people can disagree with me, but neither my opinion or there's will affect what would actually be best for the well being of all thinking beings involved, who's opinion is closet to the best moral outcomes depends on the logic used to get to that opinion and the accuracy of the data used.

Life forms range on a sliding scale from micro scoping plants like photoplankton, I would class them as thinking beings, all the way up to animals with complex brains like the higher mammals, who are capable of thought, emotions suffering etc, a mud crab is probably more robotic than a puppy, but a mud crab is more of a thinking being than a yeast bacteria, how we treat living organisms is important, and morality questions need to factor in those hire beings that are likely to have emotions and a capable of suffering.

That's why I said some of the things we do now, might be considered gross immorality in 100years, and that doesn't mean it was moral when we did it


----------



## Tisme (24 September 2015)

Jesus! After all that we can understand why sky pilots write books on codes of conduct and call them Bibles, Korans, etc


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2015)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> That's why I said some of the things we do now, might be considered gross immorality in 100years, and that doesn't mean it was moral when we did it




Probably true, but we aren't living 100 years from now. 

If you are saying that morality depends  to an extent on knowledge about causes and effects then I agree, however that's not all there is, morality also depends on factors we consider more important to us individually and as a society.

It MAY be more important to infringe on the rights of a minority for the good of the majority. The basis of how we assess "rights" and "good" are obviously movable and will vary from individual to individual, which is why we have to discuss the issue as a group and not take the words of a small number of people as gospel.

Hence, in relation to the subject matter of this thread, a plebiscite is a better way of deciding the issue of gay marriage than a vote of a smaller group of people, especially those who have been badgered by lobbyists from both sides or who are worried about their jobs after the next election.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Probably true, but we aren't living 100 years from now.
> 
> If you are saying that morality depends  to an extent on knowledge about causes and effects then I agree, however that's not all there is, morality also depends on factors we consider more important to us individually and as a society.
> 
> ...




Well said.


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's where you are wrong.
> 
> What is moral to you may not be moral to someone else, simple as that.




Here is the sticking point and the reason you keep missing my point.

You are talking about what people think is moral, you are talking about moral systems, this is opinion which can be wrong. The fact that two people have differing moral systems doesn't change the facts of reality.

What I am talking about is the underlying facts of reality in any given situation which are not based on opinion.

The best moral option is the one the provides an outcome where the wellbeing of all thinking beings affected is maximised. 

For example, person A has a moral belief that it's ok to cook crabs alive, because they think crabs don't feel pain, person B has a moral belief that you should make an effort to render the crab insensible before cooking because they do feel pain.

One of them is wrong, if person B is correct, then person A's actions are immorral, regardless of person A's own moral belief system, and regardless of how good the rest of their character is, their moral belief system is based on incorrect information, which leads them to commit an immoral act, their opinion doesn't make their action moral.


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Probably true, but we aren't living 100 years from now.
> 
> .




No we aren't, but we should always strive to make the best decisions we can, based on the information we have.



> If you are saying that morality depends  to an extent on knowledge about causes and effects then I agree, however that's not all there is, morality also depends on factors we consider more important to us individually and as a society.




Morality isn't affected by knowledge, in my example above person A didn't have the knowledge that crabs felt pain, so that lack of knowledge affected what he believed about morality but it doesn't change what is moral, if person B is correct about crabs, person A's actions were immoral regards of his person opinion.




> It MAY be more important to infringe on the rights of a minority for the good of the majority




Yes, if it can be shown that allowing the minority to take a certain action causes harm to the majority, But that's why I have been asking people to show me how allowing a gay couple to marry cause harm to anyone, so far no one has been able to show harm.





> Hence, in relation to the subject matter of this thread, a plebiscite is a better way of deciding the issue of gay marriage than a vote of a smaller group of people, especially those who have been badgered by lobbyists from both sides or who are worried about their jobs after the next election




But, please answer this, what a plebiscite have been the best method to end slavery in the southern states of the US, what actions you take if the plebiscite agreed to keep slavery?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> But, please answer this, what a plebiscite have been the best method to end slavery in the southern states of the US, what actions you take if the plebiscite agreed to keep slavery?




No, please don't go on about slavery, we both agree that morality changes over time, that was then and this is now, there is no comparison.



> Yes, if it can be shown that allowing the minority to take a certain action causes harm to the majority, But that's why I have been asking people to show me how allowing a gay couple to marry cause harm to anyone, so far no one has been able to show harm.




I gave you a reason regarding gay parenting which you chose to dismiss. I don't agree with your reasons for dismissing my claim. In another thread I posted a survey that shows that Norway is divided over gay parenting even though they have gay marriage, therefore this proposal could cause divisions in society. 

You can dismiss that if you like, but I feel that you are so "rusted on" to your cause that you will therefore not listen to any arguments to the contrary. The wider public may agree with you or me, we will see.


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No, please don't go on about slavery, we both agree that morality changes over time, that was then and this is now, there is no comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> .




OMG, I may as well stop talking, As I have said repeatedly, morality doesn't change. Slavery wasn't moral then either, just certain peoples moral systems were flawed due to bad information and phony logic.



> I gave you a reason regarding gay parenting which you chose to dismiss




yes because its a slippery slope argument. 



> . I don't agree with your reasons for dismissing my claim. In another thread I posted a survey that shows that Norway is divided over gay parenting even though they have gay marriage, therefore this proposal could cause divisions in society.




easy, deal with them as the two separate topics they are.



> You can dismiss that if you like, but I feel that you are so "rusted on" to your cause that you will therefore not listen to any arguments to the contrary. The wider public may agree with you or me, we will see




Provide evidence for your claim and I will look at it. but it has to be real evidence, not anecdotal stories or cherry picked examples.


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Slavery is still seen as moral by some.




So does that mean it is moral?

According to Rumpole their opinion makes it moral for them


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> OMG, I may as well stop talking, As I have said repeatedly, morality doesn't change. Slavery wasn't moral then either, just certain peoples moral systems were flawed due to bad information and phony logic.




Sigh. We aren't living in Alabama in the 1800's what happened then is irrelevant to today.

SOMEBODY has to decide about Gay Marriage in LAW. 

Whether or not the result conforms to your idea of what is "truly moral" is irrelevant, the point is that a vote of the whole population is better than a vote of a minority. Are you arguing that ?


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> , the point is that a vote of the whole population is better than a vote of a minority. Are you arguing that ?




I would rather a decision be made that's been well thought out, reasoned, and argued based on the facts of the situation, by a group of people who understand morality and won't be influenced by religious ideas or fall into the traps of logical fallacies.

If it's not possible of the sitting government to do this, then put it to a plebiscite, and kick out all sitting members of parliament at the same time, because if they can not make a simple decision such as that without calling for a plebiscite how can we trust them on the other big decisions.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> OMG, I may as well stop talking, As I have said repeatedly, morality doesn't change. Slavery wasn't moral then either, just certain peoples moral systems were flawed due to bad information and phony logic.




To use your own logic.

A system is moral if the well being of the most number of thinking beings is maximised, correct ?

So if a small number of slaves enhance the well being of a large number of people, that would be a moral system ?


----------



## luutzu (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Sigh. We aren't living in Alabama in the 1800's what happened then is irrelevant to today.
> 
> SOMEBODY has to decide about Gay Marriage in LAW.
> 
> Whether or not the result conforms to your idea of what is "truly moral" is irrelevant, the point is that a vote of the whole population is better than a vote of a minority. Are you arguing that ?




But it's not irrelevant. We can't simply let the majority oppresses the minority and call it moral because the majority said so.


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> To use your own logic.
> 
> A system is moral if the well being of the most number of thinking beings is maximised, correct ?
> 
> So if a small number of slaves enhance the well being of a large number of people, that would be a moral system ?




It's never as simple as greatest good for the greatest number, any attempt to put slavery into that camp would give a false result, pretty much the only reason to restrict a persons freedom is to prevent real harm to others, you can't just take some ones freedom for profit. 

In reality it would be one slave owner benefiting from cheap labour at the expense of many slaves, its the opposite of greatest good for the greatest number.

The rest of society would benefit just as much if the products provided by slave labour were provided by an employee earning a market rate for their labour. sure the plantation owner might not be able to afford a manor if he had to pay wages, but his workers would benefit greatly by being free, and society benefits from them being free also.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> But it's not irrelevant. We can't simply let the majority oppresses the minority and call it moral because the majority said so.




Eric Abetz would agree with you 100%.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's never as simple as greatest good for the greatest number, any attempt to put slavery into that camp would give a false result, pretty much the only reason to restrict a persons freedom is to prevent real harm to others, you can't just take some ones freedom for profit.




I think that answer demonstrates the folly of trying to make hard and fast rules that suit every purpose at every time. 

There are too many ifs and buts. Sure, some rules are fine but there are usually extenuating circumstances that intervene.

How would you balance the "rights" of a mother wanting an abortion with the "rights" of the child to survive in terms of restricting one person's freedom in order to prevent harm to others ?


----------



## luutzu (24 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Eric Abetz would agree with you 100%.




Haven't been following Abetz so that fall flat on me. But he does sounds like a very wise man


----------



## Value Collector (24 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think that answer demonstrates the folly of trying to make hard and fast rules that suit every purpose at every time.
> 
> There are too many ifs and buts. Sure, some rules are fine but there are usually extenuating circumstances that intervene.
> 
> How would you balance the "rights" of a mother wanting an abortion with the "rights" of the child to survive in terms of restricting one person's freedom in order to prevent harm to others ?




I never said anything about "hard and fast rules", in fact I actually said I didn't believe in moral absolutes.

I said right at the start that you can't have absolute rules saying something like killing another human is immoral because in certain situations killing a person might be the most moral option.

What I did say, is that as we go though time we are learning more and more about morality, and developing a set of principles and filters from which to judge our actions, and we should always base our decisions on being as close as possible to the most moral actions, I made no pronouncements of hard and fast rules, that's the religious folk who do that.

In regards to abortion, we can look use science to help tell us when an embryo becomes a person, obviously a persons rights out weigh the rights of a fertilised egg. But again this is something that needs to be judged based on facts, not emotion, not bible verses, not opinion.


----------



## luutzu (24 September 2015)

Come on SirRumpole, you can't really use morality as the basis of your argument when your argument is to discriminate against an entire section of the community.

I mean you can try and make a case that it's bad for the children or bad for society or it goes against your belief and value system... and I am sure you're morally a decent person, but this stance is not moral, can't be argued on such ground. 

So yea, some gays are bad people; some gay parents will harm children... but not all gays are bad, not all gay parents are harmful... and if they are harmful or bad, their homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Just as some straight or some White or coloured folks are bad and make bad parents... Unless you can prove otherwise, no leg to stand on.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> Come on SirRumpole, you can't really use morality as the basis of your argument when your argument is to discriminate against an entire section of the community.




Sometimes discrimination against some is necessary for the good of the rest. Maybe that doesn't apply to gay marriage all I'm saying is that it should be for the whole of society to decide based on facts presented.

I'm tired of this debate monopolising what should be more important issues for everyone. Employment, education etc and I want a result one way or the other so we can move on.



> I mean you can try and make a case that it's bad for the children or bad for society or it goes against your belief and value system... and I am sure you're morally a decent person, but this stance is not moral, can't be argued on such ground.
> 
> So yea, some gays are bad people; some gay parents will harm children... but not all gays are bad, not all gay parents are harmful... and if they are harmful or bad, their homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Just as some straight or some White or coloured folks are bad and make bad parents... Unless you can prove otherwise, no leg to stand on.




Belief system has nothing to do with it when it comes to the rights of children to a mother and father. Is that outweighed by the "rights" of gay people to have children by artificial means when two gay people cannot naturally have children ? You have to take away one person's rights to give it to someone else. That is not moral in my view.


----------



## Tink (25 September 2015)

Good on you, Rumpole, for standing your ground and being a voice for children.
I agree with you.

Natural Law includes them all, and that is what Marriage is and its meaning. 
As I have said, it should not be REDEFINED to exclude them, making the natural family - hate speech.
It is a LIE, and lying to the children -- it is UNJUST, in my view.

A mother and father are important in a child's life, and vice versa, and that is what the Government should be promoting. 
That is what Marriage is, that is the LAW.

Our Laws are based on our Christian heritage.
Structured and orderly, as I stated in another post, so is society and our laws.

Marriage stays as is.


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2015)

I think we all need a refresher on how things are supposed to be done :- rewatch The Blue Lagoon and marvel how nature wins out over notion.  

I blame Kinsey for correlating his own perversions and pleasures as fact instead of the fiction that was subsequently accepted as a study worthy of relaxing the moral codes bound up in the US law. As usual if it's good enough for the USA (who are 20 years ahead of us we are told) it's good enough for Oz.... although I do remember a time in the 70's when we were the epicentre of movie and telly nudity and sex scenes .....yeah for that


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2015)

It's not really the gay marriage thing that worries me, it's the next step.

Gay men using women as incubators and expecting taxpayers i.e. me, to pay for it.
Gay women who could get pregnant, using IVF unnecessarily and expecting taxpayers i.e. me to pay for it.
And if I speak out against it I will be branded homophobic or worse.

And we really don't know the long term effect on the children, especially with male only parents which I think is more of a concern than female parents for a variety of reasons. 
*
It's one thing to allow people to live their lives as they wish, it is another thing altogether to subsidise it.*


----------



## SirRumpole (25 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> It's not really the gay marriage thing that worries me, it's the next step.
> 
> Gay men using women as incubators and expecting taxpayers i.e. me, to pay for it.
> Gay women who could get pregnant, using IVF unnecessarily and expecting taxpayers i.e. me to pay for it.
> ...




Thank you for your "well said", and returned with interest


----------



## Value Collector (25 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> It's not really the gay marriage thing that worries me, it's the next step.
> 
> Gay men using women as incubators and expecting taxpayers i.e. me, to pay for it.
> Gay women who could get pregnant, using IVF unnecessarily and expecting taxpayers i.e. me to pay for it.
> ...




 But why should you deny the right to get married to all gays, even those that don't plan on having children? 

This is called the slippery slope fallacy, you want to deny rights to people not because you have a problem with them having those rights, but because you are worried something else will happen.

The correct thing to do would be allow gays to marry, and then have another legislation banning their use of tax payer funded IVF if that's what you are worried about, and if you are worried about them raising children, go out and prove your hypothesis.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The correct thing to do would be allow gays to marry, and then have another legislation banning their use of tax payer funded IVF if that's what you are worried about, and if you are worried about them raising children, go out and prove your hypothesis.




The correct thing to do is have a plebiscite on gay marriage and gay parenting access to IVF , adoption etc at the same time as they are separate but related issues. There would be some suspicion that if the gay marriage plebiscite was confirmed then the gay parenting question would not be addressed if they were held separately.


----------



## awg (25 September 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> It's not really the gay marriage thing that worries me, it's the next step.
> 
> Gay men using women as incubators and expecting taxpayers i.e. me, to pay for it.
> Gay women who could get pregnant, using IVF unnecessarily and expecting taxpayers i.e. me to pay for it.
> ...




I sort of agree with some of what you are saying.. I certainly dont want to pay for other folks far-out ideas:

but what then of taxpayer IVF subsidy AT ALL for anyone?

Gods way or no way?

Overseas Adoption even = taxpayer subsidy 

On telling kids the truth, no one told me about this when I had kids, seems they may not even teach medical students!

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Not XX and not XY	one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY)          one in 1,000 births 

so these individuals are genetically n/either male or female

has God forsaken them?

many other conditions described, a lot of folk have very mixed-up wedding tackle kit, just have to get on with it.
These physical conditions are separate from Gender Identity Disorders


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2015)

awg said:


> I sort of agree with some of what you are saying.. I certainly dont want to pay for other folks far-out ideas:
> 
> but what then of taxpayer IVF subsidy AT ALL for anyone?
> 
> ...




Yes, quite interesting, higher figures than I thought.
If it is a medical problem then obviously we should help....and we do!


----------



## Logique (22 October 2015)

Why are Warren Entsch and his fellow travellers so afraid of everyday Australians having a say? 

We don't want elites and insiders dictating to us thanks Warren. Do the honourable thing now, and tender your resignation from the Liberal National Party.



> *Coalition same-sex marriage plan an ambush and thought bubble: Eric Abetz *- October 22, 2015
> SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...eric-abetz-20151021-gkf99w.html#ixzz3pFBiZhR4
> 
> ...The Coalition's most prominent advocate of gay marriage, Queensland backbencher Warren Entsch, wants the current Parliament to introduce and pass legislation which would legalise gay marriage but only be triggered by public approval in a plebiscite.
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (22 October 2015)

> Mr Entsch has discussed his idea, which includes mandating a plebiscite within 100 days of the next federal election, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is considering the proposal...





It should be held AT the next election to save the taxpayer $150 million.


----------



## Logique (22 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It should be held AT the next election to save the taxpayer $150 million.



Not the worst suggestion ever, and while they're at it, I'd be quite happy for them to include ballot slips for asylum seeker policy, GST, euthanasia, and the NBN.


----------



## Tisme (22 October 2015)

Logique said:


> Not the worst suggestion ever, and while they're at it, I'd be quite happy for them to include ballot slips for asylum seeker policy, GST, euthanasia, and the NBN.




Agreed and put a muzzle on the debate for a generation


----------



## drsmith (22 October 2015)

Logique said:


> Not the worst suggestion ever, and while they're at it, I'd be quite happy for them to include ballot slips for asylum seeker policy, GST, euthanasia, and the NBN.



On issues such as border security, economics and government services, we elect governments to lead and make decisions in those areas.

Only with the more social issues is there scope for a popular vote. Examples of these in my view include issues such as a republic, gay marriage and daylight saving where over time there's scope for change over time in the broader public view.


----------



## Logique (22 October 2015)

drsmith said:


> On issues such as border security, economics and government services, we elect governments to lead and make decisions in those areas.
> 
> Only with the more social issues is there scope for a popular vote. Examples of these in my view include issues such as a republic, gay marriage and daylight saving where over time there's scope for change over time in the broader public view.



I accept your stricture Doc.  

As for daylight saving..don't get me started on daylight saving, not my favourite thing!


----------



## Value Collector (23 October 2015)

drsmith said:


> Examples of these in my view include issues such as a republic, gay marriage and daylight saving where over time there's scope for change over time in the broader public view.




That childhood song comes to mind "One of these things is not like the other", lol

replace gay marriage in the list of those three things with, slavery or women's right to vote or or equal pay for women etc and you will see its not the same as the other two you listed.

the majority should not be able to vote to deny equal rights to a minority.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> the majority should not be able to vote to deny equal rights to a minority.




I thought we had been through this before.

What is the greater minority, 225 politicians or 16,000,000 voters ?


----------



## Value Collector (23 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What is the greater minority, 225 politicians or 16,000,000 voters ?




what are you trying to say? I think you need to re read what I actually wrote.

lets say 12,000,000 of the voters are catholic, who wouldn't mind stripping the 100,000 Methodists of their religious rights, putting such a topic to vote would mean a group in a majority position could unfairly harm a minority group, In this case the politicians need to just stand up and make the right decision.

A majority does not have the right to deny rights to a minority group, this makes popular votes on such matters irrelevant, its not the same as voting for day light saving or a republic, several people have tried to explain this concept to you already, the decision needs to be made based on facts and evidence, not opinion.


----------



## poverty (23 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> A majority does not have the right to deny rights to a minority group




They do if they vote for it.  Surely you remember that Aborigines were only counted as part of the population as a result of the 1967 Referendum.  90% voted in favour that day, but they could have just as easily voted against it.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> what are you trying to say? I think you need to re read what I actually wrote.
> 
> lets say 12,000,000 of the voters are catholic, who wouldn't mind stripping the 100,000 Methodists of their religious rights, putting such a topic to vote would mean a group in a majority position could unfairly harm a minority group, In this case the politicians need to just stand up and make the right decision.
> 
> A majority does not have the right to deny rights to a minority group, this makes popular votes on such matters irrelevant, its not the same as voting for day light saving or a republic, several people have tried to explain this concept to you already, the decision needs to be made based on facts and evidence, not opinion.




SIGH.

And I've tried to explain this to you too.

The way our law is structured is that SOMEONE has to vote Gay Marriage into law. It's either a small group of politicians who can be lobbied or threatened by special interest groups on either side of the issue, or the larger population who don't have to worry about losing their seats at the next election.

Which group do you think more likely to come up with the "right" decision ?

People such as yourself seem very unsure about being to explain your position to your peers, so maybe you think your arguments won't stand up to public scrutiny ?



> n this case the politicians need to just stand up and make the right decision.




So what happens if the majority of politicians are catholic ?

This is much more likely to happen in a small group than a large one so the politicians would be unrepresentative of the population.


----------



## Value Collector (23 October 2015)

poverty said:


> They do if they vote for it.  Surely you remember that Aborigines were only counted as part of the population as a result of the 1967 Referendum.  90% voted in favour that day, but they could have just as easily voted against it.




If the majority of the population had voted against allowing the aboriginals to be counted as citizens, would that have made it moral to exclude them?

It would be the governments job to protect the rights of a minority group, not give in and allow a majority to strip them of human rights.


----------



## Value Collector (24 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> SIGH.
> 
> And I've tried to explain this to you too.
> 
> ...




We trust politicians to make all kinds of decisions, we don't have a referendum before major decisions such as declaring war on enough state, yet you think they aren't up to deciding whether gays should have the right to marry?

If the majority were Catholic, they should still have to show their decision is based on secular ideals by using things such as the lemon test.


----------



## poverty (24 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> If the majority of the population had voted against allowing the aboriginals to be counted as citizens, would that have made it moral to exclude them?




You just said the majority cannot deprive a minority of their rights.  Yet obviously if the votes fell that way they would have been deprived of them, as that was the law and the whole point of having the referendum.  




> It would be the governments job to protect the rights of a minority group, not give in and allow a majority to strip them of human rights.




No, it was the government who deprived them of it in the first place.  This is where you're falling down, if you think politicians will always act in the best interest of society rather than the best interests of their own political agendas.


----------



## Value Collector (24 October 2015)

poverty said:


> You just said the majority cannot deprive a minority of their rights.  Yet obviously if the votes fell that way they would have been deprived of them, as that was the law and the whole point of having the referendum.
> 
> .




When I say the majority "can't" deprive a minority of human rights, I mean they can't legally do it, we have laws that protect the rights of minority groups.

But, you avoided my question

 "If the majority of the population had voted against allowing the aboriginals to be counted as citizens, would that have made it moral to exclude them?"

if the answer is "No, it still would have been immoral to exclude them" then it makes the popular a waste of time, and the government should just step in and do the right thing.



> No, it was the government who deprived them of it in the first place.




Exactly, so when a sitting government realises that a past government has messed up, and there is an immoral law on the book, they need to change, the popular opinion is irrelevant. 



> This is where you're falling down, if you think politicians will always act in the best interest of society rather than the best interests of their own political agendas




We put them in power to make decisions, to debate the big issues, we have seen even on this thread how the debate on this topic is constantly side tracked by logical fallacies, red herrings and religious concepts, it is much easier for a small group to nail down the facts and make a decision than it is to try and get the entire population to sit down and make a rational decision.

The parliament has no trouble changing all sorts of laws without referendums, its just this topic that brings out the political cowardice.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> it is much easier for a small group to nail down the facts and make a decision than it is to try and get the entire population to sit down and make a rational decision.




No it isn't. 

As I've pointed out before (repeatedly), the politicians have the problem of retaining their seat at the next election. If there are a lot of churchgoers in their electorate, which way do you think they are more likely to vote ? No pressure there right ?

The general voter does not have that problem.


----------



## drsmith (24 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That childhood song comes to mind "One of these things is not like the other", lol
> 
> replace gay marriage in the list of those three things with, slavery or women's right to vote or or equal pay for women etc and you will see its not the same as the other two you listed.
> 
> the majority should not be able to vote to deny equal rights to a minority.



The distinction between the three things you list above and gay marriage is that of equality of economic and political participation and labelling of a union between two people.


----------



## Value Collector (24 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If there are a lot of churchgoers in their electorate, which way do you think they are more likely to vote ? No pressure there right ?
> 
> .




Yes and this is the only reason the want a referendum, as I said its political cowardice, at the end of the day a good politician needs to be able to make the right decision even if its the unpopular one.

I actually think we would win a referendum, I am just pointing out that it shouldn't have to come to that, and if we lost it wouldn't mean a thing.


----------



## Value Collector (24 October 2015)

drsmith said:


> The distinction between the three things you list above and gay marriage is that of equality of economic and political participation and labelling of a union between two people.




discrimination comes in all types, not just economic and political, think of the blacks that were banned from sitting at the front of the bus, you could argue that they don't suffer an economic or political disadvantage, but the discrimination was real and needed to change.


----------



## drsmith (24 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> discrimination comes in all types, not just economic and political, think of the blacks that were banned from sitting at the front of the bus, you could argue that they don't suffer an economic or political disadvantage, but the discrimination was real and needed to change.



We're not talking here about where people can or cannot sit on a bus but if we want to take the discrimination argument to an irrational conclusion, it could be argued that providing seating for the disabled near the entries and exits of a bus is a form of discrimination against everybody else that uses the bus.


----------



## awg (24 October 2015)

I feel spending ~$150m on an out-of-cycle plebiscite is a waste of taxpayer (my) money

It seems to me the most likely, and pragmatic outcome, now that Mr Abbott is "out of the way"
and his religious right colleagues on the decline somewhat, would be for Turnbull 
to allow an open vote in the party room, should he win the next election.

He is a politician after all, and if it proves the polls are in favor of gay marriage, why wouldnt he do that,
as he is a known supporter? ( I expect an early election)

That is what I would do anyway...watch him start hedging his bets for that option, he is sure to get wedged from all sides

Were he to do that, I have little doubt the measure would pass parliament.


----------



## drsmith (24 October 2015)

awg said:


> I feel spending ~$150m on an out-of-cycle plebiscite is a waste of taxpayer (my) money.



In QT last week, Bill Shorten questioned the plebiscite on the basis of responses from radical end of the political spectrum (specifically the radical right). Malcolm as part of his response suggested that Bill could have raised the question on the basis of cost. 

The most practical option would be to have the plebiscite at the next election however that's politically difficult. Malcolm may do as you suggest but that politically will likely depend on the capital he has within his own party at that time.

As for an early election,



> In the wide-ranging interview, Turnbull:
> 
> Said he was assuming the parliament would run full term. “I am certainly assuming the next election will be in September or October 2016.”




http://www.theguardian.com/australi...erview-if-something-isnt-working-chuck-it-out


----------



## awg (24 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> As I've pointed out before (repeatedly), the politicians have the problem of retaining their seat at the next election. If there are a lot of churchgoers in their electorate, which way do you think they are more likely to vote ? No pressure there right ?
> 
> The general voter does not have that problem.





There could be concern for them, but if the majority of major parties are in favor, then the voter has no viable alternative, and so the concern is reduced...(pre-selection may be another issue)

After all, who are the conservative "Turnbull haters" in the Liberal Party going to vote for in the next election ?

An open vote allows each candidate to express (their constituents) views?..or NOT get elected 

I suspect many Nationals, and Labor if they had a high Muslim vote, might also be nervous.

nevertheless, if polling indicates a substantial majority support, as a pollie, opposing would probably lose more than win.

I suspect that even among "churchgoers" there would be a substantial percentage, that would silently support


----------



## SirRumpole (24 October 2015)

awg said:


> There could be concern for them, but if the majority of major parties are in favor, then the voter has no viable alternative, and so the concern is reduced...(pre-selection may be another issue)
> 
> After all, who are the conservative "Turnbull haters" in the Liberal Party going to vote for in the next election ?
> 
> ...




Valid points, I suspect that since Turnbull has spoken out fairly vociferously in  Parliament in favour of a plebiscite it might be hard for him to turn back now and say that the public should be denied a voice in the decision.


He doesn't really have a valid argument to put it off until after the election imo.


----------



## Value Collector (26 October 2015)

The wording in the marriage act which we seek to change, was only altered to its current form in 2004 by the howard government.

In 2004 John Howard added the "One man One Women" phrase, he did this without requiring a plebiscite.

So why would we need a plebiscite just to return the marriage act back to its original wording of "between two people"

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461875956.html


----------



## poverty (26 October 2015)

As a voter and taxpayer I think it would annoy me if the plebescite was tacked onto a federal election.  Basically there wouldn't be a federal election as the gay marriage issue would dominate all aspects of debate.  There are more important matters at hand such as urgently needed tax reform and budget repair.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So why would we need a plebiscite just to return the marriage act back to its original wording of "between two people"




If those on both sides of the debate decided to accept the decision of Parliament, then we wouldn't need a plebiscite.

Change in favour of SSM has been knocked back on several occasions, but the gay lobby is going to pursue it until they get what they want.

Why don't they just accept the result of previous votes ?


----------



## Value Collector (26 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Why don't they just accept the result of previous votes ?




Because banning same sex marriage is immoral.

And places like the ACT have already legalised gay marriage, but due to the Howard government redefining marriage without a plebiscite, it means the ACT laws are voided.

It doesn't require a plebiscite, the only reason for the plebiscite would be to allow politicians to be gutless and hide behind public opinion.


----------



## Craton (26 October 2015)

SSM along with Voluntary Euthanasia are not only political hot potatoes but are huge moral issues particularly on religious grounds. 

The only issue I have is that our govt. officials don't have the guts to do what the public want without, as has been noted, hiding behind a vote by the people.

Public opinion caused the pollies to act quickly against the "bikies" and now the "ice" epidemic so why not act decisively on these two very public issues also?

Ah, for the votes of course! Silly me.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Because banning same sex marriage is immoral.




That's a matter of opinion.

It should be up to all of society to judge what is immoral, the politicians are no more capable of making that decision than the rest of us.


----------



## Tisme (26 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a matter of opinion.
> 
> It should be up to all of society to judge what is immoral, the politicians are no more capable of making that decision than the rest of us.




It's as you said all those years ago Rumpole, ....put it to a popular (compulsory) vote and all of a sudden the 65% in favour isn't such a sure bet after all.


----------



## Value Collector (26 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a matter of opinion.
> 
> It should be up to all of society to judge what is immoral, the politicians are no more capable of making that decision than the rest of us.




Nope, morality is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, offcourse people can have an opinion on what is moral, just as they can have an opinion on what is healthy, but at the end of the day, their opinion doesn't change what is moral or what is healthy, only a non emotional weighing of the facts gets you to the correct answer.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> only a non emotional weighing of the facts gets you to the correct answer.




Ah yes, so how do we explain the fact that multiple judges on the High Court often come to different opinions based on the same set of facts ?

And what gives you the right to say that only your power of reasoning will lead to the "most moral" decision ?


----------



## Value Collector (27 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah yes, so how do we explain the fact that multiple judges on the High Court often come to different opinions based on the same set of facts ?
> 
> And what gives you the right to say that only your power of reasoning will lead to the "most moral" decision ?




Various outside personal influences can effect decisions,but also its much like two doctors might have different opinions on what the best treatment for the patient is even though they have the same set of facts, but this in no way changes the fact that there would exist a treatment that is the optimal treatment, but either way at the end of a debate Where each doctor gives their opinions and the other doctors list the pros and cons and weed out logical fallacies and irrelevant personal emotions, I believe the doctors will have a better treatment plan than would come from a plebiscite.

I don't say only my reasoning will lead to the most moral decision, I am constantly asking people to give their reasoning, it just so happens on this topic all they seem to give is logical fallacies or claims of harm of personal harm which they can never seem to explain or show.


----------



## Logique (27 October 2015)

The anti-referendum, 'equality' crowd - have already lost the argument once they start advocating the abandonment of democratic principles to get their own way. 

Here's the inconvenient thing about a plebiscite: it forces full ventilation of _all_ the arguments on _each_ side. Yet our morally superior betters in the same sex marriage lobby shrink away from that.

So many of those lecturing us on the cost of a $150 mill plebiscite - were the same ones who sat idly by while Rudd-Gillard-Rudd drove the national accounts to the brink, billions into deficit.

If the same-sex marriage case is so strong, what is there to fear from everyday Australian exercising their democratic right to have a say?

Gays will have to wait a little longer to hop aboard the Jenny Macklin cadged hand outs gravy train.


----------



## Tisme (27 October 2015)

Using VC's logic, I would suggest the Irish would love to have a second crack at the SSM vote ......


So if it does get up here should the opposite side get to have as many votes as it takes to reverse the perverse?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Using VC's logic, I would suggest the Irish would love to have a second crack at the SSM vote ......
> 
> 
> So if it does get up here should the opposite side get to have as many votes as it takes to reverse the perverse?




The gay lobby want the politicians to keep voting until they get it "right" .


----------



## Tisme (27 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The gay lobby want the politicians to keep voting until they get it "right" .




Which is what I'm saying too ... good on the gay lobby for that, we should encourage it, because they will no doubt get taxpayer funding to fight their fight and put up a good sales pitch.


----------



## Value Collector (27 October 2015)

Logique said:


> The anti-referendum, 'equality' crowd - have already lost the argument once they start advocating the abandonment of democratic principles to get their own way.
> 
> Here's the inconvenient thing about a plebiscite: it forces full ventilation of _all_ the arguments on _each_ side. Yet our morally superior betters in the same sex marriage lobby shrink away from that.
> 
> ...




I am not scared of a referendum, I think we would win easily.

However, I am just pointing out the popularity of an idea says nothing about whether its the right thing to do.

eg, If the southern US states voted to keep slavery, would that make slavery moral? Yes or NO.

And would the government in the USA be justified in Banning enslaving a minority even if the majority voted to allow it? Yes or NO


----------



## luutzu (27 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am not scared of a referendum, I think we would win easily.
> 
> However, I am just pointing out the popularity of an idea says nothing about whether its the right thing to do.
> 
> ...




welcome back. All refreshed to rights the wrongs again?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> However, I am just pointing out the popularity of an idea says nothing about whether its the right thing to do.




Surely you must realise that the idea of "right" and "wrong" is a personal judgement ?

Gay Marriage is wrong to religious people because their Bibles tell them that it is. 

You and I may think that their beliefs are laughable but they have them anyway and as you have said they have a right to have them, whether they are politicians or members of the public.

The idea of Marriage as an institution is becoming outdated as many couples decide not to bother anyway. Civil Unions provide the same Rights, as do even de facto relationships, so any comparison with slavery is really absurd.

SSM is a trivial issue when it comes to the other problems confronting the country.


----------



## Value Collector (27 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Surely you must realise that the idea of "right" and "wrong" is a personal judgement ?
> 
> .




No, not when you are dealing with morality, in any given situation, there would be an option which would be the most moral choice, and that's not up to personal judgement, its an objective fact. Peoples opinions on what the moral answer is might differ, but that's no different to peoples opinions on the answer to a math problem, there would be answer that is most correct to the math problem that isn't affect by opinion.



> Gay Marriage is wrong to religious people because their Bibles tell them that it is.




Its their opinion is wrong, But that's because they have false logic, because they are using a false premise.

Also, that's another good reason not to have a plebiscite, because debates that involve religious concepts are irrelevant, the religious can live by their rules, but they have no right to force their rules on other groups, if a law doesn't have a secular objective it has no place on the books.




> You and I may think that their beliefs are laughable but they have them anyway and as you have said they have a right to have them, whether they are politicians or members of the public.




Yes they have a right to have them.

No they don't have a right to force others to live by them, if a Christian or a Muslim doesn't like gay marriage, they don't have to have one.


> The idea of Marriage as an institution is becoming outdated as many couples decide not to bother anyway. Civil Unions provide the same Rights, as do even de facto relationships, so any comparison with slavery is really absurd



.

the comparison to slavery is simply showing that I popular vote doesn't make some thing right.

But, civil unions might give the same rights, and the front of the bus ends up at the same stop as the back of the bus, is it right to limit black people to the back of the bus, simply because they get to the same destination? Yes or No



> SSM is a trivial issue when it comes to the other problems confronting the country




Exactly, so why would a trivial issue require a plebiscite?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Exactly, so why would a trivial issue require a plebiscite?




Methinks thou doth protest too much



Are you taking the Shorten line that gays need to be protected from the No case ?


----------



## Value Collector (27 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Are you taking the Shorten line that gays need to be protected from the No case ?




Yes, its the governments duty to provide for and protect the inalienable human rights of its citizens.

The Government should not set up a situation where a majority group has the opportunity to deny a minority group its fundamental human rights.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, its the governments duty to provide for and protect the inalienable human rights of its citizens.
> 
> The Government should not set up a situation where a majority group has the opportunity to deny a minority group its fundamental human rights.




Marriage is not a fundamental human right.

 It's an official recognition of a relationship. People generally should have rights to form relationships with whoever they choose, but society puts some restraints on this through age, mental capacity and kinship for the protection of the individual and society.

Should we recognise marriages between 11 year olds ? 

Of course the argument is that gays do not need protection as long as they fulfill other requirements, I'm just saying that marriage is not a "inalienable right", if such things really exist except in the collective mind of society.


----------



## Tisme (27 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Marriage is not a fundamental human right.
> 
> It's an official recognition of a relationship. People generally should have rights to form relationships with whoever they choose, but society puts some restraints on this through age, mental capacity and kinship for the protection of the individual and society.
> 
> ...




Thank goodness (apart from locking kids up in gulags on melanesian islands) we don't have a charter of human rights, otherwise we'd have to consider the "inalienable human rights" challenge. If the high court considers it alright for the govt to do whatever it wants ........


----------



## Value Collector (28 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Marriage is not a fundamental human right.
> 
> .




Well marriage is a social construct that humans employ, they exist regardless whether the government recognises them or not.

Where the infringement of human rights goes in, is where the government decides which marriages it will recognise and which it wont, When the government chooses to recognise marriages based on sexuality, that is an infringement of a persons basic human right to not face discrimination based on their sexual orientation. 



> Should we recognise marriages between 11 year olds ?




No, because an 11 year old is generally considered not to have the emotional maturity and independence to to consent to it. 



> Of course the argument is that gays do not need protection as long as they fulfill other requirements, I'm just saying that marriage is not a "inalienable right", if such things really exist except in the collective mind of society




As explained, the inalienable right is to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation, deciding to not recognise marriages based on sexuality is a breach of this, the UN mentions this is their universal declaration of human rights.


----------



## Tisme (28 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Well marriage is a social construct that humans employ, they exist regardless whether the government recognises them or not.
> 
> .




Yeah but you want our govt to interfere with that and force our social construct to accept your social construct.... and our social construct gets to pay the costs associated with your social construct.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Well marriage is a social construct that humans employ, they exist regardless whether the government recognises them or not.




Sorry to nitpick, but it's the relationships that exist, marriages don't untill they are officially recognised.


----------



## Value Collector (28 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Sorry to nitpick, but it's the relationships that exist, marriages don't untill they are officially recognised.




a Marriage is the name we give a certain type of relationship, Marriages existed before governments got into the business of recognising them, they predate all world governments and all religions.

What you are talking about is legally recognised marriage,  Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community, peers or even just by the mutual agreement of those participants.

Some same sex couples actually got married in the Act when same sex marriage was legalised there, only to later have their federal government end their "legal marriage" Status, this is clear discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So yes there are marriages that exist, that are not "legally recognised" by the state, the fact that they are not recognised doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## Value Collector (28 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yeah but you want our govt to interfere with that and force our social construct to accept your social construct.... and our social construct gets to pay the costs associated with your social construct.




No, I just want the government to retract the changes that the Howard government made to the marriage act, without those changes the states could legalise gay marriage, as the ACT did.

I don't care if you accept gay marriage, if you don't like it don't have one, I just want the government to recognise marriages equally


----------



## Tisme (28 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> , I just want the government to recognise marriages equally




Isn't that what they are doing already?


----------



## Value Collector (28 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Isn't that what they are doing already?




Nope, they only recognise marriages between one man and one woman, they refuse to recognise the marriages between two men or two women.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, they only recognise marriages between one man and one woman, they refuse to recognise the marriages between two men or two women.




So why not 5 women and 1 man ? After all it's not the governments business if they all consent is it ?


Why not multiple marriages where I can have as many wives as I want (God help me) and my wives can have as many husbands as they want ?


----------



## Value Collector (28 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So why not 5 women and 1 man ? After all it's not the governments business if they all consent is it ?




I have no moral objection to polygamy, provided all participants are consenting adults. Polygamous marriages most likely predate monogamous ones.

So it would be up to a person who is against it to answer your "why not" question.

but polygamy is a separate topic.


----------



## Tisme (28 October 2015)

I still can't figure out why marriage should be afforded two people who are stalled at the one of the various polymorphous perverse stages? Surely marriage should be reserved for those who have fulfilled their intended  developmental maturation as nature intended i.e. e.g. procreation?


----------



## Value Collector (28 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> I still can't figure out why marriage should be afforded two people who are stalled at the one of the various polymorphous perverse stages? Surely marriage should be reserved for those who have fulfilled their intended  developmental maturation as nature intended i.e. e.g. procreation?




Why should it be reserved for those who can procreate?

Not all married couples want to procreate, not all married couples can procreate, it's up to each married couple to define what their married lives will look like, if the purpose of your marriage was raising kids, good for you, but not all marriages are.

Regardless what you priest of grandma told you, you don't need to be married to procreate, and you don't need to procreate to be married.


----------



## Tisme (28 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Why should it be reserved for those who can procreate?
> 
> .




Because that is what is was invented for.

Insofar as procreation requiring marriage, you're talking to the wrong fella, but I did consider my children's welfare in deciding to give them a traditional birth right rather than be an outcast sideshow Bob and curiousity to their peers .... we couldn't have that VC ... they might commit suicide and I wouldn't knowingly sentence someone to that now would I?; God forbid that a couple would deliberately conceive children to be ridiculed and made to feel inferior


----------



## Value Collector (28 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Because that is what is was invented for.
> 
> Insofar as procreation requiring marriage, you're talking to the wrong fella, but I did consider my children's welfare in deciding to give them a traditional birth right rather than be an outcast sideshow Bob and curiousity to their peers .... we couldn't have that VC ... they might commit suicide and I wouldn't knowingly sentence someone to that now would I?; God forbid that a couple would deliberately conceive children to be ridiculed and made to feel inferior




Nope, lots of marriages don't result in children, procreation is not a prerequisite of marriage.

You might have some feeling that your marriage was all about procreation, but not every shares your feelings on that, the meaning of marriage is like the meaning of life, the is no one holy grail meaning, every one has a different meaning, and the meaning is given by the people taking part in it, it's not up to you to tell other people what their marriage should be about.


----------



## Tisme (29 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, lots of marriages don't result in children, procreation is not a prerequisite of marriage.
> 
> You might have some feeling that your marriage was all about procreation, but not every shares your feelings on that, the meaning of marriage is like the meaning of life, the is no one holy grail meaning, every one has a different meaning, and the meaning is given by the people taking part in it, it's not up to you to tell other people what their marriage should be about.




Well lets visit what we actually can establish, rather than recall yarns from vested interest sites and journals.

We know:

that the royals through the ages have used marriage to cement alliances and that b4stard children don't get a geurnsey;

that b4stard children to common folk have traditionally been subjected to scorn and ridicule;

that legally, as illegitimates, they weren't entitled to the fathers putative estates that their legitimate half/full brothers & sisters were;

they couldn't use the father's surname;

the mother and child couldn't demand support from the father;

that bastard children are left out of lines of succession;

that until Whitlam came along, state welfare was not readily available;

children born outside wedlock were often taken from the delivery room to an institution or adoptive "married" couple;

unmarried pregnant women were often, sent to "visit" their aunty across country and returned sans child;

engagements and chaste brides are part of the customs of marriage, albeit less significant since the days of baby boomer protests and the pill;

these customs and taboos are not new and reflect strongly the expectation of society. They are not subordinate to revisionism, they are real history. It is obvious that marriage and children are an intertwined custom that also has the weight of the legal and statutory system behind it. 

Denigrating the truths to open the door for abstraction does not lay well with those who still value tradition and dare I say sexual discipline.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Well lets visit what we actually can establish, rather than recall yarns from vested interest sites and journals.
> 
> We know:
> 
> ...




Putting aside that I don't think any of those traditions are good things, and society has moved away from they anyway.

None of what you have said shows that marriages must be able to produce children to be valid, you have simply listed some out dated examples of traditions that involve relationships that do produce children.

You are making the composition/division fallacy. you implied that one part of something has to be applied to all. 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division


----------



## Tisme (29 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Putting aside that I don't think any of those traditions are good things, and society has moved away from they anyway.
> 
> None of what you have said shows that marriages must be able to produce children to be valid, you have simply listed some out dated examples of traditions that involve relationships that do produce children.
> 
> ...




No I'm sticking to the theme. You have denied the tradition of marriage is based on, basically family and continuously used love as the basis of marriage instead, rather than a driver. I'm simply stating the facts and the weight of evidence to suggest legitimatised children are a MAJOR core reason for marriage. It's not the margins that matter here, it's the institution of marriage, whether it be planned or shotgun.

If I didn't intend to have children I would have continued on without marriage. Marriage and love are not mutually inclusive.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> legitimatised children are a MAJOR core reason for marriage.
> .




no doubt some people marry because they want children, but there is also no doubt other people marry for other reasons unrelated to children.

the composition/division fallacy you are making here starts when you look at the reason of part and say that's the whole reason.



