Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[PZ99]

And as others have pointed out when there is no more religious freedom it's a disaster. You see, it is the path of oppressive political systems such as communism etc to control religion. They get rid of religious freedom in order to assume full control of the people.

That's debatable.

I would argue that it's religion itself that assumes full control of the people. It's called faith

To not be able to do, say or even think about anything that offends a religion is about as communist as you can get.

I prefer freedom myself. It's better to learn than to be led.

 

[Tisme]

Pixel,

As I have said, our country has a Christian heritage, which reflects on our public holidays.
Whether you are black, white, we are all men and women, and it takes a man and a woman to have a child.
Children do best with their parents.

We grew up respecting all people, no matter who they were, and that comes from our heritage.

Marriage is what it is for a reason, and that is for raising a family.
Mother and Father and their children.

Men and women are different, and children need both, imv.

As we have seen, it is natural for children/people to want to know their heritage, and will go looking for their family, so I don't agree with changing the meaning of marriage.

This is my view.

SSM gives sodomy the same status as procreative sex and conjugal love, a remarkable feat of illusion that has no valid basis to exist.

 

[Tink]

As I have said -

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

 

[pixel]

My view is because homosexuality was illegal for a long time but since becoming legal larger sections of the community have increasingly accepted it to the point of entertaining SSM despite bipartisan resistance from the parliament a decade ago.

Bingo!
We had the misfortune to find that a slender majority had elected a reactionary.

 

[luutzu]

Where is this land of Zog that you and others bang on about? Seems to me that the arguments are nearly always predicated on some backwater pre industrial state in the USA, or USA in general and the pox riddled old world countries ....... the ones that are now imposing their social diseases, stigmatism and poison on our country and with it their own brand of antidote in the form of social obedience and tunnel vision.

The shame is the all too willing 60% population who are happy give away all our rights and our children's rights to freedom of disassociation to accommodate the demands of a persistent peculiar few who are actually being granted the right to special class status that none of the natural people will enjoy.

We didn't do the same Down Under? Up to the 1970s?

I saw Hidden Figures, "separate but equal", colored toilet... at NASA? Racism didn't stop at them southern borders or the backwaters of imperial rome.

Yes, it's always the minority. Always wanting to join in with the cool kids.

 

[luutzu]

As I have said -

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

Kids need good parent/s. They don't care whether the parent is a man or a woman.

By your arguments, maybe we should take kids away from single parents. Maybe we should take Aborigines kids from their parents too... oh wait, we did that. See how happy those stolen kids were when they were taken from their no-good parents and raised in a proper Christian mission then on to a White family with proper Christian values?

If we're so concerned about the children, about marriages... fighting against gay marriage isn't the right battle.

Go fight for job security so the parents can have work and buy stuff for their kids; have properly funded public schools; fight for greater social programmes to help struggling families; fight for welfare to give kids in public schools a proper computer room, maybe access to a laptop and those fancy stuff. etc. etc.

But yea, it's the gays and their rights to marriage that ruin and disrespect the institution of marriage and destroy children's future.

 

[Tisme]

I am still having grave doubts about casting a vote that has a barcode on the form.

When combined with meta data and facial recognition plus a public service now infested with gender, race and sexual appointments rather than on old fashioned merit and nepotism, I worry that I might be targetted for special attention because i have my own working revulsion compass

 

[SirRumpole]

Kids need good parent/s. They don't care whether the parent is a man or a woman.

Children of gay parents now grown up are coming out against gay parenting. Links to them have been posted before if you care to read them.

 

[basilio]

"If we're so concerned about the children, about marriages... fighting against gay marriage isn't the right battle.

Go fight for job security so the parents can have work and buy stuff for their kids; have properly funded public schools; fight for greater social programmes to help struggling families; fight for welfare to give kids in public schools a proper computer room, maybe access to a laptop and those fancy stuff. etc. etc.

But yea, it's the gays and their rights to marriage that ruin and disrespect the institution of marriage and destroy children's future. Luutzu"

Worth repeating with emphasis.

 

[wayneL]

Bingo!
We had the misfortune to find that a slender majority had elected a reactionary.

A reactionary?

WTF Pixel ?

Excuse me while I go slash my wrists

 

[basilio]

Children of gay parents now grown up are coming out against gay parenting. Links to them have been posted before if you care to read them.

And you'll find many, many stories of people growing up with gay parents who loved them and their upbringing.
And if you want to really get into it, there are a million, million people who have despised their straight parents for any number of reasons. But it would be pretty dumb to use those types of stories to abuse married people ?

 

[luutzu]

Children of gay parents now grown up are coming out against gay parenting. Links to them have been posted before if you care to read them.

