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
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.
Click to expand...

A legal challenge would be interesting
 

"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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that show should be considered paid advertising for the YES case ?

Half a million off the $7.5 million.

 
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
 
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 said:
Trust you to turn a social debate into a political mudslinging.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

I would be quite happy not to hear about the subject for another 3 years.
 
I think this is pretty telling.



 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...


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?
 
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
607
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...