> If I didn't intend to have children I would have continued on without marriage. Marriage and love are not mutually inclusive




Good for you, But a lot of other people feel differently, again this is the composition/division logical fallacy, you are suggest that what applies to must apply to everyone.


----------



## Tisme (29 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> no doubt some people marry because they want children, but there is also no doubt other people marry for other reasons unrelated to children.
> 
> the composition/division fallacy you are making here starts when you look at the reason of part and say that's the whole reason.
> 
> ...




You are missing the point or being deliberately recalcitrant to the idea that marriage has a long tradition of being what it is. There is no logical fallacy in what I have written ... you're imagining it or just skimming people's posts.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> You are missing the point or being deliberately recalcitrant to the idea that marriage has a long tradition of being what it is..




No you are missing the point, because you seem to think marriage is about one thing, when its not, and you are ignoring the fact the many people do not have children but still value their marriages and want the marriage recognised by their government, the fact that you feel your marriage had no value outside procreation is fine, but that's not what it means for most other people.



> There is no logical fallacy in what I have written ...




Yes there is, 

you are suggesting that one part of something (procreation) is the whole/only reason for that thing (Marriage), which is false, and is a logical fallacy.

Its like saying work is for money, therefore people that don't need the money won't see any value in work, its a fallacy because you are ignoring all the other factors people might value in their work, and focusing on one part, being the money as the sole benefit and sole reason, which it is not.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Its like saying work is for money, therefore people that don't need the money won't see any value in work, its a fallacy because you are ignoring all the other factors people might value in their work, and focusing on one part, being the money as the sole benefit and sole reason, which it is not.




SSM is just like women trying to force their way into men's clubs.

It's an "up you mate" response, you have it so we want it, just to stick a finger in "the other lot's" eye.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> SSM is just like women trying to force their way into men's clubs.
> 
> .




no its like the government recognising clubs founded by men, but refusing to recognise clubs founded by women.

Gays aren't trying to force themselves into your club/your marriage, they just want their right to have their club/marriage recognised.

and people against gay marriage are like the men saying, "But I don't want women to have their own club, clubs are just for men, your taking my rights away"

or

"Women can have their own club, I just don't want them to call it a club, they can call it a social group, clubs are for men"



> It's an "up you mate" response, you have it so we want it, just to stick a finger in "the other lot's" eye




ssm in no way takes anything away from straight marriage, and in no way harms straight couples.


----------



## Tisme (29 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No you are missing the point, because you seem to think marriage is about one thing, when its not, and you are ignoring the fact the many people do not have children but still value their marriages and want the marriage recognised by their government, the fact that you feel your marriage had no value outside procreation is fine, but that's not what it means for most other people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





OK, not to be too trite, of course I'm talking about marriage as a majority, vast majority custom that goes back many generations, not the X an Y gens. 

I'm not arguing that sterile people get married, that the sun rises in the morning, etc. I'm stating facts insofar as what rights, expectations and privileges both govt and society have bestowed on marriage over a long long time.

Pandering to the margins to argue a point about the vast majority is not so much a logical fallacy, but statistically it is so small as to be discarded from the probability that when couples marry, their intention is to create a nest and a family.

There was a time when people had to have medicals, virginity and fertility tests before they could be married in various institutions.

SSM is just another breach of fortress marriage, with marriage itself fast becoming a comedy rather than solemn coupling, the same sex sheeple will no doubt get what they want, but it will be husks not grains that they reap.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> OK, not to be too trite, of course I'm talking about marriage as a majority, vast majority custom that goes back many generations, not the X an Y gens.
> 
> .




Be careful how far you go back, because even what you think of as marriage wasn't always traditional.



> I'm not arguing that sterile people get married,  etc. I'm stating facts insofar as what rights, expectations and privileges both govt and society have bestowed on marriage over a long long time.
> 
> Pandering to the margins to argue a point about the vast majority is not so much a logical fallacy, but statistically it is so small as to be discarded from the probability that when couples marry, their intention is to create a nest and a family.




Not just sterile people, even people with kids value a lot more than just the procreation part of their marriage, that's where your fallacy comes in.

But yes, we allow sterile people, people that don't plan on having kids, elderly people who are past having kids etc all get married, so that has nothing to do with it.




> SSM is just another breach of fortress marriage,




How so?

Explain how a lesbian couple getting married would have detracted from your marriage?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2015)

> and people against gay marriage are like the men saying, "But I don't want women to have their own club, clubs are just for men, your taking my rights away"




It's not like that at all. Anti SSM people are saying there should be different clubs for different folks.

Women can have their own clubs but so should men be able to have theirs.

In this case the women's clubs are civil unions (about which I have not heard a good argument saying that they don't give the same rights as marriage), and the "men's" club is marriage which recognises the unique ability of TWO people to unite and have children and provides legal protection for those children.

You are comparing apples with oranges (again).


----------



## Tisme (29 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not like that at all. Anti SSM people are saying there should be different clubs for different folks.
> 
> Women can have their own clubs but so should men be able to have theirs.
> 
> ...




I have a mental picture of wind and pi55ing into it


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> I have a mental picture of wind and pi55ing into it




Fraid so.


----------



## Tisme (29 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Not just sterile people, even people with kids value a lot more than just the procreation part of their marriage, that's where your fallacy comes in.
> 
> B?




Please reveal the part of the marriage act that stipulates love and other bruises? The one you want to change?

Then start talking about logical fallacies......


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Women can have their own clubs but so should men be able to have theirs.
> 
> In this case the women's clubs are civil unions
> ).




No, the most accurate analogy is the one I gave, when you are married, you have formed a private club between you and your spouse, gay people aren't trying to force their way into your private club and become a third wheel in your marriage, they just want to have the right to form their own private clubs with their spouse, and have it recognised as a club on equal footing to your club.

You are saying gays/women shouldn't have the right to start there own clubs, unless they call it a social group.

Your analogy of a woman trying to force her way through the door of a men's club isn't a good analogy at all, because gays aren't trying to get into your marriage, they want to have their own.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Please reveal the part of the marriage act that stipulates love and other bruises? The one you want to change?
> 
> Then start talking about logical fallacies......




Sorry mate, its you that's making the claim that Marriage is solely about procreation, so why don't you point out the part in the marriage act stating marriage is for the sole reason of procreation.

Its not up to the Marriage act to stipulate what people value about their marriages anymore than its up to the property ownership acts to stipulate what people value about owning their own home, there would be a whole host benefits to both property ownership and marriage that different people value, as I said just because you saw marriage as nothing more than a vehicle for procreation doesn't mean that the way everyone looks at it.


----------



## Logique (30 October 2015)

Not specifically about marriage per se,

but the poor girls, what a bolshie cop!  Let's have none of such discrimination in our country.



> http://www.watoday.com.au/world/les...kissing-in-a-supermarket-20151029-gkmewn.html
> *Lesbian couple allege a Hawaiian police officer arrested them for kissing in a supermarket* - October 30, 2015
> 
> A police department in Hawaii has been accused of discriminating against a lesbian couple after a confrontation with an officer while the women were trying to enjoy a romantic holiday.
> ...


----------



## Tisme (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Sorry mate, its you that's making the claim that Marriage is solely about procreation, so why don't you point out the part in the marriage act stating marriage is for the sole reason of procreation.
> 
> Its not up to the Marriage act to stipulate what people value about their marriages anymore than its up to the property ownership acts to stipulate what people value about owning their own home, there would be a whole host benefits to both property ownership and marriage that different people value, as I said just because you saw marriage as nothing more than a vehicle for procreation doesn't mean that the way everyone looks at it.




Can't answer the question eh?  That's because the marriage act is only about who can marry whom and who can celebrate, etc.

*THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR "LOVE" AND OTHER QAUNDARIES IN THE ACT ..... THAT YOU WANT CHANGED ON THE BASIS OF MUTUAL ATTRACTION AND "LOVE/LUST"*

You need to go back to early colony days and see how marriage was used as a means of preventing procreation amongst convicts and very importantly to prevent miscegenation between aboriginals and the non indigenous. Love never came into it as far the law was concerned.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> That's because the marriage act is only about who can marry whom and who can celebrate, etc.
> 
> [.




Exactly, which is why I said the quoted paragraph below, hence you question is a stupid question, Because its not up to an act of parliament to layout what people enjoy about certain rights. 



> Its not up to the Marriage act to stipulate what people value about their marriages anymore than its up to the property ownership acts to stipulate what people value about owning their own home, there would be a whole host benefits to both property ownership and marriage that different people value,


----------



## Tisme (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Exactly, which is why I said the quoted paragraph below, hence you question is a stupid question, Because its not up to an act of parliament to layout what people enjoy about certain rights.




Why are you resorting to slurs VC? My questions are perfectly valid and you haven't debunked any of my quarrel, preferring to skirt around the core facts and talk up all the subjective touchy feely stuff, even through in fallacious arguments about southern fried blacks for goodness sakes.

The act you want changed is not predicated on LOVE, LUST, EROTICISM, et al it is a parliamentary act that enables a state authorised celebration of two recognised hetrosexual people coupling to be recognised in law as married.

The reasons it was enacted was to provide a basis for stable community, tracking, organising, taxation relief, financial, welfare, etc


----------



## Hodgie (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Why are you resorting to slurs VC? My questions are perfectly valid and you haven't debunked any of my quarrel, preferring to skirt around the core facts and talk up all the subjective touchy feely stuff, even through in fallacious arguments about southern fried blacks for goodness sakes.
> 
> The act you want changed is not predicated on LOVE, LUST, EROTICISM, et al it is a parliamentary act that enables a state authorised celebration of two recognised hetrosexual people coupling to be recognised in law as married.
> 
> The reasons it was enacted was to provide a basis for stable community, tracking, organising, taxation relief, financial, welfare, etc




I'm pretty sure VC is saying that the marriage act wouldn't and shouldn't have anything to do with Love/lust etc. Just the same as it won't have anything to do with creating offspring. Those are things you brought up which VC has never argued.

The marriage act is simply about who can get married not the reasons for why people get married because the reasons can be different and are irrelevant to the topic. The point is that the gays should be offered the same opportunity to get married for whatever reason they choose to the same as a hetero couple can.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Why are you resorting to slurs VC? My questions are perfectly valid and you haven't debunked any of my quarrel, preferring to skirt around the core facts and talk up all the subjective touchy feely stuff, even through in fallacious arguments about southern fried blacks for goodness sakes.
> 
> The act you want changed is not predicated on LOVE, LUST, EROTICISM, et al it is a parliamentary act that enables a state authorised celebration of two recognised hetrosexual people coupling to be recognised in law as married.
> 
> The reasons it was enacted was to provide a basis for stable community, tracking, organising, taxation relief, financial, welfare, etc




lets do a brief recap.

You said marriage is solely about procreation.

I said that it wasn't, it was about many things, because people value many things about there marriage not just procreation.

you then said show me where in the marriage act it mentions love. 

Now apart from the fact that I didn't claim the marriage act mentioned love, it is a silly question to ask, because as I pointed out people might list many different benefits to property ownership that are not listed in the property ownership laws, so it would be silly to ask "Show me where in the property ownership act it says property ownership is about having a stable family home" 

But really you are skipping the burden of proof on your claim that marriage is solely about procreation, why don't you find that in the marriage act


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

Hodgie said:


> I'm pretty sure VC is saying that the marriage act wouldn't and shouldn't have anything to do with Love/lust etc. Just the same as it won't have anything to do with creating offspring. Those are things you brought up which VC has never argued.
> 
> The marriage act is simply about who can get married not the reasons for why people get married because the reasons can be different and are irrelevant to the topic. The point is that the gays should be offered the same opportunity to get married for whatever reason they choose to the same as a hetero couple can.




+1

exactly


----------



## pixel (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> The reasons it [the marriage act] was enacted was to provide a basis for stable community, tracking, organising, taxation relief, financial, welfare, etc




Now we're getting somewhere. 
From a secular constitution, one should expect no more and no less than a framework that provides such a basis, simply ensuring that couples can live together peacefully, enjoying equitable treatment wrt taxation, welfare, and mutual assistance. Seeing that we're no longer allowed to be racist and sexist, it's an anachronism to discriminate against couples because one partner has the wrong gender.

Isn't it curious that most of our elected parliamentarians have a background in Law, yet never mention the discrepancy between anti-discrimination and family law. Could it be that a religious affiliation renders one incapable of rational thought, and that's the real reason why Rudd and Abbott were doomed to fail?


----------



## Tisme (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> lets do a brief recap.
> 
> You said marriage is *solely* about procreation.




I don't recall that...can you refer me to where I stated that? 

I'm thinking you are back peddling VC


----------



## Tisme (30 October 2015)

pixel said:


> Now we're getting somewhere.
> From a secular constitution, one should expect no more and no less than a framework that provides such a basis, simply ensuring that couples can live together peacefully, enjoying equitable treatment wrt taxation, welfare, and mutual assistance. Seeing that we're no longer allowed to be racist and sexist, it's an anachronism to discriminate against couples because one partner has the wrong gender.
> 
> Isn't it curious that most of our elected parliamentarians have a background in Law, yet never mention the discrepancy between anti-discrimination and family law. Could it be that a religious affiliation renders one incapable of rational thought, and that's the real reason why Rudd and Abbott were doomed to fail?




I think I have made it fairly clear I think western marriage has become an anachronism due to many reasons, keeping it going and adding different brand spokes to replace the ones that are falling off ain't gonna save it IMO. The welfare state already provides the same benefits for defacto and even pings defactos with the same weight as married couples.

I don't think religion comes into it, rather instinct to dismiss and distrust the oddity that might dilute the integrity of the tribe.....religion probably arises as a totem from the confluence of the multiple oddities.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> I don't recall that...can you refer me to where I stated that?




Not sure if your memory is short or just selective.




Tisme said:


> Surely marriage should be reserved for those who have fulfilled their intended  developmental maturation as nature intended i.e. e.g. procreation?






Tisme said:


> Because that is what is was invented for.
> 
> :






Tisme said:


> when couples marry, their intention is to create a nest and a family.
> 
> There was a time when people had to have medicals, virginity and fertility tests before they could be married in various institutions.





I won't link them all, but if you go back through you posts you are constantly linking marriage to procreation, and using the fact that a same sex couple can't procreate naturally as a reason for them not to be allowed to marry, when I point out that there are other reasons people value marriage, you seem confused and unable to understand that there are other reasons people marry, so yes your arrguement is that marriage is solely about procreation, other wise you would have to admit that it its not solely about procreation, and your arrguement using procreation as a reason to deny Ssm falls apart.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Not sure if your memory is short or just selective.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




According to you homosexuals invented marriage ( I still can't hold back the uncontrollable laughter at that pearl) ... I sprang it at a party and the place erupted in gaffaws 

So you disagree that marriage isn't inclusive of an attempt at (natural) procreation? Didn't I make a post about marriages for alliances, chatels,  etc....damn I must be  losing it? 

I could have sworn you were cherry picking ............ 

No seriously you honestly think that people who are more likely than not virgins should marry so they can continue too be virgins and never consummate the marriage therefore nullifying the bann? And let's not mince words about what real sex is please.

Do you honestly have so little little regard for you own family that you treat your ancestor's belief in the institution of marriage with not only contempt, for which I am guilty too, but you then rub their faces in it by ridiculing it and defacing it with shambolic logic that people, who have an obsession playing with same gender pinky bits and wastelands, should be afforded govt recognition .  That was a rhetorical question thus the absence of question mark .


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> According to you homosexuals invented marriage ( I still can't hold back the uncontrollable laughter at that pearl) ...
> D




Ok, now can you provide a link to where I said that?



> I sprang it at a party and the place erupted in gaffaws




No doubt they did, because that's a strawman you invented yourself, so they are laughing at your Idea, not mine.





> So you disagree that marriage isn't inclusive of an attempt at (natural) procreation?




No I don't disagree some people marry to procreate, I disagree that it is the sole or even the most important reason.

Using procreation as a reason to restrict gays, assumes its the only reason, so if you admit its not the only reason, your arrguement falls apart





> No seriously you honestly think that people who are more likely than not virgins should marry so they can continue too be virgins and never consummate the marriage therefore nullifying the bann? And let's not mince words about what real sex is please.




more than likely virgins???? what world do you live in.

either way, people have sex for more reasons than procreation. 



> Do you honestly have so little little regard for you own family that you treat your ancestor's belief in the institution of marriage with not only contempt,




I have more regard actually, You claim their marriage was only valuable as a vehicle for breeding, I say there were many benefits that they valued, I a bet they would agree with me.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Value Collector said:


> more than likely virgins???? what world do you live in.
> 
> .




Well what do you call, say a woman who has never had sexual intercourse? The word is an old one and sexual intercourse is an old practice too.

A few decades back the used to call homo men bachelor boys


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> Well what do you call, say a woman who has never had sexual intercourse? The word is an old one and sexual intercourse is an old practice too.




But were you saying that people that get married are more than likely virgins?

If not the meaning of that paragraph is lost on me.



> According to you homosexuals invented marriage ( I still can't hold back the uncontrollable laughter at that pearl) ...
> D




Don't forget to provide a link to where I said that.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Value Collector said:


> But were you saying that people that get married are more than likely virgins?
> 
> If not the meaning of that paragraph is lost on me.
> 
> ...





No I'm saying true and faithful homosexuals must by definition be virgins, because they have not had sexual intercourse.

I'll have to troll for it, but I'm pretty sure it was you .... now you have me second guessing, maybe it was that other guy from Perth ....


Honest truth, I just looked up stuff about marriage and found a few interesting tidbits:

Marriage in England was given state control in the mid 1700's to stop couples in prison getting a backdoor bann and doin' it.:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1753.htm

the courts even reckoned marriage was/is primarily for procreation and child rearing, family value systems, etc (go grandma for teaching me correct!!). Of course that's all flotsam and jetsam now, but I AM A GOD!!!!

http://marriagelawfoundation.org/publications/ave maria 1.pdf


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> No I'm saying true and faithful homosexuals must by definition be virgins, because they have not had sexual intercourse.




I still have no Idea what you are talking about or what it has to do with marriage.



> I'll have to troll for it, but I'm pretty sure it was you ....




It wasn't me, and I can't remember anyone saying anything like that.



> the courts even reckoned marriage was/is primarily for procreation and child rearing,




lol, you lot and your Christian fundamentalist sources. That link is from a Catholic law school, and its published by students.

So the "courts" don't agree with you, some students at a catholic school agree with you, and the high court of the USA disagrees with you, because they recently allowed same sex marriage.



> The Ave Maria School of Law, founded in 1999, is an ABA-accredited Roman Catholic law school, located in Naples, Florida



.


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> .Well what do you call, say a woman who has never had sexual intercourse?
> 
> ]




Sounds like you are in favor of this logic.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Holland after 12 years of gay abandon:



> 2013 Homophobia remains
> Twelve years of same-sex marriage did not wipe out homophobia from society. For instance, Yunus, now 9, and his adoptive mothers had to go into hiding, fearing for their safety.
> 
> Bullying and victimisation also still occurs on a daily basis. A recent study by Dutch and American scientists concluded that lesbian, gay and bisexual youths are still victims of stigmatisation in their families, schools and neighbourhoods.
> ...




Can't legislate out primal bias


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Sounds like you are in favor of this logic.






That's what the greeks girls have practiced for millenia... they obviously know the difference .... I think Bill Clinton used a similar defence for his beloved Gurkha Grand Reserves.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I still have no Idea what you are talking about or what it has to do with marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Now you're just being awkward:

1. You do know what I'm talking about and what it has to do with marriage
2. The orignal weddings were homo was posted by someone
3. Christian fundamentalism has nothing to do with court outcomes, it may be used as fodder for both sides, but the ruling is the ruling e.g.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=5S6ALW1TOJ8C&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=forum+for+procreation+and+the+rearing+of+children&source=bl&ots=nw8sQMsoWD&sig=IgFJbnVA_CQDi6We39PtMOm5Y-4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAmoVChMI0MXS_oPxyAIVSGweCh0IAQtQ#v=onepage&q=forum%20for%20procreation%20and%20the%20rearing%20of%20children&f=false

I don't understand why you are so quick to dismiss what others have to say, when that is obviously my role.


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> Now you're just being awkward:
> 
> 1. You do know what I'm talking about and what it has to do with marriage
> :




I really don't, I don't personally know anyone who has been a virgin up until they were married, in fact most of my friends had kids before they were married, so I can't see what virginity has to do with marriage.



> 2. The orignal weddings were homo was posted by someone




Link Please



> 3. Christian fundamentalism has nothing to do with court outcomes, it may be used as fodder for both sides, but the ruling is the ruling e.g.




Yeah I know, But you and tink keep linking documents by Christian groups as if they were authoritive, as I said that document you said was from "The Courts" was actually written by students at a catholic school.

And in reality the USA High court has already ruled in favor


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Value Collector said:


> 1. I really don't, I don't personally know anyone who has been a virgin up until they were married, in fact most of my friends had kids before they were married, so I can't see what virginity has to do with marriage.
> 
> 
> 2. Yeah I know, But you and tink keep linking documents by Christian groups as if they were authoritive, as I said that document you said was from "The Courts" was actually written by students at a catholic school.
> ...




1. That worries me
2.a  No I don't and whats more I'm irreligious ... by the sounds of it I'm far more contemporary and objective, than you too, which befuddles me as to your motive in the promotion of gay abandon.
2.b Ii assumed everyone knew that italicised or small font sections that reference court rulings and findings is pretty obviously not authoured fiction?


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> 2.b Ii assumed everyone knew that italicised or small font sections that reference court rulings and findings is pretty obviously not authoured fiction?




Either way, "The Courts" as you put it has spoken on the matter, and SSM is now legal in every state in the USA, So any opinion of a catholic school student, or any 1970 era ruling they like to quote is irrelevant. 




> That worries me




Why?


----------



## Tisme (3 November 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Why?




I points to comprehension.


----------



## Tisme (2 March 2016)

Hooray for Joe Bullock


----------



## Tisme (5 March 2016)

Bullock resigns, Cory sent to New York for 3 months, election mode and gay marriage on agenda for votes.

Tonight is gay grooming night in Sydney so I was not surprised to see "Spring In Park Lane" as the breakfast movie on 9Gem. You can't go past Michael Wilding when it comes to homoerotica for the third gender nation.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/02/25/safe-schools-program-child-grooming-christensen


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2016)

Tisme said:


> Bullock resigns, Cory sent to New York for 3 months, election mode and gay marriage on agenda for votes.
> 
> Tonight is gay grooming night in Sydney so I was not surprised to see "Spring In Park Lane" as the breakfast movie on 9Gem. You can't go past Michael Wilding when it comes to homoerotica for the third gender nation.
> 
> http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/02/25/safe-schools-program-child-grooming-christensen




It does seem to me that "Safe Schools" goes too far.

Just teach kids not to bully each other for any reason, that's all that needs to be done.


----------



## Tink (7 March 2016)

Yes, and who bullied him out --- Penny Wong.

Says a lot about this safe school propaganda, where they are now calling toddlers -- sexual beings.
Disgraceful.

Chaos in Australian Education 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25851&page=4&p=899448&viewfull=1#post899448


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 March 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It does seem to me that "Safe Schools" goes too far.
> 
> Just teach kids not to bully each other for any reason, that's all that needs to be done.




Yep, exactly.  Everyone's different.  Some of those differences *may *represent pathologies, but we don't really know which ones (if any).  And even of we did, it's none of our business to teach the topic to kids.


----------



## Tisme (7 March 2016)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yep, exactly.  Everyone's different.  Some of those differences *may *represent pathologies, but we don't really know which ones (if any).  And even of we did, it's none of our business to teach the topic to kids.




The ludicrous line has been crossed after hearing the news today that 6,000,000+ people are under the total isolated control of ISIS and the children are being groomed form birth as the purist replacement for themselves (the current barbarians). They are being raised to play soccer with severed heads, be comfortable with headless torsos, etc.....


...........meanwhile we are brain washing OUR (non Muslim) kids to think effeminate love talk and polite words will conquer any enemy.....GOD help us if we haven't seeded our cultural destruction outside the walls and within. 

Having said that, if it results in the end of Dandy Boy Metroman and their opposite sex Quaintrelles, there might be a spark of hope yet.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 March 2016)

Tisme said:


> The ludicrous line has been crossed after hearing the news today that 6,000,000+ people are under the total isolated control of ISIS and the children are being groomed form birth as the purist replacement for themselves (the current barbarians). They are being raised to play soccer with severed heads, be comfortable with headless torsos, etc.....
> 
> 
> ...........meanwhile we are brain washing OUR (non Muslim) kids to think effeminate love talk and polite words will conquer any enemy.....GOD help us if we haven't seeded our cultural destruction outside the walls and within.
> ...




Love will probably win in the end , but we humans tend to take the longest and most painful route there.

Researchers are still not sure whether homosexuality is a psychopathology or not.  *If *it turns out to be so, then research should continue in order to identify how to unlearn it.  Then *if *that happened, it would be a choice for the individual whether he even wants to unlearn it.  He/she may not, and that's not our business, nor is it necessarily a big problem.  Lot's of ifs.

Teachers need to stick to the 3 R's.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (8 March 2016)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Researchers are still not sure whether homosexuality is a psychopathology or not.  *If *it turns out to be so, then research should continue in order to identify how to unlearn it.  Then *if *that happened, it would be a choice for the individual whether he even wants to unlearn it.  He/she may not, and that's not our business, nor is it necessarily a big problem.  Lot's of ifs.




I think with advances in medical research they will eventually find a 'cure' for it ie genetic therapy. Interesting to see how many would opt to be cured?


----------



## Tisme (8 March 2016)

Uncle Festivus said:


> I think with advances in medical research they will eventually find a 'cure' for it ie genetic therapy. Interesting to see how many would opt to be cured?




Does DNA manipulation affect the lifestyle choice part of the brain? Maybe modifying the sphincter valve is the answer?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 March 2016)

Uncle Festivus said:


> I think with advances in medical research they will eventually find a 'cure' for it ie genetic therapy. Interesting to see how many would opt to be cured?




Yes, the question is 'when does a state or condition qualify as being a problem (pathology)?'.  It's usually when it's causing the person themselves or others harm.  And there appears to be no harm in being gay, at least on the surface level.  If it is something you're born with (as a genetic condition), then that should be the end of the story.  And this may turn out to be the case.  If it turns out it can be learned, then the condition may represent [for example], an inability to bond successfully with the same sex parent.  In the past, this notion was taken up by various churches and pushed pretty hard.  Because it was pushed onto people, it failed, but I think there's something to the idea.  What I mean is, is makes a lot of sense that it could be a learned phenomenon.  

One thing is for sure, it's not a conscious choice.


----------



## Tisme (8 March 2016)

Gringotts Bank said:


> One thing is for sure, it's not a conscious choice.




You have proofs, coz I can't find any? Or are you suggesting it's a mental health issue?


----------



## Logique (8 March 2016)

Weve discovered at least one area of public policy where the Greens are prepared to be fiscally responsible.

It's the plebiscite on Gay Marriage. _So expensive_ said Greens Leader Richard Di Natale yesterday.

It's _much_ too expensive to allow everyday Australians an democratic opinion on Gay Marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 March 2016)

Tisme said:


> You have proofs, coz I can't find any? Or are you suggesting it's a mental health issue?




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-say-scientists/story-fnb64oi6-1226826955368


----------



## SirRumpole (8 March 2016)

Logique said:


> Weve discovered at least one area of public policy where the Greens are prepared to be fiscally responsible.
> 
> It's the plebiscite on Gay Marriage. _So expensive_ said Greens Leader Richard Di Natale yesterday.
> 
> It's _much_ too expensive to allow everyday Australians an democratic opinion on Gay Marriage.




It wouldn't be expensive if it was held in conjunction with an election.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 March 2016)

Tisme said:


> You have proofs, coz I can't find any? Or are you suggesting it's a mental health issue?




When I say it's not a conscious choice, I mean no one would consciously choose something that would have such potential for broad social rejection.  It doesn't make sense to seek out such painful experiences.

I'm suggesting homosexuality *might *be a subconscious reaction to certain suboptimal relations with parents.  

Regarding the same sex parent, poor/absent bonding might lead a person to seek that connection through a same sex partner.

Regarding the opposite sex parent, deep distrust might lead a person to give up hope of a heterosexual relationship and homosexuality presents the only possible alternative.

*If* this sort of process is a possibility, then it would necessarily be subconscious.  Most unbearable pain gets shoved in there before it emerges in some other form as coping mechanism.


----------



## Tisme (8 March 2016)

Gringotts Bank said:


> When I say it's not a conscious choice, I mean no one would consciously choose something that would have such potential for broad social rejection.  It doesn't make sense to seek out such painful experiences.
> 
> I'm suggesting homosexuality *might *be a subconscious reaction to certain suboptimal relations with parents.
> 
> ...




Yeah life's a fine web of comfort zones, lifestyles, extrovertism, introvertism, narcissism, arrested development, etc, but it's also difficult to draw a comparison between being treated a social pariah for unconscionable behaviour and proof of  "I can't help it". We'd have every kid going through the promiscuity door and pregnancies galore at 12 years old if sexual desires were not controllable. 

Besides there are plenty of homosexuals who are happy to overtly display their activities by wearing prescribed outfits, hairdos, jewellery, accent, walking style, etc and attending pride rallies where they dress like worn out hookers on a busy night. If that ain't choice .......


----------



## Tisme (8 March 2016)

Apparently this behaviour changed when year 2000 occurred as the new homosexual dawn broke light. Of course back in the 50's guardians of the law didn't understand the difference between male ages and the degree of wrong they were foisting on the public..


----------



## SirRumpole (8 March 2016)

A bit of a laugh. See if you can spot the unintentional (perhaps) joke

The problem with sex education for LGBTI women

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-08/the-problem-with-sex-education-for-lgbti-women/7228498


----------



## drsmith (8 March 2016)

I note in the above article the reference to Safe Schools.

I'm firmly of the view that children can be taught a anti-bullying message without the need to include sexual fetishes or even sex more broadly.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 March 2016)

drsmith said:


> I note in the above article the reference to Safe Schools.
> 
> I'm firmly of the view that children can be taught a anti-bullying message without the need to include sexual fetishes or even sex more broadly.




Agreed Zachary.


----------



## Logique (14 March 2016)

So financially responsible the gays and lesbians - who knew! 

They're back on ABC TV, trying to brainwash us about the cost of a plebiscite. They're not hypocritical at all.

Additional costs now include counselling for those distressed by the plebiscite, and the lost productivity due to absenteeism.

The debate is over they say (Fairfax press and the ABC presumably having shouted at us for long enough).


----------



## SirRumpole (14 March 2016)

Logique said:


> So financially responsible the gays and lesbians - who knew!
> 
> They're back on ABC TV, trying to brainwash us about the cost of a plebiscite. They're not hypocritical at all.
> 
> ...




Yes a pretty dodgy study was that. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-...on-same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-study/7243298

The issue has been discussed in public ad nauseum so any damage to the tender flowers has already been done.

I really can't see any point in financing either side of the debate, it's not an issue that has weighty points of law to consider.

Just have a plebiscite AT the next election and get it over with.


----------



## Tisme (14 March 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I really can't see any point in financing either side of the debate, it's not an issue that has weighty points of law to consider.
> 
> .




Can I get some money for the bottles of disinfectant and hand wipes I have to fork out everytime I go into a hotel room somewhere in the world in fear of getting a sickness  (random example only):

https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Show...803-r62408455-Hotel_Gamma-Milan_Lombardy.html

yeah yeah we all know the counter argument that hetrosexuals play with the stuff too and they spread aids and hiv too.


----------



## Tink (15 March 2016)

Agree, Logique and Rumpole, though I don't think the debate is over, imv.

We should be entitled to say what we think.

Why are they so worried about a plebiscite?
Still trying to silence us.

The last I looked -- Marriage was still between a man and woman -- and therefore I should be allowed to say it.
What has happened in Tasmania is a disgrace with the Greens.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=20238&page=51&p=890659&viewfull=1#post890659

As for this constantly calling people names to think like they do, so much for their anti bullying.
---------------------------------------------
_
The cultural goal of the LGBTQWERTY - they just keep adding more letters - lobby is to compel social approval of homosexuality and its 'genderless' agenda. 

The two ways that is done is 

(1) through control of the school curriculum and 
(2) by silencing any voice of conscientious dissent (e.g. pastors, parents, private businesses) using the Big Stick of anti-discrimination law. 

Same-sex 'marriage' is the legal institution that gives them that Big Stick to beat the rest of the culture into submission._
------------------------------------------------

ABC is Political 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...23929&page=122&p=899575&viewfull=1#post899575


----------



## Tisme (15 March 2016)

The deal between the Greens and the LNP means that we will probably be denied a plebiscite, in exchange for the Senate voting amendment. I liken the push for gay abandonment to the Oscars, it's just a barrage of lobbying and publicity to get the worst flick into the best spot.


----------



## bellenuit (19 April 2016)

*New Study Shows No Differences in Family Relationships or Child Health Outcomes between Same-sex and Different-sex Parent Households*

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...same-sex-and-different-sex-parent-households/


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2016)

Tink said:


> Why are they so worried about a plebiscite?
> Still trying to silence us.




It's not that anyone is scared of a plebiscite, its that they results of the plebiscite don't matter.

eg. a plebiscite that resulted in a yes vote to enslaving blacks, would not make slavery moral or Plebiscite in nazi Germany that resulted in a yes vote to deny rights to Jews would not make that action moral.

A majority should not be able to vote to deny a minority their basic human rights.

In a democracy, you can sometimes be faced with the situation of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, however their are laws that protect the sheep from the wolves, regardless of the outcome of any vote.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> It's not that anyone is scared of a plebiscite, its that they results of the plebiscite don't matter.




So the views of the people "on the street" don't matter, it's all about what the elite politicians think ?

We may as well have a plutocracy if we don't already.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So the views of the people "on the street" don't matter, it's all about what the elite politicians think ?
> 
> We may as well have a plutocracy if we don't already.




What I am saying is that the people "on the street" can not vote to deny basic human rights to a minority group.

surely you can understand this.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> What I am saying is that the people "on the street" can not vote to deny basic human rights to a minority group.
> 
> surely you can understand this.




But the government can, and has done so a number of times.

What's the difference ?

In any case the people on the street may support your position. Why are you so afraid of their opinions ?


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> But the government can, and has done so a number of times.
> 
> What's the difference ?




yes, and when the government, through a rational debate realises its laws are unjust, it should just change those laws, it doesn't need to ask permission.



> In any case the people on the street may support your position. Why are you so afraid of their opinions




Yes, I believe it would be supported, but that's not the point.

As I said if there was a vote to keep slavery, would it make the law just?, offcourse not, so why have the vote, why give the wolves the opportunity to vote to eat the sheep, even if you knew most of the wolves were vegan, you just wouldn't do it, its not necessary.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> What I am saying is that the people "on the street" can not vote to deny basic human rights to a minority group.
> 
> surely you can understand this.





What basic human right are we talking about .... the right of the tribe to protect itself in spite of the few who don't value it?


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2016)

Tisme said:


> What basic human right are we talking about ?




a few actually.

eg. the right to live without being discriminated against because of your gender, the right to live without being discriminated against because of your sexuality, right to marry.





> the right of the tribe to protect itself in spite of the few who don't value it?




what are you talking about???


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> a few actually.
> 
> eg. the right to live without being discriminated against because of your gender, the right to live without being discriminated against because of your sexuality, right to marry.




So why is the "right" to marry, a basic human right ?

It's just an official recognition of a relationship. The human right is the right to associate with whoever you want. 

That right is not denied to homosexuals. Anyone can arrange their affairs such that they can leave their possessions to anyone they want.

I can see few benefits of marriage that are not recognised by de-facto relationships.

De facto relationships including same sex are recognised in law.

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsi...ervices/recognition-of-same-sex-relationships


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So why is the "right" to marry, a basic human right ?
> 
> It's just an official recognition of a relationship. ]




Well perhaps you can take that up with the United Nations, who have Marriage listed as a basic Human right in their declaration of human rights (Australia was also one of eight nations involved in drafting the Universal Declaration)





> I can see few benefits of marriage that are not recognised by de-facto relationships.




That's irrelevant, The fact is the Australian Government uses a Gender test, test which marriages it recognises, and which it doesn't.

That alone is discrimination based on gender.

eg. The government lets Jane Marry Peter, because she is a female, But won't let Andrew marry peter, because Andrew is a Male, that's gender discrimination.

--------------------------------

But any way, the fact is same sex marriages exist regardless of whether the government recognises them, But the fact that the government refuses to recognise them, means that they are discriminating against people based on sexuality and gender, which is against peoples human rights.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Well perhaps you can take that up with the United Nations, who have Marriage listed as a basic Human right in their declaration of human rights (Australia was also one of eight nations involved in drafting the Universal Declaration)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But if they do recognise them, they are discriminating against normal healthy minded people.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2016)

Tisme said:


> But if they do recognise them, they are discriminating against normal healthy minded people.




How is it?


(I am choosing to ignore the bit where you are suggesting that being gay is not "Healthy minded", whatever that is)


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> How is it?
> 
> 
> (I am choosing to ignore the bit where you are suggesting that being gay is not "Healthy minded", whatever that is)




It's going against the vast majority wishes.... you know the ones that talk about their objections under their breath when in the presence of a social conscience oracle.


----------



## luutzu (20 April 2016)

Tisme said:


> But if they do recognise them, they are discriminating against normal healthy minded people.




I'm (somewhat) normal healthy minded, and I don't mind and won't feel discriminated.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2016)

Tisme said:


> It's going against the vast majority wishes.... you know the ones that talk about their objections under their breath when in the presence of a social conscience oracle.




how is that descrimination???


And who says its against the vast majorities wishes?

Any way, as I said the "vast majority" do not have the right to take away a minorities rights.

----------------

but any way, these relationships exist regardless, how is having them registered and recognised with the government any more "harmful" to these precious majority groups.

I mean if there is a lesbian couple living on the other side of town for 5 years, how does is suddenly become harmful to you if one weekend they have a party and get a marriage licence?


----------



## sptrawler (20 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> how is that descrimination???
> 
> 
> And who says its against the vast majorities wishes?
> ...




Easy answer vote Labor, next election.


----------



## Tisme (21 April 2016)

luutzu said:


> I'm (somewhat) normal healthy minded, and I don't mind and won't feel discriminated.




Yeah but you are too busy navigating racial discrimination to worry about important things like the core fundamentals of Australian culture that social engineers currently want to tear down to complete the transition to all ewes & wethers, but no rams.


----------



## Tisme (21 April 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Easy answer vote Labor, next election.




If only it was that easy....Malcolm Turnbull = republic, flag and homosexual.  Snookered voters.


----------



## luutzu (21 April 2016)

Tisme said:


> Yeah but you are too busy navigating racial discrimination to worry about important things like the core fundamentals of Australian culture that social engineers currently want to tear down to complete the transition to all ewes & wethers, but no rams.




Alexander the Great; Roman Emperor Hadrian... those two are pretty gay and they seem to rule the world just fine. But maybe that's the old days when bravery and ballsy-ness mean doing things other than just putting people down because they're different to feel good about oneself.


----------



## Tisme (21 April 2016)

luutzu said:


> Alexander the Great; Roman Emperor Hadrian... those two are pretty gay and they seem to rule the world just fine. But maybe that's the old days when bravery and ballsy-ness mean doing things other than just putting people down because they're different to feel good about oneself.




No that's just BS made up by the same social engineers. If you knew your Greco Roman history, it was considered anti collegiate not to hang around the other soldier boys and play with each other's pinky bits. They admitted to and practiced what we all know to be true.... an indoctrinated practice of admiration for the male form, that women were breeders and the power of mind over sub conscious hetrosexual instinct.

In fact the Greeks/Macedonians are a great example of how gayness is a learned behaviour...a choice....which is what it is,


----------



## luutzu (21 April 2016)

Tisme said:


> No that's just BS made up by the same social engineers. If you knew your Greco Roman history, it was considered anti collegiate not to hang around the other soldier boys and play with each other's pinky bits. They admitted to and practiced what we all know to be true.... an indoctrinated practice of admiration for the male form, that women were breeders and the power of mind over sub conscious hetrosexual instinct.
> 
> In fact the Greeks/Macedonians are a great example of how gayness is a learned behaviour...a choice....which is what it is,




I guess some people know much, much, much more about gay and gayness than others, haha

Strange these gay people and their choices... in a civilised, God-fearing society where homosexuality is deemed bad, wrong and some kind of illness or mental instability, they chose to be gay just to get picked on and marginalised. We could understand them choosing to be gay back in the days of Alexander. 

Strange, it's almost as though they don't have a choice in who and what gender to love. But of course you know better


----------



## SirRumpole (21 April 2016)

luutzu said:


> I guess some people know much, much, much more about gay and gayness than others, haha
> 
> Strange these gay people and their choices... in a civilised, God-fearing society where homosexuality is deemed bad, wrong and some kind of illness or mental instability, they chose to be gay just to get picked on and marginalised. We could understand them choosing to be gay back in the days of Alexander.
> 
> Strange, it's almost as though they don't have a choice in who and what gender to love. But of course you know better




We should differentiate gayness and misogyny.

 In blokey professions like football say there are probably quite a few players who while not gay don't particularly like women and think they are weak and worthless.

That may have been the attitude in Alexander's day, alpha males who would rather be with their mates in battle than worry about the frailties and dependencies of women.


----------



## sptrawler (21 April 2016)

Tisme said:


> If only it was that easy....Malcolm Turnbull = republic, flag and homosexual.  Snookered voters.




That's a big call, Malcolm is homosexual, I would never have guessed that.


----------



## luutzu (21 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> We should differentiate gayness and misogyny.
> 
> In blokey professions like football say there are probably quite a few players who while not gay don't particularly like women and think they are weak and worthless.
> 
> That may have been the attitude in Alexander's day, alpha males who would rather be with their mates in battle than worry about the frailties and dependencies of women.




Oh yea, misogyny aplenty I think too.

But Alexander and Hadrian were more than male bonding over some ale with their brothers in arms. And the Spartans as depicted in that 300 movie... they'd probably oil each others' bod before defending Sparta against that very gay-looking Persian emperor who, according to them Persian people, was one of their greatest ruler/warmonger.

Corporations not paying much tax, more than a handful of those earning over a million buck a year pay zero income tax; climate change fast reaching the point of no return; wars are flaring up all over the place; $1 trillion  has been earmarked by the US on new generation of nuclear weapons - making them more friendly, I guess... and we're worrying about whether gay people should be equal and enjoy marriages and having a family or not.

Values and priorities... I guess it's the getting into Heaven that's more important than the living this one life we have.


----------



## luutzu (21 April 2016)

sptrawler said:


> That's a big call, Malcolm is homosexual, I would never have guessed that.




for sure. Look at his salmon pink mansion. 

With me in primary... my school bag was red when we bought it, see.. .then it fades and turn pink. But it is not pink, dam it! That mansion... that's definitely pink.


----------



## Tisme (6 May 2016)

Yesterday's reply budget speech = 100 days into Bill''s election and he will legalise gay marriage.

Must have a big economic value to the budget?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Yesterday's reply budget speech = 100 days into Bill''s election and he will legalise gay marriage.
> 
> Must have a big economic value to the budget?




It's a promise he can't keep, he can only put the legislation forward.


----------



## Ferret (6 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a promise he can't keep, he can only put the legislation forward.




Actually, that's what his promise was - to put it to a vote in parliament within 100 days.

Agree with Tisme though.  Gay marriage has nothing to do with a budget reply.


----------



## Tink (28 August 2016)

Why do Labor and the Greens dislike freedom of speech and democracy?

Greens to block gay marriage plebiscite

Reports Labor to block marriage plebiscite 

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/08/26/greens-to-block-gay-marriage-plebiscite.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

_The West has lost its freedom of speech_

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29402&page=38&p=917610&viewfull=1#post917610


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Why do Labor and the Greens dislike freedom of speech and democracy?




They have been got to by the LGBTI lobby, who are secretly afraid of losing the plebiscite, and put forward the "hate speech" nonsense.

There won't be much debate anyway, most people have made up their minds already, one way or the other.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> They have been got to by the LGBTI lobby, who are secretly afraid of losing the plebiscite, and put forward the "hate speech" nonsense.
> 
> There won't be much debate anyway, most people have made up their minds already, one way or the other.




Very true.  I think they would win easily and the debate would help long term.
If they stop it then  it may be a long wait to get the chance again.

I would vote yes though don't believe in some ways that it would be a true marriage to my thinking because why should Government be getting in the way. I think in this age when heterosexuals are not getting married that some LG BT community want to make the vows is nice.


----------



## noco (28 August 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> Very true.  I think they would win easily and the debate would help long term.
> If they stop it then  it may be a long wait to get the chance again.
> 
> I would vote yes though don't believe in some ways that it would be a true marriage to my thinking because why should Government be getting in the way. I think in this age when heterosexuals are not getting married that some LG BT community want to make the vows is nice.




Why do gays have to get married?

A piece of paper does not hold two people together whether they are gay or straight.

Gays have been living together for centauries without taking their vows in a marriage of convenience.

A man and a woman get married really for the social side of having a legitimate family. 

I am sure the Greens are worried about the history of plebesites and referendums which favour the NO vote.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2016)

noco said:


> Why do gays have to get married?
> 
> A piece of paper does not hold two people together whether they are gay or straight.
> 
> ...




Same with the gay parenting thing, they are trying to prove that they are "equal" to everyone else.

