- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,657
- Reactions
- 11,958
The opinions of a few Right Wing nutters are neither here nor there.
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Sean K
- Start date
The opinions of a few Right Wing nutters are neither here nor there.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
I tend to agree with that, in part Noco. The public servants who actually drive the agenda seem intent on clean sheeting society for a new dawn, including Nancifying the male population. Unfortunately for our descendants they ignore nature over nurture and eventually the gap between the predator nature within a core % will result in feudal system with overlords and serfs.
We are seeing the paternal grip strangling nations right now, using religion as the rally call....it's only going to get worse as even the USA swings behind alpha males like Trump.
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
Luutzu, this about Marriage, not about who you like and don't like.
There are plenty of relationships out there that want to be equal but they are not.
I have said that all laws are based on morality.
A man and a woman is not equal to two men or two women.
The reason that Marriage is as it is -- it caters for the family.
Sadly, it is political and Orwellian, Rumpole.
It over rides traditional Marriage with its own rules, the destruction of our society.
Junior, plenty of countries that have not taken on same sex marriage, though they have unions, like we have here, where they have the exact same rights as the heterosexuals.
There are plenty of relationships out there that want to be equal but they are not.
I have said that all laws are based on morality.
A man and a woman is not equal to two men or two women.
The reason that Marriage is as it is -- it caters for the family.
Sadly, it is political and Orwellian, Rumpole.
It over rides traditional Marriage with its own rules, the destruction of our society.
Junior, plenty of countries that have not taken on same sex marriage, though they have unions, like we have here, where they have the exact same rights as the heterosexuals.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,657
- Reactions
- 11,958
Not so political. A lot of people in the LNP support SSM and a lot in the Labor Party oppose it.
Noco's arch Fabian Juliua Gillard voted against it last time. It's a matter of personal opinion, not politics.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
You are showing your age: LGBTI is so yesterday Rumpole, in 2016 it's LGBTQIA
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,657
- Reactions
- 11,958
And so did Bill Shorten and Penny Wong vote against SSM and now they both have done a back flip purely for political reasons.
Rumpy, if that is the best answer you can come up with, I am afraid you have lost it.
http://australianmarriage.org/safe-schools-under-investigation/
There's been a lot of talk about 'Safe' Schools lately. Here's the story so far...
Last week it was revealed that the person who set up the 'Safe' Schools program has a Marxist view of the world:
Roz Ward, from La Trobe University’s Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society, told the Melbourne 2015 Marxism Conference, “In 2010 … I was the person who set up Safe Schools Coalition in Victoria” (SSCV). This program has now been expanded to become the federally funded Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA).' Read the full article here.
This is a bombshell for the "Safe Schools" radical indoctrination programme. Pat Byrne analyses the Marxist inspiration of the co-author of the Safe Schools material, Roz Ward. He notes,
"It’s in the context of a sexual revolution, in the image and likeness of a Marxist political and economic revolution, that Ward sees her SSCV (Safe Schools Coalition Victoria) program, which is now the Australia-wide SSCA program in around 490 schools...
Marxism is her solution. “Marxism offers both the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today, because Marxism has a theory of social change,” Ward says."
So is Roz Ward a nutter or do you think she is the bees knees?
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,289
Can you give us a reasoned morality based argument for either.
1, why same sex marriage should be banned.
or
2, why you consider this "A man and a woman is not equal to two men or two women" a moral statement.
Can you name any countries where society has been destroyed by allowing same sex marriage?
- Joined
- 15 November 2006
- Posts
- 1,205
- Reactions
- 678
So this whole debate is about the word marriage?
If all rights are the same, then how does the destruction of family suddenly occur once the word marriage is used, rather than referring to it as a union?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,657
- Reactions
- 11,958
Not yet, but when married homosexuals think that they then have a right to have children you have a society where children are deprived of their biological parents, are left to either embark on a difficult search for them or spend the rest of their lives wondering who their real parents are.
That's when the concept of family gets trashed, and we end up with all sorts of weird quasi 'families' on the edge of society, with confused children and the rest of us are supposed to go along with that for the sake of political correctness.
Jennifer Oriel sums up the dirty tricks being played out by the Green/Labor coalition and the ABC (the Labor propaganda machine).
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e/news-story/3ae2adef86bd5b8557b8335b6e90efcf
There is something rather dangerous about the gay marriage debate — and it is not homosexuality or marriage.
It is the view widely held by our political Left that *liberal democratic precepts can be overridden whenever they interfere with politically correct ideology.
Not content merely to deny the democratic mandate of millions who endorsed the same-sex marriage plebiscite by voting the Coalition into power, Labor is sowing civil hatred as social order.
The abysmal and divisive new ethos of Labor is the audacity of hate.
I think it would be fair to surmise that the opposition’s legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus doesn’t suffer from an excess of modesty.
But even so, his idea that the government should “win over” Labor by compromising on the plebiscite bill is remarkably arrogant. The government has an election mandate to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Labor’s *denial of it constitutes a repudiation of the will of the people.
Having lost its election campaign to deny people a vote on marriage reform, Labor has swung into attack.
It is reframing the plebiscite *debate by exploiting fear and manipulating emotion. In one short week, Labor has succeeded in re*framing the founding principles of liberal democracy as manifestations of hatred — all in the name of love, of course.
