This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Gay Marriage

Jump to new

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 .......
 
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..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed Zachary.
 
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).
 

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.
 
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.

.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Tink said:
Why are they so worried about a plebiscite?
Still trying to silence us.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Value Collector said:
It's not that anyone is scared of a plebiscite, its that they results of the plebiscite don't matter.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
SirRumpole said:
But the government can, and has done so a number of times.

What's the difference ?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Tisme said:
What basic human right are we talking about ?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

what are you talking about???
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
SirRumpole said:
So why is the "right" to marry, a basic human right ?

It's just an official recognition of a relationship. ]
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Heresy: What is it in the 21st century?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Smurf1976
The role of Private Equity
Replies
7
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
622
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...