I'll give them marriage , but they should keep their hands off kids, gay households are not a natural environment to raise children.


----------



## noco (28 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Same with the gay parenting thing, they are trying to prove that they are "equal" to everyone else.
> 
> I'll give them marriage , but they should keep their hands off kids, gay households are not a natural environment to raise children.




But if there are kids involved, they are either adopted or  it can only be one legitimate parent......A gay female could fall pregnant through IVF from an unknown male donor or in the case of a gay man there would have to a surrogate mother. 

Can you just imagine the embarrassment a child would face when he or she went to school.
Who is your daddy?....The kid would say I don't have a daddy but I have two mummies.
Or who is your Mummy?....the kid would say I don't have a Mummy but I have two daddies.

Those sort of kids would go through hell in life.  

The child involved would eventually go to great pains to find out who their real mother of father is.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2016)

noco said:


> The child involved would eventually go to great pains to find out who their real mother of father is.




Many of them do. IVF creates more problems than it solves imo.


----------



## noco (28 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Many of them do. IVF creates more problems than it solves imo.




But in the case where a married couple can't have children for some medical reason, then the IVF is an alternative.
In this case the real father could be the donor.


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2016)

noco said:


> But in the case where a married couple can't have children for some medical reason, then the IVF is an alternative.
> In this case the real father could be the donor.




I'd suggest the reason there is at least a 25% higher risk of childhood defect from IVF,  (6% IVF/ICSI : 2.5% natural of births) that nature is preventing incompatible pregnancy = natural selection and all that. 

2% of births are IVF sourced, which is a significant projection of turning a blind eye defects for profit as the current population of 6 billions is replaced.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> I'd suggest the reason there is at least a 25% higher risk of childhood defect from IVF,  (6% IVF/ICSI : 2.5% natural of births) that nature is preventing incompatible pregnancy = natural selection and all that.
> 
> 2% of births are IVF sourced, which is a significant projection of turning a blind eye defects for profit as the current population of 6 billions is replaced.




The male of a couple I know had a genetic defect so they decided to go to IVF to have a child. The child contracted cystic fibrosis from the donor.

Better not to do it if you don't know what you are getting.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 August 2016)

That is terrible.


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The male of a couple I know had a genetic defect so they decided to go to IVF to have a child. The child contracted cystic fibrosis from the donor.
> 
> Better not to do it if you don't know what you are getting.




I've recited my story of a friend before. He went through two barren  marriages before he found a third who would agree to IVF/ICSI. That child has severe mental development problems, still wear nappies at 16 years old, has had a heart transplant and life expectancy of ~ 21 years of age.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2016)

noco said:


> A man and a woman get married really for the social side of having a legitimate family.




I'd argue that that one has lost its' relevance to considerable extent these days. Certainly in the past that was the case but these days it's pretty common that the kids are at the wedding and any stigma associated with that has long ago disappeared.


----------



## Tink (29 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> They have been got to by the LGBTI lobby, who are secretly afraid of losing the plebiscite, and put forward the "hate speech" nonsense.
> 
> There won't be much debate anyway, most people have made up their minds already, one way or the other.




I agree, Rumpole, that they are trying to take the vote away from the people, as they feel it will lose, imv.
I think that the public should be allowed to debate it, and then have a vote.

Where is the scientific evidence for these sexual orientations?
They keep talking about science, where is it?
I hate to think what the next thing is they will push for with their marketing ploy of love wins.

They talk about wanting to be equal, but we are not equal, as we don't need intervention to have a child, and a child belongs with their parents.
That is their right.

As I said, it is the GOLD standard - man and woman.

I see this as a major change to society as we know it.

I would vote NO.

They have civil unions, which have all the same rights as marriage.

In their terms, Marriage becomes re-defined to NO GENDER, and then it begins.

I am a female, not an 'IT', and I like my changing rooms to stay female only, thanks.
_
The activists insist that a homosexual is born that way and can never change, and it is harmful to even try, but in the same breath they insist that we can be whatever gender we want to be, with no limits to the preferences, attractions and identities one might run with._

They can do what they like, but leave Marriage alone.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

The reason a vote should be avoided, is that when it comes to human rights, the majority do not have the right to deny a minority a basic human right.

You have all made the point before on various topics, that just because the majority believe something it does not make it right.

If we had a vote to bring back slavery, and the yes vote won, it would not make slavery moral, so the very concept of a vote to bring back slavery or to end slavery is flawed.

-------------

Ask yourself, would a no vote to ending slavery make slavery moral? 

If not, what would be the point of the vote in the first place? Because a majority vote of no, would not give you the right to continue to deny slaves freedom.

It's exactly the same with marriage rights, our current laws are immoral and need to be changed, he publicsits opinion is irrelevant.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The reason a vote should be avoided, is that when it comes to human rights, the majority do not have the right to deny a minority a basic human right.
> 
> You have all made the point before on various topics, that just because the majority believe something it does not make it right.
> 
> ...




You have a right to your view of morality. You may well be right. The fact is that SOMEONE has to vote on SSM and I don't see how the vote of a few is better than the vote of the whole of society.

 Can you explain to me why the vote of a few heavily lobbied politicians is better than the vote of all of us ?


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You have a right to your view of morality. You may well be right. The fact is that SOMEONE has to vote on SSM and I don't see how the vote of a few is better than the vote of the whole of society.
> 
> Can you explain to me why the vote of a few heavily lobbied politicians is better than the vote of all of us ?




For starters we already vote in the lawmakers and trust them to make all sorts of laws already, I can't see how this in any different.

A debate and critical weighing of the facts by a group of rational people, in a moderated setting where fallacies, emotional arguments and irrelevant points can be purged is going to deliver a better outcome.

You only have to look as far as this forum to see how quickly emotions and logical fallacies slip into the debate.

--------------------------------------------------------

Can you answer this question,

"If men last century had voted to continue to deny women the right to vote, would the government not be obligated to change the law anyway?"


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> *A debate and critical weighing of the facts by a group of rational people, in a moderated setting where fallacies, emotional arguments and irrelevant points can be purged is going to deliver a better outcome.
> *




You are having me on aren't you ?



Ever listened to Question Time ? 

The larger the sample the better the chances of getting the result that represents societies views, whether you agree with that result or not.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Can you answer this question,
> 
> "If men last century had voted to continue to deny women the right to vote, would the government not be obligated to change the law anyway?"




Sorry you missed this question.



SirRumpole said:


> Ever listened to Question Time ?




You need a setting that can purge logical fallacies and get at the facts, if the parliament don't feel up to it, it should be passed along to high court or something, passing the buck to the public is silly.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Sorry you missed this question.
> 
> "If men last century had voted to continue to deny women the right to vote, would the government not be obligated to change the law anyway?"




If women were excluded from the vote in question, then the result would not be valid and Parliament could change it.

In the SSM vote the LGBTI community is not excluded from voting in the plebiscite so the result would be representative of society as a whole.



> You need a setting that can purge logical fallacies and get at the facts, if the parliament don't feel up to it, it should be passed along to high court or something, passing the buck to the public is silly.




This is not a question of law, the public is just as capable of working out the issues as judges are.

What are you afraid of ?


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> If women were excluded from the vote in question, then the result would not be valid and Parliament could change it.
> 
> ?




Even if you had 51% of women vote against, they wouldn't have the right to take the vote away from the other 49% of women.



> In the SSM vote the LGBTI community is not excluded from voting in the plebiscite so the result would be representative of society as a whole.




So this vote is fair, because straw man got a vote?

Minorities basic human rights are protected, a majority can not vote to take them away.









> This is not a question of law, the public is just as capable of working out the issues as judges are.




I don't think they are when they are easily side tracted by bogus religious arguments, and logical fallicies such as slippery slope.



> What are you afraid of




That the injustice might continue due to the bigoted opinions of the public.

I would be saying exactly the same on a vote to give women the vote, I would say its stupid to vote on it, have the balls to just do the right thing.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)




----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

> That the injustice might continue due to the bigoted opinions of the public.




That's a pretty arrogant position imo, you are implying that the majority of the public are bigots. What is your evidence for that ?  The majority of Parliamentarians are bigots, they have continually voted against SSM, so you should be supporting a plebiscite if you want a considered view from rational people.


----------



## Tisme (29 August 2016)

Usual mixing of a cocktail to justify an ambiguity.

Human rights is a nonsense when it comes to destruction of an institution that was devised to provide human rights and legitimacy to infants. The creation of an outcast generation is the reality and none of the bleeding hearts are bleating about that, because the prize is really winning against the moral majority who have never accepted and never will, the proposal that homosexuality is a normal human condition.

We all know it's anomaly, whether it be a congenital defect or the most truthful; a protest lifestyle choice and the marriage thing is just another "look at me" activity that people with the affliction want to parade and the relatives whose lives have been shattered need, to legitimise their anguished and begrudging acceptance rather than beating themselves up.

You only have to look at the facial expression of the mums and dads of homosexuals to know nature is telling them they are fighting the indefatigable primal morality encoding that binds them to the  survival/health of the tribe over pandering to the weak of mind.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a pretty arrogant position imo, you are implying that the majority of the public are bigots. What is your evidence for that ?  .




I am not implying that they are, I don't know if they are or not, I am just saying that if they are, then they vote may be no, which is a risk that we shouldn't have to take.

Also, goo people can be swayed by logical fallacies put forward by bigots, you only have to look at FB posts to see that.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Also, goo people can be swayed by logical fallacies put forward by bigots, you only have to look at FB posts to see that.




So can politicians. Especially if they have to deal with in your face lobbyists from either the churches or the rainbow set.


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2016)

Apologies if i missed this somewhere in the discussion, but what will be the difference between a civil union, such as it is, and marriage, such as is proposed?


----------



## luutzu (29 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Apologies if i missed this somewhere in the discussion, but what will be the difference between a civil union, such as it is, and marriage, such as is proposed?




Big and apparently important enough that some people don't want the homosexuals to have it.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Apologies if i missed this somewhere in the discussion, but what will be the difference between a civil union, such as it is, and marriage, such as is proposed?




Would the Australian public be happy if they were denied marriage, and instead only offered a "Civil union".

I guess you can argue that the back seat of the bus goes to the same destination as the front seat, so denying blacks the right to sit at the front seat is ok, because they should just be happy with the back seat, because it gets them to the destination. Would you accept a law that restricts blacks from sitting in certain seats on the bus? I mean they still get to ride the bus.

As, Luutzu pointed out, there obviously is a difference, other wise people wouldn't be trying to restrict gays to civil unions.

-------------------------



> What Is Marriage? Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.
> 
> What Is a Civil Union? A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level.







Nothing wrong here hey? I mean they all get to the destination.


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Would the Australian public be happy if they were denied marriage, and instead only offered a "Civil union".
> 
> I guess you can argue that the back seat of the bus goes to the same destination as the front seat, so denying blacks the right to sit at the front seat is ok, because they should just be happy with the back seat, because it gets them to the destination. Would you accept a law that restricts blacks from sitting in certain seats on the bus? I mean they still get to ride the bus.
> 
> ...




It's not answering the question, it merely brings in extraneous issues and the subject of a different debate (and for the record I don't really care one way or the other, no skin off my nose)

***Is there a legal difference?***


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> ***Is there a legal difference?***




Marriages are universally recognised, eg a marriage in france is recognised here, a civil union is recognised in that state or country, it doesn't automatically get recognised else where.



> no skin off my nose




That's another problem isn't it, when dealing with something involving the rights of minorities, it's no skin off the nose of 98% of the population. Hence that's why the majority can not vote to deny human rights to minorities.

I mean as a White, English speaking, straight male, there are lots of things I can say "no skin off my nose too" but that doesn't mean I have the right deny rights I have from other groups.


----------



## Knobby22 (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I am not implying that they are, I don't know if they are or not, I am just saying that if they are, then they vote may be no, which is a risk that we shouldn't have to take.
> .




It's called democracy. I don't really want to live under a tyranny run by "right thinking people".  But you rightly point out the real reason for stopping the vote.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> It's called democracy. .




A constitutional democracy, is not the same as "Majority rules".

The rights of minorities do not cease to exist just because they are outnumbered, it is the job of the elected officials to protect the rights of all citizens not to feed a sheep to the wolves simple because the sheep was out numbered.

They should have the balls to stand up and say that regardless of public opinion, we will not discriminate based on sexual orientation, Just as they would on any other race or gender issue. 

___________________________________________________

people seem to think that this picture below sums up democracy, but the rights of the sheep must always be protected.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

Who said marriage was a fundamental right anyway ? 

De-facto relationships have the same legal recognition as marriages. It's no big deal.

In my view this is a case of lgbtis wanting to prove they are the same as everyone else, when in fact they are not in one important area.

But anyway, I prefer to trust the good sense of the voters rather than some of the people we end up with as politicians.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Who said marriage was a fundamental right anyway ?
> 
> De-facto relationships have the same legal recognition as marriages. It's no big deal.
> 
> ...






> De facto relationships and family law
> 
> This fact sheet provides information about the laws affecting de facto couples. The laws cover property division, maintenance, financial agreements and the superannuation of people in de facto relationships. All de facto couples have the same rights as married couples under the Family Law Act in relation to the distribution of property.  *Same-sex relationships are included within the definition of 'de facto couple' in federal laws. The Child Support (Assessment) Act also applies to same-sex couples.*




http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publ...efacto-relationships-and-family-law-factsheet

(my bolds)


----------



## Junior (29 August 2016)

It's very sad that the americans are more progressive than Australians are on this issue.

Much like women and blacks being afforded equal rights, equal rights being afforded to same-sex individuals is inevitable, and I'm surprised so many still try and get in the way of it.  It's a selfish, crusty and outdated attitude.  In the not too distant future those who still oppose it will be in the very small minority, as most will realise that gay marriage actually has no negative implications on the rest of society.

As has been pointed out, same-sex couples are already recognised as defacto and can already adopt and raise a child....so where is the issue?  Are we worried that we might accidentally drive past a wedding ceremony involving two people of the same sex, and the distraction will cause one to veer off the road in horror?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

Junior said:


> It's very sad that the americans are more progressive than Australians are on this issue.
> 
> Much like women and blacks being afforded equal rights, equal rights being afforded to same-sex individuals is inevitable, and I'm surprised so many still try and get in the way of it.  It's a selfish, crusty and outdated attitude.  In the not too distant future those who still oppose it will be in the very small minority, as most will realise that gay marriage actually has no negative implications on the rest of society.
> 
> As has been pointed out, same-sex couples are already recognised as defacto and can already adopt and raise a child....so where is the issue?  Are we worried that we might accidentally drive past a wedding ceremony involving two people of the same sex, and the distraction will cause one to veer off the road in horror?




The real issue now seems to be whether there should be a plebiscite or not. There should have been one at the last election imo. 

It's scary how the politicians want the public taken out of every decision making process, and they just assume they have a God given right to speak for us on every subject. Nick Xenophon has now decided to oppose a plebiscite. Was this an election platform that he ran on ? If it was I didn't see it. Pollies seem to think they can say "vote for me, I'll decide later what is best for you".

I've had a gutful of that sort of thing.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Who said marriage was a fundamental right anyway ?
> 
> .




The United nations charter of human rights.



> De-facto relationships have the same legal recognition as marriages. It's no big deal.




No big deal, the blacks can sit in the back of the bus, it gets to the destination at the same time.




> In my view this is a case of lgbtis wanting to prove they are the same as everyone else, when in fact they are not in one important area.




Which area is that?


----------



## CanOz (29 August 2016)

Junior said:


> It's very sad that the americans are more progressive than Australians are on this issue.
> 
> Much like women and blacks being afforded equal rights, equal rights being afforded to same-sex individuals is inevitable, and I'm surprised so many still try and get in the way of it.  It's a selfish, crusty and outdated attitude.  In the not too distant future those who still oppose it will be in the very small minority, as most will realise that gay marriage actually has no negative implications on the rest of society.
> 
> As has been pointed out, same-sex couples are already recognised as defacto and can already adopt and raise a child....so where is the issue?  Are we worried that we might accidentally drive past a wedding ceremony involving two people of the same sex, and the distraction will cause one to veer off the road in horror?




Yeah agree, but I think Tink is a pretty reliable voice for conservation of marriage. I think she might reflect the majority of the views held by the anti gay marriage tribe.


----------



## Ves (29 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's scary how the politicians want the public taken out of every decision making process, and they just assume they have a God given right to speak for us on every subject. Nick Xenophon has now decided to oppose a plebiscite. Was this an election platform that he ran on ? If it was I didn't see it. Pollies seem to think they can say "vote for me, I'll decide later what is best for you".
> 
> I've had a gutful of that sort of thing.



Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.

His policy platform was based on supporting marriage equality,  but his underlying _principle_ is to achieve this (and other legislative decisions) by doing it in the most straight forward,  cost effective manner.

I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal (or a surprise) that he has decided not to compromise his principles.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Which area is that?




Taking partners of the same sex, contrary to 95% of the population.


----------



## Knobby22 (29 August 2016)

Ves said:


> Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.
> 
> His policy platform was based on supporting marriage equality,  but his underlying _principle_ is to achieve this (and other legislative decisions) by doing it in the most straight forward,  cost effective manner.
> 
> I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal (or a surprise) that he has decided not to compromise his principles.




True, so we know the policy the Libs went to the election with, why should they break it? 
The result will be wait till next election and another rending of flesh by the likes of Value Collector and similar "my way or the highway" complainants. This is how we didn't get the Republic. 

You can't trust Labor to support it next election in any case if they see it as a vote loser. Gillard saw it as a vote loser last time.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

Ves said:


> Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.
> 
> His policy platform was based on supporting marriage equality,  but his underlying _principle_ is to achieve this (and other legislative decisions) by doing it in the most straight forward,  cost effective manner.
> 
> I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal (or a surprise) that he has decided not to compromise his principles.




He obviously didn't say before the election that he would not support a plebiscite, otherwise he wouldn't be announcing it now.


----------



## Ves (29 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> He obviously didn't say before the election that he would not support a plebiscite, otherwise he wouldn't be announcing it now.



He's announcing it for the benefit of all the people who can't read between the lines.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Taking partners of the same sex, contrary to 95% of the population.




How is that an "important area"?

when you said, "*In my view this is a case of lgbtis wanting to prove they are the same as everyone else, when in fact they are not in one important area*"

What is your point? I am not getting what you are trying to say there.

If your point is just that they want to marry the same sex, well duh!!!


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> The result will be wait till next election and another rending of flesh by the likes of Value Collector .




I am not against having the plebiscite, if its the only way we can get it done, I just wish the government had some balls.

 I am just pointing out its meaningless, and a no vote doesn't change anything when it comes to human rights.

as I keep saying, would a No vote to allowing women the right to vote make denying women the right to vote moral? offcourse not, so why have the vote in the first place?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2016)

> so why have the vote in the first place?




Why have the vote in Parliament either ?


----------



## qldfrog (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I am not against having the plebiscite, if its the only way we can get it done, I just wish the government had some balls.
> 
> I am just pointing out its meaningless, and a no vote doesn't change anything when it comes to human rights.
> 
> as I keep saying, would a No vote to allowing women the right to vote make denying women the right to vote moral? offcourse not, so why have the vote in the first place?



with arguments like that...

if a vote including women able to vote on that matter , was made and decided that women should not be allowed to vote anymore, this may not be moral but democracy would need to acknowledge and made it a law

how inconvenient is democracy to some people and interest groups....
Fed up of being force fed how to think.....


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Marriages are universally recognised, eg a marriage in france is recognised here, a civil union is recognised in that state or country, it doesn't automatically get recognised else where.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You misunderstand. "No skin off my nose" means if gays are granted I the bright to marry, it doesn't effect me.

If the nomenclature is so important to them, and it doesn't affect others, then Godspeed.

But, my only caveat is the precise definition of marriage. I'll leave that one for others to argue.


----------



## Tisme (29 August 2016)

Won't need either sex soon:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...parent-babies-could-be-a-reality-by-2017.html


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> with arguments like that...
> 
> if a vote including women able to vote on that matter , was made and decided that women should not be allowed to vote anymore, this may not be moral but democracy would need to acknowledge and made it a law
> 
> ...




See that's where you are wrong, even if all men (50% of pop) and 50% of women (25% of pop) voted to deny women the vote, the fact that 75% of the pop wanted to restrict women's voting rights is irrelevant because the 75% can not vote to descriminate against the others based on sex.

You can't just say, oh well some women voted in favor of the discrimination so it's ok to discriminate.

Just like you can't say, "well, we included the 10% of the poplation that are blacks in the vote, and the majority vote was In favor to keep slavery" slavery always breaches human rights regardless of votes.


----------



## qldfrog (29 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> See that's where you are wrong, even if all men (50% of pop) and 50% of women (25% of pop) voted to deny women the vote, the fact that 75% of the pop wanted to restrict women's voting rights is irrelevant because the 75% can not vote to descriminate against the others based on sex.
> 
> You can't just say, oh well some women voted in favor of the discrimination so it's ok to discriminate.
> 
> Just like you can't say, "well, we included the 10% of the poplation that are blacks in the vote, and the majority vote was In favor to keep slavery" slavery always breaches human rights regardless of votes.



See how perverse your argument is, and you do not even see it 
you do not recognise democracy and assume that your self righteous ideas(whatever they may be, whether I share them or not) are right;
300 y ago, people like you were arguing blacks were animals and not human and so that slavery was a victory for human condition;
More recently, your argument is used on abortion:it  is murder and evil, and whatever a vote might say, it remains abhorent and the murderers  must be punished/executed;
You put yourself in the same bandwagon as the lunatic christians or muslim fundamentalists.
May I find this ironic?
Either you respect democracy or you do not; if you do not, that is your choice but do not take the high ground stance, you are no better than a Hitler, Pinochet,Poutine  or Staline.....


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> See how perverse your argument is, and you do not even see it
> you do not recognise democracy and assume that your self righteous ideas(whatever they may be, whether I share them or not) are right;
> 300 y ago, people like you were arguing blacks were animals and not human and so that slavery was a victory for human condition;
> More recently, your argument is used on abortion:it  is murder and evil, and whatever a vote might say, it remains abhorent and the murderers  must be punished/executed;
> ...




No, you seem to think democracy is about majority rules, when it's not, you forget that what we have is a "constitutional democracy" not a simple majority rules mob.

You seem to think that the facts don't matter, eg slavery is right as long as it's what the majority wants, 

I am saying basic human rights exist, and it's the job of the government to enforce them even in the face of a majority that wants to take the rights of a group away.

The government (even a democratically elected one) has no legal right to deny human rights, not even through a plebiscite.

I really don't get why you struggle to see that, do you really think we could bring back slavery through a plebiscite? 

You accuse me of band wagon thinking, hahaha


----------



## pixel (30 August 2016)

A plebiscite is an utter waste of time and money. Think about how many teachers and nurses could be employed with $160M.
As to the legislation: Every parliamentarian and his dog knows what the population wants. As they're supposed to be representing the Australian people, let's tell them "Get on with doing your job. Put the changes through the mill and make Marriage gender-neutral. End of story!"

Put forward as a private members bill, it could all be finished by the end of the week, and you can concentrate on more pressing tasks. Like giving our school leavers an opportunity to get a worthwhile apprenticeship; tap into the knowledge that's available in the older generation, many of whom feel too young to be turfed out into early retirement; stop looking at the next election and make plans for the long-term sustainability of Australian Life.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No, you seem to think democracy is about majority rules, when it's not, you forget that what we have is a "constitutional democracy" not a simple majority rules mob.
> 
> You seem to think that the facts don't matter, eg slavery is right as long as it's what the majority wants,




You keep going on about this, but if you say there is majority public support for SSM then a plebiscite would succeed , correct ?

So , the question still stands, what are you afraid of ?


----------



## McLovin (30 August 2016)

Ves said:


> Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.
> 
> His policy platform was based on supporting marriage equality,  but his underlying _principle_ is to achieve this (and other legislative decisions) by doing it in the most straight forward,  cost effective manner.
> 
> I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal (or a surprise) that he has decided not to compromise his principles.




Neither do I. And if equality before the law is not a fundamental part of democracy then we may as well pack up the kit and head home. It's part of what saves us from the tyranny of the majority. Of course, if you're in the majority then such concepts may seem glib.


----------



## qldfrog (30 August 2016)

equality before the law? In term of sexual preferences, pedophile do not have it or exhibitionists, even with willing partners..
So please it is not a matter of equal before the law, it is a matter of vocal lobby power confronting a majority which may not follow its wishes.
I am so scared of what will come next? (and does not have to be LGxxxxxxx (have I added enough x) related


----------



## McLovin (30 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> equality before the law? In term of sexual preferences, pedophile do not have it or exhibitionists, even with willing partners..




Actually they do. Heterosexual paedophiles and heterosexual exhibitionists have the same laws as homosexual ones. See how that works?


----------



## Tink (30 August 2016)

Oh, that will be next, qldfrog.

They have already started with the shows on the ABC that we have to understand them, they are misunderstood.

These progressives think they are moving forward, but we are going backwards to the days with no laws.

Gender neutral, age neutral, we are all social constructs, back to the animal farm.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree, Rumpole, what are they scared of?


----------



## Junior (30 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Oh, that will be next, qldfrog.
> 
> They have already started with the shows on the ABC that we have to understand them, they are misunderstood.




Are you hinting that paedophiles will be next?  That is sick.  

This is why we a plebiscite is a bad idea, the scare-campaign from the far right and church groups will ruin any chance of an actual debate on the topic.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2016)

Junior said:


> Are you hinting that paedophiles will be next?  That is sick.
> 
> This is why we a plebiscite is a bad idea, the scare-campaign from the far right and church groups will ruin any chance of an actual debate on the topic.




Every political and social debate these days has a scare campaign. Most people are capable of seeing through them. 

If the scarers are forced to go public instead of muttering in the background, then their arguments are exposed to public scrutiny and the 'reasonable person' test kicks in.

If we don't trust ourselves then we might as well do away with jury trials, because obviously we can't trust our peers.


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> Actually they do. Heterosexual paedophiles and heterosexual exhibitionists have the same laws as homosexual ones. See how that works?




But those laws are biased to the well being of hetrosexual ideals and comfort levels? In some cultures sacrosanct western values are deemed inappropriate e.g. freedom of association, having to wait until late teens before marrying, etc


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2016)

Junior said:


> Are you hinting that paedophiles will be next?  That is sick.
> 
> .




Only by the standards you have chosen to adopt. To some that same revulsion extends further up the moral ladder to homosexuality, so perhaps those with looser ideals should consider the well being of those who find the whole idea of gay marriage a compromise/concession too far.


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2016)

Progressive society history:

here’s a summary:

1. Polygynous Marriage 

old testament bible

2. Levirate Marriage
 Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).

3 A man, a woman and her property — a female slave
 Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5)  (Judges 19:1-30).

4. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
 Deuteronomy 21:11-14 

5. A male rapist and his victim
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 

6 A male and female slave

A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent.

7. Adelphopoiesis

banned 14th century Catholics and 18th century Orthodox

8. Monogamous, heterosexual marriage

9. Loop back to 7.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2016)

Junior said:


> Are you hinting that paedophiles will be next?  That is sick.
> 
> .




The slippery slope type arguments are all they have



SirRumpole said:


> If we don't trust ourselves then we might as well do away with jury trials, because obviously we can't trust our peers.




There is a vetting process for potential Jury, people with pre existing bias, and people who they think aren't capable of rational decisions based on facts are weeded out, the jury is also often shielded from all the public misconceptions that fly around in the media, So you analogy is bunk.



> So , the question still stands, what are you afraid of ?




That enough misinformation and misdirection of debates is spread to make the voting public make the wrong decision.

Also I am mainly disturbed by the fact that an issue involving human rights is being put up for a vote, as I keep saying the vote is irrelevant, its not like we are voting to change the colour of the flag or something, this is a human rights issue.


----------



## luutzu (30 August 2016)

pixel said:


> A plebiscite is an utter waste of time and money. Think about how many teachers and nurses could be employed with $160M.
> As to the legislation: Every parliamentarian and his dog knows what the population wants. As they're supposed to be representing the Australian people, let's tell them "Get on with doing your job. Put the changes through the mill and make Marriage gender-neutral. End of story!"
> 
> Put forward as a private members bill, it could all be finished by the end of the week, and you can concentrate on more pressing tasks. Like giving our school leavers an opportunity to get a worthwhile apprenticeship; tap into the knowledge that's available in the older generation, many of whom feel too young to be turfed out into early retirement; stop looking at the next election and make plans for the long-term sustainability of Australian Life.




How true is that.

There's just way too much good that $160M could be put to than some stupid opinion polling this kind of "democracy" stunt is pretending to care about.

Seems to me the only reason the plebs get to decide on this issue is because the leadership in Canberra got no spine. Can't stand up to the conservative and religious base of theirs... don't want to alienate most of the population either... So they do what most lawyers and "leaders" do and pass that buck onto the other people.

If we're to run a gov't with these kind of democracy, let's put all future free trade deals to the public; how about taxation policies; how about industry incentives and tax cuts? The people would get more bang for their buck if they could decide on those issues.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> There is a vetting process for potential Jury, people with pre existing bias, and people who they think aren't capable of rational decisions based on facts are weeded out, the jury is also often shielded from all the public misconceptions that fly around in the media, So you analogy is bunk.




The vetting process for juries is bunk. Both sides choose those they think will favour them. They can't choose who will vote in a plebiscite.

Anyway, your lack of faith in your compatriots is disturbing. Your  thinking that a few harrassed , heavily lobbied politicians are more capable of making decisions than the wider population is irrational . 

If the vote for the plebiscite goes down in Parliament, and the matter does not arise in Parliament again for three years, what have you gained ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> To some that same revulsion extends further up the moral ladder to homosexuality,.




How would it affect you though, unless you happen to see a wedding.


----------



## Tink (30 August 2016)

Children have human rights too, but they seem to be forgotten in the equation.

That lamb must be the child.

So what is the benefit of same sex marriage in society?

What is the definition of marriage?


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> .
> 
> If the vote for the plebiscite goes down in Parliament, and the matter does not arise in Parliament again for three years, what have you gained ?




that may be better taking the 10% chance we would lose and then not have the government bring it up for another 30 years.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Children have human rights too, but they seem to be forgotten in the equation.
> 
> ?




This thread is about Same sex marriage Tink, if you want to talk about parental rights, there is another thread.

-------------------------------------------------------------------



> Children have human rights too,




Unless they are gay hey Tink, then you want to limit their rights, and keep them in their box.


----------



## luutzu (30 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> See how perverse your argument is, and you do not even see it
> you do not recognise democracy and assume that your self righteous ideas(whatever they may be, whether I share them or not) are right;
> 300 y ago, people like you were arguing blacks were animals and not human and so that slavery was a victory for human condition;
> More recently, your argument is used on abortion:it  is murder and evil, and whatever a vote might say, it remains abhorent and the murderers  must be punished/executed;
> ...




I guess you're saying that if we value freedom and liberty, we ought to do whatever the majority wanted - regardless of what that want is. Else we're no better than a dictatorship where the few noble men decides what is best for the country; a few learned men work to protect the mob from itself. 

That's a good point. But... 

The idea of a Democracy is not to do what the majority wanted; it is not to do what the minority wanted either. It definitely ought not be doing what a few learned men thought is good. But it is to do what is right and just for all citizens.

The best way to achieve that, unless I am the absolute ruler or something, is to have some kind of representative democracy - where the plebs get to vent their thinking and learned men among them get to phrase that into proper English to do what their donors says ought to be done. Oh wait... 

Not sure why you guys want a truly popular/majority democracy. With Muslims and Chinese (and Irish Catholics) breeding like rabbits... you know... eventually


----------



## luutzu (30 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Children have human rights too, but they seem to be forgotten in the equation.
> 
> That lamb must be the child.
> 
> ...




The Save the Children but screw the grown up homosexual adults argument again.

What benefits society would gain from denying homosexuals their equal rights? Are those 'sacred' traditional marriages any better off? Are you sure the children of homosexual better off having society think their parents are weird and a runk or two below the other abusive fathers and mothers out there?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> that may be better taking the 10% chance we would lose and then not have the government bring it up for another 30 years.




Well, look at it this way.

If there is a vote in Parliament without a plebiscite and SSM gets up narrowly, then there is every chance that a future government will change it back to the way it was, but if there is a plebiscite with an overwhelming yes vote then it will make it a lot harder to change later.

So either way, it's a lucky dip.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> If we're to run a gov't with these kind of democracy, let's put all future free trade deals to the public; how about taxation policies; how about industry incentives and tax cuts? The people would get more bang for their buck if they could decide on those issues.




Yes, How stupid would that be.

People are happy for the government to make all sorts of sweeping legislation, even fine with them declaring war on other nations, but suddenly they want a vote on whether it is right to extend the government recognition of marriages into the marriages between couples of the same sex.

Allowing gay marriage will literally have zero impact on straight people, yet straight people seem to want to vote about it, while they are fine with all the other rules and regs governments make or abolish.


----------



## pixel (30 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> How true is that.
> 
> There's just way too much good that $160M could be put to than some stupid opinion polling this kind of "democracy" stunt is pretending to care about.
> 
> ...




wowee! that's the Swiss model  Let the people have a say and decide everything.

... but hang on: Isn't that what we've elected our representatives for?
If everything is put to the peepull, then we don't need an expensive bureaucracy.

Get rid of Canberra altogether


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2016)

> People are happy for the government to make all sorts of sweeping legislation, even fine with them declaring war on other nations, but suddenly they want a vote on whether it is right to extend the government recognition of marriages into the marriages between couples of the same sex.




So we are happy are we ? I don't think so. If governments make decisions we don't like then we vote them out.

If you are happy for a future government to change the marriage laws to something you don't like , so be it.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So we are happy are we ? I don't think so. If governments make decisions we don't like then we vote them out.
> 
> .




yes, but you don't request a plebiscite before war or tax changes.

Why for a simple change in marriage legislation?

why trust the government on those big issues, but refuse to trust on the small thing?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> yes, but you don't request a plebiscite before war or tax changes.
> 
> Why for a simple change in marriage legislation?
> 
> why trust the government on those big issues, but refuse to trust on the small thing?




The plebiscite was the idea of the LNP, not the public and they should go through with it.

If they offer a plebiscite on other matters, that would be good, because I think the silent majority is being supressed on a number of matters.

The current way of holding a plebiscite is grossly expensive. some sort of Internet poll would give a good idea what people really think about issues, and the politicians would be silly to ignore them.


----------



## noco (30 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The plebiscite was the idea of the LNP, not the public and they should go through with it.
> 
> If they offer a plebiscite on other matters, that would be good, because I think the silent majority is being supressed on a number of matters.
> 
> The current way of holding a plebiscite is grossly expensive. some sort of Internet poll would give a good idea what people really think about issues, and the politicians would be silly to ignore them.




Why do gays have to get married in the first place?

They have been living in sin for centuries...Who cares how they live so long as it does not affect the way I live.

Why not just carry on with the same tradition?

Save $160,000,000.

It is a lot to do about nothing.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2016)

noco said:


> Why do gays have to get married in the first place?
> 
> .




Because they want to.

why does anyone have to get married?



> Who cares how they live so long as it does not affect the way I live.




exactly, so why not just let them marry?


> Why do gays have to get married in the first place?




The fact is Gays already have marriages, its just the government doesn't currently recognise them, so if the government wants to be in the marriage recognition business, it should recognise them equally.


----------



## qldfrog (30 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> an issue involving human rights



So marriage is a human right, what about my human right not to pay taxes to supports causes I do not support? Sending army in ME or other cause where I would actually be in line with some of the leftist sides?
Human right?
human right is freedomn of thoughts, equality of opportunities regardless of age, sex, colour or even sexual preference (Gay would fit there and i would fight for them )
but marriage is not a human right ..The more we use these key values in an over the top way, the more we devalue them


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> So marriage is a human right,




Yes, according to the united nations charter of human rights, 



> what about my human right not to pay taxes to supports causes I do not support? Sending army in ME or other cause where I would actually be in line with some of the leftist sides?




I couldn't find that in the charter.





> Human right?
> human right is freedomn of thoughts, equality of opportunities regardless of age, sex, colour or even sexual preference (Gay would fit there and i would fight for them )




Yep those are in the charter too.



> but marriage is not a human right ..The more we use these key values in an over the top way, the more we devalue them




Yes, its right there in the charter of universal human rights.



> equality of opportunities regardless of age, sex, colour or even sexual preference (Gay would fit there and i would fight for them )




Yet you are willing to restrict their opportunity to marry based on sexual preference. 

If you feel it shouldn't be a universal human right to marry, then maybe you should take it up with the United Nations, or the Australian Government that have ratified it.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2016)

> Yes, according to the united nations charter of human rights,




All you have said is that rights are what humans say they are.

If the UN excluded gays from marriage, would you accept that ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> If the UN excluded gays from marriage, would you accept that ?




I would ask why gays should be excluded, and then see if they have a valid reason.

The freedoms and rights of people should always be maximised, and the only reason to reduce a persons freedoms or rights is where you need to reduce them to protect another individual from harm.

eg. I have the right to swing my arm, but I can't swing it in such a way that it hits you. Yes my personal freedom to swing my arm is limited, but only in such a way to prevent harm to you, I am still allowed to swing my arm in general.

No one can show any reason why allowing gays to marry would cause harm, so its an immoral limit on personal freedom caused by discrimination based on sexual orientation.


----------



## noco (30 August 2016)

From this link it appears the Labor Party have conducted their own polling on same sex marriage....Now don't they want us to know the results.

Pretty simple.......The Labor Party conducted poll indicated a majority were against changes to the law.....They certainly don't want a plebiscite so they have resorted to alternative tactics. 

http://www.acl.org.au/here_s_why_sa...0dec&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read more

*Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said news today that the Australian Labor Party was using polling which showed a lack of public support for changing the Marriage Act to undermine the plebiscite was extraordinary.*


----------



## qldfrog (31 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, according to the united nations charter of human rights,
> and then
> 
> Yes, its right there in the charter of universal human rights.



For your enlightment:
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi1ivKRgerOAhVBppQKHY-YCuIQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohchr.org%2FEN%2FUDHR%2FDocuments%2FUDHR_Translations%2Feng.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGU4gJef0eHw9MBIIIYp7o7FdFD9g&sig2=XMBUuxoLSDyGhIlBoNjVbA&cad=rja
There is even a chapter on marriage:
I quote:
Article 16:
"1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality
or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled
to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the
intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State."
you can note that 16.1 does not say due to "race, nationality
or religion, *or sex*"

Gay *marriage *is maybe a wish, something to aspire to, whatever but it is NOT a human right defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


----------



## Tink (31 August 2016)

These identity politics are becoming divisive.
Ladies and Gentlemen now gets shouted down as not politically correct?

I am standing up for Marriage.
The true meaning where all is equal for all.
Man and woman = their children.
Marriage and FAMILY.

We all have our opinions and therefore we should be free to think and express as we choose.

I am also against this 'unsafe' school.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25851&page=6&p=903407&viewfull=1#post903407

We are not blobs, we are human beings, female and male.
Toddlers are not sexual beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2008, their civil union was changed so that same sex couples and heterosexual couples now share the exact same, so I see this as not true that they do not have the same. 

-- the only difference is the word, Marriage, nothing connected to it as they have the same anyway.

They want the word, plus changes to be made across the spectrum of how we need to think, and raise our families.

A step too far, in my view.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the plebiscite, that needs to stay and be put to the people, imv.


----------



## Ves (31 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> There is even a chapter on marriage:
> I quote:
> Article 16:
> "1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality
> ...



I think you'll find that there are varying interpretations of what is actually meant/intended in this section.   

Is the reference to "men and women" intended to promote equality between the genders? (ie.   both men and women should be allowed to marry without discrimination without different rules for each gender)

Or is it (as I assume you are reading it) intended to say that a man shall be allowed marry a women?

Fair bit of academic and politic debate about this very section.


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2016)

Life was much easier when the major political parties were strong on the clear intent of marriage and family. Yet another casualty of the nineties that had us soaking up the political correctness pouring out of the London Central square mile.


----------



## qldfrog (31 August 2016)

Tink said:


> These identity politics are becoming divisive.
> Ladies and Gentlemen now gets shouted down as not politically correct?
> 
> I am standing up for Marriage.
> ...



more or less my view, anywaypeople need empty fights and feel good acts to share via FB and instagrams joining what are de facto mob behaviours while "obviously" labelling their self righteous views as truth or even basic human rights...
As a results, not to infringe on the human rights or addicted and drunk parents, a whole generation of australian kids is destroyed in the NT, islam is raging a full scale war  on the western society, and our economies are collapsing;
people have the audacity of complaining of the 160M cost of the plebiscite while my taxes are used to pay nearly a billion a month in interest only on debt which was not even there 10 years ago....
There  is more urgent need than trying to redine the meaning of the word "marriage" imho, believe me marriage is not as great as what it  is supposed to be , see the divorce rates


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2016)

Ves said:


> I think you'll find that there are varying interpretations of what is actually meant/intended in this section.
> 
> Is the reference to "men and women" intended to promote equality between the genders? (ie.   both men and women should be allowed to marry without discrimination without different rules for each gender)
> 
> ...




The interpretation that I make is that both men and women have the freedom to marry (or not), and should not be coerced; ie it is a barrier against forced marriages. I don't think it implied any same sex marriage rights.

And if our current laws breached the UN Charter, surely they would have been challenged in International Courts, and to my knowledge they have not.


----------



## qldfrog (31 August 2016)

Ves said:


> I think you'll find that there are varying interpretations of what is actually meant/intended in this section.
> 
> Is the reference to "men and women" intended to promote equality between the genders? (ie.   both men and women should be allowed to marry without discrimination without different rules for each gender)
> 
> ...



true, but words were carefully chosen and in 1948, the idea was probably not even around, the writers were focussing on the spirit and key rights which would carry on irrespective of time, IMHO marriage (and using this term as opposed to another legal scheme allowing the SAME rights(which we have already)) was not in, anyway, let the "good people feel good" easier to bandwagon on this one and have rallies etc than tackling real issues


----------



## qldfrog (31 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The interpretation that I make is that both men and women have the freedom to marry (or not), and should not be coerced; ie it is a barrier against forced marriages. I don't think it implied any same sex marriage rights.
> 
> And if our current laws breached the UN Charter, surely they would have been challenged in International Courts, and to my knowledge they have not.



Indeed and the reading any common sense people would have but common sense is not part of the debate


----------



## Ves (31 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The interpretation that I make is that both men and women have the freedom to marry (or not), and should not be coerced; ie it is a barrier against forced marriages. I don't think it implied any same sex marriage rights.
> 
> And if our current laws breached the UN Charter, surely they would have been challenged in International Courts, and to my knowledge they have not.



It depends if you're reading it along with Articles 2 and 7  (and probably others).

Re the International Courts:   I remember that there was a bit of discussion in media/political circles with reference to possible breaches of the UN Charter in regards to the Manus detention centre. Not sure what the court process is for this kind of thing?


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2016)

Ves said:


> It depends if you're reading it along with Articles 2 and 7  (and probably others).
> 
> Re the International Courts:   I remember that there was a bit of discussion in media/political circles with reference to possible breaches of the UN Charter in regards to the Manus detention centre.




I was referring specifically to our Marriage laws which to my knowledge have not been challenged in International Courts. 

Refugee matters are another issue entirely.


----------



## Ves (31 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I was referring specifically to our Marriage laws which to my knowledge have not been challenged in International Courts.
> 
> Refugee matters are another issue entirely.



Yep, they are different.

But if the UN is saying Australia is breaching its legal requirements re detention of refugees,   and it isn't using the International Court process for that (correct me if I'm wrong), what makes you think them not using it re Same Sex marriage rights is proof of no breach in that case?


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2016)

Ves said:


> Yep, they are different.
> 
> But if the UN is saying Australia is breaching its legal requirements re detention of refugees,   and it isn't using the International Court process for that (correct me if I'm wrong), what makes you think them not using it re Same Sex marriage rights is proof of no breach in that case?




May not be "proof" of no breach, but people who think that they are could obviously challenge our laws in the International Courts.

Maybe the process is to expensive, or maybe the challengers would think they would lose, I don't know, but the SSM lobby is pretty well resourced around the world, and lots of other countries have the same laws as we do so you would think that a challenge would have been raised by someone by now.


----------



## Ves (31 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> May not be "proof" of no breach, but people who think that they are could obviously challenge our laws in the International Courts.
> 
> Maybe the process is to expensive, or maybe the challengers would think they would lose, I don't know, but the SSM lobby is pretty well resourced around the world, and lots of other countries have the same laws as we do so you would think that a challenge would have been raised by someone by now.



I must admit I haven't followed this debate closely from a legal perspective,   but weren't there several court cases in the USA where it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban same-sex couples from marrying?

I have a feeling the precedent from one of those major court cases resulted in its legalisation across all US states.

The US is tricky though,  there's the whole interaction between State and Federal laws.


----------



## pixel (31 August 2016)

noco said:


> From this link it appears the Labor Party have conducted their own polling on same sex marriage....Now don't they want us to know the results.
> 
> Pretty simple.......The Labor Party conducted poll indicated a majority were against changes to the law.....They certainly don't want a plebiscite so they have resorted to alternative tactics.
> 
> ...




