Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Tisme]

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.
By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.
The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.
The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage

-------------------------------

I hope the next time you go to the ballot box, you reconsider any vote for the LNP now many in their ranks have shown their disregard for the nuclear family in favour of comedic farce. Even our fizzer PM has swung behind SSM to add to his agenda of breaking our cultural ties (republic, flag, universal health care, industry, etc).

 

[Tisme]

The explanation as far as I'm concerned is "love" was redefined when the marriage act was changed in 2004. I don't see this being any different.

Prior to that it was changed when homosexuality was decriminalised.

You just know where I'm going to go with this don't you LOL

So now you are saying homosexuality is a love concept rather than activity. Interesting and explains why so many people are voting yes.

Insofar as legislation, we fortunately have a tidy little compendium called The Interpretations Act that is useful, rather than using a moral compass which points west.

 

[PZ99]

You just know where I'm going to go with this don't you LOL

So now you are saying homosexuality is a love concept rather than activity. Interesting and explains why so many people are voting yes.

Insofar as legislation, we fortunately have a tidy little compendium called The Interpretations Act that is useful, rather than using a moral compass which points west.

Yep, that's my view. Homosexuals are attracted to each other the same way heterosexuals are. They love each other and they want to get married and that's it.

Now...to me, it's an alternative lifestyle that has no appeal to me but I can still respect it because in my view it's harmless. It doesn't affect me at all. I personally feel that my time on this planet is better from living in a society that no longer marginalises people because of their race, colour, height, weight and sexual preferences. It's all good

 

[SirRumpole]

because in my view it's harmless.

AIDS ?

 

[PZ99]

AIDS ?

What about it ?

 

[Tisme]

Yep, that's my view. Homosexuals are attracted to each other the same way heterosexuals are. They love each other and they want to get married and that's it.

Now...to me, it's an alternative lifestyle that has no appeal to me but I can still respect it because in my view it's harmless. It doesn't affect me at all. I personally feel that my time on this planet is better from living in a society that no longer marginalises people because of their race, colour, height, weight and sexual preferences. It's all good

Yeah we already know who the bleeding hearts are, I just want some kind of recognition that the the SSMers are using emotive rather than factual to bias the arguments, when the point that is being debated is a factual one.

Sure, if I was to say "coloured people are jealous of white male privilege" then that is an analogue that is debatable. But to say current marriage legislation is based on love and love prejudice is a big misnomer that obviously is highly infectious to those susceptible.

 

[SirRumpole]

What about it [AIDS] ?

It decimated the gay community and spread around the world. It was spread by unprotected sex with multiple partners , a feature of the gay male community.

 

[PZ99]

It decimated the gay community and spread around the world. It was spread by unprotected sex with multiple partners , a feature of the gay male community.

So the issue is unprotected sex. Not AIDS. AIDS was equally spread by injecting drug users.

Being married or unmarried has nothing to do with it.

Here's a thought...

If anything, gays getting married could even mitigate the spread of AIDS if we can assume a married couple are less likely to have unprotected sex with multiple partners

 

[SirRumpole]

Here's a thought...

If anything, gays getting married could even mitigate the spread of AIDS if we can assume a married couple are less likely to have unprotected sex with multiple partners

People who love each other don't have sex with others. A piece of paper has nothing to do with it, it's called commitment.

 

[PZ99]

People who love each other don't have sex with others. A piece of paper has nothing to do with it, it's called commitment.

In other words you are saying gays who love each other are unlikely to spread the AIDS virus.

Fine with me.

A piece of paper IS the commitment.

 

[Tisme]

So the issue is unprotected sex. Not AIDS. AIDS was equally spread by injecting drug users.

Being married or unmarried has nothing to do with it.

See this is where we are all at a disadvantage of censorship in play. We are denied the whole story because laws have been put in place to deflect attention away form minority groups, regardless of their culpability of poor societal behaviours that put that same society at risk.

