Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[SirRumpole]

Not only that, but even if the children are straight, they may become bullies etc or bad parents in the future due to the one sided views of their parents.

If we want to go into gender theory then it should be an after hours session with parents present.

Really, the lgbti lobby have grabbed hold of this bullying bandwagon and made it all about them.

What about those who suicide or attempt it because of poor school marks, poor body image, maybe they are too bright or too dull and get bullied, hold religious beliefs or have a learning disability ? These kids seem to be totally ignored in the rainbow New Society.

 

[basilio]

I sent my old mate John Birmingham an email, pointed him in the direction of this thread and asked (nicely) if he thought he could summarise the 10 critical No arguments on the subject outlined by ASF members.

I thought he did a good job !!
The top 10 reasons I'm voting 'no' on same-sex marriage

• 
  John Birmingham

1. Because the YES campaign secretly loaded a U2 album onto my iPhone and now I'm with Team Bigot.

2. Because a red-headed Tasmanian tried to headbutt Tony Abbott and he missed and if I can’t have the only thing that could make me truly happy neither can you, gay people.

3. Because won't somebody think of the children who’ll be stuck with two dads and they’ll have to stop in at the bakery every day for emergency cheddermite scrolls for school lunch and probably breakfast too because everyone knows dads are hopeless, so vote no for the kids.

4. Because this country can’t afford to let gay weddings delay a moment longer the vital infrastructure projects this country needs that will be delayed when queeros start marrying their favourite bridges and other transport nodes.

5. Because if religions have their religious freedoms taken away from them we might one day live in a country where witches cannot be dunked into a river or set on fire by priests.

6. Because if gay people get married there will be no freedom of speech anymore because Tony Abbott and Lyle Shelton and Pauline Hanson and Mark Latham and Fred Nile and Miranda Devine and Andrew Bolt and Bernard Gaynor and Ray Hadley and Janet Albrechtsen and Chris Kenny and the entire line-up from Sky News After Dark will be so terrified that they will never stand up in Parliament or go on the telly or the radio, or write columns for The Australian or the Daily Telegraph or the Herald Sun ever again.

7. Because that guy from the Cronulla riots held a "Straight Lives Matter" rally on the weekend and only got a dozen single men in identical T-shirts to meet him in a park because everyone knows that with gay marriage all the parks will be full of the gays marrying each other and having even a dozen men without girlfriends in the same adorable T-shirt gathered in one place could only be a provocation to those insatiable gays, oh god I hope Cronulla riot guy is alright!

8. Because marriage is a sacred institution that has always had a special place in our society, a place we call prime time, which we traditionally reserve for the quiet contemplation of the spiritual bond between a man and a woman on The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, The Farmer Wants A Wife, Married at First Sight, Bridezillas, Whose Wedding is it Anyway, My Redneck Wedding and Divorce Court.

9. Because it says so in the Bible, somewhere, in the Old Testament I think, and if we ignore that we would also have to ignore the bit that tells us it’s OK for a dude to sell his daughter into slavery, and totally legit to stone adulterous women and disobedient children to death and then we’d be on a slippery slope to hell in a handbasket, wouldn’t we.

10. Because have you ever seen a gay man eat a pie? No you haven't and when the gay marriage law enslaves the bakers of this country and forces them to make homosexual wedding cakes and nothing else there will be no more pies so I will vote NO.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/satir...-no-on-same-sex-marriage-20170925-p4yw43.html

 

[dutchie]

I sent my old mate John Birmingham an email, pointed him in the direction of this thread and asked (nicely) if he thought he could summarise the 10 critical No arguments on the subject outlined by ASF members.

I thought he did a good job !!
The top 10 reasons I'm voting 'no' on same-sex marriage

• 
  John Birmingham

1. Because the YES campaign secretly loaded a U2 album onto my iPhone and now I'm with Team Bigot.

2. Because a red-headed Tasmanian tried to headbutt Tony Abbott and he missed and if I can’t have the only thing that could make me truly happy neither can you, gay people.

3. Because won't somebody think of the children who’ll be stuck with two dads and they’ll have to stop in at the bakery every day for emergency cheddermite scrolls for school lunch and probably breakfast too because everyone knows dads are hopeless, so vote no for the kids.

4. Because this country can’t afford to let gay weddings delay a moment longer the vital infrastructure projects this country needs that will be delayed when queeros start marrying their favourite bridges and other transport nodes.