Looks like some people are clutching at straws. 
I have no problem with interested groups having their say, but I draw the line at deliberate misinformation. That is IMHO un-Christian. (It's also un-Australian, although standards have been slipping since Howard's "Children Overboard" and "Never-Ever-GST" lies.)


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2016)

We no longer abide by our covenants with the UN, so they don't count in our affairs.


----------



## Value Collector (31 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> ]
> 
> Gay *marriage *is maybe a wish, something to aspire to, whatever but it is NOT a human right defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.




The Charter clearly says Marriage is a Human right. Which you and rumpole originally questioned, stating saying marriage is not a right, So I pointed to the charter where it clearly states marriage is a right.

So in charter we establish that marriage is a right for both men and woman (it doesn't say between a man and a woman)

Other articles in the charter also clearly lay out that it is a human right to live free of discrimination based on your gender.

Put those two together and we have it. 



> Article 2, UN charter
> 
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status




It clearly states sex is not a determining factor on whether you have rights.

Marriage is a right that should not be denied, and we shouldn't discriminate based on gender.

______________________________________________

But More importantly than the charter, is the concept that we should all agree our rights and freedoms should be maximised, and the only reason to deny or restrict freedoms is where is can be shown that such an action would be damaging in a way that out weighs the benefits of allowing that action.

So far no one has been able to show how recognising the marriage of to people of the same sex is damaging to society in a way that justifies it's banning.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2016)

Ves said:


> I must admit I haven't followed this debate closely from a legal perspective,   but weren't there several court cases in the USA where it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban same-sex couples from marrying?
> 
> I have a feeling the precedent from one of those major court cases resulted in its legalisation across all US states.
> 
> The US is tricky though,  there's the whole interaction between State and Federal laws.




Yes, that is so. That's an Internal US matter though. Our laws have not been challenged as being "unconstitutional" in Australia, or if they have then the challenge has been dismissed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Basically I don't care which way it goes. I just want a vote by plebiscite instead of by lobbied politicians.


----------



## McLovin (31 August 2016)

Ves said:


> I must admit I haven't followed this debate closely from a legal perspective,   but weren't there several court cases in the USA where it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban same-sex couples from marrying?
> 
> I have a feeling the precedent from one of those major court cases resulted in its legalisation across all US states.
> 
> The US is tricky though,  there's the whole interaction between State and Federal laws.




If something is unconstitutional in the US it applies to both the federal and state. A state cannot deny a US citizen their rights granted by the US Constitution. It's all reconstruction era stuff. It wasn't like Mississippi was just going to rollover in 1865 and emancipate the blacks. They needed a little prodding from Washington.

That doesn't exist in Australia for the few parts of the constitution that somewhat resemble the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Ves (31 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> If something is unconstitutional in the US it applies to both the federal and state. A state cannot deny a US citizen their rights granted by the US Constitution. It's all reconstruction era stuff. It wasn't like Mississippi was just going to rollover in 1865 and emancipate the blacks. They needed a little prodding from Washington.
> 
> That doesn't exist in Australia for the few parts of the constitution that somewhat resemble the Bill of Rights.



Thanks mate,  that clears it up for me.


----------



## sr20de (1 September 2016)

Gay Marriage and the End of Civilization

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH-lay7fbno

I am sure all investors are aware of such information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_(radio_personality)


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2016)

Tim Wilson ... boo hoo.. so much sacrifice ...fricken cry baby who has had a privileged ride into the public service and now parliament because he is the Liberal Party's token gay as Penny Wong is to the Labor Party.

What about all those muslim men out there that can't marry a second, third, etc concubine? What about all those Oedipus suffering wierdos who merely want to marry their parent? Both sound ludicrous, but so was the notion of  homosexuality a generation ago, let alone them being venerated, promoted and the laws bending to give them privilege over all other people with stunted or arrested development.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> Tim Wilson ... boo hoo.. so much sacrifice ...fricken cry baby who has had a privileged ride into the public service and now parliament because he is the Liberal Party's token gay as Penny Wong is to the Labor Party.
> 
> What about all those muslim men out there that can't marry a second, third, etc concubine? What about all those Oedipus suffering wierdos who merely want to marry their parent? Both sound ludicrous, but so was the notion of  homosexuality a generation ago, let alone them being venerated, promoted and the laws bending to give them privilege over all other people with stunted or arrested development.




I find it interesting that some who promote Gay Marriage want the Parliament to decide the question instead of the great unwashed. 

Parliament has already decided the question (a number of times), but some won't take NO for an answer. Maybe they should just accept the rational decision making processes of our Parliamentary representatives and just shut up.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I find it interesting that some who promote Gay Marriage want the Parliament to decide the question instead of the great unwashed.
> 
> Parliament has already decided the question (a number of times), but some won't take NO for an answer. Maybe they should just accept the rational decision making processes of our Parliamentary representatives and just shut up.




I consider you the pioneer of the plebiscite call, as it was you who championed it all those years ago, which also met with opposition from the resident gays and social engineers on that forum. While we may have differences that prevent us getting a room, I'm rock solid behind you on the plebiscite.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> I consider you the pioneer of the plebiscite call, as it was you who championed it all those years ago, which also met with opposition from the resident gays and social engineers on that forum. While we may have differences that prevent us getting a room, I'm rock solid behind you on the plebiscite.




Maybe we should have a plebiscite on whether we should have a plebiscite.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2016)

Apparently 53% of young people admit to witness bullying of gays at school in Ireland, after more than a year of the vote to allow gay marriage.

And I suspect this is probably the real truth behind the facade of tolerance (human nature in play):


http://www.thejournal.ie/gay-couple-restaurant-2415703-Oct2015/


----------



## luutzu (1 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> I consider you the pioneer of the plebiscite call, as it was you who championed it all those years ago, which also met with opposition from the resident gays and social engineers on that forum. While we may have differences that prevent us getting a room, I'm rock solid behind you on the plebiscite.




You sure it's not the Gay Marriage thing that's preventing you two from getting a room? That and the good olde Christian value upbringing? 

It's good to hear you're rock hard solid behind somebody ha ha


----------



## Tink (1 September 2016)

As I said, good on the brave politicians (and journalists) standing up for our freedom of speech.

I also say the same to people like you, Tisme, men and women that stand up with courage and conviction for the FAMILY.

Marriage is about sacrifice and FAMILY, the next generation, the children, otherwise the state would not be involved in it.

They cannot have children naturally, and that is the truth.

-------------------------------------------------------

*The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State.*

As was written by qldfrog.

That is Marriage -- The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State.

Same sex marriage over rides this, therefore it should not be implemented, imv.

Anyone that talks about the family unit is branded 'hateful' by the Left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnzpMKb-Wk4

---------------------------------------------------

As for Tim Wilson and others, we didn't raise our children that if you cry enough, you will get it.
There has to be a reason for implementing something and making changes.
They have their civil unions which gives them the same rights in my view.


----------



## pixel (1 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Marriage is about sacrifice and FAMILY, the next generation, the children, otherwise the state would not be involved in it.
> 
> They cannot have children naturally, and that is the truth.




When did 'the state' start to care about the next generation? At best, our gov'mint is concerned about taxes: lower for the companies, higher for the Labor-voting rubble.

By that (il)logic of yours, infertile couples must then also be banned from marrying, because *"They cannot have children naturally"*
And what about all those single parents? Turn the clock back and take the babies off unwed mothers, place them in foster care of nice white Christian families? Yeah - that worked very well in the 1940's, didn't it.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> You sure it's not the Gay Marriage thing that's preventing you two from getting a room? That and the good olde Christian value upbringing?
> 
> It's good to hear you're rock hard solid behind somebody ha ha




I'm not sure what you are implying ...


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2016)

Tink said:


> .
> 
> They cannot have children naturally, and that is the truth.
> 
> ...




Neither can a lot of straight couples, since when has that been a prerequisite of marriage?

Hell, I have seen 70 year old couples get married, should we be banning that?



> The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
> entitled to protection by society and the State.




I agree, but you only want to protect the nuclear family.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> blah blah yadda yadda
> 
> 
> I agree, but you only want to protect the nuclear family.




I would have had said Tink wants to protect familialism ...something homosexuals by and large are not known for, given their penchant for promiscuity.


----------



## pixel (1 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> I would have had said Tink wants to protect familialism ...something homosexuals by and large are not known for, *given their penchant for promiscuity.*




*What utter rubbish! What an objectionable accusation! Despicable!*
Honestly: Which planet do you live on? What century shaped your world view?

It is bigoted statements like that, without a shred of evidence to support them, that cause hurt and depression among the many humans that happen NOT to fall within the narrow-minded norms set by yesteryear's vociferous hypocrites.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2016)

pixel said:


> *What utter rubbish! What an objectionable accusation! Despicable!*
> Honestly: Which planet do you live on? What century shaped your world view?
> 
> It is bigoted statements like that, without a shred of evidence to support them, that cause hurt and depression among the many humans that happen NOT to fall within the narrow-minded norms set by yesteryear's vociferous hypocrites.




Sorry, but the evidence is the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS in the gay community and the fact that this demographic is still in the highest risk group for these diseases.


Of course there would be many gays with steady relationships, but I find it difficult to explain their propensity for the above mentioned diseases by other than a tendency towards promiscuity. 

No doubt many have now moderated their behaviour in response to the AIDS epidemic, but the rapid uptake of this in the gay community before the risk was known indicates a many partner behaviour.

Perhaps you can suggest other explanations.


----------



## noco (1 September 2016)

Things don't look bright in the Green camp ATM.

SHY is in revenge with her leader Di Natalie over being moved from the shadow immigration portfolio.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/dfd0acc676c0e1a1f938e68fe7cb700e


*Sarah Hanson-Young has flagged she might split from the Greens and support a plebiscite if attempts to legislate same-sex marriage fail.

“Nothing isn’t an option for me,” the senator told Sky News on Thursday amid concerns the issue could be off parliament’s agenda for three years if a government plan for a plebiscite is rejected by the upper house. Senator Hanson-Young said she would prefer the parliament exhaust all legislative avenues before considering a plebiscite.

Ms Hanson-Young was last week removed from the high-profile immigration portfolio in the Greens’ post-election reshuffle, taking up the trade and finance portfolios.

Greens leader Richard di Natale defended her removal from the position, which she was said to be “bitterly upset’’ about.

“I fought hard to keep the immigration portfolio, but ultimately it was a decision of the leader of the party,” Senator Hanson-Young said, adding she would “never stop fighting for people seeking asylum”.*


----------



## luutzu (1 September 2016)

pixel said:


> When did 'the state' start to care about the next generation? At best, our gov'mint is concerned about taxes: lower for the companies, higher for the Labor-voting rubble.
> 
> By that (il)logic of yours, infertile couples must then also be banned from marrying, because *"They cannot have children naturally"*
> And what about all those single parents? Turn the clock back and take the babies off unwed mothers, place them in foster care of nice white Christian families? Yeah - that worked very well in the 1940's, didn't it.




Speaking of tax... Apple today got fine [?] 13Billion Euro for tax avoidance, plus interests. 

Apparently it is against Eurozone law for the Irish to offer Apple a special, one-of-a-kind tax deal where they get to set up a not at all shell company in Ireland, send back all revenues earned in other Euro countries... avoid those taxes and pay Ireland an awesome... wait for it... 0.005% corporation tax. 

Those liberal hippy Euro didn't much like that... and so Apple call its White House, get uncle Sam involve; Ireland is also not happy about the Euro wanting to stifle competition and innovation and destroy jobs... 

So Ireland has a corporate tax rate of 12.5%... Apple thought that that's too high... so 0.005? Deal!

Its VAT [GST] tax is a whopping 23%. Fark. I thought they're drunk but this is dead-drunk sign right here kind of dealing.


and just to stay on topic... Apple's CEO is also gay. 

So who said gay people don't know how to look after their pesky shareholders. They could do that, and ruin economies, as the best of them hetero.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2016)

pixel said:


> *What utter rubbish! What an objectionable accusation! Despicable!*
> Honestly: Which planet do you live on? What century shaped your world view?
> 
> It is bigoted statements like that, without a shred of evidence to support them, that cause hurt and depression among the many humans that happen NOT to fall within the narrow-minded norms set by yesteryear's vociferous hypocrites.




You want to produce proofs to the contrary there pixel? Bet you can't except anecdotal evidence.,,,,,, true you can't as much as you try .... then let's talk rubbish

You obviously have an agenda in play


----------



## McLovin (1 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Sorry, but the evidence is the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS in the gay community and the fact that this demographic is still in the highest risk group for these diseases.
> 
> 
> Of course there would be many gays with steady relationships, but I find it difficult to explain their propensity for the above mentioned diseases by other than a tendency towards promiscuity.
> ...




Gay men have more sexual partners, and no doubt that was part of the reason HIV/AIDS spread through the gay community, certain sexual practises between gay men also increased the risk exponentially. Not all gays are men though. In many African countries promiscuity by both men and women (as well as the flat earthers in Rome who say Jesus doesn't like rubber) led to the epidemic in that continent. Gay women don't have the same promiscuity, just like straight women, hence the phrase "U-Haul lesbian".


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2016)

What most of us know while others hide under the rock of denial.

Remember this is the stable environment that children are to be raised: of course it's all BS to the true believers.



> Promiscuity
> 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners:  "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
> 
> 79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309."  (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
> ...








https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity


----------



## luutzu (1 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> You want to produce proofs to the contrary there pixel? Bet you can't except anecdotal evidence.,,,,,, true you can't as much as you try .... then let's talk rubbish
> 
> You obviously have an agenda in play




Slow night at the pub McGuiness? Nothing new on YouTube?


----------



## luutzu (1 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> What most of us know while others hide under the rock of denial.
> 
> Remember this is the stable environment that children are to be raised: of course it's all BS to the true believers.
> ...
> https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity




Maybe they had more partners because society does not permit homosexual partnership. That is, since they cannot carry on having a close relationship with another homosexual; can't be seen walking down the street holding hands; can't bring a gay partner home to meet pa and ma... have to marry into a hetero relationship and all sexual urges have to be at gay bars or in secret. 

It's not necessarily due to promiscuity in gays. I mean, we all know at least a few straight people who sleeps around way, way, too easy.

Prove that wrong with studies in legally married gay couples with children.


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Sorry, but the evidence is the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS in the gay community and the fact that this demographic is still in the highest risk group for these diseases.
> 
> 
> Of course there would be many gays with steady relationships, but I find it difficult to explain their propensity for the above mentioned diseases by other than a tendency towards promiscuity.
> ...




Firstly did you know that HIV is pretty much non existent in the lesbian community, who make up 50% of the people with the gay label.

Secondly the spread of the disease can be put down to two things.

1, before the disease was well known, the only reason for using protection was birth control, so women insisting on using condoms during their "promiscuity" protects them.

2, promiscuity isn't a gay man thing, it's a man thing, all straight men would have a lot more sex is the average women was up for a one night stand as they were.


----------



## pixel (2 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> You want to produce proofs to the contrary there pixel? Bet you can't except anecdotal evidence.,,,,,, true you can't as much as you try .... then let's talk rubbish
> 
> You obviously have an agenda in play




yes, I do have an agenda.
It is about treating people with respect, regardless of their skin colour, creed, sexual orientation, or social class. If a few individuals prove through their actions or words that they do not deserve the respect, I haven't lost anything. They may have lost their dignity,but it's odds-on they don't know the difference.


----------



## Junior (2 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> 2, promiscuity isn't a gay man thing, it's a man thing, all straight men would have a lot more sex is the average women was up for a one night stand as they were.




Absolutely correct.  

Having hung around with a lot of single, male friends in my 20s....they were always trying to 'pick up', and almost always failed!  If there were a bar full of willing females, the way that gay guys have gay clubs....well they would also get to 'more than 1,000' partners pretty quickly!  This is evidenced by the average number of sex partners a rock star has!!

It's not a gay thing, it's a male thing.


----------



## Tink (2 September 2016)

Another thing, is the giving blood, that they said they were discriminated against.

You can't push these things and infect the rest of the community.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> Gay men have more sexual partners, and no doubt that was part of the reason HIV/AIDS spread through the gay community, certain sexual practises between gay men also increased the risk exponentially. Not all gays are men though..




We should discriminate based on gender?


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

pixel said:


> yes, I do have an agenda.
> It is about treating people with respect, regardless of their skin colour, creed, sexual orientation, or social class. If a few individuals prove through their actions or words that they do not deserve the respect, I haven't lost anything. They may have lost their dignity,but it's odds-on they don't know the difference.




That's a noble thought, but what dangers to community, accompany those? Realistically any decision we make should be balanced by facts, not driven purely by bias and emotion.


----------



## McLovin (2 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> We should discriminate based on gender?




Err no.



			
				Tisme said:
			
		

> You obviously have an agenda in play




Lol. Says the guy with 198 posts in this thread.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> 2, promiscuity isn't a gay man thing, it's a man thing, all straight men would have a lot more sex is the average women was up for a one night stand as they were.




That's an absolute nonsense statement and you know it. By all means you have a right to your stubborn refusal to accept the consequences, but please don't insult people's intelligence by insinuating the vast majority of hetrosexual men are anywhere near the promiscuity average of homosexual men.

Have any of you supporters ever been to a gay club? Have you ever  bothered actually investigating their sexual activities?

I'm fairly sure the drive from people like your good self is predicated on personal experience of an individual you may have met, be it family or someone who did something good/brav/admirable and the sexual orientation has been tagged to that instead of just judging the act itself. 

The consistent argument to support homosexual tolerance seems always to cherry pick hetrosexuals at the  fringes, not from the norms when comparing the norms.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> Err no.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Says the guy with 198 posts in this thread.




Well then why did you post a distinction between men and women?

I doubt you are actually LOlling. I think you are actually a hetrophobe willing to trade off the majority good for a personal need?

And yes I care about our community


----------



## McLovin (2 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> I doubt you are actually LOlling. I think you are actually a hetrophobe willing to trade off the majority good for a personal need?
> 
> And yes I care about our community




LOL. So now I'm gay. I'll let my gf know. 

200 posts now. Well done.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

Junior said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> Having hung around with a lot of single, male friends in my 20s....they were always trying to 'pick up', and almost always failed!  If there were a bar full of willing females, the way that gay guys have gay clubs....well they would also get to 'more than 1,000' partners pretty quickly!  This is evidenced by the average number of sex partners a rock star has!!
> 
> It's not a gay thing, it's a male thing.




I have never met any males who could boast anywhere near that target, even me!!!

The difference is that in an hetrosexual encounter half the equation isn't filling the bars and clubs and they have many factors to consider before they allow copulation. Gang banging, conga lines, etc  are not anywher near a norm for hetro males.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> LOL. So now I'm gay. I'll let my gf know.




You are not lollong. I clearly wrote I think you are a hetrophobe, I did not state you were a homosexual.

But what you did do was take a bait that many here have done in the past. You have displayed a bias against homosexuality without even knowing you did it by trying to be futive.... think about it.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2016)

> Firstly did you know that HIV is pretty much non existent in the lesbian community, who make up 50% of the people with the gay label.






Lesbians 'bigger risk takers' than straight women


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/24/3


----------



## McLovin (2 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Lesbians 'bigger risk takers' than straight women
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/24/3




It's pretty hard/virtually impossible for a girl to give another girl HIV. It's also ridiculously hard for a girl to give a guy HIV through normal sex.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Lesbians 'bigger risk takers' than straight women
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/24/3





That's interesting... lack of self control it seems.    Trisomy or learned behaviour?


also  https://www.avert.org/learn-share/hiv-fact-sheets/women-who-have-sex-with-women


----------



## Junior (2 September 2016)

This whole issue and debate is pretty simple in my mind, people fear what they don't know or understand - this is otherwise referred to as *ignorance*.  And that leads to discrimination.

All it takes is to have one gay friend.  To get to know someone on a personal level, who is gay.  This is easier for younger people, as it is no longer such a taboo to be openly gay and they will have gone to school with kids who turned out to be gay.  

It is harder for the baby boomer generation as they have had it drilled into them by their parents, this this is an not a normal or natural thing.  They will have gone to school with kids who knew they were gay, but had to hide and suppress it to get by.  The reality is, this is a natural thing for a certain %% of the population.

It is not a 'lifestyle choice', and 'they' are not a threat - to children, to the 'institution' of marriage or to straight people.  These are myths borne from ignorance, these myths are thankfully in the process of being dispelled as rubbish and outdated - it will take time.


----------



## Tink (2 September 2016)

Junior, I did ask if there was any scientific evidence to this, and the transgender movement.

No one is stopping people doing what they want to do.

This debate is about the meaning of Marriage and whether it should be changed.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Junior, I did ask if there was any scientific evidence to this, and the transgender movement.
> 
> No one is stopping people doing what they want to do.
> 
> This debate is about the meaning of Marriage and whether it should be changed.




Yes the crux is that ignorance is a two way street. Blind faith that a lifestyle poses no risk to those most vulnerable (e.g. developing minds) is not a scientific approach.

Homosexuals aren't poodles, where you can guess a temperament based on breeding and they certainly aren't pets to be pampered. You don't make a decision that affects the broader community based on attachment. 

If arguments are going to boil down to pro marriage advocates gaffawing, being indignant or wounded about being called a homosexual themselves then it exposes the fallacy of their position by the insult reaction.

We need to argue the case logically and be cognisant of our learned histories, of our social engineering failures of the past and the real threats posed by dissolving social infrastructure in favour of individual satisfaction.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> We need to argue the case logically and be cognisant of our learned histories, of our social engineering failures of the past and the real threats posed by dissolving social infrastructure in favour of individual satisfaction.




Good words.

There are lots of words that change meaning and naturally some dislike the change.
Many says "partner" now rather than wife or husband which I find a bit sad. Just seems a downgrade, partner to me will always relate to business or tennis.

A work colleague used to say my partner Chris (short for Christine) for years until he realised that quite a few of his clients thought he was gay. (True) now he words things a little differently.

Anyway, the point I am making is that the definition will change eventually and once that is achieved I doubt many of the homosexual community will even bother taking it up.  It is becoming less frequent in the heterosexual community, but it will help some feel more accepted. 

Marriage has been debased with people not taking the pledge seriously and divorce being rampant anyway, so it really doesn't bother me much and if it makes some people happy well good on them. Why should I stop them? In the end it's a piece of almost worthless paper in the civil sphere.

Adoption is a separate issue and should be treated separately.


----------



## Junior (2 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> Yes the crux is that ignorance is a two way street. Blind faith that a lifestyle poses no risk to those most vulnerable (e.g. developing minds) is not a scientific approach.
> 
> Homosexuals aren't poodles, where you can guess a temperament based on breeding and they certainly aren't pets to be pampered. You don't make a decision that affects the broader community based on attachment.
> 
> ...




This is fair, but the substantial percentage of heterosexual couples who make bad parents, and the very high incidence of divorce and domestic violence, says to me that this 'gold standard' argument is not grounded in reality.

The current situation is that there are no barriers of entry to marriage - other than having to be a man and woman.  You can have a criminal record, history of violence, drug problem etc. etc.  You can have known your partner for 10 minutes before marrying, you can marry 10 times if you want.  You can lie and cheat, and still go and get married a second time or third time.

So if two blokes want to get married...so be it, no skin off my back.


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> Gang banging, conga lines, etc  are not anywher near a norm for hetro males.




Lol, not for lack of trying though.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2016)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> promiscuity isn't a gay man thing, it's a man thing, all straight men would have a lot more sex is the average women was up for a one night stand as they were.




Do you base that on personal experience ? 

Are you saying you are not loyal to your partner ?

Probably heterosexual promiscuity has been moderated by the fear of getting the woman pregnant and being saddled with unwanted responsibilities, but the fact remains that it is well known that gays are more promiscuous than hets for whatever reason.


----------



## luutzu (2 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you base that on personal experience ?
> 
> Are you saying you are not loyal to your partner ?
> 
> Probably heterosexual promiscuity has been moderated by the fear of getting the woman pregnant and being saddled with unwanted responsibilities, but the fact remains that it is well known that gays are more promiscuous than hets for whatever reason.




Maybe they're just better looking; fitter and better dressed.


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you base that on personal experience ?
> 
> Are you saying you are not loyal to your partner
> .




Well I have been with my partner since I was 21, But prior to that I a certainly out trying to get as much as I could, are you saying in your youth you would have turned down a no strings attached romp with a girl you liked





> Probably heterosexual promiscuity has been moderated by the fear of getting the woman pregnant and being saddled with unwanted responsibilities,




No, its moderated by a lack of equally motivated women.



> but the fact remains that it is well known that gays are more promiscuous than hets for whatever reason




Again you seem to only be talking about hets vs gay men.

what about lesbians, once you start talking about women (in general) promiscuousness rates fall, so whether its straight men or gay men, men generally are open for no strings attached sex.

Here is two social experiments that proves my point.

Women asking guys for sex



guys asking girls


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2016)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> are you saying in your youth you would have turned down a no strings attached romp with a girl you liked




The point is than in hetero relationship there ARE strings attached, as I said the risk of pregnancy and unwanted responsibilities. Gay men don't have this moderator so they are more likely to do it whenever they can.



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> what about lesbians, once you start talking about women (in general) promiscuousness rates fall, so whether its straight men or gay men, men generally are open for no strings attached sex.




Did you read the Guardian article I linked to which indicates that lesbians are more promiscuous (higher risk takers) than straight women ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Gay men don't have this moderator so they are more likely to do it whenever they can.
> 
> 
> 
> ?




So are you saying Gay men in relationships don't expect their partner to be faithful, and its all no strings?



> Did you read the Guardian article I linked to which indicates that lesbians are more promiscuous (higher risk takers) than straight women




Even if that were true, do you think gay women are more promiscuous than straight men?

Did you even watch the video I linked?

Both Straight and gay men are capable of both promiscuous behaviour and also of being faithful, So to bring it up in a debate about marriage is a red herring


----------



## Junior (2 September 2016)

Further to the above, men and women can get married and be as promiscuous as they want....society may frown upon it, but they can do that if they wish.  Then if the relationship breaks down and ends in divorce, they can go and get married and do it again.

So to say that gay men or women are promiscuous (generalisation), and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married, well that's not really fair.

What about the gay couples who are entirely faithful to one another?  They should be precluded from marriage because of this generalisation?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Even if that were true, do you think gay women are more promiscuous than straight men?




Comparing women with men, gay or straight in this context is irrelevant.

 Gay men are more promiscuous than straight men and lesbians are more promiscuous than straight women and that's a fact.

 I'm not saying it has anything to do with marriage, but someone said there was no evidence that gays are more promiscuous than straights, and I provided some.


----------



## noco (2 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> Maybe they're just better looking; fitter and better dressed.




But why do they walk so funny and different to other men?


----------



## luutzu (2 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Comparing women with men, gay or straight in this context is irrelevant.
> 
> Gay men are more promiscuous than straight men and lesbians are more promiscuous than straight women and that's a fact.
> 
> I'm not saying it has anything to do with marriage, but someone said there was no evidence that gays are more promiscuous than straights, and I provided some.




I think VC and others are trying to tell you that all men are more promiscuous - gay or straight. Just that gay men have a better chance with other gay men so more sex; versus straight men trying to get some but straight women are more picky. That is, all guys want to screw, just gay guys are luckier since the object of their screwing also want to screw too.

Clear as mud now? 

So guys like VC, and to some extend myself, who are "loyal" and less promiscuous... it's not out of choice or nature or personality. It's that we ain't that good looking... well I am pretty handsome but yea


----------



## luutzu (2 September 2016)

noco said:


> But why do they walk so funny and different to other men?




Better diet, more exercise and generally more happier (gay). 

Serious, no idea. I think you're referring to the "really gay" gay guys. You know, the ones that are obviously gay - with all those stereotypical mannerism. There are gay guys who we really have no idea are gay until we spend enough time and they let slip a few too many jokes about being rock hard behind somebody (ha haha).


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> Good words.
> 
> There are lots of words that change meaning and naturally some dislike the change.
> Many says "partner" now rather than wife or husband which I find a bit sad. Just seems a downgrade, partner to me will always relate to business or tennis.
> ...




all true


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think VC and others are trying to tell you that all men are more promiscuous - gay or straight. Just that gay men have a better chance with other gay men so more sex; versus straight men trying to get some but straight women are more picky. That is, all guys want to screw, just gay guys are luckier since the object of their screwing also want to screw too.




You have just proved my argument that the objects of attention (gay men) are more likely to want sex, ie are more promiscuous.

Thanks for that.

QED.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> There are gay guys who we really have no idea are gay until we spend enough time and they let slip a few too many jokes about being rock hard behind somebody (ha haha).




That made be laugh, well done. Double entendres aren't lost on you cobber.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

Junior said:


> Further to the above, men and women can get married and be as promiscuous as they want....society may frown upon it, but they can do that if they wish.  Then if the relationship breaks down and ends in divorce, they can go and get married and do it again.
> 
> So to say that gay men or women are promiscuous (generalisation), and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married, well that's not really fair.
> 
> What about the gay couples who are entirely faithful to one another?  They should be precluded from marriage because of this generalisation?




It's a matter of weighting the decision based on a majority versus a minority. There is certainly anecdotal evidence amongst my homosexual friends, family members and acquaintances that monogamy is at best tenuous and more likely frivolous. 

So first hand observation says no they aren't by 'n large suitable as reliable carers and role models (depending on whether you think child exposure to sexualised elders is ok or not).

We are crystal balling with rose coloured glasses about a commitment that is already treated with contempt by many hetrosexuals because it impinges on their self gratification; and that's starting from a base of high expectation to be monogamous.


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You have just proved my argument that the objects of attention (gay men) are more likely to want sex, ie are more promiscuous.
> 
> Thanks for that.
> 
> QED.




Not "Gay Men", men in general. when the object of attention is male, regardless of whether he is straight or gay, he is more likely to be up for it than the average women.

But any way, how is this relevant to gay marriage?


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> There is certainly anecdotal evidence amongst my homosexual friends, family members and acquaintances .




Am I the only one that doubts he actually has gay friends.:

Unless as I suspected a while back Tisme is one of those self hating closet gay men, who is out to publically oppose all things gay so as to misdirect attention from his inner struggle.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Am I the only one that doubts he actually has gay friends.:
> 
> Unless as I suspected a while back Tisme is one of those self hating closet gay men, who is out to publically oppose all things gay so as to misdirect attention from his inner struggle.




So you take the piss out of gays to bolster your arguments when you deem fit?

I would suggest I am better qualified than you if you labour under the misconception that people with opinions about anything different to you must be distant from attachments.

snapshot sunshine: gay niece, gay nephew, two gay friends I play pool with down the pub, numerous gay friends in gay central Port Hedland. Helped a gay 50 yearold client friend declare his persuasion back in 1987 Brisbane when it was not a great idea and not only that helped him move to his lover in Sydney. So what have you done that makes you an expert on all things gay? 

And why aren't I allowed to choose my own opinions without your distorted logic that tacks on illegitimate and diversionary fallacious arguments like "all men are root rats" when all men are not so, but perhaps you are?


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> So you take the piss out of gays to bolster your arguments when you deem fit?
> 
> ?




No I was taking the piss out of you.



> I would suggest I am better qualified than you if you labour under the misconception that people with opinions about anything different to you must be distant from attachments.
> 
> snapshot sunshine: gay niece, gay nephew, two gay friends I play pool with down the pub, numerous gay friends in gay central Port Hedland. Helped a gay 50 yearold client friend declare his persuasion back in 1987 Brisbane when it was not a great idea and not only that helped him move to his lover in Sydney.




You sound like a great friend, smiling to their face taking smack behind their back, or I guess you could just be lying.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No I was taking the piss out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a great friend, smiling to their face taking smack behind their back, or I guess you could just be lying.




I don't talk behind people's back and I don't PM members with defamatory content about members in a rally call  support either.

You're a poor loser when things don't go the way you want aren't you. Even resort to calling people liars and name calling 

This is how I see you and your cohorts ... no malice, just saddened how people can manipulated so easily:


----------



## Value Collector (3 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> I don't talk behind people's back and I don't PM members with defamatory content about members in a rally call  support either.
> 
> ]




What are you talking about? Are you trying to say I have sent someone a pm about you?

Are you saying these "gay friends" know the horrid opinions you have of them? And you talk openly with them about the disgust you feel as you do here?


----------



## Tisme (3 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> What are you talking about? Are you trying to say I have sent someone a pm about you?
> 
> Are you saying these "gay friends" know the horrid opinions you have of them? And you talk openly with them about the disgust you feel as you do here?




I am an open book cobber = WYSIWYG. I'm guessing you have to pussy foot around your gay cohorts, which is no way to treat a real friend is it...real friends weigh the good with the bad, comfort levels, etc. 

None of us is defined by one issue and most of us are more equal than our circle of equal friends.

Misplaced ideas of justice served and community homogeneity denies all players their oblique individuality. A relentless march to the beige and obedient society that started to gain traction in the late eighties is fantastic for the mega industrialist who hanker for drone workers. Of course we are told we are a team and reward will come from the synergy that accrues = bullsh17, loss of the majority's freedom of expression is what's in play and this debate is just another spoke in the wheel.   

When you grow older and wiser VC, you will choose whether to disconnect from engagement as so many lay down misere people do, or (if your generation hasn't shut the door on it by then) discuss your concerns about individual freedoms lost in your lifetime because debate has been shutdown with insult, litigation and misplaced empathies.


----------



## luutzu (3 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You have just proved my argument that the objects of attention (gay men) are more likely to want sex, ie are more promiscuous.
> 
> Thanks for that.
> 
> QED.




No. Was putting what others said another way. I think they're right, but don't know the research etc.

Put it in economics term, it's supply and demand.

Men, in general, have high demand for sex. They'd screw anything and anyone. This include gay men.

Supply on the other hand, is low. i.e. Women are more selective - they gotta be in the mood, want a date out, a nice dinner and maybe a potential father-type. So women sex supply are few.

So straight men are heck out of luck - hence they have less sexual partners; have less sexual encounters.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> Men, in general, have high demand for sex. They'd screw anything and anyone. This include gay men.




So you are happy to have this description applied to yourself ?

Does your wife know what you get up to behind her back, or someone else's ?


----------



## Value Collector (3 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> I am an open book cobber = WYSIWYG..




What about Him (or her).

Are you saying I have PM'ed him or her about you?

I have no PM in either my inbox or outbox from Wysiwyg, and I have messages dating back to 2015 in there, In fact I can't remember ever senting a pm to wysiwyg even before that time on any subject, and if I have it certainly wasn't me that made contact.

What do you think I said about you? and who exactly has been saying I have been sending private messages about you? and when are they saying this happened?



> I'm guessing you have to pussy foot around your gay cohorts, which is no way to treat a real friend is it...real friends weigh the good with the bad, comfort levels, etc.




No, I just find it hard to believe you can truly be a friend to people who you see as sub human, which with the way you speak about them I think you do.


----------



## Value Collector (3 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> Put it in economics term, it's supply and demand.
> 
> Men, in general, have high demand for sex. They'd screw anything and anyone. This include gay men.
> 
> .




Yep, its an evolution thing.

Through our evolutionary history, its been in the interest of the male to have as much sex with as many partners as possible, after all male can have 1000's of children in his life and leave the females to care for them, using the "shotgun approach" he is guaranteed to have a certain percentage to survive with good genes.

However female human can have relatively few children, so its in her interests to be selective with whom she mates, and select a partner with good genes whom is also going to be loyal and stay around and protect and provide for her few offspring.

the females hopes of spreading her genes are limited to the handful of children she can personally raise, she must make sure they have good genes and are protected, so is naturally going to be very selective.

A male can be less selective, because he has not limits to the number of children, he is not making a large commitment, he can impregnate and then move on.

--------------------------------

This is our evolutionary history, I am not making any statements about how we should structure our lives now.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yep, its an evolution thing.
> 
> Through our evolutionary history, its been in the interest of the male to have as much sex with as many partners as possible, after all male can have 1000's of children in his life and leave the females to care for them, using the "shotgun approach" he is guaranteed to have a certain percentage to survive with good genes.
> 
> ...




You are attempting to explain the facts , which is that gay males have more sexual partners than straight males ? 

Do you deny this ?

Whatever the reasons for it the premise is true.


----------



## Value Collector (3 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You are attempting to explain the facts , which is that gay males have more sexual partners than straight males ?
> 
> Do you deny this ?
> 
> Whatever the reasons for it the premise is true.




I don't think you can generalise it, 

Do I think all gay men have more sexual partners than all straight men? No. 

I mean I know straight guys that are in their 30's that have more than 100 sexual partners (including ones they paid), but I can't see how this affects anything.

One of my mates used to go to the brothels at least once a week that's (50 partners a year)for years, he is now married with kids, and given up the habit, but plenty of "happily married men" don't give up the habit.

There is probably more brothels in the greater Sydney area than their is gay clubs, not to mention all the girls that work from home or out call, plus the swingers clubs, fetish clubs, orgy groups etc, Just because straight men and women aren't talking about it, don't think for a minute there is not a subculture of straight men and women meeting up for sex whether it's paid for or swingers clubs etc.


----------



## luutzu (3 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yep, its an evolution thing.
> 
> Through our evolutionary history, its been in the interest of the male to have as much sex with as many partners as possible, after all male can have 1000's of children in his life and leave the females to care for them, using the "shotgun approach" he is guaranteed to have a certain percentage to survive with good genes.
> 
> ...




Trust you to science-backed our depravity. I thought we dudes are just animals all these times. 

But yup, next time the missus complain, I'll say it's for survival of the species


----------



## luutzu (3 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So you are happy to have this description applied to yourself ?
> 
> Does your wife know what you get up to behind her back, or someone else's ?




Oh she knows what I am like.   But she also know I'm cheap and lazy, so it ain't gonna happen anywhere else.

Well, I like to think that I don't go around because I'm a busy man with honor and integrity. But cheap and lazy probably fit better.

I also subscribes to Frank Barronne's advise to Raymond: When you got a problem at home with your woman, don't go and get another woman. Then you'll have two problems!


----------



## explod (3 September 2016)

Marriage as a promise,  a contract,  agreement, understanding,  commitment or whatever between two people is just that,  no more,  no less.   And it is the business of the particular couple and no one elses business. 

Half traditional marriages break up,  again its their right and thier own business.   And if you are gay, straight,  upright or crooked,  if its between two people its no one elses business.   Anyone who says we should or should not do this or that (regardless of beliefs from heaven or fairyland)  are interfearing full stop. 

So we need to get over the crapola and our politicians need to do what they are paid to do and put it up for a vote on the democratic floor of our Parliament and see if the votes are there to create a law for same sex marriage or not.   These minor,  in my view,  distractions are taking the communities minds away from the real problems we have with,  jobs,  education,  affordable homes for all and a level tax playing field adinfanitum.


----------



## noco (3 September 2016)

explod said:


> Marriage as a promise,  a contract,  agreement, understanding,  commitment or whatever between two people is just that,  no more,  no less.   And it is the business of the particular couple and no one elses business.
> 
> Half traditional marriages break up,  again its their right and thier own business.   And if you are gay, straight,  upright or crooked,  if its between two people its no one elses business.   Anyone who says we should or should not do this or that (regardless of beliefs from heaven or fairyland)  are interfearing full stop.
> 
> So we need to get over the crapola and our politicians need to do what they are paid to do and put it up for a vote on the democratic floor of our Parliament and see if the votes are there to create a law for same sex marriage or not.   These minor,  in my view,  distractions are taking the communities minds away from the real problems we have with,  jobs,  education,  affordable homes for all and a level tax playing field adinfanitum.




The majority want a plebiscite ...FULL STOP....The fear of losing is in the Green Labor Party camp and they are not prepared to accept it.


----------



## explod (3 September 2016)

noco said:


> The majority want a plebiscite ...FULL STOP....The fear of losing is in the Green Labor Party camp and they are not prepared to accept it.




Absolute rubbish,  I could not care one way or the other.   But I very much do care about the huge amount of money the plebesite would waste over such a small issue when it could be dealt with in a flash on the floor of the Parliament by the people,  that the peope put there,  to get on with the job and make DECISIONS NOCO

And what majority, who's and what figures.  And the press don't rule the  roost either


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2016)

explod said:


> Absolute rubbish,  I could not care one way or the other.   But I very much do care about the huge amount of money the plebesite would waste over such a small issue when it could be dealt with in a flash on the floor of the Parliament by the people,  that the peope put there,  to get on with the job and make DECISIONS NOCO
> 
> And what majority, who's and what figures.  And the press don't rule the  roost either




It has been dealt with a number of times and the answer was no. Why not leave it at that ?


----------



## luutzu (3 September 2016)

explod said:


> Absolute rubbish,  I could not care one way or the other.   But I very much do care about the huge amount of money the plebesite would waste over such a small issue when it could be dealt with in a flash on the floor of the Parliament by the people,  that the peope put there,  to get on with the job and make DECISIONS NOCO
> 
> And what majority, who's and what figures.  And the press don't rule the  roost either




You have to give the plebs some appearance of democracy, I guess. Even if it cost them $160M for the pleasure - it's not like it's your money. Right? 

For the hard stuff where your own conscience says yes; most of your constituents says yes; some of your religious voters says no; your donors doesn't care either way - it's best to let the plebs take the credits and the blame; let them take their focus away from the more important tasks of how much tax and state monopolies to give to corporations, how much to defund public services, what laws to pass to expand wars on terror...


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> So straight men are heck out of luck - hence they have less sexual partners; have less sexual encounters.




Let's say you are right...is that that grounds for stable marriage and stable parenting?


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It has been dealt with a number of times and the answer was no. Why not leave it at that ?




Daylight saving, republicanism, gay marriage... three pests that just won't accept the umpire's decision. Two have already been sent to the weary public and rejected. It's important the public actively participate in determining if a we obliterate marriage, considered a solemn pledge by many, and succumb to the relentless propaganda being spread by rebels looking for a cause.

Being flippant about marriage, and I am guilty myself, does not preclude our collective responsibility to treat the issue as having ramifications that may not be in our best interest down the track. We already allowed ourselves (majority) to be muzzled with legislations protecting the vulnerable at the expense of our freedoms of expression as we try to assimilate those who will never, by choice, give up their individuality and lifestyle choice. We shouldn't wreck society to try to save it from itself.


----------



## luutzu (5 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> Let's say you are right...is that that grounds for stable marriage and stable parenting?




Heteros marriages are all stable and won't at all break down half the time? There are no drunk fathers and abusive mothers until the gays come around?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> There are no drunk fathers and abusive mothers ...




They could just as easily be gay.


----------



## luutzu (5 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> They could just as easily be gay.




heee


----------



## Tink (5 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It has been dealt with a number of times and the answer was no. Why not leave it at that ?




Agree.

So what are you -- a cisgender going by their new rules book, Luutzu, that we have to take on for the changes.

Have you looked at what the changes are?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29219&page=11&p=906193&viewfull=1#post906193


----------



## pixel (5 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> Daylight saving, republicanism, gay marriage... three pests that just won't accept the umpire's decision. Two have already been sent to the weary public and rejected. It's important the public actively participate in determining if a *we obliterate marriage, considered a solemn pledge by many,* and succumb to the relentless propaganda being spread by rebels looking for a cause.
> 
> Being flippant about marriage, and I am guilty myself, does not preclude our collective responsibility to treat the issue as having ramifications that may not be in our best interest down the track. We already allowed ourselves (majority) to be muzzled with legislations protecting the vulnerable at the expense of our freedoms of expression as we try to assimilate those who will never, by choice, give up their individuality and lifestyle choice. We shouldn't wreck society to try to save it from itself.




Nobody stands in your way when you want to keep your "solemn pledge" or consider the "sacrament of marriage". But don't YOU stand in the way of others that wish to evolve the English language. Nobody appointed you to be the arbiter of the meaning of any particular word. As long as I know what my own marriage means to me and my partner, another man's interpretation of his liaison is no skin off my nose. 

Otherwise: What's next? Would you want to redefine "human" in the biblical sense, as "created in His Image"? As a good many "Christians" believe that "God is an American", would that then deny all others the "human" label? 
Less than a century ago, a chap from Austria tried that very stunt, equating Human with Aryan, thus considering all non-Aryans as sub-human. Check how successful that turned out to be...


----------



## Value Collector (5 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree.




Women wouldn't have the vote and slavery would be legal if we just "Left it at that", pretty much all the big wins for civil rights have had trouble getting through at first, then a few years later we can't believe there was even a debate.


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> Heteros marriages are all stable and won't at all break down half the time? There are no drunk fathers and abusive mothers until the gays come around?




That's an irrelevant argument. Abusers should be persuaded not to marry and copulate to populate too.


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2016)

pixel said:


> Nobody stands in your way when you want to keep your "solemn pledge" or consider the "sacrament of marriage". But don't YOU stand in the way of others that wish to evolve the English language. Nobody appointed you to be the arbiter of the meaning of any particular word. As long as I know what my own marriage means to me and my partner, another man's interpretation of his liaison is no skin off my nose.
> 
> Otherwise: What's next? Would you want to redefine "human" in the biblical sense, as "created in His Image"? As a good many "Christians" believe that "God is an American", would that then deny all others the "human" label?
> Less than a century ago, a chap from Austria tried that very stunt, equating Human with Aryan, thus considering all non-Aryans as sub-human. Check how successful that turned out to be...





I'll use my freedom of speech whenever I can, until the govt takes it completely away from. Like me, no one appointed YOU as the moral guardian and owner of the sceptre of etymology. No one gave YOU the voice to talk for the majority ... that will be decided by plebiscite or parliament, in the meantime debate requires confrontation with truth....my truth.