We see it with the way anything Islamic is sacrosant, anyone coloured is sacrosanct, anyone queer is sacrosanct, Jewish, etc. We are educated and inculcated by a redacted fact sheet, and so we fill in the blanks with tall tales and yarns from Wiki, farcebook and twatter. I say "we"and "all" because I want to sound benevolent and one of the boys

We all know the activities, promiscuity and practices of gays was the reason for AIDS spread and probable incubation. Denial is futile. You want to know what gays really get upto and what many infants in their care will bear witness too:- here's a random pick by example:

if you really want to know the risks and marriage qualifications you should make sure you know the culture. This is not pornography or drunken behaviour, but a real daily lifestyle.

And a WARNING to those who don't need to know because they have an innate belief in nuclear families and all things wholesome= DO VISIT THIS SITE the description says it all

And no running off to the boss with PMs complaining because this is what you SSMers are promoting by inference.

http://www.thehomoculture.com/2016/07/20/figuring-out-felching/

 

[PZ99]

Now... this won't hurt a bit....

✄ ✄ ✄

Did you just hot-link us to a felching site whilst stating you wanted to be one of the boys ?

 

[luutzu]

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.
By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.
The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.
The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage

-------------------------------

I guess we should take children away from single parents too then. Definitely take kids away from single fathers, we all know men can't raise kids.

But that's only if the kid/s are straight. 'cause we only care about straight kids with all these laws. If the kid looks queer... not sure what the final solution would be.

 

[Tisme]

I guess we should take children away from single parents too then. Definitely take kids away from single fathers, we all know men can't raise kids.

But that's only if the kid/s are straight. 'cause we only care about straight kids with all these laws. If the kid looks queer... not sure what the final solution would be.

Child abuse statistics are never wrong, unless it's a SSM household

 

[Tisme]

It decimated the gay community and spread around the world. It was spread by unprotected sex with multiple partners , a feature of the gay male community.

and as reward for services rendered in killing and diseasing millions of innocent people we give them marriage rights?

 

[Logique]

If 'Yes' loses, this will be a big part of the reason why. Sorry there's a paywall.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...g/news-story/f5d47b788812540816179e2730aaf40e
Miranda Devine - September 27, 2017
The failure of ‘Yes’ to control its militant wing
...The militant left has hijacked the debate in frightening fashion.
Last weekend, protesters stormed the Melbourne launch of the Coalition for Marriage, chanting “Crucify Christians” and unfurling a banner which read: “Burn Churches not Queers”, complete with a red Anarchy symbol.
We’ve seen violence and expletives directed at Catholic students manning an “It’s OK to Say No” stall at Sydney University...
...So much for “love is love”...

 

[Tisme]

If 'Yes' loses, this will be a big part of the reason why. Sorry there's a paywall.

http://sheikyermami.com/2017/09/burn-churches-not-queers-homo-marriage-is-only-the-beginning/

 

[Tisme]

What hope do we have when Liberal and Labor gang up and decide what blasphemy is:

Even the IPA is getting distressed at Malcolm:

The idea that, in his own words, Turnbull would lead a “thoroughly Liberal government” is but a fond and distant memory. Under Turnbull taxes are up, government spending is up, and red tape has increased. With things like the bank tax, retrospective superannuation taxes, and telling energy companies who they can sell their gas to and for how long they must keep their plants operating, the Coalition is making the arbitrary administration of policy an art form.

http://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/in-the-news/malcolm-turnbulls-thoroughly-liberal-blasphemies

 

[Value Collector]

That's your opinion. I think a lot of people would attend just to see what is going on. If the people who conduct these courses have nothing to hide then they should welcome the parents as well.

it just seems weird to me that parent aren't demanding to attend physics, chemistry, math or any other classes.

Yet on this one topic which is shrouded in stigma and religious nonsense and which clearly is not being handled well at home, parents suddenly want to interfere.

The naysayers want to stop any discussion of the topic, and thats clearly not healthy.

 

[Tisme]

it just seems weird to me that parent aren't demanding to attend physics, chemistry, math or any other classes.

Yet on this one topic which is shrouded in stigma and religious nonsense and which clearly is not being handled well at home, parents suddenly want to interfere.

The naysayers want to stop any discussion of the topic, and thats clearly not healthy.

That's easy = a school is for teaching subjects, not lifestyle grooming... that is the parent's responsibility.