5. Because if religions have their religious freedoms taken away from them we might one day live in a country where witches cannot be dunked into a river or set on fire by priests.

6. Because if gay people get married there will be no freedom of speech anymore because Tony Abbott and Lyle Shelton and Pauline Hanson and Mark Latham and Fred Nile and Miranda Devine and Andrew Bolt and Bernard Gaynor and Ray Hadley and Janet Albrechtsen and Chris Kenny and the entire line-up from Sky News After Dark will be so terrified that they will never stand up in Parliament or go on the telly or the radio, or write columns for The Australian or the Daily Telegraph or the Herald Sun ever again.

7. Because that guy from the Cronulla riots held a "Straight Lives Matter" rally on the weekend and only got a dozen single men in identical T-shirts to meet him in a park because everyone knows that with gay marriage all the parks will be full of the gays marrying each other and having even a dozen men without girlfriends in the same adorable T-shirt gathered in one place could only be a provocation to those insatiable gays, oh god I hope Cronulla riot guy is alright!

8. Because marriage is a sacred institution that has always had a special place in our society, a place we call prime time, which we traditionally reserve for the quiet contemplation of the spiritual bond between a man and a woman on The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, The Farmer Wants A Wife, Married at First Sight, Bridezillas, Whose Wedding is it Anyway, My Redneck Wedding and Divorce Court.

9. Because it says so in the Bible, somewhere, in the Old Testament I think, and if we ignore that we would also have to ignore the bit that tells us it’s OK for a dude to sell his daughter into slavery, and totally legit to stone adulterous women and disobedient children to death and then we’d be on a slippery slope to hell in a handbasket, wouldn’t we.

10. Because have you ever seen a gay man eat a pie? No you haven't and when the gay marriage law enslaves the bakers of this country and forces them to make homosexual wedding cakes and nothing else there will be no more pies so I will vote NO.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/satir...-no-on-same-sex-marriage-20170925-p4yw43.html

Pretty pathetic satire.

 

[basilio]

Pretty pathetic satire.

I thought given the dribble he had work with from this thead John did well.

 

[Value Collector]

If we want to go into gender theory then it should be an after hours session with parents present.

Why?

 

[wayneL]

Ad hominem Guardian tactics have used by anti leftists all through this thread who are boo hooing about a wider agenda with nothing to back up their claims...

The postal vote is about whether people of the same sex should get married or not.

That's the real debate mate - wanna lead the way?

The real debate is the proposed legislation, what additional clauses thete are, what extraneous legislation there is.

But of course they haven't told us have they?

It was like the Republican referendum.... yeah but what sort of Republic?

On that instance we plebeians refused to write the proverbial blank cheque.

We should do the same now, until we know what we're voting for or against.

 

[wayneL]

I thought given the dribble he had work with from this thead John did well.

Nope, not even proper satire, just petulant foot stamping.

 

[basilio]

Nope, not even proper satire, just petulant foot stamping.

Off course Wayne. And only someone as tone deaf and brain dead as you could fail to recognise the way John mashed the No arguments.

 

[PZ99]

The real debate is the proposed legislation, what additional clauses thete are, what extraneous legislation there is.

But of course they haven't told us have they?

It was like the Republican referendum.... yeah but what sort of Republic?

On that instance we plebeians refused to write the proverbial blank cheque.

We should do the same now, until we know what we're voting for or against.

The proposal as I see it is to remove "man and woman" from the definition of "marriage" and replace it with "two people". The draft act governing the proposal is here:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/2b2b575d-4317-40ae-9eb3-027e8f666ff0/upload_pdf/Exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (same-sex marriage) bill.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search="publications/tabledpapers/2b2b575d-4317-40ae-9eb3-027e8f666ff0"

You're right that it could be subject to change but then again legislation gets amended all the time.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why?

Because you are always telling us that parents don't understand the LGBTI.

 

[wayneL]

Off course Wayne. And only someone as tone deaf and brain dead as you could fail to recognise the way John mashed the No arguments.

Tone deaf now? LMAO!

The new insult for defenders of the culture, the crusaders against marxism.

I shall wear that badge with honour my curmudgeonly comrade

 

[wayneL]

The proposal as I see it is to remove "man and woman" from the definition of "marriage" and replace it with "two people". The draft act governing the proposal is here:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/2b2b575d-4317-40ae-9eb3-027e8f666ff0/upload_pdf/Exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (same-sex marriage) bill.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search="publications/tabledpapers/2b2b575d-4317-40ae-9eb3-027e8f666ff0"

You're right that it could be subject to change but then again legislation gets amended all the time.