I can't talk for other nations and the impact of their actions, but Germany, Japan, Russia, Austria, Italy, Deep South USA et al seem fairly prosperous these days?

You really want to take me on with the english language?


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Women wouldn't have the vote and slavery would be legal if we just "Left it at that", pretty much all the big wins for civil rights have had trouble getting through at first, then a few years later we can't believe there was even a debate.




I think it took 4 hundred years for occidental slavery to be abolished, its continues in many places including the east and Africa.

I took working class Australia and NZ to give women the modern vote after they themselves were denied that opportunity. Gays were not denied either of those milestones. 

Marriage was defined as a particular coupling for the purpose of govt regulation and nation building, complete with incentives denied those who did not marry, children from wedlock, etc. Back then people were too busy making a crust than argue the toss about not abiding by the rules of society.


----------



## luutzu (5 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree.
> 
> So what are you -- a cisgender going by their new rules book, Luutzu, that we have to take on for the changes.
> 
> ...




I half understand what you said there. I think we all agree that you mean well Tink, just it also seem you take what others do as either with you or against you or your religion personally. We're not all VC you know  

Sometime people just do things that don't align with your beliefs for no other reason than they're just exercising their freedom - or demand what ought to be their right under law and liberty and all that. And if that offends your sensibilities or go against the traditional good old value, well they didn't mean to offend you and co personally - just sometimes the old ways aren't all as good as it's cracked up to be.

But like VC have said before, how does giving other people their due rights and equality mean the taking away of someone else's rights and equality?

If homosexuals are equal in marriage, does it mean the Christian value, though shall not cheat or abuse children marriage be devalue in any way?

What would Jesus do? He'd probably burn down the Vatican and all those palatial churches and their trust funds before he'd bother to hug his Father's queer creations too.


----------



## luutzu (5 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> That's an irrelevant argument. Abusers should be persuaded not to marry and copulate to populate too.




I'm definitely sure that if a partner know their potential partner to be abusive, they won't be engaged and risk it in marriage. So unless we can prove that all gays are bad partners and parents, we can go and watch tv and leave people's personal business to them alone.

I mean, no body ask another stranger whether they could marry this guy or that gal; why must the homosexuals be forced to do prove to people that they'd be good partners and parents?

Heck, judging by the going ons with Catholic priests, we should put the onus on all Catholics wanting to raise a family. They must prove that they won't drink, won't have more kids than they can fee, and definitely prove that whatever hyms and hallelujah they sing every weekend in their Church from certain priests didn't infect their moral standing. 

But that'd be wrong right?

anyway, why am I arguing with you? dam it.


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> I'm definitely sure that if a partner know their potential partner to be abusive, they won't be engaged and risk it in marriage. So unless we can prove that all gays are bad partners and parents, we can go and watch tv and leave people's personal business to them alone.
> 
> I mean, no body ask another stranger whether they could marry this guy or that gal; why must the homosexuals be forced to do prove to people that they'd be good partners and parents?
> 
> ...




OK let's get this out in the open..... a man who batters his wife and children is committing a criminal offence, which should feel the full weight of the law. It in no way give impetus to the notion of homosexual marriage.... it's a nonsense argument designed to fool the fools.


----------



## luutzu (5 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> OK let's get this out in the open..... a man who batters his wife and children is committing a criminal offence, which should feel the full weight of the law. It in no way give impetus to the notion of homosexual marriage.... it's a nonsense argument designed to fool the fools.




How?

What are the arguments against gay marriage/parenting?

Gays are more promiscuous; gay parents are bad for the children; gays will ruin society's value and moral etc.

If gays shouldn't be permitted to equal marriage and parenting rights based on those "evidence" and concerns... let us then see if non-gay people are more chaste; straight parents are all good; traditional marriage are all sweet and uplift and moral.

Since you can't prove the opposite, the case against gay marriage based on such argument doesn't stand.

Elementary, my dear Watson.


----------



## Tisme (6 September 2016)

luutzu said:


> How?
> 
> What are the arguments against gay marriage/parenting?
> 
> ...




All been proved, but ignored.

On a segue watch Foreign Correspondent tonight to see our future for children without a family and rationale where the gaybies fit in between.


----------



## Macquack (6 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> I think it took 4 hundred years for occidental slavery to be abolished, its continues in many places including the east and Africa.
> 
> I took working class Australia and NZ to give women the modern vote after they themselves were denied that opportunity. *Gays were not denied either of those milestones*.




Well, the lesbians were denied the right to vote.

I suppose you would be happy to deny all gays the right to vote?


----------



## Tisme (6 September 2016)

Macquack said:


> Well, the lesbians were denied the right to vote.
> 
> I suppose you would be happy to deny all gays the right to vote?




What lesbians were denied the vote? Fact pls

Why would I deny all gays the right to vote? Fact pls

Why don't you just ask a direct question instead of couching in an abstract designed to infer a guilt of some sort?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2016)

Macquack said:


> Well, the lesbians were denied the right to vote.
> 
> I suppose you would be happy to deny all gays the right to vote?




Let everyone vote in a plebiscite, the politicians are obviously not qualified to judge mere issues of social will.


----------



## Macquack (6 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> What lesbians were denied the vote? Fact pls






Obviously, the women lesbians.


----------



## moXJO (7 September 2016)

Hey Tisme 
What does your wife think about the subject?  
Not trolling, serious question.


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2016)

Macquack said:


> Obviously, the women lesbians.




I knew you would bring that up so I was obviously armed to the teeth. We all think that democracy in Oz came with teh first fleet, but the vote has a fairly recent history:

1. The first parliamentary vote in NSW was 1850 and even then males had to have $400 or a householder with $40/annum income

2. In 1856 men over 21 allowed to vote SA, 1857 men over 21 in Vic, 1868 NSW,  1872 QLD and because WA only got self govt in 1890 the *21 yearolds had to wait unit 1893* 

3. Women and aboriginals over 21 were allowed the vote in SA in 1895 and  *women in WA 1899*

Of course none of this known by most Australians because we are too busy saving ourselves from the cultural cringe of never keeping up with the rest of world and its fads.

BY comparison with the US: women had the vote in the British america colonies, but lost it when the local blokes decided they would revolt against old blighty; I assume so the men could vote themselves war necessities. They were still being stripped of their suffrage rights well into the late 1800s and had to wait until the 1900s to regain what they lost 100 plus years before.


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2016)

moXJO said:


> Hey Tisme
> What does your wife think about the subject?
> Not trolling, serious question.




You display a consistent credibility  moXJO so:

I think more to the point is what my X/Y gen daughter and her friends think (paraphrasing): "who cares; it's just a fad; the govt will make sure kids are looked after; only your generation cares about this dad, etc"

My silent (defeatest) gen mum's attitude (paraphrasing): " there's nothing you can do about, it is going to happen, you just have to live with it. Govts will do what it takes to garner votes". Very much a practicing Christian " do your best and leave the rest to god" works well for her.

My various early boomer and late silent genner male friends, male rellies and males in building industry on the other hand are more facsist leaning on this and islam than I would ever be LOL. If they knew about the United Patriots Front I'm sure they would donate to the cause ....and that crosses right across the broad body politic amongst them


----------



## grah33 (7 September 2016)

i just don't know about gay marriage.  when you start messing around with basic social structures, structures which civilizations are built upon, there has to be some unfavorable  consequences.  in any case,  should be interesting to see what happens  . labor should stop trying to force it on everybody


----------



## pixel (7 September 2016)

grah33 said:


> i just don't know about gay marriage.  when you start messing around with basic social structures, structures which civilizations are built upon, there has to be some unfavorable  consequences.  in any case,  should be interesting to see what happens  . labor should stop trying to force it on everybody




? force what on whom ?
I haven't noticed any attempt to make homosexuality compulsory for all married couples. If that were the case, I'd join the Anti-Brigade like a shot. And for the record: I don't feel the slightest inclination to attend or watch any Rainbow parade or Mardi Gras. I do, however, object most strongly if anyone tries to deny attendance to anyone so inclined.

As far as I can see, extending the right to marry their chosen partner to everybody doesn't "mess" with any straight couple's social structure. Traditional families will still remain what they're now: faithful or not, good parents or dysfunctional, caring role models or abusive. What other couples call their relationship won't make the slightest difference to what and who they are.


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2016)

*Death of marriage = "progress"
*1. "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."
-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,
Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University 

*Who needs marriage anymore*
2. "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
-- David Vakalis

*Redefine the institution
*3.  "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
-- Michelangelo Signorile, 
OUT magazine, December/January 1994
*
We are advocating destruction
*4.  "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."
-- Ryan Conrad

*Next step: Abolish*
5.  "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
-- Sally Kohn, 
Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

*The death of marriage
*6.  "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens."
-- Alex Gabriel,  
Politics.co.uk

*Stoke the flames
*7.  "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
-- National Conference on Organized Resistance

*Marriage erodes "freedom"*
8.  "Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes."
-- David McGee

*A moral revolution*
9.  "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
-- Paul Varnell, 
Chicago Free Press

*Abolish the family
*10.  "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,
London, 1971, revised 1978

*Transform society*
11. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source]
-- Paula Ettelbrick
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

*Marriage should not exist
*12. "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there””because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
-- Masha Gessen, journalist 
During a pannel discussion at the Sydney Writers Festival


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> *Death of marriage = "progress"
> *1. "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."
> -- Dr. Meagan Tyler,
> Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University
> ....




Indeed, an attempt to drag everyone down to a degenerate free for all hotch potch with no concept of family or secure relationships.

It's a "if we can't have families, no one can" mindset, an attack on the grass roots of society.


----------



## Tink (8 September 2016)

Agree, Rumpole and Tisme.

The reason they don't want the plebiscite, as people are waking up.

Political Correctness is a poison in our society, that let's evil flourish.

In my view, the left are VANDALS, destroying this country from within.

Thank God Joe believes in Freedom of Speech.

If this was Daniel Andrews in Victoria, it would be shut down already.


----------



## Tisme (8 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree, Rumpole and Tisme.
> 
> The reason they don't want the plebiscite, as people are waking up.
> 
> ...




I've managed to aggravate a certain take no prisoners femme who promotes gay marriage at every opportunity on national TV. Very defensive on social media about me baiting her royal highness.


----------



## moXJO (8 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed, an attempt to drag everyone down to a degenerate free for all hotch potch with no concept of family or secure relationships.
> 
> It's a "if we can't have families, no one can" mindset, an attack on the grass roots of society.




I have to agree with this.
It seems families are frowned upon unless you are a trendy power couple that instagrams every moment in vain fashion while declaring "We Have it All". And children being used as trendy accessories while been shoved of to babysitters for 12 hours of the day.

Families are being weakened by toxic feminism,  PC warriors and an increasingly shallow "all about me" population. And it furthers the amount of people that seem disconnected from society. Can't seeing getting any better either.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2016)

moXJO said:


> I have to agree with this.
> It seems families are frowned upon unless you are a trendy power couple that instagrams every moment in vain fashion while declaring "We Have it All". And children being used as trendy accessories while been shoved of to babysitters for 12 hours of the day.
> 
> Families are being weakened by toxic feminism,  PC warriors and an increasingly shallow "all about me" population. And it furthers the amount of people that seem disconnected from society. Can't seeing getting any better either.




It's interesting how gay marriage is being proclaimed a progression to an impossible equality of dissimilar entities, but the real potential regression of children back to disassociated parenting is not considered a problem.,,,, the contra being that work focused hetrosexual couples do it so it's OK.


----------



## explod (13 September 2016)

If a couple of blokes or girls want to get married I cannot see any reason for them not to be allowed. 

It is their business and we should all mind our own business. 

But the fuss and expense the government is going to just shows how stupid we are.   And if the plebesite does pass in the positive there is still a good chance the government still won't pass it anyway.   How many houses for the disadvantaged would the plebesite moneys build.  

Its time our Prime Minister got down to implimenting some of his rants on productivity and jobs.   Some hope and substance for the people on the ground.


----------



## Tink (14 September 2016)

If it is their business, then they should stop the funding of the unsafe anti bullying propaganda being forced on the children in public schools against the parents wishes.
In that way you can have more funds directed at teaching what you are supposed to be teaching in these schools, like reading, writing etc rather than your leftist propaganda and dogma.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25851&page=6&p=903407&viewfull=1#post903407

Is that the same men and women that the left believe don't deserve their own separate bathrooms?
Good to see a few public schools have declined taking it on, and have set up their own anti bullying, which caters for all children.
---------------------------------------

This is about Marriage and what the government is saying to the Community.
What is being taught in our schools for the next generation.

Just like the police, the army, etc.
All laws are based on morality.

A Mother and Father are important in a child's life, and vice versa.
To change that, you are giving a different message to the community, that children don't matter and that a mother and father doesn't matter.
No responsibility, no accountability.

Children can be sold like pets in a pet shop, and let's bring in the pr0n industry and prostitution.

What people do in the community is up to them, but when it comes to Marriage and standards, these are things that we should be standing up for, in my view.

As Rumpole said, people have made up their minds already, but a plebiscite should be held for the public.

Luutzu, you asked me what Jesus would do, I don't think I have to answer that one.

Responsibility and accountability.

Remember, this over rides traditional marriage with its own rules.

Not enough lions in the den, we are still talking.

-----------------------------------------------------

Malcolm Turnbull has set up a plebiscite because it has come from demand from both sides, the public want a voice on this important change that changes our society.

Good on him for holding up a mirror to Adam Bandt and Bill Shorten, to show who the real bullies are with their hate speech.


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2016)

Tink said:


> If it is their business, then they should stop the funding of the unsafe anti bullying propaganda being forced on the children in public schools against the parents wishes.
> In that way you can have more funds directed at teaching what you are supposed to be teaching in these schools, like reading, writing etc rather than your leftist propaganda and dogma.
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25851&page=6&p=903407&viewfull=1#post903407
> 
> ...




The people setting the agendas are observably damaged goods themselves, no doubt righting the injustices they feel for themselves via any vehicle they can find.  It really is a religion in itself with the deity an invisible force of collective antagonism railing against a stubborn residue of people who stay on well worn paths.

The upsetting thing about the whole thing is how the public are so easily convinced their primal defense system is out of quilter, because social media and an entertainment industry full of wierdos says so. It's all so matter of fact predicated on bulldust.


----------



## noco (14 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> The people setting the agendas are observably damaged goods themselves, no doubt righting the injustices they feel for themselves via any vehicle they can find.  It really is a religion in itself with the deity an invisible force of collective antagonism railing against a stubborn residue of people who stay on well worn paths.
> 
> The upsetting thing about the whole thing is how the public are so easily convinced their primal defense system is out of quilter, because social media and an entertainment industry full of wierdos says so. It's all so matter of fact predicated on bulldust.




How can people setting the agenda be damaged goods themselves.......I don't understand you jargon.

The laws sates that a marriage is between a man and a woman.....If this rule is to be changed, then it should be decided by the people and not politicians.....

The Greens and Labor are trying to block it for they fear that the outcome will not be in their favor.

Gays and Lesbians have been living together for centuries and it only until recently they want to sign a piece of paper which they believe will hold them together for the rest of their lives......Will it in deed?

There a major religion who want to spell death to homosexuals, but on the same hand that religion is happy to allow forced marriages on 10 and 11 year girls and for the men to have more than one wife.


----------



## Junior (14 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> The people setting the agendas are observably damaged goods themselves, no doubt righting the injustices they feel for themselves via any vehicle they can find.  It really is a religion in itself with the deity an invisible force of collective antagonism railing against a stubborn residue of people who stay on well worn paths.




Don't forget the other 95% who are in favour of gay marriage, who simply see it as an equal rights issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2016)

Junior said:


> Don't forget the other 95% who are in favour of gay marriage, who simply see it as an equal rights issue.




I don't know of it's 95% that agree with gay marriage, only a plebiscite will tell us that, but I think 95% of the population are sick of hearing about the issue, and wish it would go away, one way or another.

It's a distraction from the fundamentals, national interest whether in home affairs or foreign affairs.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know of it's 95% that agree with gay marriage, only a plebiscite will tell us that, but I think 95% of the population are sick of hearing about the issue, and wish it would go away, one way or another.
> 
> It's a distraction from the fundamentals, national interest whether in home affairs or foreign affairs.




I am also sick of this "hate speech" we keep hearing of but never see.
I find that some of the left lack respect.


----------



## overhang (14 September 2016)

Thankfully it's looking like Labor will block the plebiscite.  What a waste of at least $160 million it would be to then have MPs cast a non-binding vote anyway.

Howard didn't need a plebiscite to change the marriage act in 2004 to align with his ideology so I'm not sure why we need a plebiscite now.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2016)

overhang said:


> Thankfully it's looking like Labor will block the plebiscite.  What a waste of at least $160 million it would be to then have MPs cast a non-binding vote anyway.
> 
> Howard didn't need a plebiscite to change the marriage act in 2004 to align with his ideology so I'm not sure why we need a plebiscite now.




The Conservatives control the House and if they don't allow a vote on SSM, then it won't happen for another 3 years.


----------



## overhang (14 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Conservatives control the House and if they don't allow a vote on SSM, then it won't happen for another 3 years.




If the SSM community have to wait at least another 3 years then so be it, as much as public opinion seems to indicate it will pass you never know how people will react once the ACL launch their propaganda campaign and if the plebiscite failed it would possibly set them back another 10 years.  I still find it astonishing that Turnbull can't even control the party enough to force a binding vote if the yes vote won.  Considering Bernardi and Christensen continue to threaten to cross the floor maybe it's time a few of the Lib SSM supporters threatened to cross the floor if Turnbull won't allow a free vote.


----------



## explod (14 September 2016)

noco said:


> How can people setting the agenda be damaged goods themselves.......I don't understand you jargon.
> 
> The laws sates that a marriage is between a man and a woman.....If this rule is to be changed, then it should be decided by the people and not politicians.....
> 
> ...



The members of the Parliament were put there by the people to make,  discuss and decide matters for the people.   They are the voice of the people and should do their job and decide  this matter within the Parliament and pass the laws which is thier jurisdiction.   It's not such a big deal,  marriage is a contract between two people be they men,  women together or brindle.   In fact less young people are choosing to marry at all these days.   Its no longer a big deal and to waste money on a plebesite is irresponsible and CHICKENING OUT


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2016)

Junior said:


> Don't forget the other 95% who are in favour of gay marriage, who simply see it as an equal rights issue.




You reckon 90%? That would make it an even greater injustice to the minority who oppose.


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know of it's 95% that agree with gay marriage, only a plebiscite will tell us that, but I think 95% of the population are sick of hearing about the issue, and wish it would go away, one way or another.
> 
> It's a distraction from the fundamentals, national interest whether in home affairs or foreign affairs.




Malcolm gave a good speech in parliament today, although he did spoil the mood by attacking Labor for cheap shots half way through which was disappointingly juvenile. He pointed out that "homophobe" is a hate term and that Gillard and Coy were homophobes by applying the same yardsticks.

I'm just glad I'm a bigot and lovin' it


----------



## qldfrog (14 September 2016)

overhang said:


> If the SSM community have to wait at least another 3 years then so be it, as much as public opinion seems to indicate it will pass you never know how people will react once the ACL launch their propaganda campaign and if the plebiscite failed it would possibly set them back another 10 years.  I still find it astonishing that Turnbull can't even control the party enough to force a binding vote if the yes vote won.  Considering Bernardi and Christensen continue to threaten to cross the floor maybe it's time a few of the Lib SSM supporters threatened to cross the floor if Turnbull won't allow a free vote.



what about giving democracy a chance for a change: Liberals have been elected or is that not valid because you did not vote for them, they were elected on a plebicite program on gay marriage and won.
The Berlin wall may have fallen but the Stalinists are still there: for the better of the people against their will; and they say Trump is fascist!!!
He is a teddy bear compared to the bullying taking place in OZ on this subject
as if this country had nothing better to do....
If at the last election, people wanted gay marriage thrown down our throat, they voted green or labour but they lost.


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2016)

overhang said:


> If the SSM community have to wait at least another 3 years then so be it, as much as public opinion seems to indicate it will pass you never know how people will react once the ACL launch their propaganda campaign and if the plebiscite failed it would possibly set them back another 10 years.  I still find it astonishing that Turnbull can't even control the party enough to force a binding vote if the yes vote won.  Considering Bernardi and Christensen continue to threaten to cross the floor maybe it's time a few of the Lib SSM supporters threatened to cross the floor if Turnbull won't allow a free vote.





According to many vocal advocates, SSM is a no brainer and no big deal, so I guess there's no hurry as it's not a game changer.


----------



## explod (14 September 2016)

qldfrog said:


> what about giving democracy a chance for a change: Liberals have been elected or is that not valid because you did not vote for them, they were elected on a plebicite program on gay marriage and won.
> The Berlin wall may have fallen but the Stalinists are still there: for the better of the people against their will; and they say Trump is facist!!!
> He is a teddy bear compared to the bullying taking place in OZ on this subject
> as if this country had nothing better to do....
> If at the last election, people wanted gay marriage thrown down our throat, they voted green or labour but they lost.



The ALP actually gained seats in proportion to the libs and the Green percentage went up overall which may suggest the yes vote making ground


----------



## qldfrog (14 September 2016)

explod said:


> The ALP actually gained seats in proportion to the libs and the Green percentage went up overall which may suggest the yes vote making ground



maybe but not enough 
So be patient, pass the law when you are next in a majority.No worries, it will happen


----------



## explod (14 September 2016)

qldfrog said:


> maybe but not enough
> So be patient, pass the law when you are next in a majority.No worries, it will happen




Latest from Parliament indicates Labor and Greens will block the plebesite.  So Turnbull now needs to move on and get down to putting substance behind his "jobs and growth"


----------



## noco (14 September 2016)

explod said:


> The members of the Parliament were put there by the people to make,  discuss and decide matters for the people.   They are the voice of the people and should do their job and decide  this matter within the Parliament and pass the laws which is thier jurisdiction.   It's not such a big deal,  marriage is a contract between two people be they men,  women together or brindle.   In fact less young people are choosing to marry at all these days.   Its no longer a big deal and to waste money on a plebesite is irresponsible and CHICKENING OUT




So if it is not a BIG deal, why can't the Greens and Labor accept the decision by the people......The government went to the election with the plebiscite as part of their policy and voters have accepted it and may I remind you the LNP did win the election or can't you accept it after all this time?......Do you now want the Liberals to change their mind and be accused of breaking a promise.?...The Government have made the decision, now please accept it in good grace without fear of favor.

The Greens and Labor are running scared and will fight it to the end.......Explod, just lay down your bashing tools and let the government run the plebiscite as promised and accepted by the voters.:horse:


----------



## noco (14 September 2016)

explod said:


> Latest from Parliament indicates Labor and Greens will block the plebesite.  So Turnbull now needs to move on and get down to putting substance behind his "jobs and growth"




Just more typical Green/Labor coalition obstruction to a LNP mandate......The Greens and Labor hate each other  but still climb into bed together each night....Funny sort of a relationship.......A sort of LOVE HATE relationship.....They can't get on with each other and they can't do without each other.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2016)

If the SSM advocates want a Parliamentary vote, may I remind them that they have already had several so isn't it time that they accepted the Parliament's decision ?


----------



## overhang (14 September 2016)

qldfrog said:


> what about giving democracy a chance for a change: Liberals have been elected or is that not valid because you did not vote for them, they were elected on a plebicite program on gay marriage and won.
> The Berlin wall may have fallen but the Stalinists are still there: for the better of the people against their will; and they say Trump is fascist!!!
> He is a teddy bear compared to the bullying taking place in OZ on this subject
> as if this country had nothing better to do....
> If at the last election, people wanted gay marriage thrown down our throat, they voted green or labour but they lost.




They may have formed government but they were a long way off achieving the majority of first preference votes to indicate that they received a mandate, so I don't think it's fair to assume the majority of Australians wanted a plebiscite.  The whole mandate is a weak argument in most cases as it makes assumptions that the constitutes voted for a party because they agree with all their polices when that is clearly not the case, there would be many that voted for the coalition that disagree with a plebiscite but it wasn't a priority in the way they vote.  Should we have a plebiscite on euthanasia, offshore processing?  Where do you draw the line on what moral issues governments can't represent us on? 




Tisme said:


> According to many vocal advocates, SSM is a no brainer and no big deal, so I guess there's no hurry as it's not a game changer.




According to many SSM opponents we have a budget emergency but we can spare $160 million for a plebiscite that will still be non-binding because Turnbull cant control his party.


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2016)

overhang said:


> According to many SSM opponents we have a budget emergency but we can spare $160 million for a plebiscite that will still be non-binding because Turnbull cant control his party.




I wonder who is getting that $160M ? Especially with so much free online polling apps around?


----------



## explod (14 September 2016)

noco said:


> Just more typical Green/Labor coalition obstruction to a LNP mandate......The Greens and Labor hate each other  but still climb into bed together each night....Funny sort of a relationship.......A sort of LOVE HATE relationship.....They can't get on with each other and they can't do without each other.




What LNP mandate? 

  Put all two houses together and its pretty well tied up as one bundle. 

It is democracy at work and how that relates to their private business in bed after knock off time I don't know. 

The people have been very wise in their choice and the parties have to work together and negotiate.   Dominance and self interest as we have seen for many years is being questioned.  Very healthy indeed.


----------



## overhang (14 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> I wonder who is getting that $160M ? Especially with so much free online polling apps around?




Well the coalition have already proposed to give supporters and opponents 7.5 million each to fund campaigns.  But the ABS couldn't even manage the census online and you expect AEC to be able to handle a compulsory online poll.


----------



## noco (14 September 2016)

explod said:


> What LNP mandate?
> 
> Put all two houses together and its pretty well tied up as one bundle.
> 
> ...




Climing into bed with each, as you well know, is a figure of speech. 

What has the Green/Labor coalition Party got to fear about a plebiscite?.......The decision has been made for February 11 2017...If the Green/Labor coalition want to block it in the senate so be it.......I am pleased you accept we live in a democratic world so show your true spirit of democracy and let all people have a their say......The gays will have to wait another 3 years and in the meantime according to Bill Shorten we will have a heap of gay suicides....Oh dear, if there is only one suicide, that is one too many.


----------



## explod (14 September 2016)

noco said:


> Climing into bed with each, as you well know, is a figure of speech.
> 
> What has the Green/Labor coalition Party got to fear about a plebiscite?.......The decision has been made for February 11 2017...If the Green/Labor coalition want to block it in the senate so be it.......I am pleased you accept we live in a democratic world so show your true spirit of democracy and let all people have a their say......The gays will have to wait another 3 years and in the meantime according to Bill Shorten we will have a heap of gay suicides....Oh dear, if there is only one suicide, that is one too many.




Nothing to do with fear noco,  its just a waste of good money on a matter that the elected Parliament should decide and vote on within the Parliament.  End of story,  move on. 

Your figure of speech is not in reasonable taste in my humble view,  hence the bit of a sendup


----------



## noco (14 September 2016)

explod said:


> Nothing to do with fear noco,  its just a waste of good money on a matter that the elected Parliament should decide and vote on within the Parliament.  End of story,  move on.
> 
> Your figure of speech is not in reasonable taste in my humble view,  hence the bit of a sendup




Nothing to do with fear hey.....Well, 48% are in favor and 30% against of a plebiscite .......So it is obvious the Green/Labor coalition do have a fear of losing.

You continue to harp on about a waste of money but I did not hear you  screaming from the roof tops about the amount of money Labor wasted on pink bats, over priced school halls, cash for clunkers, fuel watch, food watch the $11 billion Labor cost this country on open borders and we are still paying the price for the  social security of Muslims who can't or don't want to find work, who have 4 wives and 17 kids.....The amount of money it still costing us in interest on borrowed money....$1 billion per week.

Don't talk to me about the waste of money....The Green/Labor coalition are past masters at wasting tax payers money.

You are echoing the Green/Labor mantra on the cost just like a Green/Labor parrot.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...esex-marriage-plebiscite-20160720-gq9wed.html




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...esex-marriage-plebiscite-20160720-gq9wed.html

*A Galaxy poll of 1000 people taken from Thursday to Sunday this week found 48 per cent support holding a plebiscite to determine whether same-sex couples should be extended the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples.

That outweighs the 30 per cent who oppose a plebiscite but the result is significantly lower than a July 2 Fairfax-Ipsos poll of nearly 1400 voters that found 69 per cent of people backed a nationwide vote over a vote on the floor of Parliament.*


----------



## explod (14 September 2016)

At least the pink bats was an attempt at lifting the economy at a difficult time in a productive way.  My Daughters home was done and the insulation had a significant difference to power usage and comfort in her house.   This by the number of homes probably made the overall scheme cost effective.  Spend a quid to make a quid.   

Since the LNP came to power our government deficit has more than doubled to nearly half a trillion. 

Gallop poles are not government and more often frame questions for the answers they want. 

What about the 50 billion the LNP are going to spend on subs that will be redundant in the type of auto drone wars to be fought in the future.   And apparently these French subs are nuclear and will be stripped and converted back to current conventional power back here in Australia,  what a huge waste. 

And if you are going to hit the past noco,  what about the LNP's interfearing involvement in Iraq and Aphganistan which we all know was really about protecting US oil/gas interests and to keep their arms industry in plenty of money making. 

And we could add :"pig ion Bob" of WW2 fame,  Vietnam,  overpriced freeways when in fact we should be focused on more and improved public transport and decentralisation.   And on that we let the property developers rule the roost.   In fact its a good thing that Greens are gaining considerable ground at Municipal level. 

Gay Marriage,  its nothing,  certainly does not bother yours truly and I see no reason why the Government should not just get onwith it and allow personal choice for the  Democratic freedom of the persons who are effected.  In 95% of cases the persons making a decision on the matter are not personally effected but could in fact by the plebecite be lording it over those who are.


----------



## noco (14 September 2016)

explod said:


> At least the pink bats was an attempt at lifting the economy at a difficult time in a productive way.  My Daughters home was done and the insulation had a significant difference to power usage and comfort in her house.   This by the number of homes probably made the overall scheme cost effective.  Spend a quid to make a quid.
> 
> Since the LNP came to power our government deficit has more than doubled to nearly half a trillion.
> 
> ...




OMG...you are desperate aren't you plod......:topic

The plebiscite has been fixed if the Green/Labor coalition want to reject it in their usual selfish way in the senate so be it...No more action for 3 years and then Bill Shorten will have sent many gays to suicide 

Once again must I remind you the law states, as it has done for centuries, marriage is between a man and a woman.....The Muslim community is certainly against gay marriage so no doubt they will vote NO....Is that why  Bill Shorten is so worried.

Let it go plod and let the people decide.

BTW..the US are 90% self sufficient in oil so I don't know what you are going on about....And should we brand Gillard and Rudd with pig iron that they sent to China 2007/2013 to build more war ships to take over the South China Sea..After all Labor's Sam Dystiari  thinks it is OK for China to do so.


----------



## explod (14 September 2016)

Why should the  95% who it does not really effect lord it over the 5% who want to marry their loved one. 

Can see you're a bit of a standover person noco?


----------



## Tink (15 September 2016)

Why should 2% dictate how the 98% should live.

It has been done in parliament 18 times.

The answer was no.


----------



## qldfrog (15 September 2016)

overhang said:


> Should we have a plebiscite on euthanasia, offshore processing?  Where do you draw the line on what moral issues governments can't represent us on?



yes for the first as it has never been a political issue and should not be,
 no for the second as it is a clear political issue with clear positions from all parties
It is so so so wrong to see the very side of politics which in the past could be trusted to fight for democracy and people's power go so far in denial of the very best principle of democracy: a plebicite/referendum with one citizen /one vote just to cajole a lobby;
Honestly, the green and ALP attitude in their refusal of a plebicite is sickening;And they do not even see it
After seeing that, i doubt I will ever vote for either ever again.


----------



## noco (15 September 2016)

explod said:


> Why should the  95% who it does not really effect lord it over the 5% who want to marry their loved one.
> 
> Can see you're a bit of a standover person noco?




Hmmmm...where did I ever mention that for you to brand me a "STAND OVER PERSON"?

There are 150 members of parliament in the lower house and 76 senators and they are supposed to represent their constituents but they, in most cases, follow their party politics......How many of those politicians seek the view of the the voters in their electorate and ask "How do you want me to vote for you".

Now the population of Australia is 24,187,000....divide that by 226 = .00000934386%.

Take away those who are not eligible to vote and we are left with 16,504,326......divide that by 226 = .00136933795%.

Now then, who would be lording it over who if there was a vote in parliament

Have the plebiscite to end all  doubt at a cost of $7.02 per head for every man, woman and child.....I would be happy to send my $7.02.... What about you plod?...


----------



## overhang (15 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Why should 2% dictate how the 98% should live.
> 
> It has been done in parliament 18 times.
> 
> The answer was no.




It is the 98% trying to dictate the 2%, you seem to be confused because no one is forcing you to have a SSM but merely trying to seek the same right as everyone else has to marry their loved one.



qldfrog said:


> yes for the first as it has never been a political issue and should not be,
> no for the second as it is a clear political issue with clear positions from all parties
> It is so so so wrong to see the very side of politics which in the past could be trusted to fight for democracy and people's power go so far in denial of the very best principle of democracy: a plebicite/referendum with one citizen /one vote just to cajole a lobby;
> Honestly, the green and ALP attitude in their refusal of a plebicite is sickening;And they do not even see it
> After seeing that, i doubt I will ever vote for either ever again.




We clearly have a different expectation of our politicians and their role as you believe they aren't capable of representing their constitutes.  The only time I see it as appropriate to seek a public vote is when we are required to do so via a proposed constitutional change.  The politicians are paid huge salaries to represent and this is just a cop out to waste tax payer $ on a public vote that is non-binding.  How is it reasonable to have a $160 million vote on something that Turnbull won't even enforce, clear economic mismanagement right there.

I never saw those of you supporting a plebiscite wanting one back when Howard change the definition of marriage, I never saw it when bills were introduced to parliament over the years to allow SSM.  But now that it seems clear that if a conscious vote was permitted by the coalition that the bill would pass you all want a plebiscite.  It's merely a stalling tactic and a last ditch effort to postpone a change that is going to occur, it's just a matter of when.  The younger generations are far more accepting of gays and lesbians, they see no issue with allowing them the same right everyone else has.


----------



## noco (15 September 2016)

overhang said:


> It is the 98% trying to dictate the 2%, you seem to be confused because no one is forcing you to have a SSM but merely trying to seek the same right as everyone else has to marry their loved one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




From what I understand, Turnbull is for SSM...So why would he not accept the outcome?


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2016)

noco said:


> From what I understand, Turnbull is for SSM...So why would he not accept the outcome?




A number of Coalition MP's and Senators have said that they would not accept a YES vote.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2016)

noco said:


> From what I understand, Turnbull is for SSM...So why would he not accept the outcome?




Turnbull will accept it but won't enforce it on his party.  We are spending $160 million to only have a conscious vote on the issue anyway.  So what is the point? According to figures if a conscious vote was held right now it's probable that SSM would pass.  So what is the point in holding a plebiscite if Turnbull will still allow Bernardi, Abbott etc to vote against what the public decide (if they vote yes)?  As a fiscal conservative doesn't this seem like such a waste of tax payer dollars?


----------



## qldfrog (15 September 2016)

overhang said:


> We clearly have a different expectation of our politicians and their role as you believe they aren't capable of representing their constitutes.



I definitively do not want a parliament elected on a specific mandate change it to fit a lobby group; they do it often enought;
what would be your feeling if the green decide to vote tomorrow for a great nuclear power station program?
After all you trusted them and add in the LNP, they could surely find a way to get a majority there;
as for a vote of conscience: my conscience is not the conscience of the clown elected at the parliament;
Deny it as much as you want, butthe facts are clear: you do not want democracy just in case it could not agree with youi; a nice definition of dictatorship/fascism;
Fascism is not restricted to far right but it hurts doesn't it, to know it deep inside and still try to find way for justification/self denial even taklking about money saving.how ironic ....
I leave you with your nice certitude, in the meantime, this game has resulted in no plebicite, and no chance to have legal marriage for same sex couples.Well done


----------



## noco (15 September 2016)

overhang said:


> Turnbull will accept it but won't enforce it on his party.  We are spending $160 million to only have a conscious vote on the issue anyway.  So what is the point? According to figures if a conscious vote was held right now it's probable that SSM would pass.  So what is the point in holding a plebiscite if Turnbull will still allow Bernardi, Abbott etc to vote against what the public decide (if they vote yes)?  As a fiscal conservative doesn't this seem like such a waste of tax payer dollars?




I just don't understand why all this discussion is taking place....You are all raving on about something that is not going to happen,

There ain't gonna be a plebiscite because it will  be defeated in the senate....$160,000,000 saved  but Shorten may have many suicides on his hands over the next 3 years or won't he be too concerned if that happens?...He was this week.

Personally I do not give a rat's ar$e whether they do or not....The World will still go on even with all the turmoil that is happening around the World......The gays will go on living in the same old way as they have done for centuries.......Just that they will have to wait another 3 years in the hope of a change of government.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2016)

qldfrog said:


> I definitively do not want a parliament elected on a specific mandate change it to fit a lobby group; they do it often enought;
> what would be your feeling if the green decide to vote tomorrow for a great nuclear power station program?
> After all you trusted them and add in the LNP, they could surely find a way to get a majority there;
> as for a vote of conscience: my conscience is not the conscience of the clown elected at the parliament;
> ...




I sure as hell don't want a nuclear power put to a public vote, the issue is far too complex for the average layman to understand.  We have non-partisan government departments to provide expert advice to our elected representatives to make that decision.  I want democracy to function how it is supposed to function and that is that our democratically elected representatives vote on these issues, what good are they if they can't. 

 I think you are picking and choosing where you want this applied, at least the SSM community has been consistent an have never wanted a plebiscite.  It's not about fearing the result it's about wasting tax payer dollars on an outcome that can be achieved in parliament without putting minority groups through derogatory comments from people with attitudes dating back to the 1800s.  Why is it only now you want a plebiscite and not earlier?   Can you explain to me why you think it's reasonable to waste that money on a non-binding vote, there are ministers who have already announced they won't alter their vote regardless of the result, there is your democracy for you


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2016)

Labor and Greens are afraid of the truth they already know..... a vast majority are not onboard with this issue and have been uncomfortable with the whole history of enforced acceptance of the vulgarism and distortion of reproductive quality.

There is no doubt that human evolution has maintained the biological drive to reproduce, but seduction has also been cultured into it. The courtship process, the titillation ,etc has taken precedence over the estrus cycle and I think it's those of the same gender who deliberately couple, knowing reproduction is impossible, are demonstrating an impudence and discomfort to the human code and sensibilities.

I call bulls4i7 on those who say the population is comfortable voting in favour of SSM. If it does get up it will the same "Catholic Guilt" symptoms that fed the Irish hysteria of denial on the same issue, but certainly not because the majority see it as a legitimate marriage, more a tragic comedy along Shakespearean lines.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2016)

noco said:


> I just don't understand why all this discussion is taking place....You are all raving on about something that is not going to happen,
> 
> There ain't gonna be a plebiscite because it will  be defeated in the senate....$160,000,000 saved  but Shorten may have many suicides on his hands over the next 3 years or won't he be too concerned if that happens?...He was this week.
> 
> Personally I do not give a rat's ar$e whether they do or not....The World will still go on even with all the turmoil that is happening around the World......The gays will go on living in the same old way as they have done for centuries.......Just that they will have to wait another 3 years in the hope of a change of government.




How many suicides will occur when ACL run their adverts opposing and we see the ugly sides of our some in the community view the gay and lesbians?  I don't think young gay and lesbians coming to terms with their sexuality where they would be executed in some countries because of something they have no control over should be put through the commentary that will occur if this issue is debated via public vote.


----------



## Tink (15 September 2016)

Well they could always try the Middle East or China, if they think they are treated badly in the West, which is a Christian country.


----------



## qldfrog (15 September 2016)

overhang said:


> Why is it only now you want a plebiscite and not earlier?   Can you explain to me why you think it's reasonable to waste that money on a non-binding vote, there are ministers who have already announced they won't alter their vote regardless of the result, there is your democracy for you



I diud not want a plebicite, but it was the program presented at the last election, and was voted in, and i believe this is the best way to let people choose: at last democracy : have a look at the definition, may be a refresher,
The parliament has already had plenty of opportunities to choose, inc when labour was in power but they did not wanted to vote  or we would not be talking now, and I respect that;
In summary, just a matter of sore loosers afraid of letting people have their say; 
I doubt a yes at the plebicit would not have been implemented within a year, more lame excuse?
you see they, the common people, the dirty crass may not know enough what is good for them whereas we , the enlighted, the truth owners and the proponent of the SSM obviously do, 
A two class citizens, but only based on your opinion, God forbid not on colour, race or sex orientation, that would not be right!!!Stalinism at its best
This makes me sick to think that is the enlighted side of society.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Well they could always try the Middle East or China, if they think they are treated badly in the West, which is a Christian country.




Why don't you move there, you seem to think you have no freedom of speech and that Australia is going down the tube, why haven't you boarded a plane yet?

I really don't know why you are even fighting for your freedom of speach, I thought you liked the bible.

Timothy 2:12 - I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.
(eg, you have no biblical right to speak out, or excise authority over a man whether he is straight or gay)

Gods word translation - Corinthians 14-34 the women must keep silent. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.


It is secular Austalian law that gives you the right to free speech, not your Christian/biblical laws, if you want to make this a Christian country, becareful what you wish for.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2016)

qldfrog said:


> I diud not want a plebicite, but it was the program presented at the last election, and was voted in, and i believe this is the best way to let people choose: at last democracy : have a look at the definition, may be a refresher,
> The parliament has already had plenty of opportunities to choose, inc when labour was in power but they did not wanted to vote  or we would not be talking now, and I respect that;
> In summary, just a matter of sore loosers afraid of letting people have their say;
> I doubt a yes at the plebicit would not have been implemented within a year, more lame excuse?
> ...




Might want to stay off the plonk old mate, very difficult to decipher most of this.  You talk about democracy and yet what is the point when several Liberal MPs have announced they won't vote in line with the democratic vote if it's a yes.  So again what is the point when the vote is non-binding?  And do you think that is very democratic?


----------



## Ves (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Why don't you move there, you seem to think you have no freedom of speech and that Australia is going down the tube, why haven't you boarded a plane yet?
> 
> I really don't know why you are even fighting for your freedom of speach, I thought you liked the bible.
> 
> ...



Can you explain the context of those two bible quotes?


----------



## explod (15 September 2016)

Ves said:


> Can you explain the context of those two bible quotes?



Pretty clear to me.   Women are the servants/slaves of man.   Remember as a child women had to wear a hat in church,  men hung thier's on a hook in the porch. 

And the muslim veil the same symbol.   

And the big one the priests would chant from the pulpit,   "suffer the little children and bring them unto me"  Pedophile writers of the bible anyone.  

Gay people who want to marry each other are saints compared to those behind the institutions who's role it is to dupe the people and keep them under control.   ie.,  the witch doctor working for the chief.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2016)

Being a highly skilled Marketing  major and the owner of the keys to all wisdom, I think more people should read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" so they can recognise when they are being ,manipulated.

Basically it covers:

1.The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say, "You’re wrong."
3.If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4.Begin in a friendly way.
5.Get the other person saying "yes, yes" immediately.
6.Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7.Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
8.Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person’s ideas and desires.
10.Appeal to the nobler motives.
11.Dramatize your ideas.
12.Throw down a challenge.

and then there are the 10 basic theories of conversion and persuasion:



1. *Yale Attitude Change Approach*

Demographic targetting, pleasant on the eye speaker, credible speaker, persuasive speaker, when to go first or last.


2. *Conversion Theory*

The confident, persistent minority influence the susceptible in the majority by narrowing the options and creating an apparent easy path to a populist outcome that doesn't have many or any alternative choices that aren't open to shaming by the minority and converts.

3. *Sleeper Effect*

Low credibility messengers plant the seed, which increases inner persuasion over time as the victim disassociates the messenger for the now plausible message.


4. *Information Manipulation Theory*

Deliberate breaking of the any one of the four conversational maxims: 

Quantity: Full disclosure of data and information
Quality:  Truthful and accurate data and information.
Relation: Relevence of data and information  to the conversation.
Manner: Concise, understandable delivery of data and information 


5. *Priming*

Manipulating perceptions by selecting stimuli that roots into the short term memory. Like speaker using a word, say "Black" in one sentence and "Goat" in another and invariably having someone answer black goat when asking the audience to name an animal.


6. *Amplification Hypothesis*

This is where the gay movement and it's converts do really well. They make demands with such certainty that the susceptible have their attitudes cemented as solid persuasion.  Those speakers who aren't so convincing, with an alternative view, only ingrain the determination to the contrary.

7. *Scarcity Principle*

Better be quick before it goes. Such a small thing it's a non event. Even if the proposal is a non sequitur it doesn't matter in the scheme of things. Don't miss out getting on the band wagon. etc

8. *Social Influence*

Peer group belonging, brand identification, tribal droning.


9. *Ultimate Terms*

Using bogey words to constrain the alternatives: a) GOD says "xyz";  b)utopean ideal expressions like freedom, equality, modern, 21st Century, etc.; Evil and cruel expressionism like Satan, Devil, Nazi, Facist, Fabian, bigot, etc.