There are no messed-up children from straight parents? No broken homes or abusive parenting by straight and God-fearing men's man/mousy women?

 

[Tisme]

We didn't do the same Down Under? Up to the 1970s?

I saw Hidden Figures, "separate but equal", colored toilet... at NASA? Racism didn't stop at them southern borders or the backwaters of imperial rome.

Yes, it's always the minority. Always wanting to join in with the cool kids.

Look it's true of many things that gender and ethnicity are drivers for social structures, And yes in places like Kalgoorlie Hotels they had men's bars. women's lounges and black fella bars.

And for sure if the aborigines made a nuisance of themselves they were spurned and given a hiding or a gobfull; (bear in mind most of those troublesome "aboriginals" were shamrock aborigines who had the misfortune of carrying celtic genes), but so were the euro gene pool.... and those "white people" had there names published in the paper for even petty theft.

 

[SirRumpole]

And you'll find many, many stories of people growing up with gay parents who loved them and their upbringing.

Who are most likely gay themselves.

And if you want to really get into it, there are a million, million people who have despised their straight parents for any number of reasons.

Yeah because they are drunk or abusive which is a characteristic of the human race not sexuality.

 

[luutzu]

Who are most likely gay themselves.



Yeah because they are drunk or abusive which is a characteristic of the human race not sexuality.

A person's sexuality/sexual preferences is their natural human make-up.

To force them against that "sin", get with the programme as dictated in the Holy books (or some homophobic, sexually repressed bigots) idea of what is natural and god-given... That's anything but natural. Maybe it's a human trait to repressed your urges and pay your taxes or something.

 

[luutzu]

Look it's true of many things that gender and ethnicity are drivers for social structures, And yes in places like Kalgoorlie Hotels they had men's bars. women's lounges and black fella bars.

And for sure if the aborigines made a nuisance of themselves they were spurned and given a hiding or a gobfull; (bear in mind most of those troublesome "aboriginals" were shamrock aborigines who had the misfortune of carrying celtic genes), but so were the euro gene pool.... and those "white people" had there names published in the paper for even petty theft.

Yes, "if" they "make a nuisance of themselves".

 

[Logique]

Tink,
I repeat: That "rule" has been snuck in by our reactionary PM John Howard as recently as 2004. And we all know how sneaky he was, playing Australians for marks with lies and broken promises. Not even today's "dual citizens" would've flown to London to celebrate Australia's centenary of independence at Bucks House.

The rule wasn't 'snuck in', it didn't need to be. It simply reflected the centuries-old beliefs and values of human society. I don't recall any outcry at the time.

Don't pretend it even needed to be coded. But with hindsight, thank goodness it was.

 

[grah33]

We're all free to do what we want. Just not free to discriminate against other people. Sounds like a fair approach to things.
.

I don't know whether you are aware or just not acknowledging it , but a large number of people don't see it as discrimination. They see homosexuality as not being normal (just like pedophilia attractions,incest). So the holy book telling them it is forbidden makes sense to them. Plus history for many centuries, and recent history. You're expecting them to suddenly change their deeply held views. U don't seem to have any empathy for religious people who would be faced with terrible problems. Surely it would make better sense for there to be no laws controlling them. I think many gay people would want that too.

 

[grah33]

That's debatable.

I would argue that it's religion itself that assumes full control of the people. It's called faith

To not be able to do, say or even think about anything that offends a religion is about as communist as you can get.

I prefer freedom myself. It's better to learn than to be led.

Maybe you don't believe in religious freedom, and maybe many other here don't either. If so then people here don't believe in democracy but think another system would be better for everybody which allows religion to be controlled. Don't be ashamed to confess your views everyone, and we can't change the results anyway.

You know one of the amendments in the democratic US is about religious freedom – ie don't make any laws that interfere with a person's ability to practice their religion. But they're ignoring that (not trump, but Obama didn't believe in it). They too are drifting away from democracy.

 

[basilio]

I don't know whether you are aware or just not acknowledging it , but a large number of people don't see it as discrimination. They see homosexuality as not being normal (just like pedophilia attractions,incest). So the holy book telling them it is forbidden makes sense to them. Plus history for many centuries, and recent history. You're expecting them to suddenly change their deeply held views. U don't seem to have any empathy for religious people who would be faced with terrible problems. Surely it would make better sense for there to be no laws controlling them. I think many gay people would want that too.

No one is asking people to change their personal vews on homosexuality. It is simply that they don't have the god given right to demand that the rest of the community agree with them. So if two men or two women wish to marry that is their business not someone elses.