Turnbull is on record as saying if yes, then it will be turned over to a private members bill. That pdf isnt worth the pixels it uses

 

[basilio]

AND DON'T FORGET "BRAIN DEAD" WAYNE.!! IT GOES WITH THE TERRITORY YOU KNOW !!
(we need bolds and caps for this insight into the vagueries of the caped crusaders against Marxism, Turnballism, Shortenism, Pxxxxism, ad infinitum.)

 

[PZ99]

Turnbull is on record as saying if yes, then it will be turned over to a private members bill. That pdf isnt worth the pixels it uses

You can't have a private members bill unless you have a bill to construct. That pdf is the bill.

 

[dutchie]

What a joke

University lecturers BAN maths students from using the word 'marriage' as it might cause offence

It's the name of a maths theorem, you stupid lecturer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...urers-BAN-maths-students-saying-marriage.html

 

[basilio]

A longer term view of marriage. How/why it started. How it has evolved.

Historically, the idea of marriage is always evolving

• David Dawkins

15 reading now
Show comments
Throughout almost all of human existence there was no such thing as family and marriage. Family and marriage first appeared around the same time as agriculture: the two were symbiotic.

Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott tells us that marriage was created for the safety of women and children. Far from being protected by marriage and family, it conscripted women and children into agricultural servitude.

Initially, humans lived communally in hunter-gatherer groups that enjoyed a promiscuous, matriarchal culture: children were primarily cared for by their mothers, and collectively by the group's adults. When family-based farming communities replaced forager groups, patriarchy reigned supreme and children were put to work.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/hi...riage-is-always-evolving-20170925-gyo4bn.html

 

[SirRumpole]

Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott tells us that marriage was created for the safety of women and children. Far from being protected by marriage and family, it conscripted women and children into agricultural servitude.

That's a pretty broad statement.

If the head of the family died suddenly the registered next of kin were first in line to the estate, and that did protect the wife and children.

 

[wayneL]

AND DON'T FORGET "BRAIN DEAD" WAYNE.!! IT GOES WITH THE TERRITORY YOU KNOW !!
(we need bolds and caps for this insight into the vagueries of the caped crusaders against Marxism, Turnballism, Shortenism, Pxxxxism, ad infinitum.)

At the end of the day, that's all you Marxists have - name calling.

Sexist, racist, Homophobe, islamophobe, -ist this, -phobe that, now tone deaf and brain dead.

What next?

Anyway, thanks, I have a very amusing mind picture of you tantruming bas

 

[luutzu]

Yes , it's the same. Sure, different types of love, but in all cases they're just silly. Think of a 20 year old woman that falls for an 80 year old man...(the other way around as well). Or the girl who has a crush on another woman (just silly love). Solution: reach out to them and tell them that it's not something to hate yourself for, it's not their fault, and they should just ignore such feelings. Some people just don't marry, they can't for whatever reason (e.g. sick people). it doesn't have to be the end of the world. And it really shouldn't be.

We all gotta learn control , or we'll be remarrying all the time. and most married couples i know are bored of each other. but for the kids, being married makes sense.

There are bad relationships, sure. There are bad choices in who to love, what attracts a person to it. Sure.

Gay people don't just fall in love with the first gay person they meet. There are gay people who are also a-holes. You know, being a prick as well as gay. Same with straight people.

So the idea that being attracted to a pefectly awesome person who also loves you, but that person happen to be of the same sex/gender... That's very different to having foolish crushes and bad choices in a partner.

i.e. same sex does not equate to "bad choice".


Yea, there are people who can't married, or don't want to be married. That's their choice, of other people's choice in not wanting to married them.

To make it illegal for people who can and wants to get married... that's a whole different ball game. One we slam other civilisations for doing when they're doing it.


Some people, I supposed, thought marriage and relationship is always about going on dates and taking holidays - with the other side always making the effort and tap in the cards.

Life have its difficulties; people do age and body parts do sag; that and who the heck has the time or the money to go on dates and eat out most days of the week?

Hence, relationship and marriages do break down. The gayness has nothing to do with it.

 

[Tisme]

Adult in this context is anyone who is allowed to vote.

And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was illegal. We have become far more civilised since then

You got a copy of that text?