10. *Reciprocity Norm*

Obligation to return favors done by others. In this instance e.g. we know a Gay person who overtly behaves wonderfully, just like normal people even!! and therefore we should reciprocate by rewarding same person by modifying a cultural norm to suit...


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2016)

explod said:


> Gay people who want to marry each other are saints compared to those behind the institutions who's role it is to dupe the people and keep them under control.   ie.,  the witch doctor working for the chief.




Aren't those priests who sodomised young boys gays?


----------



## Ves (15 September 2016)

explod said:


> Pretty clear to me.   Women are the servants/slaves of man.   Remember as a child women had to wear a hat in church,  men hung thier's on a hook in the porch.



Appreciate the response.

But if it were that straight forward  (it's not),  why has the Corinthians passage been deliberately 
snipped?

Another hint.  The first passage is from a letter (epistle) that is in response to another letter.  Fairly sure the letter it was in response to didn't survive.  Does this not provide an interesting difficulty in deriving its context,  and hence coming up with an interpretation?

Also note that Greek (or Latin as well)  is not easily translatable to English in some cases.  The 2:12 passage has a unique word when written in its original language.   Hmmmm.

edit:  Basically all I'm trying to say is the context that VC used the bible passages in,  and the argument he tried to use them to make,  seems like a fairly big leap of faith (lol).


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

Ves said:


> Can you explain the context of those two bible quotes?




Its pretty clear to me that the versus are suggesting that a woman less freedom of speech than a man, and in certain cases has no right to speak.

Can you find me a verse that states women and men have equal rights to free speech?

I think it would take a lot of twisting to try convince a reasonable person that it means something else.



Ves said:


> .
> 
> edit:  Basically all I'm trying to say is the context that VC used the bible passages in,  and the argument he tried to use them to make,  seems like a fairly big leap of faith (lol).




Really, if it isn't implying women have less right to speech, what does it mean?

This exact verse is one that tinks brand (catholic) and many of the other brands of Christianity have used for centuries to suppress women. Tinks wants a "Christian nation" then she has to be happy to be quite and not be heard.

The freedoms that tink enjoys have been granted by secular society, not biblical teachings.

----------------------------------------------------


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> Aren't those priests who sodomised young boys gays?




Who knows? 

but even if they were, how is that relevant?

Most child molestation is heterosexual men on under age girls. Does that mean marriage between straight people should be banned?

If you wanted to limit child molestation, you should ban single mums entering relationships with new men, because that is where marriage leads to child rape, how often do you hear that young girls are taken advantage of by step dads.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-06/step-children-sexually-abused-threatened-with-death-court-hears/7820400


----------



## Ves (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Really, if it isn't implying women have less right to speech, what does it mean?



Listen,  I understand your point,  and it's possible I agree with it (that's irrelevant)  but I think you are providing biblical passages as evidence when they don't necessarily back up that line of thinking.

My main contention is that your interpretation of those two passages is that they are saying that women have less right to free speech _in all cases_.  

The second half of the Corinthians passage that has been deliberately not included (whether by you or from wherever you copy/pasted it from) disproves that one at least.  For instance,  the King James translation of the bible, would indicate that they are not allowed to speak in Church,  but they can ask questions of the Church content at home.   See....  that's a big leap,  isn't it? 

The Timothy 2 12 passage includes the Greek word _authentein_ (usually "to usurp authority").  The only place it is used in the whole Bible (apparently).  But there's no context given in the passage as to where this control / authority is not supposed to be usurped from. The most common interpretative amongst scholars is that it is also in reference to the Church environment based on a reading of the epistles as a whole.

You're right Catholics (or other denominations) have interpreted passages like these in such ways to achieve their own disagreeable ends in the past.

But that doesn't mean their interpretation should be followed.  I note that these amongst others have been debated endlessly in all kinds of circles in the past (and still are today) and are not always nearly as bad. Actually some of them might actually achieve good in the world.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

Ves said:


> You're right Catholics (or other denominations) have interpreted passages like these in such ways to achieve their own disagreeable ends in the past.
> 
> .




And Tink is a big supporter of the catholic church, so am I wrong to say that when she wants the country to be more "Christian" that she might end up with less rights than she already has endowed by secular society?



> would indicate that they are not allowed to speak in Church




but men can, so even if you water it down, that's still a reduction in free speech for women.



> But that doesn't mean their interpretation should be followed.




Offcourse not, the bible should be ignored, but if tink wants a "Christian nation" whos interpretation would we follow? 



> I note that these amongst others have been debated endlessly




to me that's evidence suggesting there is no god behind the bible, and really relying on your faith for interpretation is useless.

If there was a god, and the bible was his book, every reader would come away with the same interpretation, we wouldn't be sitting here splitting hairs over translations.


----------



## Craton (15 September 2016)

FWIW. I don't want to bring politics into the equation but I reckon MT and his mob has got this right.

Getting to have a say on SSM is very personal and emotive, an issue that should not be left to our govt. to decide for us. If it was, I'd feel it was rammed down my throat but if it is the will of the people, whether I agree or not, it will be so much the better to stomach and deal with.

Sure the proposed plebiscite may be seen as ineffective and a waste of money however, it allows not only myself but all of us to have our say on this very important, moral question and having a say about SSM, is extremely important to me.


----------



## Ves (15 September 2016)

For starters there is a few cases in the Corinthians were Paul says who he thinks should and should not speak in certain circumstances...  it's not just women.

... and there's numerous passages of discussion (or instructions) on how he thinks organised worship (Church) should be carried out.

But for some reason you keep focusing on the fact that he said women cannot speak in Church (maybe it's a more informal variation of the word that the English translation isn't picking up).

Added up all together,  and it appears that as Christianity was still in its infancy at the time of writing, organised worship was an absolute rabble at the time  (maybe it still is), it's possible the women sat up the back and spoke to each other all through the service and nobody could hear. Maybe he thought they were not taking it seriously?  Maybe everyone kept interrupting the service?  And without the gift of context, we've turned something trivial into something universal.  Who knows?

My main point is you should be bloody careful when cherry picking biblical passages.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

Craton said:


> Getting to have a say on SSM is very personal and emotive,




Aren't a lot of the issues? eg. Taxation, immigration, declarations of war

why is this issue different?



> If it was, I'd feel it was rammed down my throat but if it is the will of the people, whether I agree or not, it will be so much the better to stomach and deal with.




how would allowing a lesbian couple on the other side of your town get a marriage certificate be ramming anything down your throat?

These relationships already exist, its just about letting them get recognised, unless you happen to be trawling through government records, or notice a wedding ring, how would it even affect you?



> having a say about SSM, is extremely important to me.




Why is it so important to you?

,







> moral question.




what exactly about the issue do you find immoral?


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Who knows?
> 
> but even if they were, how is that relevant?
> 
> ...




I would have thought if a man commits a homosexual act then he is being an homosexual. I don't understand how it can be anything else?

Sure the umbrella is child molestation ( a grossly perverted act IMO), but I don't know what hetrosexual stepdad grubs have to do with men sodomising boys?


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

Ves said:


> for some reason you keep focusing on the fact that he said women cannot speak in Church .




Because that's exactly what it says. which means women are specifically being denied the right to speak, unless they direct their question through their husband.



> maybe it's a more informal variation of the word that the English translation isn't picking up.
> 
> it's possible the women sat up the back and spoke to each other all through the service and nobody could hear.
> 
> ...




Maybe it was written by sexist men?

I am not interested in your bible study contortions and twisting to try and twist an old text written by sexist men at a sexist time, to try and fit modern standards.

If you believe that the view at the time was that women should have equal rights to be heard as men, and that the sexist bible verses are not really sexist, you are just wrong, but you have a right to be wrong, so I will leave your bible study to you.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Aren't a lot of the issues? eg. Taxation, immigration, declarations of war
> 
> why is this issue different?
> 
> ...




You may not recall the moratorium protests of the 60 and 70's era? Back then the post war kids vented their splines


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> I would have thought if a man commits a homosexual act then he is being an homosexual. I don't understand how it can be anything else?




Does a homosexual man having sex with a women make him straight? no, there is a difference between the act and the sexuality.

A man might have sex with another man or boy for all sorts of reasons, he might even just be using the child as a rubbing block as he thinks about rooting that sexy red head girl that sits in the third row on sundays.



> but I don't know what hetrosexual stepdad grubs have to do with men sodomising boys?




and I don't know what any child molesting grubs has to do with consensual gay relationships between adults or marriage between gays.

as I said child molestation is a separate issue, that happens mostly between straight men and young girls.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> You may not recall the moratorium protests of the 60 and 70's era?




No, I was still a couple of decades away from existing.



> Back then the post war kids vented their splines




Yeah, did they get a plebiscite? did they even want one, or just want the government to make the changes?


----------



## explod (15 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> Aren't those priests who sodomised young boys gays?




Yes,  but clinically they are pedophiles.   Worked in a team once to clean this up around Flinders Street Melbourne some years back.   The clinical psychologists working with us said that pedophiles are particularly predatory and infect those they prey on.  People who are born gay are usually placid and very different to those who seek out children.   Those who want to partner up in a marriage seek a normal committed relationship and this approach should be applauded by the community.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2016)

> having a say about SSM, is extremely important to me.
> 
> Why is it so important to you?




Because the issue is moral/social/ethical not political.

There is no "evidence" to be offered, weighed and sifted by "experts" , everyone in society is just as capable of making a decision as are the politicians, even more so because they don't have aggressive lobbyists like the churches or the Gay Collectives banging at their door.

A decision by Parliament alone is always going to be resented by one group or the other and could be changed later after lobbying, a strong plebiscite vote gives the legislation legitimacy and is more likely to last.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Because the issue is moral/social/ethical not political.
> 
> .




What makes this issue any more "moral/social/ethical" than any other issue we trust the government to deal with?

it seems easy to deal with to me.

does the issue cause harm? if not legalise it.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> What makes this issue any more "moral/social/ethical" than any other issue we trust the government to deal with?




OK, it doesn't matter to me. The government has dealt with it already (several times) and the answer was NO. So let's leave it at that shall we ?


----------



## overhang (15 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> OK, it doesn't matter to me. The government has dealt with it already (several times) and the answer was NO. So let's leave it at that shall we ?




There has never been a conscious vote on the issue in parliament by all sides of politics so it's a bit redundant to suggest that it's been answered no by parliament.  If that were the case then we would still have the carbon tax today as it was also voted no to.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The government has dealt with it already (several times) and the answer was NO. So let's leave it at that shall we ?




No, when you realise that people are unfairly being denied rights, you change it. eg slavery, womens rights, votes to aborignals etc etc.

the simple question is,

1, does the issue cause harm? if not legalise it.


----------



## Ves (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No, when you realise that people are unfairly being denied rights, you change it. eg slavery, womens rights, votes to aborignals etc etc.
> 
> the simple question is,
> 
> 1, does the issue cause harm? if not legalise it.



Yep.  And if it doesn't get past the first time you try again until it does.

Gee,  can you imagine if some of the major human rights movements in history gave up because there were a few "No" votes.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> the simple question is,
> 
> 1, does the issue cause harm? if not legalise it.




Some people think it will cause harm, rightly or wrongly, that's why there should be a public debate rather than being decided by lobbyists.


----------



## qldfrog (15 September 2016)

overhang said:


> Might want to stay off the plonk old mate, very difficult to decipher most of this.  You talk about democracy and yet what is the point when several Liberal MPs have announced they won't vote in line with the democratic vote if it's a yes.  So again what is the point when the vote is non-binding?  And do you think that is very democratic?



so you tell me with a yes on plebiscite, a majority of MP would refuse to pass the bill, get real, and stop spirits or more, unless the green and labour MPs vote against: why not .
hang over maybe?
Once you have a bit of fresh air and IF (big if) you are bright and honest enough, you know your position is wrong, you can pretend as Bill S. does for political gain; no lie is too big;
but  adopting the high stand with that reasoning, go to N Korea you will be in good company.
After all we could also do without election to save paper and trees.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> that's why there should be a public debate rather than being decided by lobbyists.




Again though, why is this different to any other topic?



> Some people think it will cause harm, rightly or wrongly,




Then they need to present their evidence.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2016)

qldfrog said:


> so you tell me with a yes on plebiscite, a majority of MP would refuse to pass the bill, get real, and stop spirits or more, unless the green and labour MPs vote against: why not .
> hang over maybe?
> Once you have a bit of fresh air and IF (big if) you are bright and honest enough, you know your position is wrong, you can pretend as Bill S. does for political gain; no lie is too big;
> but  adopting the high stand with that reasoning, go to N Korea you will be in good company.
> After all we could also do without election to save paper and trees.




Coherency isn't your strong point.  You rave on about how important democracy is and yet you seem to have no issue with the fact that Liberal MPs have stated that they will ignore the democratic vote if it was a yes and vote on their conscious, their is your totalitarianism for you.  It will still pass but it defeats the whole purpose of the plebiscite if Turnbull just allows a conscious vote on the issue anyway which is exactly what the SSM community has been asking for.   Perhaps you should go to Iran and be in good company, they execute gays and atheists and won't tolerate those that speak out against the government.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

Ves said:


> Yep.  And if it doesn't get past the first time you try again until it does.
> 
> Gee,  can you imagine if some of the major human rights movements in history gave up because there were a few "No" votes.




yep, but that kind of makes the voting redundant. 

As I have said many times, if we had a vote to abolish or keep slavery, and the popular vote was to "keep slavery", would it make it moral to keep it? no.

Would a government be justified in allowing it to continue? no.

So the publics opinion is irrelevant and the vote is redundant.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Again though, why is this different to any other topic?




Because with every other topic people accept the vote of the Parliament until the next election. The gay lobby keep snipping and sniping and distracting OUR elected representatives onto an issues that matters to about 5% of the population instead of letting them get on with their real work which is looking after ALL of us.



> Then they need to present their evidence.




They will, before the plebiscite.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No, I was still a couple of decades away from existing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, did they get a plebiscite? did they even want one, or just want the government to make the changes?




It resulted in Whitlam getting a "mandate" to continue John Gorton's resolve. The US followed us out of Vietnam, then followed Whitlam into China.

Homosexuality was universally heard but not seen across politics.


----------



## noco (15 September 2016)

1.The proposal to recognize SSM.

2. The origin....?????

3. The solution
    a) let the people decide (LNP)
    b) let the politicians decide (Green/Labor)

4.The end result......Both parties cannot agree......No plebiscite.....$160,000,000 saved.

5. The winners...... Every body is happy on both sides of politics.

6. The losers .......the gays and lesbians resulting in more suicides according to Bill Shorten.

7. Next chance .....maybe in 3 years if Labor win the next election.

But a funny thing I read in the Australian today where this crap has been going on for 55 years even back as far as Bob Menzies days.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/a5ed98d47b63ee947024f18186639356


*After yesterday’s debate on the proposed plebiscite on marriage equality, it’s worth remembering a similar debate that played out 55 years ago when an amendment to the Marriage Act was first considered by parliament. Then, it was a Country Party senator who wanted to change the act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The amendment was voted down 40 to eight by the Senate.

Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies’ government introduced the Marriage Act 1961 to bring marriage under the jurisdiction of the commonwealth. At the time, parliament’s guidance on marriage did not go beyond stipulating participants be of legal age and of sound mind.

Most were content with this state of affairs. As Liberal senator John Gorton (before becoming prime minister) remarked: “In our view it is best to leave to the common law the definition or the evolution of the meaning of marriage.”

That 1961 vote on the amendment certainly was not about supporting marriage equality (it would be many years before any lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights materialised). Rather, it was about the parliament not overplaying its hand about a Marriage Act that was a framework, which society was free to shape as and when required. It reflected a conservative approach to government by a conservative government, and it held firm for more than 40 years before falling victim to the politics of the day.

On August 4, 2004, John Howard was addressing a meeting of the National Marriage Coalition (which included the Australian Christian Lobby) when he announced the Marriage Act would be amended to include a definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. The 1000 attendees lapped it up and gave Howard not one but three standing ovations.
*


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> So the publics opinion is irrelevant and the vote is redundant.




What arrogance !

Let's just do away with elections altogether and let the morally pure run the country.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What arrogance !
> 
> Let's just do away with elections altogether and let the morally pure run the country.




Arrogance??? I think it's more arrogant to think your own opinions matter when it comes to other people's human rights.

How is admiting that public opinion doesn't change whether something is right or wrong arrogant?

Do you honestly think a vote to keep slavery makes slavery right? Please answer this question.

And if you can admit that it wouldn't make slavery right, what's the point of having the vote in the first place? Isn't the vote irrelevant? 

We already accept that when it came Lee to human rights issues the opinion of the majority is irrelevant, that's why we call them inalienable human rights, because not even the government can legally take them away, even a majority vote can't


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Arrogance??? I think it's more arrogant to think your own opinions matter when it comes to other people's human rights.
> 
> How is admiting that public opinion doesn't change whether something is right or wrong arrogant?
> 
> ...




Not being able to marry someone is not slavery, it's the opposite !

The basic human right is freedom of association which is not being infringed. Marriage is an association recognised by the State, which therefore has the choice not to recognise it, which it has so far chosen to do.

Defacto relationships have the same rights as marriages, as do civil unions. If society chooses to reserve marriage as between a man and a woman, ie 95% of relationships, no one's rights are being infringed despite your perceived morality otherwise.


----------



## Craton (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Aren't a lot of the issues? eg. Taxation, immigration, declarations of war
> 
> why is this issue different?




By the very fact that we are not all heterosexual and those that are not, don't have equal rights.

Oh hell yeah, no plebiscite but a referendum on euthanasia please.



> how would allowing a lesbian couple on the other side of your town get a marriage certificate be ramming anything down your throat?
> 
> These relationships already exist, its just about letting them get recognised, unless you happen to be trawling through government records, or notice a wedding ring, how would it even affect you?




See above about rights. For me, having a say makes sense in this supposed democratic society. Call it a conscious vote if you like and at least the pollies get to see the will of the people.

Rammed down my throat like having my retirement age increased without me having a say. I don't like it!



> Why is it so important to you?
> 
> ,
> 
> what exactly about the issue do you find immoral?




Again see above and it's immoral that non-heterosexuals are treated as less than. It's important because I believe there will be an overwhelming support for the affirmative as "gays", in my eyes, have been ostracised for far too long. So yes, I may be old school in so much that marriage for me is between a man and a woman, but I acknowledge it is about time that we officially recognise that these relationships exist and enact laws that do just that.

Having a chance to say so is extremely important, simples.

BTW, I've got nothing against SSM, we all should have the right to marry and be miserable...


----------



## noco (15 September 2016)

Daniel Andrews, the Victorian state Premier, has just found the solution for the SSM problem.

He will introduce a bill in Victoria where you will be able go to the Births, Deaths and Marriage bureau and change your agenda on your birth certificate...So if you are a gay man, just change it to female, marry your gay partner and every one is happy....The marriage will be registered as a man and a woman.

Guess there is more ways than one to skin a cat.


----------



## Tink (15 September 2016)

Yes, noco, they can be whatever they want to be.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29219&page=11&p=906193&viewfull=1#post906193

LGBTI (just keep adding on more letters) 

I think they are up to 45 different ones.


----------



## luutzu (15 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Arrogance??? I think it's more arrogant to think your own opinions matter when it comes to other people's human rights.
> 
> How is admiting that public opinion doesn't change whether something is right or wrong arrogant?
> 
> ...




I didn't know "inalienable" meant that. I never thought much about it, just see it as those filler words, but yea, good to know.


----------



## luutzu (15 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Yes, noco, they can be whatever they want to be.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29219&page=11&p=906193&viewfull=1#post906193
> 
> ...




I think the initials just show how wide and varied god's creatures are. We're not all Male or Female; male must love female and female must put up with male.


----------



## luutzu (15 September 2016)

Craton said:


> By the very fact that we are not all heterosexual and those that are not, don't have equal rights.
> 
> Oh hell yeah, no plebiscite but a referendum on euthanasia please.
> 
> ...





Maybe some straights don't like the gays showing them how marriage is done - always gay and happy?

I always admire the kind of "leadership" that throw the rights of the minority to the will and prejudices [or not] of the majority.

They don't teach you that stuff at leadership school. Maybe the school yards.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Not being able to marry someone is not slavery, it's the opposite !
> 
> The basic human right is freedom of association which is not being infringed. Marriage is an association recognised by the State, which therefore has the choice not to recognise it, which it has so far chosen to do.
> 
> Defacto relationships have the same rights as marriages, as do civil unions. If society chooses to reserve marriage as between a man and a woman, ie 95% of relationships, no one's rights are being infringed despite your perceived morality otherwise.




As explained earlier, marriage is a basic human right, also not being descriminated based on sexuality or gender is a basic human right. If you don't understand that, I am not going to waste any more time explaining it.

In regards to the last paragraph, the back of the bus goes to the same destination as the front, is it moral to force blacks to sit at the rear? Again if you can't understand the concept, I am not going to waste time explaining.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> As explained earlier, marriage is a basic human right, also not being descriminated based on sexuality or gender is a basic human right. If you don't understand that, I am not going to waste any more time explaining it.
> 
> In regards to the last paragraph, the back of the bus goes to the same destination as the front, is it moral to force blacks to sit at the rear? Again if you can't understand the concept, I am not going to waste time explaining.





Marriage is NOT a "basic human right".

If you can't understand that marriage is an invention of society to recognise associations that it wants to recognise, then I'm wasting my time trying to explain, I think I've stated it clearly enough.

Freedom of Association is the basic human right, and that is not being infringed. People can live in polygamous relationships if they choose, but society chooses not to recognise them. Same with SSM if that is society's wish. 

Your opposition to a plebiscite is irrational. Society is quite capable of determining the issue itself.


----------



## Tisme (16 September 2016)

QLD Labor govt just lowered the age of anal sex to 16. Obviously clearing the decks for the gay agenda, but why the implicit promotion of promiscuity with children escapes me.


----------



## Tisme (16 September 2016)

ABC is keeping the torch burning with it's more than regular dose of gay abandon:


Australian Story on Monday next:



> When country singer Beccy Cole outed herself as a gay woman in 2012, her love life at the time was “nil.”
> Just a few weeks later, she met the love of her life, cabaret singer Libby O’Donovan.
> With their two children from earlier relationships, they set up a blended home in Adelaide, “sort of like a big gay Brady Bunch.”
> Now they follow the debate over the legalisation of same-sex marriage with particular interest: They plan to marry as soon as they’re allowed to.


----------



## noco (16 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> QLD Labor govt just lowered the age of anal sex to 16. Obviously clearing the decks for the gay agenda, but why the implicit promotion of promiscuity with children escapes me.




I know a few of you will laugh, but it is a part of the Fabian Society tactic to lower the morals of our youth and it has been going on since the 60's...This Safe Schools program in Victoria will become compulsory in all schools shortly but it has a hidden agenda as many of you now realize or are about to find out.....Daniel Andrews is behind it all and I am told it is a dangerous piece of legislation which will have a dramatic affect on all school kids from a very young age.

Through from the 50's and 60's Communism has set out to destroy the economy of Western Countries and to lower the morals of youth by exposing them to pornography as much as possible at an early age

I once posted under, "COMMUNISM IS NOT DEAD AND BURIED", How to skin a country, I will see if I can reproduce it for you.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> QLD Labor govt just lowered the age of anal sex to 16. Obviously clearing the decks for the gay agenda, but why the implicit promotion of promiscuity with children escapes me.




The age of consent should be 18 for everyone imo, but now I'll be called a Conservative !


----------



## Junior (16 September 2016)

You guys are on another planet if you think teenagers wait until their 16th or 18th birthday to play hide the sausage.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

Junior said:


> You guys are on another planet if you think teenagers wait until their 16th or 18th birthday to play hide the sausage.




A lot of them don't wait to try drugs or get pissed, steal a car and go and kill someone, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.


----------



## noco (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The age of consent should be 18 for everyone imo, but now I'll be called a Conservative !




Well at least you are starting to think about things...You do not have to be a conservative to understand some common sense in what is happening to our youths.....There is a new breed of youths known as "NEETS" who are inbred into the life of Social Security..... 6 to 8 of these NEETS can rent a house and live the life of Riley and receive enough from the government to pay all their living expenses.


----------



## qldfrog (16 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> As explained earlier, marriage is a basic human right, also not being descriminated based on sexuality or gender is a basic human right. If you don't understand that, I am not going to waste any more time explaining it..



What can anyone answer to that!!Nearly biblical: truth has arrived
Anyway, all is good for you, overhang and cie, no SSM thanks to Shorten
Victory for the good side: did you celebrate and open a bottle of champagne: you have won
Well done mate, with progressive people like you, manking will soon be back in the caves


----------



## McLovin (16 September 2016)

Junior said:


> You guys are on another planet if you think teenagers wait until their 16th or 18th birthday to play hide the sausage.




It's hilarious. A bit of legislation isn't going to stop teenagers having sex. The only teens waiting until they're 18 are the ones who can't get laid.


----------



## Junior (16 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> It's hilarious. A bit of legislation isn't going to stop teenagers having sex. The only teens waiting until they're 18 are the ones who can't get laid.




Yes, exactly.  I waited until 18 but it was definitely not by choice.  And CERTAINLY nothing to do with any concern for the legalities of it!


----------



## Ves (16 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> It's hilarious. A bit of legislation isn't going to stop teenagers having sex. The only teens waiting until they're 18 are the ones who can't get laid.



Mate,  the only reason they're doing this is because there's a Fabian hiding under the bed of every teenager egging them on.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> It's hilarious. A bit of legislation isn't going to stop teenagers having sex. The only teens waiting until they're 18 are the ones who can't get laid.




Well, lets reduce the age of consent to 10, or abolish it altogether.


----------



## McLovin (16 September 2016)

Junior said:


> Yes, exactly.  I waited until 18 but it was definitely not by choice.  And CERTAINLY nothing to do with any concern for the legalities of it!




I was 15. I think that was on the younger side back in the 90's, but is middle of the road these days. A steam train pulling me the other way wouldn't have stopped me, let alone a bit of legislation.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> I was 15. I think that was on the younger side back in the 90's, but is middle of the road these days. A steam train pulling me the other way wouldn't have stopped me, let alone a bit of legislation.




So your 16 year old son gets his 14 year old girlfriend pregnant, are you happy to pay for what happens afterwards ?


Or your 14 year old daughter is made pregnant by her boyfriend, Do you really want that happening. If you don't care then you are not much of a father.


Without some threat of legal action you have basically nil influence in stopping such things happening.


----------



## McLovin (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So your 16 year old son gets his 14 year old girlfriend pregnant, are you happy to pay for what happens afterwards ?
> 
> 
> Or your 14 year old daughter is made pregnant by her boyfriend, Do you really want that happening. If you don't care then you are not much of a father.
> ...




No glove, no love.


----------



## noco (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, lets reduce the age of consent to 10, or abolish it altogether.




10 year old Muslim girls get married of to older men and it is happening here in Australia.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> No glove, no love.




When the urge strikes in the park at midnight I doubt if looking around for an open chemist is the first priority.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Marriage is NOT a "basic human right".
> 
> .




Maybe in little rumpoles world its not, but according to the united nations universal charter of human rights, which Australia assisted in writing, it is a basic human right.

So you can deny it all you want, but its right there in the charter which Australia is a signatory to.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> When the urge strikes in the park at midnight I doubt if looking around for an open chemist is the first priority.




I doubt they will care what the law says either way, but it has been shown that abstinence only education doesn't work, and increases the rate of teenage pregnancy.


----------



## explod (16 September 2016)

noco said:


> 10 year old Muslim girls get married of to older men and it is happening here in Australia.




Yes,  unbelievably disgusting but gays marrying each other are not going to effect this. 

However the marriage debate is a distraction from a clear focus on issues of child abuse wherein we do need to push for public attention.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I doubt they will care what the law says either way, but it has been shown that abstinence only education doesn't work, and increases the rate of teenage pregnancy.




So why have an age of consent law at all if it does no good ? You would be in favour of abolishing it completely ?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Maybe in little rumpoles world its not, but according to the united nations universal charter of human rights, which Australia assisted in writing, it is a basic human right.
> 
> So you can deny it all you want, but its right there in the charter which Australia is a signatory to.




Stuff the UN, they have really improved the life of the world's citizens haven't they ?

Nuclear weapons, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, they are the most useless organisation in the world.

They can say what they like about human rights, lets see them go into Saudi Arabia and throw out the Wahhabis if they want to improve the lives of gays.


----------



## noco (16 September 2016)

noco said:


> I know a few of you will laugh, but it is a part of the Fabian Society tactic to lower the morals of our youth and it has been going on since the 60's...This Safe Schools program in Victoria will become compulsory in all schools shortly but it has a hidden agenda as many of you now realize or are about to find out.....Daniel Andrews is behind it all and I am told it is a dangerous piece of legislation which will have a dramatic affect on all school kids from a very young age.
> 
> Through from the 50's and 60's Communism has set out to destroy the economy of Western Countries and to lower the morals of youth by exposing them to pornography as much as possible at an early age
> 
> I once posted under, "COMMUNISM IS NOT DEAD AND BURIED", How to skin a country, I will see if I can reproduce it for you.




To check out how the Fabian Society works lowering the morals of our youth, check out post 148 under ;-Re: Communism: It is not dead and buried .....there are lots of other referrals on this thread.


----------



## Hodgie (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So why have an age of consent law at all if it does no good ? You would be in favour of abolishing it completely ?




The age of consent laws protect children from older people preying on them.


----------



## McLovin (16 September 2016)

Hodgie said:


> The age of consent laws protect adults from preying on children.




Pretty much. Two teenagers who are close in age or both underage are unlikely to face any prosecution (some states actually have a legislated closeness of age defense).


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

Hodgie said:


> The age of consent laws protect children from older people preying on them.




So it should , so should we legalise all under age sex ? What age should be the cutoff point ? Two years, 5 years ? Is sex between a 15 year old and a 13 year old ok ?


----------



## Hodgie (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So it should , so should we legalise all under age sex ? What age should be the cutoff point ? Two years, 5 years ? Is sex between a 15 year old and a 13 year old ok ?




Tough question and I'm not the person to make that call, I think Mclovin's response above pretty much covers the issue as I see it though.

All we can do is really teach them about safe sex, prevention is difficult to say the least and I don't think the age of consent laws really deter teens. 

I recall when I was 13 and my older brother 15, we were at my dad's house (parents had just split up) and my dad gave my brother condoms because he had a girlfriend at the time. He didn't know if they were having sex but wanted to be safe in case they were.

Some may say bad parenting or whatever but my brother didn't knock any girls up at least.


----------



## McLovin (16 September 2016)

Hodgie said:


> I recall when I was 13 and my older brother 15, we were at my dad's house (parents had just split up) and my dad gave my brother condoms because he had a girlfriend at the time. He didn't know if they were having sex but wanted to be safe in case they were.




That's what my Dad did. Gave me a pack of condoms and said if I wanted to be an adult then I had to take responsibility as an adult. Awkward conversation. Sort of like this...


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So why have an age of consent law at all if it does no good ? You would be in favour of abolishing it completely ?




No, age of consent laws give us more power to punish adults that take advantage of girls and boys that are underage.

The fact that people flaunt laws isn't a reason to abolish them.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Stuff the UN, they have really improved the life of the world's citizens haven't they ?
> 
> Nuclear weapons, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, they are the most useless organisation in the world.
> 
> They can say what they like about human rights, lets see them go into Saudi Arabia and throw out the Wahhabis if they want to improve the lives of gays.




So you see no value in the charter of human rights? Or is it just that on item in particular?


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So it should , so should we legalise all under age sex ? What age should be the cutoff point ? Two years, 5 years ? Is sex between a 15 year old and a 13 year old ok ?




Every person is different when it comes to when they are mature enough, but we need to draw a line in the sand some where.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> So you see no value in the charter of human rights? Or is it just that on item in particular?




I think the UN charter is vague regarding Same sex marriage. The intent seems to be more on preventing forced marriages rather than explicitly endorsing SSM. SSM is certainly not mentioned directly.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I think the UN charter is vague regarding Same sex marriage. The intent seems to be more on preventing forced marriages rather than explicitly endorsing SSM. SSM is certainly not mentioned directly.




It doesn't define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 women either.

Not just preventing forced marriages, it clears says it is a persons right to marry, other parts of the charter also say it's a human right to not be descriminated against because of your gender or sexuality.

Interracial marriage is not mentioned directly either, but given that descrimination based on race is against human rights, you can easily see interracial marriages shouldn't be banned, the same logic follows that Ssm shouldn't be banned, because freedom from descrimination based on sex/gender is a human right.

Eg. Allowing Emma to marry Tom because she is female, but banning Peter from marrying Tom because he is male, is descrimination based on sex, and would be a violation of the charter.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> It doesn't define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 women either.
> 
> Not just preventing forced marriages, it clears says it is a persons right to marry, other parts of the charter also say it's a human right to not be descriminated against because of your gender or sexuality.
> 
> ...




Obviously if our marriage laws violated "human rights" they would have been challenged in the Hague. Have they been ?

As I said before, various relationships are not "banned"; ie people don't get thrown into gaol (any more) for being gay, but society has a right to recognise relationships that it wants to or not if it sees that society would benefit by that recognition; eg giving children legal recognition, but even that is catered for in de-facto relationships.

eg it's not a breach of human rights if a child of Pauline Hanson married a Muslim and she didn't go to the wedding because she doesn't like Muslims. It's her right not to go.


----------



## McLovin (16 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> It doesn't define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 women either.




No, but it limits the scope of that right. 



> Men and women of full age,* without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion*, have the right to marry and to found a family.




No laws regarding marriage that are due to race, religion or nationality. Everything else is fair game. Considering when that document was written, you could reasonably infer that it didn't intend creating a human right for gays to be able to marry.

Aside from that, the UN DHR is a _declaration_ not a treaty. No country is bound by it.


----------



## explod (16 September 2016)

Plebesite will not get through and Turnbull indicating that he's prepared to consider action within Parliament. 

Groundswell of public concern is getting through.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> No, but it limits the scope of that right.
> 
> 
> 
> No laws regarding marriage that are due to race, religion or nationality. Everything else is fair game.




A preceding article of the charter states this.

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. "

So to me that says putting gender limitations on marriage rights would be a breach of that article.


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2016)

Fabricated versus natural families and marriages: 

ICCPR Article 23 states:

The* family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society* and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
*The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.*
No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/right-marry-and-found-family

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/marriage-and-family.html


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2016)

Humpty Dumpty .... nice.



> To control the definition of a thing is to control the thing itself. This was the great insight of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's fantasy, Alice in Wonderland. Recall the dialogue: After he defines “glory” as “a nice knock-down argument,” Humpty-Dumpty explains the point to a doubting Alice: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean ”” neither more nor less.” When Alice responds that the real issue is whether you can change the meaning of a word to make it mean what you want it to mean, Humpty Dumpty demurs: “The question is which is to be master  that's a




Won't have any effect on those X gens who have been victims of the great social experiment gone wrong, but a good article and interesting narrative none the less.

https://www.pop.org/content/whats-wrong-united-nations-definition-family


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> Humpty Dumpty .... nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The people who care most about children, all else being equal, are their biological parents. Trying to degrade this relationship into some sort of wider sociological caring system is attacking the traditional family system and basically going against nature.

Certainly there is a wider society responsibility to care for all children, but it involves giving parents the resources to care for their children and not attempting turn them into homogenous blobs in the mass of society.

The nuclear family should be encouraged, not undermined as some of the rainbow agenda people want to do.


----------



## McLovin (17 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> A preceding article of the charter states this.
> 
> "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. "
> 
> So to me that says putting gender limitations on marriage rights would be a breach of that article.




Article 2, which you quoted, states that the rights contained in the Declaration extend to everyone. That's fine, I don't disagree with that. However, Article 16 does not extend a blanket right of marriage to men and women, you need to read it in toto per my previous post.

I'm pretty sure Article 16 was a direct response to the Nuremberg laws.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> Article 2, which you quoted, states that the rights contained in the Declaration extend to everyone. That's fine, I don't disagree with that. However, Article 16 does not extend a blanket right of marriage to men and women, you need to read it in toto per my previous post.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Article 16 was a direct response to the Nuremberg laws.




Article 2 states that the rights extend to everyone regardless of gender, and that gender isn't a determining factor.

So how then can gender be used as a test to see if a marriage is valid?

------------------------

Its a bit like the USA declaration of independence states 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Now, they had slavery at the time, and the statement might not have been written with the intent of freeing the slaves, however once you accept that statement, you must understand that it automatically follows that slavery is wrong.

Its the same with the statement of human rights, article 2 says gender isn't a valid test, yet we currently will deny marriages based on gender.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The people who care most about children, all else being equal, are their biological parents.




Docs removes many children from their biological parents, and there are many adoptions that result is happier healthier homes.

But either way, that's nothing to do with SSM.


----------



## McLovin (17 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Article 2 states that the rights extend to everyone regardless of gender, and that gender isn't a determining factor.
> 
> So how then can gender be used as a test to see if a marriage is valid?




Article 16 explicitly says it applies to both men and women, so I have no idea where you're trying to go with the gender argument. Article 2 creates a single right; that the rights included in the Declaration extend to everyone, but Article 16 does not recognise a carte blanche right to marry, it is a right to marry without restrictions based on race, nationality or religion. As I said, you need to read that sentence in its entirety. If the intention was to recognise an unrestricted right for men and women to marry, then the sentence would have simply been 'Men and women, of full age, have the right to marry".



Value Collector said:


> Its a bit like the USA declaration of independence states
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> ...




It's not at all the same.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Its the same with the statement of human rights, article 2 says gender isn't a valid test, yet we currently will deny marriages based on gender.




Maybe you would like to take your interpretation to the Hague and get a ruling ?


----------



## noco (17 September 2016)

This thread has certainly taken a pounding this week with nothing really gained or lost.

At least it has given us all a break from that fake Climate Change Hysteria.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> Article 16 explicitly says it applies to both men and women, so I have no idea where you're trying to go with the gender argument..




Jane marries paul - valid

Tom marries paul - invalid

Tom can not marry paul because he is male, jane is allowed because she is female.

Paul is being restricted because of his gender, he should be entitled to marry tom just as jane can, restricting his rights to marry tom because of his gender goes against Article two.






> . Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, *sex*, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you would like to take your interpretation to the Hague and get a ruling ?




Well the only reason I brought up the charter of human rights was because you said marriage wasn't a right. 

But either way its up to the Nay sayers to show that SSM would cause harm, so far no one has been able to do that.

So there is no reason to ban it.


----------



## McLovin (17 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Jane marries paul - valid
> 
> Tom marries paul - invalid
> 
> ...




Article 2 states that the rights in the Declaration apply to everyone. There is no right to marry, there is only the right to marry without restrictions based on race, religion or nationality. Using your logic a polygamous or incestuous marriage would also be a human right.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> There is no right to marry, there is only the right to marry without restrictions based on race, religion or nationality. Using your logic a polygamous or incestuous marriage would also be a human right.




Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.


> (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, *have the right to marry* and to found a family




It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.

-------------------

No I don't have a problem with polygamous marriages either provided they are entered into knowingly and with consent. Incest has a certain ick factor, but i guess it like anything if the participants were consenting that's up to them as long as it does no harm to others, I could see the need for restrictions on child conception etc though.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.
> 
> 
> It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.




The Declaration was signed in 1948. SSM was unknown then and homosexuality was still frowned on by many countries at the time,  so it can hardly be said that the intention of this Declaration was to provide a basis for SSM.

I think you are reading too much into this document. It pretty clearly states support for men and women marrying the opposite sex and founding a family by natural means. You may like to think it supports your case for SSM, but that was not the intention imo.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Declaration was signed in 1948. SSM was unknown then and homosexuality was still frowned on by many countries at the time,  so it can hardly be said that the intention of this Declaration was to provide a basis for SSM.
> 
> I think you are reading too much into this document. It pretty clearly states support for men and women marrying the opposite sex and founding a family by natural means. You may like to think it supports your case for SSM, but that was not the intention imo.




It doesn't have to mention SSm specifically it just has to identify marriage in general as a human right, and also that human rights can not be denied based on gender. 

Whether the original authors thought about ssm is irrelevant. Because they laid out the important parts and we can use logic to see that it follows from that that it is wrong to deny ssm.

Either way through you still have to prove harm to justify denying personal freedoms, and in all the posts here, not one. Amid point has ever been made against ssm.


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.
> 
> 
> It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.
> ...




You're not much for sentence old skool structure are you?


----------



## McLovin (17 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.




Do you really not understand sentence construction?  Read the whole sentence. 



Value Collector said:


> It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.




I'm not arguing a right to marry doesn't exist.


----------



## McLovin (18 September 2016)

One final observation, Article 16 begins with "men and women", every other article begins with "everyone". Quite a telling contrast.


----------



## bellenuit (18 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> One final observation, Article 16 begins with "men and women", every other article begins with "everyone". Quite a telling contrast.




Maybe because they didn't want to extend it to children, legitimising child marriage? It did commence "men and women of full age...."


----------



## McLovin (18 September 2016)

bellenuit said:


> Maybe because they didn't want to extend it to children, legitimising child marriage? It did commence "men and women of full age...."




"Everyone of full age" would have sufficed if that was the intention. The distinction says a lot.


----------



## McLovin (18 September 2016)

And from the UN Human Rights Committee...



> Given the existence of a specific provision in the Covenant on the right to marriage, any claim that this right has been violated must be considered in the light of this provision. *Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using the term "men and women", rather than "every human being", "everyone" and "all persons". Use of the term "men and women", rather than the general terms used elsewhere in Part III of the Covenant, has been consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that the treaty obligation of States parties stemming from article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is to recognize as marriage only the union between a man and a woman wishing to marry each other.
> *


----------



## explod (18 September 2016)

Clearly then it is  "men AND women" which can be interpreted in the singular or the plural

If it was intended to exclude gay or lesbian unions it would have been worded " man and woman"  

The fact that it was not indicates that the legislators intention was to be inclusive for all possible combinations.


----------



## McLovin (18 September 2016)

explod said:


> Clearly then it is  "men AND women" which can be interpreted in the singular or the plural
> 
> If it was intended to exclude gay or lesbian unions it would have been worded " man and woman"
> 
> The fact that it was not indicates that the legislators intention was to be inclusive for all possible combinations.




Sure that's possible. It's possible the phrase "men and women" was supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's also possible it's nothing more than a drafting error. However, as it stands the UN Human Rights Committee concludes that that wording only recognises the right for a man and a woman to marry.


----------



## explod (18 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> Sure that's possible. It's also possible it's nothing more than a drafting error. However, as it stands the UN Human Rights Committee concludes that that wording only recognises the right for a man and a woman to marry.




A legal challenge would be interesting


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2016)

explod said:


> Clearly then it is  "men AND women" which can be interpreted in the singular or the plural
> 
> If it was intended to exclude gay or lesbian unions it would have been worded " man and woman"
> 
> The fact that it was not indicates that the legislators intention was to be inclusive for all possible combinations.




"a man and a woman"

AND should never be confused with OR ....anyone who ever wrote a program would now the ramification of that error


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2016)

ABC keeps up it's agenda tonight on Australian Story tonight where a couple of women who look like they came from the same egg proclaim their love for their own reflections. One of the confused  is named Narc and the other Issus.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> ABC keeps up it's agenda tonight on Australian Story tonight where a couple of women who look like they came from the same egg proclaim their love for their own reflections. One of the confused  is named Narc and the other Issus.




I wonder if that show should be considered paid advertising for the YES case ?

Half a million off the $7.5 million.


----------



## noco (21 September 2016)

My oh my, how the socialist left operate in regard to the SSM debate has well and truly been exposed by Janet Albrechtsen.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/9ac13de3b4bc63f481ba3dc958123821

Free speech inimical to Left’s stifling orthodoxies

The Australian
12:00AM September 21, 2016

Sydney


@jkalbrechtsen



*Perhaps it was the delirium of pneumonia that allowed Hillary Clinton to speak so freely, putting half of Donald Trump’s supporters in what she called the “basket of deplorables”. Like the in vino veritas that sets in after a few drinks, Clinton’s honesty was refreshing. 

They are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it”, said Clinton of the Deplorables. In one fell swoop the unplugged Democratic presidential candidate lifted the lid on the neo-fascist Left.

Clinton’s moment of ill-discipline reduced the fraud of so-called progressive politics to a simple illiberal equation: if you disagree with me on race matters, you are a racist. If you disagree with me over lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex politics, you are a homophobe. Disagree with my position on Islam, you are an *Islamophobe. If you disagree with me on immigration, you are a xenophobe. Rather than engaging in debate, too many on the Left would rather portray disagreement on totemic issues as grounds for a mental disorder with the sole aim of shutting down any challenge to leftist orthodoxy.

The same politics of deriding deplorables is endemic in Australia, especially in the same-sex marriage debate. The Greens and LGBTI activists claim that allowing Australians to decide whether marriage should be redefined would fuel harmful hate speech from same-sex marriage opponents. Worse, the leaders of Australia’s alternative government succumbed to the lowest of low-rent politics. A plebiscite would lead to suicides, Bill Shorten said. Deputy leader Tanya Plibersek used a young boy named Eddie, the son of a same-sex couple, for political purposes. The aim is clear: shut down debate about same-sex marriage. Agree or shut up is the staple of neo-fascists. Never mind that we are debating an institution, not the sexuality of individuals.

Malcolm Turnbull exposed Labor’s thought police during question time last Wednesday. “Was Julia Gillard a homophobe when she opposed same-sex marriage? Was Penny Wong a homophobe when she opposed same-sex marriage? Of course not. The reality is, if people who opposed same-sex marriage then are not homophobes, then they are not homophobes now. The Labor Party has to stop preaching this hatred,” the Prime Minister said.

Alas, same-sex marriage activists chose hatred last Friday when they learnt that Christian groups planned to meet at the Mercure Sydney Airport hotel to prepare for the no campaign. The threats of violence, feral social media posts, including “are your children safe at Mercure” and nasty phone calls to staff showed the disdain for debate among same-sex marriage activists. Hotel management cancelled the event to protect staff. Did left-wingers in favour of same-sex marriage condemn the hate-filled campaign from their own side? No.

Whatever you may say about rigid Christian doctrinal teaching, the churches understand they operate in a liberal democracy where the marketplace of ideas will necessarily challenge their beliefs. Not so the gay-marriage zealots whose fanaticism seeks to suppress open debate and reason.

The critical question is why have so many on the Left taken this illiberal path? Whereas radical leftists in the 1960s were at the vanguard of libertarianism, challenging oppressive customs and canons, too many are now enforcers of their own stifling orthodoxies. The end of liberalism for many on the Left started more than 40 years ago when, by embracing identity politics, they untethered human rights from classical notions of freedom. Sex, sexuality, race and other forms of personal identification trumped Enlightenment freedoms and the very notion of universal, libertarian rights.

Soon enough, identity politics fuelled victimhood claims in a confected marketplace of outrage with feelings now the measurement of human rights. The right not to be offended, not to have one’s feelings hurt, marked the downward spiral of the liberal Left. Instead, a paternalistic Left set *itself up as the arbiter of rights and freedoms based on repressive *adherence to its feelings-based moral code rather than the universal rights of mankind.

There are few more defining moments in the Left’s long, illiberal demise than its response when Muslim fundamentalists slapped a fatwa on Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses, demanding his death, burning his novel and marching in London to suppress words.

By choosing silence at this pivotal moment, left-wing elites sided with Muslim fundamentalists who understood that free speech threatened their grip on power.

Now it’s the same with the Western Left. They understand that free speech is the enemy of their illiberal, stifling orthodoxies. It explains why so many on the Left refuse to countenance any change to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, even while three students from the Queensland University of Technology are dragged through a three-year legal rigmarole of racial discrimination claims for posting innocuous comments on Facebook. The silence from most on the Left attests to the neo-fascist transformation of their politics. To speak up would expose the illiberal project that the Left has undertaken for four decades.

Those who call out the Left’s dangerous regression deserve kudos. British writer Nick Cohen marched against Margaret Thatcher and denounced New Labour’s embrace of corporate capitalism. Cohen tendered his resignation from the Left a year ago: “Slowly, too slowly, I am ashamed to say, I began to notice that left-wing politics had turned rancid.”

In Australia, Guy Rundle recently lamented the Left’s enthusiasm for the ever-encroaching state and how the aim of anti-discrimination laws “is to make the censor ‘go inside’, so that you ultimately second-guess your own impulse to challenge, to express, to be outrageous or genuinely on the edge”.

At the weekend, former minister in the Hawke and Keating governments Peter Baldwin traced the sad demise of the Left from a rational movement committed to equality of people, regardless of race, gender and class, to one of moral depravity where so-called progressive intellectuals denounce Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an “Enlightenment fundamentalist”. Hirsi Ali was born a Muslim, was subjected to female genital mutilation and escaped an arranged marriage. Shouldn’t we pay tribute to a woman who choses Western freedoms over Islamic restraints?

We need more people like Baldwin who are honest about the Left’s conversion into loathers of freedom. Half-hearted analyses don’t cut it. When former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr scolded members of the Left for intolerance in the free speech debate, he refused to acknowledge that section 18C cements intolerance in our polity. It’s like saying you support democratic nations but not the sole beacon of democracy in the Middle East, Israel. It makes no sense.

Equally absurd, the Greens can walk out on Pauline Hanson but to denounce a duly elected senator as having no place in a democracy is more offensive than anything Hanson says. It is the antithesis of democracy. We’ve tiptoed around calling out the neo-fascist mindset of many on the Left for too long. What is more deplorably neo-fascist: the clumsy words of the often ill-informed Hanson who believes in free speech or the slippery sorts on the illiberal Left who cannot stomach open debate?

janeta@bigpond.net.au
*


----------



## qldfrog (21 September 2016)

I especially like the:
"
The critical question is why have so many on the Left taken this illiberal path? Whereas radical leftists in the 1960s were at the vanguard of libertarianism, challenging oppressive customs and canons, too many are now enforcers of their own stifling orthodoxies. The end of liberalism for many on the Left started more than 40 years ago when, by embracing identity politics, they untethered human rights from classical notions of freedom. Sex, sexuality, race and other forms of personal identification trumped Enlightenment freedoms and the very notion of universal, libertarian rights.
"
This can be applied to many of the active participants in this thread (and others).a good article indeed


----------



## SirRumpole (21 September 2016)

noco said:


> My oh my, how the socialist left operate in regard to the SSM debate has well and truly been exposed by Janet Albrechtsen.




Trust you to turn a social debate into a political mudslinging.


----------



## noco (21 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Trust you to turn a social debate into a political mudslinging.




Rumpy, I feel sorry for you if you cannot stand the truth.

Janet Alreachsten is only stating the facts so I don't see where the mudslinging enters into the discussion.

Both Bill Shorten and Penny Wong where in favor of a plebiscite and have since done a back flip.


----------



## explod (21 September 2016)

noco said:


> Rumpy, I feel sorry for you if you cannot stand the truth.
> 
> Janet Alreachsten is only stating the facts so I don't see where the mudslinging enters into the discussion.
> 
> Both Bill Shorten and Penny Wong where in favor of a plebiscite and have since done a back flip.




Because of the noise from the general public on social media.  As well as the wealthy lobbyists the major parties are guided by the sentiment that will get them reelected. 

Full stop.   Plebesite is getting on the nose


----------



## noco (21 September 2016)

explod said:


> Because of the noise from the general public on social media.  As well as the wealthy lobbyists the major parties are guided by the sentiment that will get them reelected.
> 
> Full stop.   Plebesite is getting on the nose




So which party do you think will win out in the end?

Candid speaking I am sick to death of hearing about every day and I don't really give a stuff which way it goes.

If they are going to have a plebiscite get it over and done with....If Labor want to block it in the senate the hate from the left will linger on for another 3 years.


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2016)

explod said:


> Because of the noise from the general public on social media.  As well as the wealthy lobbyists the major parties are guided by the sentiment that will get them reelected.
> 
> Full stop.   Plebesite is getting on the nose





We vote for candidates, chosen for us by an elite privileged few, to represent us in a way the elite privileged few determine. Being our representatives, they decide the best course of action on prickly issues like Sodom and Gomorrah legislation.

If our representatives think a plebiscite gives them surety and the population a demonstrable snapshot of the adult nation's wishes, then the parliament is doing its duty to the nation. 

Labor has become a traitor to it's own foundations by ignoring the working class in favour of obscure fifth column nations within our nation, grubbing for votes. The Liberal party has devolved from a party established to oppose the worker socialism of ALP and promoting the middle class, but now spends its time obsessing about the ALP and blaming everyone else for not doing the job they were elected to do, but keep botching.

We need a plebiscite to show to the world the farce or otherwise of gay marriage.


----------



## Junior (23 September 2016)

There is no need for a plebiscite.

This issue has gone to a vote in parliament many times and failed.  Next time it goes to vote it may well pass, and then that will be the end of it.

If Labour win the next election, it will happen one way or the other.

End of story, may as well stop discussing the topic to death, gay marriage is inevitable and life will go on.


----------



## noco (23 September 2016)

When a marriage celebrant performs a wedding ceremony between a man and a women the end result is "I now pronounce you man and wife...You may now kiss the bride...You are now Mr. and Mrs. Smith".Clap,clap,clap.

What happens when two gays get married?...Will the celebrant say I now pronounce you gay and gay or Lesbian and Lesbian......will it be Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs.


----------



## Junior (23 September 2016)

noco said:


> When a marriage celebrant performs a wedding ceremony between a man and a women the end result is "I now pronounce you man and wife...You may now kiss the bride...You are now Mr. and Mrs. Smith".Clap,clap,clap.
> 
> What happens when two gays get married?...Will the celebrant say I now pronounce you gay and gay or Lesbian and Lesbian......will it be Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs.




The last 5 weddings I've attended, the celebrant followed that statement with a piece about how the two people getting married are in full support of same sex marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2016)

Junior said:


> There is no need for a plebiscite.
> 
> This issue has gone to a vote in parliament many times and failed.  Next time it goes to vote it may well pass, and then that will be the end of it.
> 
> ...




I would be quite happy not to hear about the subject for another 3 years.


----------



## noco (23 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I would be quite happy not to hear about the subject for another 3 years.




No thanks..I have had a gut full of it already...Get over and done with now.


----------



## Junior (26 September 2016)

I think this is pretty telling.



> Just one electorate in the country has a majority of voters opposed to same-sex marriage, according to new research that suggests MPs and public debate significantly trail voters in backing change.
> 
> The University of Melbourne-led study found opposition to changing the Marriage Act ranges from 40 to just over 50 per cent in a handful of rural Queensland and northern NSW seats to less than 10 per cent in inner-city electorates in Sydney and Melbourne.
> 
> Maranoa, in outback south-western Queensland and held by the Coalition's David Littleproud, has just over 50 per cent of voters who do not want a change to allow same-sex couples to wed.


----------



## qldfrog (26 September 2016)

Junior said:


> I think this is pretty telling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



did I get that wrong or is that "survey" dated 2013 ?
that  is what i got when i quickly read thru
another no news?


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 September 2016)

People deriving sexual love in an unnatural way is their choice. I can imagine some of it would be dirty and unhygienic for the males. This minority group issue has gained traction within the government pushed by selfish people playing the catch word of today, equality. A very loose word; for all equal we are not.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2016)

qldfrog said:


> did I get that wrong or is that "survey" dated 2013 ?
> that  is what i got when i quickly read thru
> another no news?





It's worse than that, it's all predicated on the ABC's Compass survey for 2013 and then weighted to reflect the demographic of their choosing.

The only accurate poll of people's opinion is at the ballot box or down the local. 

This just another in a barrage of push polling by pointy heads who want to prove they have the power to manipulate the cretins who swallow this s41te

Anyone here get asked by UNi Melbourne their opinion?


----------



## Tink (27 September 2016)

Agree, Tisme.

How has this brainwashing occurred, that it gets to the point where a mother and a father is removed as words used?
Husband and wife becomes partner.

Equality is the new word where I am seeing the destruction of the english language, destruction of the family unit, the list goes on, imv.

Thanks McLovin, for your input on Marriage (in the UN) being a man and a woman, and good on you guys that came in here talking about your fathers, and the input they have had in your life -- positives.
A mother and a father is important in a child's life, and BOTH contribute much, both different, yet both valuable.

I am disgusted on the constant attack on the family by the left, and that goes on the family, and our forefathers, where most were in a war.
Men and women that sacrificed a lot of their lives in the past.

This is an attack on our history and our future, and they are part of each other, in my view.

It is natural to want to know your history, and they will go searching, no matter what barriers they put in place.



SirRumpole said:


> The people who care most about children, all else being equal, are their biological parents. Trying to degrade this relationship into some sort of wider sociological caring system is attacking the traditional family system and basically going against nature.
> 
> Certainly there is a wider society responsibility to care for all children, but it involves giving parents the resources to care for their children and not attempting turn them into homogenous blobs in the mass of society.
> 
> The nuclear family should be encouraged, not undermined as some of the rainbow agenda people want to do.




+1


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree, Tisme.
> 
> How has this brainwashing occurred, that it gets to the point where a mother and a father is removed as words used?
> Husband and wife becomes partner.
> ...




When Trump gets in it will be a whole new ball game of back to the future as the bible belt takes charge.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> When Trump gets in it will be a whole new ball game of back to the future as the bible belt takes charge.




I know an Irish guy with a similar sense of humour Tisme. Dam he might actually be a brother in law one day.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree, Tisme.
> 
> How has this brainwashing occurred, that it gets to the point where a mother and a father is removed as words used?
> Husband and wife becomes partner.
> ...




I don't think the Left or the gays are attacking anyone's family value Tink. They just thought that since it's so cool, can they please also have some.

Speaking of forefathers, soldiers, statesmen, pioneers, kids and society having to love and protect them... there are more than a few gays among those too. There are gay kids, there are gay soldiers, a lot of gay (and spineless) politicians. I mean, the entire British parliament that funded the Australian experiment way back when... most are quite gay too.

Serious though, I know a fair number of Christians... they aren't that much into the Bible's anti-gay bits. So not sure if it's a Christian value or not. So you know, you can be a good Christian and not dislike God's other creation. Maybe all these "Christian value" stuff about homosexuals come about because a few them preachers are closeted gays who want to prove otherwise by beating up on the thing.


----------



## Junior (27 September 2016)

I think ignorance, intolerance, hate and *inequality* are ugly words.

Anything which causes us to think someone is superior or more important than someone else on the basis of gender, race, religious belief, sexuality etc. is an ugly concept.  It tears us apart and divides us rather than bringing people closer together.

We should be moving forward as a human race, not backwards based on outdated and archaic views of our differences.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 September 2016)

Junior said:


> I think ignorance, intolerance, hate and *inequality* are ugly words.
> 
> Anything which causes us to *think* someone is superior or more important than someone else on the basis of gender, race, religious belief, sexuality etc. is an ugly concept.  It tears us apart and divides us rather than bringing people closer together.
> 
> We should be moving forward as a human race, not backwards based on outdated and archaic views of our differences.



*Gender, race, religious belief, sexuality etc.* are our differences. Females are not physically as strong as males, one race has cultural differences to other races, each religion has its own ideologies often far different to each other or the majority of society. Sexuality, well homosexuality is getting more air time nowadays in a push to make it acceptable in society. Like a familiarity thing where if one is exposed to something for long enough then it becomes accepted.

We can all be accepting of each others differences but try converting billions of people from every walk of life to be more accepting of each others differences. Its a nice thought (to be more accepting) but differences have been the source of human conflict from recorded time. It is a self sustaining process (life).


----------



## Junior (27 September 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> *try converting billions of people from every walk of life to be more accepting of each others differences*




This is a nice goal to have.  In most modern societies, great progress has been made in this area.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> *. Females are not physically as strong as males,*



*

I dare you to get in the ring with a female MMA fighter and say that, lol.

That's the thing with generalisations in a lot of cases they give you the wrong answer.

In all genders, races etc, there is enough diversity, that general rules are useless.

eg, saying Men are stronger than women might be true if you reduced the genders down to their averages, but if you make some rule based on that, then you will have a lot of men at the weak end and women at the strong end who are not being treated fairly.

same with any rule based on race.*


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> That's the thing with generalisations *in a lot of cases* they give you the wrong answer.



Not in this case. Have a look at the physique of women compared to men. It is visually evident and practically observable. By natural design. More so in Australia with so many fat azzes living a life with little effort required.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I dare you to get in the ring with a female MMA fighter and say that, lol.
> 
> That's the thing with generalisations in a lot of cases they give you the wrong answer.
> 
> ...




That's why sports are generally gender segregated......splitting hairs again VC


----------



## noco (27 September 2016)

What does the Green/Labor coalition hope to gain from this "SAFE SCHOOLS PROGRAM"?

It is corrupting the minds of young people in their early teens and should be abandoned.

I also cannot understand why the Turnbull Government continues to do nothing about it.

It is morally corrupt to say the least.


http://www.acl.org.au/professor_cal...d118&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read more


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Not in this case. Have a look at the physique of women compared to men. It is visually evident and practically observable. By natural design. More so in Australia with so many fat azzes living a life with little effort required.




My point is, the strongest 10% of women are probably stronger than the weakest 10% of men, maybe more.

So any rule designed to separate people based on strength that simply rules out women, is going to unfairly rule out a large group of people that should be consider eliglable.

Let's say it could be proven than on average asians were 25% more diligent and intelligent than whites,   Could we simply use that fact alone to decide who gets accepted to university courses? Off course not, because there would still be a large chunk of whites at the high end that are better candidates than the lower end of asians, you cannot make the call on race alone, you need more info.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2016)

noco said:


> What does the Green/Labor coalition hope to gain from this "SAFE SCHOOLS PROGRAM"?
> 
> It is corrupting the minds of young people in their early teens and should be abandoned.
> 
> ...





There are many reasons why kids are bullied at school. Because they are fat, skinny, wear glasses, have red hair or just don't go along with the crowd.

The focus on LGBTI is overkill, the insinuation seems to be that gender identity is a prime cause of bullying when it probably is only a very small proportion.

A safe schools program is a good idea, but the message should be not to bully anyone for any reason. All this gender theory stuff should be kicked out of the syllabus altogether.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> That's why sports are generally gender segregated......splitting hairs again VC




Sports is one thing, but we used to ban women from the army, because men were stronger, well I can tell you I have seen a few very capable female soldiers and a lot of incompetent male bags of ****. If you make your decision based on sex or race you are going to over look a lot of talent,


----------



## noco (27 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> A safe schools program is a good idea, but the message should be not to bully anyone for any reason. All this gender theory stuff should be kicked out of the syllabus altogether.




The socialist are using this bullying crap as a shadow for their true agenda and that is to break down the morals of young children and this is something that has been going on with communism for decades.

I have a book in my possession on communism given to me by my father many years ago and it clearly spells out what  their aim was decades ago.

I know you will come back at me with some sort of homophobic smart remark but that does not worry me...I know what I am talking about.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2016)

noco said:


> The socialist are using this bullying crap as a shadow for their true agenda and that is to break down the morals of young children and this is something that has been going on with communism for decades.
> 
> I have a book in my possession on communism given to me by my father many years ago and it clearly spells out what  their aim was decades ago.
> 
> I know you will come back at me with some sort of homophobic smart remark but that does not worry me...I know what I am talking about.




This is nothing to do with communism, it's about a few gays trying to make children think that gays are the same as everyone else. In some ways they are, in others they are not. As usual you try and turn anything into a political debate. Give it a rest for a while eh ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> My point is, the strongest 10% of women are probably stronger than the weakest 10% of men, maybe more.
> 
> So any rule designed to separate people based on strength that simply rules out women, is going to unfairly rule out a large group of people that should be consider eliglable.






Value Collector said:


> If you make your decision based on sex or race you are going to over look a lot of talent,



I have present time experience with the new idea in our company for a greater percentage (percentage in itself denotes job eligibility not necessary) of females in the workforce. *This is great and I am all for it* but the idjits up above have forgotten to employ for suitability, commitment and/or experience. Specifically apprenticeships, which are fewer nowadays as automation takes jobs, which are given to females who are obviously not committed, have to be carried for lack of strength and lack aptitude. While year 11/12 male students doing pre-vocational training and work experience get a not successful letter. That is my point too.


----------



## noco (28 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> This is nothing to do with communism, it's about a few gays trying to make children think that gays are the same as everyone else. In some ways they are, in others they are not. As usual you try and turn anything into a political debate. Give it a rest for a while eh ?




Rumpy, I am sorry to say you are so naive about that safe school program......It has nothing to do with school bullying and plenty to do with leading  young kids into moral danger.

If this has not been a political debate, you could have fooled me mate......It has been a stupid hot political debate since its conception when in fact there should have been double the discussion on how to repair the budget from the discrepancy left by Labor....But as per usual this is just another Labor diversion from the real problems facing this country and Bill Shorten will keep it on the boil as long as he can.

Don't come back and tell me the Liberal National party have had 3 years to fix it when you know full well  the Green/Labor coalition have blocked billions of dollars in savings the Government have tried to use....And don't forget also there has been a down turn in mining commodities and we are still saddled with a billion dollars a week interest on the Labor Party wasted money plus all the welfare cheques sent to many Muslims with 4 wives and 17 kids who have not worked a day in their lives since arriving in Australia..


----------



## noco (28 September 2016)

noco said:


> Rumpy, I am sorry to say you are so naive about that safe school program......It has nothing to do with school bullying and plenty to do with leading  young kids into moral danger.
> 
> If this has not been a political debate, you could have fooled me mate......It has been a stupid hot political debate since its conception when in fact there should have been double the discussion on how to repair the budget from the discrepancy left by Labor....But as per usual this is just another Labor diversion from the real problems facing this country and Bill Shorten will keep it on the boil as long as he can.
> 
> Don't come back and tell me the Liberal National party have had 3 years to fix it when you know full well  the Green/Labor coalition have blocked billions of dollars in savings the Government have tried to use....And don't forget also there has been a down turn in mining commodities and we are still saddled with a billion dollars a week interest on the Labor Party wasted money plus all the welfare cheques sent to many Muslims with 4 wives and 17 kids who have not worked a day in their lives since arriving in Australia..




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/7e1ee74bd8b682f188333828ce5e374e

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-24/bradley-marxism-and-safe-schools/7272764

Now then Rumpy what id you say about the Safe Schools program having nothing to do with comminusim.


----------



## Tisme (28 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Sports is one thing, but we used to ban women from the army, because men were stronger, well I can tell you I have seen a few very capable female soldiers and a lot of incompetent male bags of ****. If you make your decision based on sex or race you are going to over look a lot of talent,




Once again you are cherry picking.  

As technology replaces brute force we will obviously see changes, perhaps not even gender biased, but ageist, agility, ocular, etc. I'm not sure if legislation will change to discriminate in favour of the new discriminated, but based on the *social engineering that has been patently so successful with the Y gens and MIllenials*, I would say so.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2016)

noco said:


> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/7e1ee74bd8b682f188333828ce5e374e
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-24/bradley-marxism-and-safe-schools/7272764
> 
> Now then Rumpy what id you say about the Safe Schools program having nothing to do with comminusim.




The opinions of a few Right Wing nutters are neither here nor there.


----------



## Tisme (28 September 2016)

noco said:


> .....It has nothing to do with school bullying and plenty to do with leading  young kids into moral danger.
> 
> ..




I tend to agree with that, in part Noco. The public servants who actually drive the agenda seem intent on clean sheeting society for a new dawn, including Nancifying the male population. Unfortunately for our descendants they ignore nature over nurture and eventually the gap between the predator nature within a core % will result in feudal system with overlords and serfs.

We are seeing the paternal grip strangling nations right now, using religion as the rally call....it's only going to get worse as even the USA swings behind alpha males like Trump.


----------



## Tink (28 September 2016)

Luutzu, this about Marriage, not about who you like and don't like.

There are plenty of relationships out there that want to be equal but they are not.

I have said that all laws are based on morality.

A man and a woman is not equal to two men or two women.

The reason that Marriage is as it is -- it caters for the family.

Sadly, it is political and Orwellian, Rumpole.

It over rides traditional Marriage with its own rules, the destruction of our society.

Junior, plenty of countries that have not taken on same sex marriage, though they have unions, like we have here, where they have the exact same rights as the heterosexuals.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Sadly, it is political and Orwellian, Rumpole.




Not so political. A lot of people in the LNP support SSM and a lot in the Labor Party oppose it.

Noco's arch Fabian Juliua Gillard voted against it last time. It's a matter of personal opinion, not politics.


----------



## Tisme (28 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> There are many reasons why kids are bullied at school. Because they are fat, skinny, wear glasses, have red hair or just don't go along with the crowd.
> 
> The focus on LGBTI is overkill, the insinuation seems to be that gender identity is a prime cause of bullying when it probably is only a very small proportion.
> 
> A safe schools program is a good idea, but the message should be not to bully anyone for any reason. All this gender theory stuff should be kicked out of the syllabus altogether.




You are showing your age:  LGBTI is so yesterday Rumpole, in 2016 it's LGBTQIA


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> You are showing your age:  LGBTI is so yesterday Rumpole, in 2016 it's LGBTQIA




Riiiight, the A is for Aliens ? Mustn't leave them out.


----------



## noco (28 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Not so political. A lot of people in the LNP support SSM and a lot in the Labor Party oppose it.
> 
> Noco's arch Fabian Juliua Gillard voted against it last time. It's a matter of personal opinion, not politics.




And so did Bill Shorten and Penny Wong vote against SSM and now they both have done a back flip purely for political reasons.


----------



## noco (28 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The opinions of a few Right Wing nutters are neither here nor there.




Rumpy, if that is the best answer you can come up with, I am afraid you have lost it.

http://australianmarriage.org/safe-schools-under-investigation/

*There's been a lot of talk about 'Safe' Schools lately. Here's the story so far...

Last week it was revealed that the person who set up the 'Safe' Schools program has a Marxist view of the world:

Roz Ward, from La Trobe University’s Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society, told the Melbourne 2015 Marxism Conference, “In 2010 … I was the person who set up Safe Schools Coalition in Victoria” (SSCV). This program has now been expanded to become the federally funded Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA).' Read the full article here.

This is a bombshell for the "Safe Schools" radical indoctrination programme. Pat Byrne analyses the Marxist inspiration of the co-author of the Safe Schools material, Roz Ward. He notes,


"It’s in the context of a sexual revolution, in the image and likeness of a Marxist political and economic revolution, that Ward sees her SSCV (Safe Schools Coalition Victoria) program, which is now the Australia-wide SSCA program in around 490 schools...



Marxism is her solution. “Marxism offers both the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today, because Marxism has a theory of social change,” Ward says."*

So is Roz Ward a nutter or do you think she is the bees knees?


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2016)

Tink said:


> I have said that all laws are based on morality.
> 
> A man and a woman is not equal to two men or two women.
> 
> .




Can you give us a reasoned morality based argument for either.

1, why same sex marriage should be banned.

or

2, why you consider this "A man and a woman is not equal to two men or two women" a moral statement.



> the destruction of our society.




Can you name any countries where society has been destroyed by allowing same sex marriage?


----------



## Junior (28 September 2016)

Tink said:


> Junior, plenty of countries that have not taken on same sex marriage, though they have unions, like we have here, where they have the exact same rights as the heterosexuals.




So this whole debate is about the *word* marriage?  

If all rights are the same, then how does the destruction of family suddenly occur once the word marriage is used, rather than referring to it as a union?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name any countries where society has been destroyed by allowing same sex marriage?




Not yet, but when married homosexuals think that they then have a right to have children you have a society where children are deprived of their biological parents, are left to either embark on a difficult search for them or spend the rest of their lives wondering who their real parents are.

That's when the concept of family gets trashed, and we end up with all sorts of weird quasi 'families' on the edge of society, with confused children and the rest of us are supposed to go along with that for the sake of political correctness.


----------



## noco (28 September 2016)

Jennifer Oriel  sums up the dirty tricks being played out by the Green/Labor coalition and the ABC (the Labor propaganda machine).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e/news-story/3ae2adef86bd5b8557b8335b6e90efcf


*There is something rather dangerous about the gay marriage debate — and it is not homosexuality or marriage.

It is the view widely held by our political Left that *liberal democratic precepts can be overridden whenever they interfere with politically correct ideology.

Not content merely to deny the democratic mandate of millions who endorsed the same-sex marriage plebiscite by voting the Coalition into power, Labor is sowing civil hatred as social order.

The abysmal and divisive new ethos of Labor is the audacity of hate.

I think it would be fair to surmise that the opposition’s legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus doesn’t suffer from an excess of modesty.

But even so, his idea that the government should “win over” Labor by compromising on the plebiscite bill is remarkably arrogant. The government has an election mandate to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Labor’s *denial of it constitutes a repudiation of the will of the people.

Having lost its election campaign to deny people a vote on marriage reform, Labor has swung into attack.

It is reframing the plebiscite *debate by exploiting fear and manipulating emotion. In one short week, Labor has succeeded in re*framing the founding principles of liberal democracy as manifestations of hatred — all in the name of love, of course.

In Labor’s grand lexicon of doublespeak, public reason, active citizenship, and the human rights to free thought and speech, freedom of association and religion are mistranslated into forms of *hatred. And the citizen who seeks active participation in democracy by advocating for the same-sex marriage plebiscite is, by extension, hatred personified.

Increasingly it is the case that whenever a question of social reform arises, the political Left reverts to the audacity of hate to coerce people into conformity.

Its default position is to mob and vilify dissenters.

It acts as though Australia were a country under democratic socialism rather than liberal democracy.

Like revolutionary socialism, the democratic model holds socialism as the only end of democracy, but its tenets are introduced using the state and associ*ated institutions rather than militant revolution.

During the past week, the socialist Left position on gay marriage has been promulgated by Labor, the Greens and the state media institutions that consistently prosecute the Left party line: SBS and the ABC.

In news and on current affairs programs, the ABC has so aggressively campaigned for the socialist Left’s anti-plebiscite position, it appeared there was no alternative. And that is perfectly consistent with the one-party-rule ethos of democratic socialism.

But it just happens to run counter to the Australian people’s will — namely, the democratic mandate for a plebiscite endorsed at the federal election.

Whenever a pro-plebiscite voice is raised, the Left howls it down in a chorus of contempt. Predictably, Christians and conservatives are the principal victims of the Left’s pre-emptive moral infallibility. For example, when it looked as though Stephen O’Doherty, chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, was winning the plebiscite debate on ABC’s The Drum, host Julia Baird interrupted to prosecute an anti-plebiscite line in unison with the other panellists.

Tony Jones, the host of ABC’s Q&A, so routinely interrupts politically incorrect panellists that the online forum Catallaxy Files holds bids for “interruption lotto” before each show.

The tendency of the political Left to contort democracy whenever it conflicts with politically correct ideology is evident also in its main counter-argument to the plebiscite, which actually constitutes a rationale for it.

Anti-plebiscite politicians and commentators believe they can relieve Australia of the people’s will by appeal to representative democracy.

Yet the zenith of representative democracy — the popular democratic election under a system of universal suffrage — yielded a yes vote for the plebiscite as a central feature of the Coalition’s election platform.

In recent years the appeal to representative democracy has been fashioned into a rhetorical tool of convenience to justify everything from policy reversals to unseating prime ministers. It is the default defence of those who seek a ready rationale for acting against the will of the people expressed in federal elections.

And it seems that appeals to representative democracy strip*ped of both genuine representation and democracy are especially popular among the members of left-leaning factions in both major parties.

Such appeals were used to unseat Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd and Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott.

However, hollow appeals to representative democracy threaten its future by subordinating the people’s will to party politics and replacing election mandates with polls.

They are the source of the growing democratic deficit — the vast gulf between the people and the elites — producing political instability across the West.

The government has a mandate to pass the bill for a plebiscite on same-sex marriage.

The mandate was provided by millions of Australians who voted for the Coalition in the July election.

Labor would have liked to win the election with its opposing campaign to legislate for same-sex marriage in parliament. But it did not win.

Having lost the popular vote, Labor seeks to subvert democracy by blocking the plebiscite.

The worrying implication is that the Left may actually loathe the people and mistrust democracy as much as its anti-plebiscite propaganda suggests.*


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Not yet, but when married homosexuals think that they then have a right to have children you have a society where children are deprived of their biological parents, are left to either embark on a difficult search for them or spend the rest of their lives wondering who their real parents are.
> 
> That's when the concept of family gets trashed, and we end up with all sorts of weird quasi 'families' on the edge of society, with confused children and the rest of us are supposed to go along with that for the sake of political correctness.



Yeah it's completely unnatural. A figment of mind.


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Not yet, but when married homosexuals think that they then have a right to have children you have a society where children are deprived of their biological parents, are left to either embark on a difficult search for them or spend the rest of their lives wondering who their real parents are.
> 
> That's when the concept of family gets trashed, and we end up with all sorts of weird quasi 'families' on the edge of society, with confused children and the rest of us are supposed to go along with that for the sake of political correctness.




So orphans shouldn't be adopted?


----------



## McLovin (28 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Not yet, but when married homosexuals think that they then have a right to have children you have a society where children are deprived of their biological parents, are left to either embark on a difficult search for them or spend the rest of their lives wondering who their real parents are.
> 
> That's when the concept of family gets trashed, and we end up with all sorts of weird quasi 'families' on the edge of society, with confused children and the rest of us are supposed to go along with that for the sake of political correctness.




Something like this?



> IVFAustralia has been proudly creating LGBTQI families for over a decade and our dedicated donor team can help guide you through the process.




http://www.ivf.com.au/fertility-treatment/same-sex-couple-options


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2016)

McLovin said:


> Something like this?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ivf.com.au/fertility-treatment/same-sex-couple-options




I didn't realise that IVF Australia was so overt about proudly providing livestock commodities to the LGBxyz community as that ad shows.

That sort of thing should be shut down imo, it does more harm to the children it produces than the good it does for the customers.


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I didn't realise that IVF Australia was so overt about proudly providing livestock commodities to the LGBxyz community as that ad shows.
> 
> That sort of thing should be shut down imo, it does more harm to the children it produces than the good it does for the customers.




There was a expert woman of note on ABC yesterday who was concerned about the manufactured three parent baby born a couple of days ago. She pointed out that the only thing in over abundance is people and admitted she thought IVF is tilting at windmills.

It's fairly obvious the promotion of LGBxyz is very much in part by people with their own peccadilloes flocking to the rescue of others in supposed distress. In a society where everyone gets a medal, everyone is equal, everyone has hurt feelings, there is no time to consider children let alone thousands of years of orthodoxy based on decency .

It seems that trend setters like orphaned kids, ghetto kids, sexually abused kids, children in the attic, etc are an excuse to willingly produce more of their kind because they already exist ... not abate the situation, but add to it ...a grotesque situation that apparently knows no shame !?


----------



## qldfrog (29 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> . It's a matter of personal opinion, not politics.



which is why a plebicite is the right way to go in my opinion.
But i tend to agree that some of the left radicals use this, in the same way as the fanatical feminists do in their own domains, to follow an agenda.
"out of chaos and from the ashes will a new brave world be born"
i push a little bit but that is the general idea


----------



## qldfrog (29 September 2016)

Junior said:


> So this whole debate is about the *word* marriage?



of course it is.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> but when married homosexuals think that they then have a right to have children




1,They already do have that right, 

2,that's not what this thread is about.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> 2,that's not what this thread is about.




You asked about possible effects of gay marriage on society. I made a relevant point that marriage might legitimise the production of children for gay couples and the consequent effects on those children.


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You asked about possible effects of gay marriage on society. I made a relevant point that marriage might legitimise the production of children for gay couples and the consequent effects on those children.





I remember reading an article written by a pastor and paraphrasing :" marriage is not merely an expression/demonstration of love, it's intended to be a life long commitment that reflects the biological duality, the twoness of the human race and the desire to produce children, even if children don't eventuate the duality is preserved." I think went on to say that removing the duality is removing a large part of the pretext of marriage.

Of course it all gets back to depreciation of perceived value of marriage and willingness to sell it's residual worth off to the lowest common denominator before it gets written off as scrap.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You asked about possible effects of gay marriage on society. I made a relevant point that marriage might legitimise the production of children for gay couples and the consequent effects on those children.




You said you were worried that giving gays the right to marry would make them feel like they had the right to have children, this is irrelevant firstly because they already have that right, and secondly that is called the slippery slope fallacy, if you want to regulate who can have children, then regulate that, marriage rights are not the same thing as parental rights.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> even if children don't eventuate the duality is preserved." I think went on to say that removing the duality is removing a large part of the pretext of marriage.
> 
> .




I can see how a same sex marriage based on love is any different to a straight marriage, as you said you can have a marriage without children.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> if you want to regulate who can have children, then regulate that, marriage rights are not the same thing as parental rights.




I generally agree with that and I would be more likely to vote for SSM (if I get the chance) if there was a restriction on same sex parenting.


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I can see how a same sex marriage based on love is any different to a straight marriage, as you said you can have a marriage without children.




Yeah I'm not a fan of marrying as some kind of boredom circuit breaker, as a totem of everlasting love, as a stunt, for wills and estates,  etc. I only married after many years of cohabiting bliss for the sake of my clucky wife to be (i.e. kids)..... the love and lust component was not enhanced or consolidated and the bond lasted strong for long......I was also one of those few who had to run the gauntlet of "living in sin". I preferred spending money on property and investment than feeding the chooks. 

I certainly didn't do the deed as a look at me exercise in mockery. 

I wonder if men were allowed the freedom to speak of such matters, how many of them would have married if they weren't leveraged into it? LOL


----------



## Tink (30 September 2016)

Well that is what it is all about, Tisme, destroying it.

Agree with what you said, Rumpole, a hotch potch.
Some one will probably marry their brother or sister, and wouldn't even know it.

Junior, I have already said that it over rides traditional marriage. It is not an extension, it is changed completely.
Genderless etc.

VC, so you think same sex marriage should over ride traditional marriage?
You see that as superior to the family unit?
Family unit moves down to 'hate speech'.

The family unit is the TRUTH, and what Marriage stands for.
In no way are the two equal.

The next question should be -- what is family?
In my view, not any mix of people make a family, family IS blood related.
You may say -- like family -- but they are not family, directly.
You can be a guardian, step father, step mother, but naturally, you have your own biology, your own parents.

They even have shows about where did I come from.
Mothers, fathers, grandparents, the list goes on - their history.

------------------------------------------------------

I don't think I have to explain the difference between a mother and a father and two men in Marriage, when one needs no intervention.
They are the GOLD standard.

The other needs the taxpayer to provide for their lifestyle.

A man and a woman is natural -- BOTH are valuable, BOTH are different, BOTH give a sound background and foundations for their children.
That is THEIR responsibility, and they are accountable to their children.

Small governments and less involvement in families, they should be self sufficient.

Marriage should be told as is -- a mother and a father raising their children, a stable home, laying stable foundations, where they have responsibilities to their children.
A man and a woman make a difference in a child's life as I have said.

I agree, qldfrog, that a plebiscite is needed for this, as we all have pretty strong views on this topic -- one way or the other.


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Riiiight, the A is for Aliens ? Mustn't leave them out.




A = ABCTV?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> A = ABCTV?




I haven't seen much evidence of the No case on ABC, I don't know about the other channels.


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> Yeah I'm not a fan of marrying as some kind of boredom circuit breaker, as a totem of everlasting love, as a stunt, for wills and estates,  etc. I only married after many years of cohabiting bliss for the sake of my clucky wife to be (i.e. kids)..... the love and lust component was not enhanced or consolidated and the bond lasted strong for long......I was also one of those few who had to run the gauntlet of "living in sin". I preferred spending money on property and investment than feeding the chooks.
> 
> I certainly didn't do the deed as a look at me exercise in mockery.
> 
> I wonder if men were allowed the freedom to speak of such matters, how many of them would have married if they weren't leveraged into it? LOL




I a man not sure who gave you the talk, but you know you can have kids without being married right?


----------



## Junior (30 September 2016)

> God Doesn’t Give A F*ck Who Gets Married
> 
> By The Shovel on September 26, 2016
> 
> ...




http://www.theshovel.com.au/2016/09/26/god-doesnt-give-a-****-who-gets-married/


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2016)

Junior said:


> http://www.theshovel.com.au/2016/09/26/god-doesnt-give-a-****-who-gets-married/




So you are saying the whole LGBetc marriage movement is farcical?


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I a man not sure who gave you the talk, but you know you can have kids without being married right?




Can I hazard a guess your father was labouring under the same impression ? Your mum might also have a point of view...or did your au contraire teens witness talking heads replaced with nodding ones to humour the boy?


----------



## Junior (30 September 2016)

Tisme said:


> So you are saying the whole LGBetc marriage movement is farcical?




In 93 pages of this thread, I don't think anyone has changed their view.  So may as well add some kind of humour to the situation.

Yes, I personally believe it is farcical.  But I'm in the minority, most people think this stuff is very important.


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2016)

So we are to be denied the democratic right to register our views about a fundamental moral/ethical issue. More political intrusion by the public service into our spiritual, family and cultural core.

Amazing how people are more than willing to give over their power to unrepresentative swill.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 October 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You asked about possible effects of gay marriage on society. I made a relevant point that marriage might legitimise the production of children for gay couples and the consequent effects on those children.




There are going to be a lot of these kids growing into adults without knowing their biological parents, and suffering because of it.

Same-sex marriage: Woman raised by lesbian parents supports plebiscite, wants children to have right to know biological parents

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-...aised-by-lesbians-supports-plebiscite/7923516


----------



## explod (11 October 2016)

Junior said:


> In 93 pages of this thread, I don't think anyone has changed their view.  So may as well add some kind of humour to the situation.
> 
> Yes, I personally believe it is farcical.  But I'm in the minority, most people think this stuff is very important.




Absolutely agree.Lets move on to substance like finding jobs for the 19 applicant's to one job (average across Australia)


----------



## noco (12 October 2016)

explod said:


> Absolutely agree.Lets move on to substance like finding jobs for the 19 applicant's to one job (average across Australia)




If the Greens would stop their disruptive nonsense and get out of the way there are a  couple thousand jobs available in Queensland at two new coal mines.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 October 2016)

Another advertising job by the ABC this morning having two gay "parents" on the Breakfast show talking about what else ?

How many people in the ABC management are gay I wonder ?


----------



## Tisme (12 October 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Another advertising job by the ABC this morning having two gay "parents" on the Breakfast show talking about what else ?
> 
> How many people in the ABC management are gay I wonder ?




It's the media/entertainment industry.... it has always attracted people who live outside the norms.

Insofar as the ALP putting the kybosh on a plebiscite; I'm guessing they consider their annual conference vote by the membership is representative of the population as a whole? As the union membership dwindles, we can expect an increase in neologists, who stereotype homosexual and dandy cultures, to fill the void.

P.S. I'm still sick in the stomach for that little girl and her future, the deprivation of a mother, her indoctrination into a counter culture, the grooming, etc


----------



## SirRumpole (12 October 2016)

Tisme said:


> It's the media/entertainment industry.... it has always attracted people who live outside the norms.
> 
> Insofar as the ALP putting the kybosh on a plebiscite; I'm guessing they consider their annual conference vote by the membership is representative of the population as a whole? As the union membership dwindles, we can expect an increase in neologists, who stereotype homosexual and dandy cultures, to fill the void.




There have been a few polls around and they are pretty close between a plebiscite and a Parliamentary vote, but I think you are right that Labor seems to have found a new barrow to push following decline in union membership.

Considering gays are about 5% of society I doubt if they will "fill the void", most people just want discussion on the subject to stop, one way or the other.


----------



## Tisme (12 October 2016)

An interesting thing happened to a young friend recently who has spent her life variously protesting on things like aboriginal rights, apartheid, capitalism, etc and finally settling into a lesbian lifestyle after having a child. 

It seems that now the hard yards are done by the movement gaining the notoriety and groundswell for gayness in all things, she has realised she is actually a hetrosexual afterall and taken up arms  for yet another cause that merits urgent attention.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 October 2016)

Tisme said:


> An interesting thing happened to a young friend recently who has spent her life variously protesting on things like aboriginal rights, apartheid, capitalism, etc and finally settling into a lesbian lifestyle after having a child.
> 
> It seems that now the hard yards are done by the movement gaining the notoriety and groundswell for gayness in all things, she has realised she is actually a hetrosexual afterall and taken up arms  for yet another cause that merits urgent attention.




 A few more years and maybe she will join the IPA.


----------



## Tisme (12 October 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> There have been a few polls around and they are pretty close between a plebiscite and a Parliamentary vote, but I think you are right that Labor seems to have found a new barrow to push following decline in union membership.
> 
> Considering gays are about 5% of society I doubt if they will "fill the void", most people just want discussion on the subject to stop, one way or the other.




I disagree with you on the ALP membership. I think it will move steadily to become the beacon for the change agents  for counter society. As a consequence we should see those ALP disaffected with strong hetrosexual codecs seeking out the one time enemy in the LNP, One Nation, etc for shelter.

Once upon a time the ALP represented at least half of the social conscience of the nation through its direct membership and union leadership. In 1985 50% of all workers were unionists, although not welded to the ALP, but now it's less than half that, so there is no incentive to walk the conservative line; instead look to the scraps to top up the true believer votes.


----------



## noco (12 October 2016)

Tisme said:


> I disagree with you on the ALP membership. I think it will move steadily to become the beacon for the change agents  for counter society. As a consequence we should see those ALP disaffected with strong hetrosexual codecs seeking out the one time enemy in the LNP, One Nation, etc for shelter.
> 
> Once upon a time the ALP represented at least half of the social conscience of the nation through its direct membership and union leadership. In 1985 50% of all workers were unionists, although not welded to the ALP, but now it's less than half that, so there is no incentive to walk the conservative line; instead look to the scraps to top up the true believer votes.




I believe union membership is now down to 15%.


----------



## Tisme (12 October 2016)

noco said:


> I believe union membership is now down to 15%.




Yes I think you may be correct, although the public service still sits around ~40% I think and it has a strong influence on govt policy because it has direct access to advocacy and can make the working life miserable for their masters.


----------



## Tisme (12 October 2016)

International Day of the Girl today ..... shame that doesn't translate into caring for natural gender recognition of parents.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 November 2016)

The Senate has rejected the Gay Marriage plebiscite and the Gay lobby have shot themselves in the foot with Gay Marriage three years away at least.

Serves them right for treating their fellow citizens like a bunch of bogan rednecks and denying them any say in the composition of our society of which we comprise 95%.

But you can bet that the LGBxyz's will be bitching and whining behind the scenes and disrupting anything important from being discussed.

Petulance at its worst.


----------



## Tisme (8 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Senate has rejected the Gay Marriage plebiscite and the Gay lobby have shot themselves in the foot with Gay Marriage three years away at least.
> 
> Serves them right for treating their fellow citizens like a bunch of bogan rednecks and denying them any say in the composition of our society of which we comprise 95%.
> 
> ...




In three years time, the basis of marriage legitimacy will have been reduced to shaking hands. Hetrosexuals will still be working on a new ritual to prescribe their innate ability to naturally copulate and procreate in the one activity (true sexual intercourse).


----------



## sptrawler (8 November 2016)

Tisme said:


> Yes I think you may be correct, although the public service still sits around ~40% I think and it has a strong influence on govt policy because it has direct access to advocacy and can make the working life miserable for their masters.




I don't think so, I questioned the reasoning behind senior public servants not having to to pay the "super surcharge", the union lawyer told me who said it had to be fair.

That's the sort of $hit you're dealing with.

People with a faulty moral compass, supporting people with no moral compass, is more accurate.IMO


----------



## Tisme (8 November 2016)

sptrawler said:


> I don't think so, I questioned the reasoning behind senior public servants not having to to pay the "super surcharge", the union lawyer told me who said it had to be fair.
> 
> That's the sort of $hit you're dealing with.
> 
> People with a faulty moral compass, supporting people with no moral compass, is more accurate.IMO




That's a fair comment


----------



## noco (9 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Senate has rejected the Gay Marriage plebiscite and the Gay lobby have shot themselves in the foot with Gay Marriage three years away at least.
> 
> Serves them right for treating their fellow citizens like a bunch of bogan rednecks and denying them any say in the composition of our society of which we comprise 95%.
> 
> ...




Rumpy, I would say it is bleeding obvious the Green/Labor coalition did not want a plebiscite because they knew with the Muslim anti gay Koran beliefs, it would not get over the line so now they are hoping to win the next election and take a vote on the floor of parliament.


----------



## Tink (9 November 2016)

Agree, Rumpole.

This was taken to an election as a plebiscite, and we want our say for such a big change in our society.
No public say, no vote, imv.


And we wonder why the US is in the state that it is in, when they have saturated their public schools with all this garbage.
Political Correctness, identity politics etc..dividing their nation.

Any country that willingly says, Happy Holidays, and gives away their heritage, gets what they deserve, imv.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2016)

Tink said:


> Any country that willingly says, Happy Holidays.




So now you don't want be to be happy during their holidays, gee you are more of a Grinch than I thought.


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree, Rumpole.
> 
> This was taken to an election as a plebiscite, and we want our say for such a big change in our society.
> No public say, no vote, imv.
> ...




America is divided and gone Trump because.... they abandoned God and their heritage?


----------



## Logique (20 February 2017)

A nearly dormant thread. 

I get that LGBTI feel unequal.  But in nearly every way, they _are_ equal in contemporary Australian society - and should be.

But please understand the magnitude of what you're asking!  Look at 3,000 years plus of Judeo-Christian thought. In Australia, 55 years of the Marriage Act 1961.  Hetero marriage, the philosophical cornerstone of our nation since Federation in 1901.  And making criminals of the clergy, should they refuse to conduct marriage services on religious principles. 

LGBTI, you can thank Bill Shorten and the ALP/Greens for sabotaging the plebiscite. It might just have won.

But the issue will simmer along in the background.  If I was to be cynical, I'd say it will be until lesbians can get equal priority (and Medicare rebates) for IVF _in vitro_ pregnancy treatment. 

But a word of advice to LGBTI, it's in your best interests to be patient.


----------



## PZ99 (20 February 2017)

ALP/Greens will always sabotage the plebiscite solely to gain political mileage - which they did.

It'll be all over the news during the next election.


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 August 2017)

Marriage to be soleley a sexual preference, formally recognised, association. The apathetic voter will ensure this. It's the type of decision making process that is made by a government that dare not make a decision on a subject that is controversial.


----------



## Tisme (9 August 2017)

PZ99 said:


> ALP/Greens will always sabotage the plebiscite solely to gain political mileage - which they did.
> 
> It'll be all over the news during the next election.





The Labor Party discarded its core fundamentals decades ago in pursuit of the pansy vote. They were the innovators and the Greens were the early adopters, gazumping much of Labor's groundwork.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2017)

Tony Abbott's sister obviously hasn't influenced his opinion on gay marriage, he's made a clear statement of where he stands.

http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...o/news-story/e7d6aa48dc35c55e46fe883628c55d75


----------



## McLovin (9 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott's sister obviously hasn't influenced his opinion on gay marriage, he's made a clear statement of where he stands.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...o/news-story/e7d6aa48dc35c55e46fe883628c55d75




Not like a Catholic to be dogmatic!


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> Not like a Catholic to be dogmatic!




Especially when he has nothing to lose. I recall he was more sympathetic before the 2013 election when he was trying to present "the softer side" of his personality.


----------



## McLovin (9 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Especially when he has nothing to lose. I recall he was more sympathetic before the 2013 election when he was trying to present "the softer side" of his personality.




Tony needs to be careful he doesn't make the poll about him. That is one that he will surely lose.

Making statements about religious freedom and freedom of speech being under attack will play well with the Araldited "no" camp, but it won't do anything to win over the centre.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> Tony needs to be careful he doesn't make the poll about him. That is one that he will surely lose.
> 
> Making statements about religious freedom and freedom of speech being under attack will play well with the Araldited "no" camp, but it won't do anything to win over the centre.




I'm not sure he's trying to win anyone over now. I think he's realised that his Parliamentary days are getting shorter and he's revealing his real face, and there's nothing wrong with that, people need to know where politicians really stand, like it or not.

It wouldn't surprise me if Abbott defects to the Bernadi Party.


----------



## McLovin (9 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not sure he's trying to win anyone over now. I think he's realised that his Parliamentary days are getting shorter and he's revealing his real face, and there's nothing wrong with that, people need to know where politicians really stand, like it or not.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me if Abbott defects to the Bernadi Party.




My point is that if he feels so strongly about maintaining the status quo, he should keep his mouth shut. Anyone as deeply unpopular as he is in the electorate can not do his side any favours by being the head cheerleader.

Then again, he's always seemed pretty tone deaf to public opinion. He knighted you, FFS. 

I don't think he'll defect to a minor party, he likes being in a party that has influence over the national agenda too much.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> Anyone as deeply unpopular as he is in the electorate can not do his side any favours by being the head cheerleader.




You really think he's trying to do his side (the Liberal Party in general) any favours ?

I reckon that he now thinks his side are the ultra right of the Party not Turnbull & co.


----------



## McLovin (9 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You really think he's trying to do his side (the Liberal Party in general) any favours ?




His side is the "no" side, not the Liberal Party.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> His side is the "no" side, not the Liberal Party.




Ah OK. Well the trouble for his side is that I can't see anyone who is deeply popular presenting the no case.


----------



## PZ99 (9 August 2017)

Tony Abbott.... putting the NO back into the Noalition


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Tony Abbott.... putting the NO back into the Noalition




And the COAL into the Coalition .


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2017)

Plebiscite rejected by Senate, postal vote to be held.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-09/politics-live-august-9/8788216


----------



## McLovin (9 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah OK. Well the trouble for his side is that I can't see anyone who is deeply popular presenting the no case.




Lol. Probably worth pointing out that in 2009, Abbott was openly discussing the idea of bringing back at-fault divorces. The same guy who went in to bat over and over for George Pell. That frames his worldview pretty well.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> Lol. Probably worth pointing out that in 2009, Abbott was openly discussing the idea of bringing back at-fault divorces. The same guy who went in to bat over and over for George Pell. That frames his worldview pretty well.




No doubt he's a religious fanatic, but he's got a right to present a case against SSM and whatever else he feels strongly about. He's also got to produce evidence to back up what he says otherwise he will be rightly ignored.


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Plebiscite rejected by Senate, postal vote to be held.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-09/politics-live-august-9/8788216




Maybe all policies should be put to a popular vote like this.

Who wants corporate and the uber rich to pay higher taxes, tick the boxes on a ballot that's on its way to you. Who wants no-toll roads... Who wants serious jobs and investment programmes that build clean/renewable infrastructures for that future where our fossil will run out and/or kill all of us.

On an issue of equality and justice for a minority of its citizens, these spineless politicians let the masses decide (if they want to). Lucky for "the gays" most Australians are more open and progressive on the idea of them being equal and have rights.


----------



## Craton (9 August 2017)

Whether we agree or not, like it or not, the fact of the matter is that people of the same sex will live together as a married couple despite the lack of legislative recognition and our opinions. Our laws finally recognized heterosexual defacto relationships so it is just plain common sense to recognize "SSM".


----------



## Macquack (9 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> Tony needs to be careful he doesn't make the poll about him. That is one that he will surely lose.
> 
> Making statements about *religious freedom* and *freedom of speech* being *under attack* will play well with the Araldited "no" camp, but it won't do anything to win over the centre.



No wonder they dumped him. I have seen primary school children articulate a argument better than Abbott.

Waffling on about religious freedoms and freedom of speech just makes him look like an irrelevant *******.

Also, saying a vote of NO is a vote against political correctness. What a load of tripe. Abbott thinks the electorate is dumbing than what he is.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2017)

Macquack said:


> No wonder they dumped him. I have seen primary school children articulate a argument better than Abbott.
> 
> Waffling on about religious freedoms and freedom of speech just makes him look like an irrelevant *******.
> 
> Also, saying a vote of NO is a vote against political correctness. What a load of tripe. Abbott thinks the electorate is dumbing than what he is.




Lyle Shelton does a much better job.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott's sister obviously hasn't influenced his opinion on gay marriage, he's made a clear statement of where he stands




I don't agree with his views on this subject at all but I'll give him credit for stating clearly to the public what he stands for and not leaving any doubts.


----------



## Tisme (9 August 2017)

Tony is certainly enjoying raising the heat on SSM.

I suspect he is looking to the USA where recent voting turnout on the issue resulted in 30 states constitutionally amending the law to ban same-sex marriage;  12 other states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute. I think North Carolina is the latest to buck the supreme court ruling.


----------



## pixel (9 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> Making statements about religious freedom and freedom of speech being under attack will play well with the Araldited "no" camp, but it won't do anything to win over the centre.



What do you mean?
In his megalomaniac mind, *He Is The Centr*e - of the Galaxy even.

And coming to think of it as a scientist, I can agree with one aspect of that:
There is a humongous Black Hole at the Centre of the Milky Way.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 August 2017)

Australia is a country with a majority of it's people of Irish descent.

Ireland approved Marriage Equality by a free referendum vote to change it's constitution. 

Australia needs to approve Gay Marriage which the the ALP and Coalition have opposed at various times over the last ten years.

I cannot understand why we have two entities vying for government with such contempt for the decision of it's most prominent DNA, the People of Ireland. 

Let us have Marriage Equality.

gg


----------



## noirua (9 August 2017)

*Jodi Rose, Australian Artist, Marries 600-Year-Old French Bridge Le Pont du Diable*
*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/jodi-rose-marries-bridge-_n_3542775.html*

*Rock solid! The Australian woman who married a BRIDGE celebrates her one-year anniversary*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rates-one-year-anniversary.html#ixzz4pG8AI9e9


----------



## noirua (9 August 2017)

* Marriage; 13 People Who Married Inanimate Objects*
*http://www.ranker.com/list/13-people-who-married-inanimate-objects/jude-newsome *


----------



## PZ99 (9 August 2017)

That's a bridge over troubled water right there...


----------



## Tisme (10 August 2017)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Australia is a country with a majority of it's people of Irish descent.
> 
> Ireland approved Marriage Equality by a free referendum vote to change it's constitution.
> 
> ...






very clever. We should have a plebiscite on Oirish marriage.


----------



## Tisme (10 August 2017)

noirua said:


> * Marriage; 13 People Who Married Inanimate Objects
> http://www.ranker.com/list/13-people-who-married-inanimate-objects/jude-newsome *




*British Woman Weds Dog In Expensive ‘Romantic’ Wedding Ceremony – After Marriage To Man Failed*
Deolu March 5, 2015


In a rather strange turn of events, a woman has vowed against men and married her pet dog. 47 year old Amanda Rodgers from Brixton in south London was married to a man 20 years ago, but the relationship unfortunately lasted no more than a few short months, so dismayed she decided to swear against men and turn to dogs.

Amanda states that the reason she decided to wed her pet dog was because she had all the qualities that she was looking for in a life partner: “Sheba had been in my life for years, making me laugh and comforting me when I was feeling low.”







Proceedings started out in a traditional way, when Amanda got down on one knee and proposed to her pet dog, Sheba. Though the dog could not respond, Rodgers says that she “could tell by her tail wagging that she said yes.”

More than 200 people attended the wedding which took place in Split, Croatia. Rodgers embraced the day fully making sure that everything was to her liking, adding that: “I’d dreamed of a perfect wedding dress since I was small, I made it myself for the ceremony. The day was wonderful, more fun than the marriage. I gave her a kiss to seal the deal and then everyone threw confetti. It was a wonderful moment.”


----------



## Tisme (10 August 2017)

Wow an articulate National Party ex:


----------



## tech/a (10 August 2017)

I've not read any of this thread so the following maybe in here.

My concern is the future generations of kids coming up.
Male male partners will all need to adopt.(surrogate) 
Female female will need donors.

These kids will become adults
The balance of a male female partnership or marriage will
Not be there.

What will be will be but it's a concern I don't hear debated.
My experience is 3 couples 2 male and one Female 
Both have kids and I certainly raise an eyebrow more than once 
At these kids being kids.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> I've not read any of this thread so the following maybe in here.
> 
> My concern is the future generations of kids coming up.
> Male male partners will all need to adopt.(surrogate)
> ...




We will have generations of kids desperately trying to find their biological parents, wondering why they are different to their parents and if it's their fault, money being exchanged for surrogacy and the baby business in general, kids being indoctrinated that homosexuality is normal, the general degradation of marriage and parenthood and the artificial production of children as trophies and to be the vanguard of a social campaign that homosexuals are just as capable of producing and raising children when they are unequipped to do so by four billion years of evolution.


----------



## Tisme (10 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> We will have generations of kids desperately trying to find their biological parents, wondering why they are different to their parents and if it's their fault, money being exchanged for surrogacy and the baby business in general, kids being indoctrinated that homosexuality is normal, the general degradation of marriage and parenthood and the artificial production of children as trophies and to be the vanguard of a social campaign that homosexuals are just as capable of producing and raising children when they are unequipped to do so by four billion years of evolution.




Studies suggest that offspring of homosexual lifestylers are 80% likely to carry on the tradition, so the practice should fade away after successive generations. The paradox of it persisting in the general population when it should be defunct, puts weight on the theory it is learned/groomed behaviours filling the vacuum. You only have to look at how many dogooders are carrying the torch for something they don't perceive objectively ..... grooming via social engineering is a powerful opiate, even on some hetrosexuals.


----------



## overhang (10 August 2017)

Gays already have the right to children, SSM doesn't change anything.  Whether they should or shouldn't doesn't effect their legitimacy to marriage.


----------



## Tisme (10 August 2017)

Be interesting to see how Dermie interacts with the postal voting discussions:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/dermott-brereton-grooming-aflw/


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 August 2017)

Tink said:


> Marriage is between one man and one woman.
> The GOLD standard.
> That is equal, in my view.



I wonder, if the definition of marriage is changed, how straight people will view getting married. It could be that marriage between a man and a woman has no significance regarding family construct and simply remain defacto. Surely will make separation financially less of an issue. Obviously the scheming types will pursue marriage for the legal entitlements.

Marriage, isn't that what queers do.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 August 2017)

luutzu said:


> "gold standard"?
> 
> Yes, the good old traditional marriages between a man and a woman... no fights, no extra-marital affairs, no abuse.







> Do you promise to love her/him, comfort him/her, honor and keep her/him for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, and forsaking all others, be faithful only to him/her, for as long as you both shall live?




Someone always lies.


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Someone always lies.




Yea... that vow's not going to stand beyond the first couple of weeks. In most marriages, not mine of course


----------



## noirua (11 August 2017)

*Marriage privatization*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization

*Marriage privatization* is the concept that the state should have no authority to define the terms of personal relationships such as marriage. Proponents of marriage privatization, including certain minarchists, anarchists, libertarians, and opponents of government interventionism, claim that such relationships are best defined by private individuals and not the state. Arguments for the privatization of marriage have been offered by a number of scholars and writers. Proponents of marriage privatization often argue that privatizing marriage is a solution to the social controversy over same-sex marriage. Arguments for and against the privatization of marriage span both liberal and conservative political camps.


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

Marriage what a joke. Just another excuse to rort some money. I have been with my female partner, I am male, for 30 years and we never bothered with marriage. I vote no because marriage is just a crock and excuse.


----------



## tech/a (11 August 2017)

I really hope people here get the opportunity to have a fully 
Committed normal marriage. By the way live together in any form of relationship and the
Law will look at splitting of assets. Seriously do you think adultery, arguments, lying,
Will be limited to Man woman marriages.

The face of society in 100 yrs time will be vastly different to now! 
Personally I'm glad I was born into a normal marriage and so we're my kids.
I'm hero sexual and proud of it .
I accept the other " Religions " but don't force it down my throat.
If you do themn I'm being discriminated against! 

The reason most are against a vote is there is a chance there could be a no vote.
Push it through parliament is more likely to gain a yes.


----------



## Logique (11 August 2017)

Not so many years ago, gays rejected marriage as a hetero-normative contruct.  I suspect there are still many with little interest in getting married.

Anyway it's gone beyond SSM now.  It's evolved into other things, like free speech, bullying and stultifying political correctness, and the law of the land.  About inner city elites trying to dictate to ordinary Australians.  About opportunists using the gay cause for their own agendas.

There are plenty of politicians, of all parties, whose reputations have been tarnished by their tawdry conduct on this issue. And not just politicians.


----------



## overhang (11 August 2017)

It really amazes me.  If same sex couples could marry tomorrow not one of you would wake up and be worse off, assuming no one here is gay then your lives simply wouldn't be affected.  You can still negative gear, still receive your CGT discount, you won't pay a carbon tax on your energy bill and you might have good or bad internet depending on your needs.  But for a small minority of this country they would wake up and feel more inclusive in our society, there maybe adolescents struggling to accept that they're attracted to the same sex and are bullied for it but society could send a clear message to them that they will have the same rights as the rest of us and all though different they're accepted.  Most of us hate the thought of an Islamic dominate society, well a yes vote moves us a lot further away from one, maybe it prevents a few Muslims with their stone-age ideologies from coming to our country. 

Frankly have a little empathy for your fellow citizens and allow them to have something positive in their life while sacrificing nothing in return.


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2017)

Gays are drawn to professions where they can use their closet skills of task independence and social perceptiveness: e.g. Universities ,psychology, law, social work, ABC, acting, ABC, AFL women's league, Greens, netball, ABC, the new Labor Party, ......

They have displaced wiser heads to become the influencers and social engineers of society, which seems to have worked really well for them given the enthusiasm hetrosexuals want to give away the keys to the moral and traditional treasury.


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

overhang said:


> It really amazes me.  If same sex couples could marry tomorrow not one of you would wake up and be worse off, assuming no one here is gay then your lives simply wouldn't be affected.  You can still negative gear, still receive your CGT discount, you won't pay a carbon tax on your energy bill and you might have good or bad internet depending on your needs.  But for a small minority of this country they would wake up and feel more inclusive in our society, there maybe adolescents struggling to accept that they're attracted to the same sex and are bullied for it but society could send a clear message to them that they will have the same rights as the rest of us and all though different they're accepted.  Most of us hate the thought of an Islamic dominate society, well a yes vote moves us a lot further away from one, maybe it prevents a few Muslims with their stone-age ideologies from coming to our country.
> 
> Frankly have a little empathy for your fellow citizens and allow them to have something positive in their life while sacrificing nothing in return.



Um why bother with marriage, and all this BS. Who really cares what people do together. This same sex marriage debacle is all about some other agenda. People have been licking each other and bumming around since day dot. Same sex marriage is for attention seekers. I will vote no.


----------



## overhang (11 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> Um why bother with marriage, and all this BS. Who really cares what people do together. This same sex marriage debacle is all about some other agenda. People have been licking each other and bumming around since day dot. Same sex marriage is for attention seekers. I will vote no.



That just seems quite petty and straight up vindictive.  How will you be negatively affected by a few gays being able to marry?  If you think why bother then why bother opposing it?  Do you really think the attention seekers will stop because you say no, a no vote will just keep this campaign going for years to come.


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

Woman has no d ick Man has d ick. Joined together make child. That is a marriage. lol


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

overhang said:


> That just seems quite petty and straight up vindictive.  How will you be negatively affected by a few gays being able to marry?  If you think why bother then why bother opposing it?  Do you really think the attention seekers will stop because you say no, a no vote will just keep this campaign going for years to come.



Its not petty whats the f ucking point?
Why bother with all the bs?
I have nothing against gays , I have never been married lived with my female partner for 30 years I am amle she is female we have children and never even bothered about marry.


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> Woman has no d ick Man has d ick. Joined together make child. That is a marriage. lol


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

overhang said:


> That just seems quite petty and straight up vindictive.  How will you be negatively affected by a few gays being able to marry?  If you think why bother then why bother opposing it?  Do you really think the attention seekers will stop because you say no, a no vote will just keep this campaign going for years to come.



It is more a case of I want to be the first gay marriage in Australia, like yummy mummies and all the other BS tripe that this modern day society can conjure up just to get attention. What a waste of time effort and money. Hope we have another ww to alleviate the worlds problems lol


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> View attachment 72209



well at least its three phase i hope lol


----------



## overhang (11 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> Its not petty whats the f ucking point?
> Why bother with all the bs?
> I have nothing against gays , I have never been married lived with my female partner for 30 years I am amle she is female we have children and never even bothered about marry.



If you had nothing against gays you would vote yes.


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

overhang said:


> If you had nothing against gays you would vote yes.



I vote no BECAUSE I AM AGAINST MARRIAGE FULLSTOP  lol


----------



## overhang (11 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> I vote no BECAUSE I AM AGAINST MARRIAGE FULLSTOP  lol



Let them experience the pain


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Let them experience the pain



Ok I thought this forum was about stocks not Bs trivial social crap


----------



## overhang (11 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> Ok I thought this forum was about stocks not Bs trivial social crap



Not sure what you thought when you clicked on general no one forced you to click this thread just like no one is forcing you have a gay marriage.


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2017)

overhang said:


> It really amazes me.  If same sex couples could marry tomorrow not one of you would wake up and be worse off, assuming no one here is gay then your lives simply wouldn't be affected.  You can still negative gear, still receive your CGT discount, you won't pay a carbon tax on your energy bill and you might have good or bad internet depending on your needs.  But for a small minority of this country they would wake up and feel more inclusive in our society, there maybe adolescents struggling to accept that they're attracted to the same sex and are bullied for it but society could send a clear message to them that they will have the same rights as the rest of us and all though different they're accepted.  Most of us hate the thought of an Islamic dominate society, well a yes vote moves us a lot further away from one, maybe it prevents a few Muslims with their stone-age ideologies from coming to our country.
> 
> Frankly have a little empathy for your fellow citizens and allow them to have something positive in their life while sacrificing nothing in return.




Do you have to ruin that with anti-Muslim stuff?


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> Ok I thought this forum was about stocks not Bs trivial social crap




You  bipolar per chance? You went from "lol" to "crap" in two posts!


----------



## overhang (11 August 2017)

luutzu said:


> Do you have to ruin that with anti-Muslim stuff?



The truth is that most of those that oppose SSM are also anti-Muslim, they fear a Muslim society but yet a Muslim society would absolutely condemn SSM.  Maybe they have more in common with Muslims than they'd like to think.


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> well at least its three phase i hope lol




Single phase


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2017)

overhang said:


> The truth is that most of those that oppose SSM are also anti-Muslim, they fear a Muslim society but yet a Muslim society would absolutely condemn SSM.  Maybe they have more in common with Muslims than they'd like to think.




The danger with that thinking is that it reduces the players down to two tribes. The old he's my enemy's enemy, so therefore he's my friend is not a good compromise.


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

I don't give a sheit about any religion It is all crap. Has been from day one. Just a mode of controlling people. I am not religious, I respect all religions but I have no interest. Each to their own, not my cup of tea.


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> Single phase



well at least go three phase that will give you more bang for your buck lol


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> well at least go three phase that will give you more bang for your buck lol




Three active phases and earth ... no place for a neutral position:


----------



## PZ99 (11 August 2017)

So it's a phase of 50 times a second, a lot of humming, no room for square waves on this harmonious earth and a very expensive Electricity Bill at the end of it? No wonder the DC brigade want it differently


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> I'm hero sexual and proud of it .



Superman, Batman? Which costume is best in your opinion?


----------



## tech/a (11 August 2017)

Duffys just fine


----------



## dutchie (11 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Superman, Batman? Which costume is best in your opinion?






tech/a said:


> Duffys just fine




I was thinking more James Bond


----------



## tech/a (11 August 2017)

EXACTLY


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> Three active phases and earth ... no place for a neutral position:
> 
> View attachment 72211



Much better at least you get a buz out of that lol


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2017)

Sports bet

50%-59.99% yes = $3

https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/same-sex-marriage


----------



## crackajack (11 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> Sports bet
> 
> 50%-59.99% yes = $3
> 
> https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/same-sex-marriage



ok I prefer ladbrokes but yes I will put some money on it lol


----------



## Tink (12 August 2017)

I will be voting NO.

The family unit (mother, father, child) is the TRUTH, and what Marriage stands for.


----------



## Tisme (12 August 2017)

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/overhauling.html


----------



## basilio (12 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/overhauling.html




Interesting...
So  Tisme, what status do you believe gays/homosexual behaviour should have in our society ?


----------



## basilio (12 August 2017)

*"Should all adults have the right to marry the person they love?"
*
Is that the issue we are discussing in this thread and as a country ? Perhaps this article offers an analysis of the question and various respones to the isue of same sex marriage .

* We won't be giving equal time to spurious arguments against marriage equality *
Lenore Taylor
The ‘no’ camp will try to contort this issue into anything other than what it is: should adults be able to marry the person they love?

 
* Comments*
 832 
Contact author

 
@lenoretaylor

Saturday 12 August 2017 09.57 AEST   Last modified on Saturday 12 August 2017 16.41 AEST

Marriage equality opponents are trying everything to complicate this decision, but at its heart the question is simple: “*Should all adults have the right to marry the person they love?”*

The Coalition has contorted the decision-making process because it cannot manage its internal divisions, with political consequences as yet unknown, but we should not allow the question itself to be diverted or twisted out of shape.

As we start this unnecessary, voluntary, snail mail survey-thingie, the “no” case is loudly demanding the media run “both sides” of the question.

*That makes it critical to precisely define the “question” itself. Because running both sides of the actual question is not the same as running “both sides” of all the other spurious “questions” the anti-equality case is setting up as obfuscations.*

So here, at the get-go, is a list of the arguments this is not about, and to which Guardian Australia will definitely not be giving “equal time” or attention.

_(IMO the following analysis of the various spurious arguments against same sex marriage is well worth considering._)
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-spurious-arguments-against-marriage-equality


----------



## Tisme (12 August 2017)

basilio said:


> Interesting...
> So  Tisme, what status do you believe gays/homosexual behaviour should have in our society ?




I think they should pull their heads in and put up with the unfairness of being an imperfect individual in a sea of regimented humanity, like the rest of us have to. They want A+B = C equality even though their relationships are A+A =C, when A cannot equal B, which is the lie all those who have joined the pro crusade won't consider incase it contradicts their socially scripted sense of fair play.  

You already know my feelings about love and marriage; one can preclude the other and I do not believe love requires marriage.


----------



## basilio (12 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> I think they should pull their heads in and put up with the unfairness of being an imperfect individual in a sea of regimented humanity, like the rest of us have to.



I don't understand what you are saying here Tisme. Yes we are all imperfect. We all have our foibles, differences, challenges. Who gets to decide which difference is socially/politically wrong and punishable ? How far do we accept the range of differences in people ? How closely do we control behaviours "someone" doesn't approve of ?  How does that relate to the question
    “*Should all adults have the right to marry the person they love?”*


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2017)

basilio said:


> “*Should all adults have the right to marry the person they love?”*




Marriage is a social construct, it's the recognition by society of a relationship. Society has the right to recognise relationships if it wants to, not wanting to does not preclude that relationship from taking place.

The question you have asked should be decided by society in general not by politicians, and it will be, by the second best choice of a postal ballot because the politically correct Greens and Labor don't like the citizens making decisions if it may hurt someone's feelings.


----------



## Tisme (12 August 2017)

basilio said:


> I don't understand what you are saying here Tisme. Yes we are all imperfect. We all have our foibles, differences, challenges. Who gets to decide which difference is socially/politically wrong and punishable ? How far do we accept the range of differences in people ? How closely do we control behaviours "someone" doesn't approve of ?  How does that relate to the question
> “*Should all adults have the right to marry the person they love?”*





I guess you just answered your own question. What are your boundaries? Would you, for instance allow me into your partner's bed, if your partner wanted to have equal pleasure?

There is no point arguing this, because a large segment of the population has been successfully groomed over a generation and a bit to accept the concept of trivialising traditional marriage in favour of socialism.

You don't honestly think that people like me who have studied higher education in e.g. marketing don't know manipulation models when we see it.

You and others have a cognitive bias that has grown into a Semmelweis Reflex  condition and you can't be deprogrammed in this lifetime, you don't even know why you feel compelled to be a standard bearer ... you will just have to live with your choices I'm afraid. Fortunately I'll be long departed before we all become drones .... I hope.


----------



## basilio (12 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> the concept of trivialising traditional marriage in favour of socialism.



WTF ?? How did you make that up ? Where does socialism fit into the same-sex marriage discussion.

With regard to the Semmelweiss Reflex condition. I *guess *what you are saying is that *totally, clearly,  and unequivocally homosexual behaviour is wrong* but I and others who take this view have been programmed into such a belief by an insidious/inspired program of densensitization and grooming.  ( Could this also be the case for interracial relationships ?)

I have to say I am bemused by many different behaviours in our society. I can readily agree that we are influenced by many factors and it isn't hard to see examples of where many seemingly sane people can come to believe quite bizzare ideas. Does that extend to acknowledging the broader range of sexual interests we have as totally wrong ?


----------



## Tisme (12 August 2017)

For facebook users who are already tired of the onslaught of SSM and hetrophobic rants, I recommend this Google extension:

http://www.fbpurity.com/#

It will probably filter out most of the ABC TV posts, but that's OK


----------



## pixel (13 August 2017)

basilio said:


> WTF ?? How did you make that up ? Where does socialism fit into the same-sex marriage discussion.
> 
> With regard to the Semmelweiss Reflex condition. I *guess *what you are saying is that *totally, clearly,  and unequivocally homosexual behaviour is wrong* but I and others who take this view have been programmed into such a belief by an insidious/inspired program of densensitization and grooming.  ( Could this also be the case for interracial relationships ?)
> 
> I have to say I am bemused by many different behaviours in our society. I can readily agree that we are influenced by many factors and it isn't hard to see examples of where many seemingly sane people can come to believe quite bizzare ideas. Does that extend to acknowledging the broader range of sexual interests we have as totally wrong ?



I often find a very helpful trick to prime my BS Detector with regard to a statement like Tisme's is trying to turn it around.
When Tisme claims we have been brainwashed into accepting Gays, Lebians, and others as humans deserving respect and fair treatment, I am turning it around and ask myself,
*Could the opponents of recognition have been brainwashed into sticking with a concept that was preached as Gospel for Millennia? Is it possible that their brains are lost to accepting new ideas? *
And that, my dear Watson, makes a lot more sense than claiming people capable of accepting new paradigms have been brainwashed and are lost causes for a decent and free society.

Along with "marriage is one man and his women", the Bible also contains rules for slavery, sale of one's daughters, and describes the earth as flat. Slavery and pimping one's daughters is meanwhile frowned upon by most civilizations. Flat Earthers claim to be gaining members "all round the Globe".
Case rests...


----------



## crackajack (13 August 2017)

why is this so important? Gay marriage who gives a f  uck. Just some more attention seekers. Marriage sux anyway and these jerks are so up themselves demanding rights etc.
Waste of space.


----------



## crackajack (13 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> For facebook users who are already tired of the onslaught of SSM and hetrophobic rants, I recommend this Google extension:
> 
> http://www.fbpurity.com/#
> 
> It will probably filter out most of the ABC TV posts, but that's OK



screw face f uck
Useless piece of mind dumbing crap


----------



## crackajack (13 August 2017)

Marriage is about man rooting woman and then caring for their children until age 18 or 21 and then get rid off them and enjoy the rest of your life lol


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2017)

pixel said:


> *Could the opponents of recognition have been brainwashed into sticking with a concept that was preached as Gospel for Millennia? Is it possible that their brains are lost to accepting new ideas? *
> ...




Absolutely that could happen pixel.

But don't you remember when you were going through adolescence and this very subject was front and centre like everything else the old fossils who ran society insisted were fundamental values of society? Then over time you start to find out what actually goes on, it's not just a thought anymore, but a physical act, a lifestyle, a cult, men of the cloth.  Your basic rules, programmed invitro at a primal level tell you what is natural and right because your body gives you signals like surprise, shock and gut churning, which you either ignore at the time or accept.

And, of course, witnessing the rapid growth of homosexuality and knowing our imprint is to exclude homosexuals from the tribe, we start to put defensive "just in case" barriers up to ensure any friends, family or offspring who find themselves drawn to the flame are not persecuted and sent packing.

So it's not conditioning at any skyfairy gospel level and it's not because of millenial imprinting, infact societal change in one generation is what marketers rely on. Change management of product acceptance in a 25 year period results in a really strong, almost cult following which gradually decays back to the primal norm.  Homosexual marriage is just the latest coco pops fad in the absence of anything else for a bored population to adhere to.

The real danger that people should be considering when they seek to protect their acquaintances and relatives, is that once people do "come out" and do offend those religious nuts by parodying real marriage traditions, that this will inevitably turn around as it always does. And the revitalised conservative, religiously driven masters will take umbrage at the outrage, just like they have done so over "millenia". 

That we are in a global religious war,  co habitating with belligerent dictators should be sounding alarm bells of puritanical proportions. I'd be advocating homosexuals get back in their fox holes if you really care for them.


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> Marriage is about man rooting woman and then caring for their children until age 18 or 21 and then get rid off them and enjoy the rest of your life lol





Please, tell us what you really think! 

I started making noises about moving out when they hit 2, 13 and 17. Prime numbers are a biatch.


----------



## Tink (13 August 2017)

This is not same sex marriage, this is LGBTI the whole transgender movement.

Full on Orwellian, imv.


----------



## crackajack (13 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> Please, tell us what you really think!
> 
> I started making noises about moving out when they hit 2, 13 and 17. Prime numbers are a biatch.



lol


----------



## crackajack (13 August 2017)

Tink said:


> This is not same sex marriage, this is LGBTI the whole transgender movement.
> 
> Full on Orwellian, imv.



so why bother with the marriage thing ... so they can get government child support? Just another way to rort the system. I vote no.


----------



## Tink (13 August 2017)

I am voting NO.

I have already said, Marriage is one man and one woman.
People taking responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2017)

Tink said:


> I will be voting NO.
> 
> The family unit (mother, father, child) is the TRUTH, and what Marriage stands for.



How does legally recognizing a same sex marriage take anything away from heterosexual marriages?


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> How does legally recognizing a same sex marriage take anything away from heterosexual marriages?




Firstly I find it strange that people who don't care about the institution of Marriage haven't noticed that the Gay movement want it more than anyone else.

What does it take away.
For a male male marriage which has children the influence and love from a mother.
For a female female marriage with children the influence and love from a father.

Tragically each of those in a childless marriage will also not feel the love of opposite sexes
Or the joy of interaction with either on a level as deep as that attained if you sincerely think you've found your life partner.


----------



## Logique (13 August 2017)

Can't see the 'Yes' vote getting up on a voluntary postal vote.

If it's not on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, it doesn't register with the younger luvvies.

A 'No' vote would immediately be contested by the SSM boosters.

Overall a rather frivolous exercise.


----------



## Triathlete (13 August 2017)

I think the issue is around the word *"marriage"* and what people believe is traditional . I believe if it was called another name for same sex couples and they were given the same rights as traditional marriage maybe we would not be debating it for so long but who knows...We keep reading articles as per the below link and people have doubts....www.marriagealliance.com.au/canada_ssm_destroying_all_other_rights


----------



## basilio (13 August 2017)

pixel said:


> *Could the opponents of recognition have been brainwashed into sticking with a concept that was preached as Gospel for Millennia? Is it possible that their brains are lost to accepting new ideas? *
> And that, my dear Watson, makes a lot more sense than claiming people capable of accepting new paradigms have been brainwashed and are lost causes for a decent and free society.




Nice work Pixel. I think that perspective offers an excellent way to view the current discussion.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2017)

Triathlete said:


> I believe if it was called another name for same sex couples and they were given the same rights as traditional marriage maybe we would not be debating it for so long but who knows...




Civil Unions ?


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2017)

Tink said:


> I am voting NO.
> 
> I have already said, Marriage is one man and one woman.
> People taking responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Triathlete (13 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Civil Unions ?



Not quite the same

A *civil union* is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as *marriage* does to couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections, such as tax breaks and social security benefits, are unavailable to the civilly united.


----------



## crackajack (13 August 2017)

Tink said:


> I am voting NO.
> 
> I have already said, Marriage is one man and one woman.
> People taking responsibility for their actions.



I am with you tink. And NO I am not against same sex relationships, what i am against is what they are trying to do.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Firstly I find it strange that people who don't care about the institution of Marriage haven't noticed that the Gay movement want it more than anyone else.
> 
> What does it take away.
> For a male male marriage which has children the influence and love from a mother.
> ...




Yes, when you deny blacks the right to sit at the front of the bus, they will rightly protest for their right to sit there.

As for your point about children, children are a separate topic.

You don't have to have kids tonne married, and you don't have to be married to have kids.

I have no idea what your third paragraph is about.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> I am with you tink. And NO I am not against same sex relationships, what i am against is what they are trying to do.



What are they trying to do???


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

pixel said:


> I often find a very helpful trick to prime my BS Detector with regard to a statement like Tisme's is trying to turn it around.
> When Tisme claims we have been brainwashed into accepting Gays, Lebians, and others as humans deserving respect and fair treatment, I am turning it around and ask myself,
> *Could the opponents of recognition have been brainwashed into sticking with a concept that was preached as Gospel for Millennia? Is it possible that their brains are lost to accepting new ideas? *
> And that, my dear Watson, makes a lot more sense than claiming people capable of accepting new paradigms have been brainwashed and are lost causes for a decent and free society.
> ...




Absolutely, I often here the older generation boldly state there "ideals", but when asked to explain why they hold them, or why they think these concepts are true, they retreat to the "well, I was just brought up that way". To me that's a big cop out, if you are going to deny rights to another person or group, you should be able to clear state rational reasons why, without referring to logical fallacies.

So far I have not ever heard a single rational arguement against recognizing same sex marriages


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Absolutely, I often here (sic)........ "well, I was just brought up that way". ./




Who has posted that often and can you  provide an example VC?

BTW the logical argument you think can be reversed can absolutely be switched by those who don't understand logic, but it is a flawed reasoning because it's predicated on making an incontestable truth a falsehood (e.g. homosexuality is not normal behaviour)


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2017)




----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> but it is a flawed reasoning because it's predicated on making an incontestable truth a falsehood (e.g. homosexuality is not normal behaviour)




It's quite normal for a certain percentage of the population to be gay, gay people are born everyday.

But who cares if it's not "normal" for something to be outlawed it needs to be shown that it is harmful.


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> It's quite normal for a certain percentage of the population to be gay, gay people are born everyday.
> 
> But who cares if it's not "normal" for something to be outlawed it needs to be shown that it is harmful.




You are now bringing in your own emotional boundaries. That's abstraction and does not alter the facts of logic.

In 50 years you will be less inclined to voice the freedoms our Christian nation has afforded you, because your Islamic masters will be less empathetic to the sins you promote. You may pfft that statement, but history says that relaxing this sacrosanct social boundary invariably reflects the imminent arrival of war and sorrow. I don't know why it's an indice, but it is.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 August 2017)

Tink said:


> This is not same sex marriage, this is LGBTI the whole transgender movement.
> 
> Full on Orwellian, imv.



A micro percentage of the population determining what marriage should be. Two blokes kissing is visually offputting to me. Don't think it should be pushed mainstream.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 August 2017)

The queers (homosexuals, cross dressers, sex changers etc.) should have their own formal arrangements. Call it "Gay Union" or something and leave the traditional "marriage" as is.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 August 2017)

Re: QandA SSM debate - Can Sam Dastyari be removed from public voicing. The bloke talks so much nonsense. I think, I believe, I think, I believe blah blah blah. Idiot playing the air head court jester. No wise words out his scrambled mind.


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Re: QandA SSM debate - Can Sam Dastyari be removed from public voicing. The bloke talks so much nonsense. I think, I believe, I think, I believe blah blah blah. Idiot playing the air head court jester. No wise words out his scrambled mind.




Apparently Halal certification is the tool to defeat ISIS...according to Sam that is.


----------



## Triathlete (16 August 2017)

Why dont we just call one traditional marriage and call the other one Gay union marriage (or whatever)with its seperate laws and give them all the same rights and if the LGBT lobby then decides some years down the track they want to change something else they can just change the laws that relate to their issues.


----------



## basilio (16 August 2017)

Tisme said:


>






That was priceless !Great editing.   Well worth a look.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2017)

Triathlete said:


> Not quite the same
> 
> A *civil union* is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as *marriage* does to couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections, such as tax breaks and social security benefits, are unavailable to the civilly united.




So there should not be a problem drafting Federal legislation similar to the Marriage Act, giving gay couples equal rights before the law, but keeping it separate from "traditional" marriage ?


----------



## Triathlete (19 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So there should not be a problem drafting Federal legislation similar to the Marriage Act, giving gay couples equal rights before the law, but keeping it separate from "traditional" marriage ?



This is what I think and believe if it is kept separate but with exactly the same rights this should keep everyone happy,(SSM and traditionalists) this way if  SS couples have issue down the track they can just change the laws that apply to them and similar if their is issues with traditional marriage they can change the laws there...just my opinion though.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So there should not be a problem drafting Federal legislation similar to the Marriage Act, *giving gay couples equal rights before the law, but keeping it separate from "traditional" marriage *?



This thought dawned on me. This whole show is not about family & children nor legal rights nor religion. It's about being recognised and accepted as the same. A natural bonding just like male and female.


----------



## Value Collector (19 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> This thought dawned on me. This whole show is not about family & children nor legal rights nor religion. It's about being recognised and accepted as the same. A natural bonding just like male and female.




That only just dawned on you? What did you think it was about before?


----------



## Tisme (20 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> This thought dawned on me. *This whole show is not about* family & children nor *legal rights* nor religion. It's about being recognised and accepted as the same. A natural bonding just like male and female.





Not true. It's about the legal rights they currently do not have in e.g. the family court. They want to get their paws on their partner's assets ahead of the partner's family.

https://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/the-legal-benefits-that-come-with-marriage/


----------



## Tisme (20 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> That only just dawned on you? What did you think it was about before?




Last paragraph probably applies to many:

"A great many people enthusiastically participate in such movements, often with the noblest of motives, yet without the slightest idea that they have made of themselves useful idiots. "

http://morningmail.org/becoming-queer-society/


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 August 2017)

In regard to the news clipping, I think this is an exact view of the whole dramatisation.



> Ian 05/08/2017, 9:10 am
> If the ABC was not focused on this chapter of society then we wouldn’t care and we wouldn’t be hell bent on SSM. We might even be looking at budget repair and what’s good for the country. *Instead we have mincing poodles swanning their ‘better than thou’ attitude and ‘I know better BS’ around, slapping the general public in the face.*
> Seems only the brainwashed and brain dead can’t see SSM for the crap that it is.
> Kids to dykes and poofs IS NOT good for the child, no matter how you spin it. Darwin could have told you that SSM is a single generation event, with no chance of breeding through without some external help, (eg your tax dollar).
> Be a gay couple by all means but get your mits off marriage, it’s between a man and a woman.


----------



## sptrawler (13 April 2021)

Is this the next discrimination barrier, to be taken down?








						'Biologically repugnant': Parent's legal battle to marry their child
					

A parent who wants to marry their biological child has filed a lawsuit to overturn laws barring incest.




					au.news.yahoo.com
				



From the article:
A parent who wants to marry their biological child has filed a lawsuit to overturn laws barring incest.

The identities of the parent, from New York, and the child are unknown, along with their exact ages, but the filing does confirm the “proposed spouses are adults”.

“The proposed spouses are biological parent and child. The proposed spouses are unable to procreate together,” court papers filed in the Manhattan federal court on April 1 read, according to the New York Post.
The parent did acknowledge their request was “an action that a large segment of society views as morally, socially and biologically repugnant”.

However, they said barring them from marrying their child would “diminish their humanity”.

“Through the enduring bond of marriage, two persons, whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality,” the parent said, according to the publication.

Under New York law, incest is a third-degree felony and offenders face up to four years in prison.


----------