In Labor’s grand lexicon of doublespeak, public reason, active citizenship, and the human rights to free thought and speech, freedom of association and religion are mistranslated into forms of *hatred. And the citizen who seeks active participation in democracy by advocating for the same-sex marriage plebiscite is, by extension, hatred personified.
Increasingly it is the case that whenever a question of social reform arises, the political Left reverts to the audacity of hate to coerce people into conformity.
Its default position is to mob and vilify dissenters.
It acts as though Australia were a country under democratic socialism rather than liberal democracy.
Like revolutionary socialism, the democratic model holds socialism as the only end of democracy, but its tenets are introduced using the state and associ*ated institutions rather than militant revolution.
During the past week, the socialist Left position on gay marriage has been promulgated by Labor, the Greens and the state media institutions that consistently prosecute the Left party line: SBS and the ABC.
In news and on current affairs programs, the ABC has so aggressively campaigned for the socialist Left’s anti-plebiscite position, it appeared there was no alternative. And that is perfectly consistent with the one-party-rule ethos of democratic socialism.
But it just happens to run counter to the Australian people’s will — namely, the democratic mandate for a plebiscite endorsed at the federal election.
Whenever a pro-plebiscite voice is raised, the Left howls it down in a chorus of contempt. Predictably, Christians and conservatives are the principal victims of the Left’s pre-emptive moral infallibility. For example, when it looked as though Stephen O’Doherty, chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, was winning the plebiscite debate on ABC’s The Drum, host Julia Baird interrupted to prosecute an anti-plebiscite line in unison with the other panellists.
Tony Jones, the host of ABC’s Q&A, so routinely interrupts politically incorrect panellists that the online forum Catallaxy Files holds bids for “interruption lotto” before each show.
The tendency of the political Left to contort democracy whenever it conflicts with politically correct ideology is evident also in its main counter-argument to the plebiscite, which actually constitutes a rationale for it.
Anti-plebiscite politicians and commentators believe they can relieve Australia of the people’s will by appeal to representative democracy.
Yet the zenith of representative democracy — the popular democratic election under a system of universal suffrage — yielded a yes vote for the plebiscite as a central feature of the Coalition’s election platform.
In recent years the appeal to representative democracy has been fashioned into a rhetorical tool of convenience to justify everything from policy reversals to unseating prime ministers. It is the default defence of those who seek a ready rationale for acting against the will of the people expressed in federal elections.
And it seems that appeals to representative democracy strip*ped of both genuine representation and democracy are especially popular among the members of left-leaning factions in both major parties.
Such appeals were used to unseat Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd and Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott.
However, hollow appeals to representative democracy threaten its future by subordinating the people’s will to party politics and replacing election mandates with polls.
They are the source of the growing democratic deficit — the vast gulf between the people and the elites — producing political instability across the West.
The government has a mandate to pass the bill for a plebiscite on same-sex marriage.
The mandate was provided by millions of Australians who voted for the Coalition in the July election.
Labor would have liked to win the election with its opposing campaign to legislate for same-sex marriage in parliament. But it did not win.
Having lost the popular vote, Labor seeks to subvert democracy by blocking the plebiscite.
The worrying implication is that the Left may actually loathe the people and mistrust democracy as much as its anti-plebiscite propaganda suggests.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e/news-story/3ae2adef86bd5b8557b8335b6e90efcf
There is something rather dangerous about the gay marriage debate — and it is not homosexuality or marriage.
It is the view widely held by our political Left that *liberal democratic precepts can be overridden whenever they interfere with politically correct ideology.
Not content merely to deny the democratic mandate of millions who endorsed the same-sex marriage plebiscite by voting the Coalition into power, Labor is sowing civil hatred as social order.
The abysmal and divisive new ethos of Labor is the audacity of hate.
I think it would be fair to surmise that the opposition’s legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus doesn’t suffer from an excess of modesty.
But even so, his idea that the government should “win over” Labor by compromising on the plebiscite bill is remarkably arrogant. The government has an election mandate to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Labor’s *denial of it constitutes a repudiation of the will of the people.
Having lost its election campaign to deny people a vote on marriage reform, Labor has swung into attack.
It is reframing the plebiscite *debate by exploiting fear and manipulating emotion. In one short week, Labor has succeeded in re*framing the founding principles of liberal democracy as manifestations of hatred — all in the name of love, of course.
In Labor’s grand lexicon of doublespeak, public reason, active citizenship, and the human rights to free thought and speech, freedom of association and religion are mistranslated into forms of *hatred. And the citizen who seeks active participation in democracy by advocating for the same-sex marriage plebiscite is, by extension, hatred personified.
Increasingly it is the case that whenever a question of social reform arises, the political Left reverts to the audacity of hate to coerce people into conformity.
Its default position is to mob and vilify dissenters.
It acts as though Australia were a country under democratic socialism rather than liberal democracy.
Like revolutionary socialism, the democratic model holds socialism as the only end of democracy, but its tenets are introduced using the state and associ*ated institutions rather than militant revolution.
During the past week, the socialist Left position on gay marriage has been promulgated by Labor, the Greens and the state media institutions that consistently prosecute the Left party line: SBS and the ABC.
In news and on current affairs programs, the ABC has so aggressively campaigned for the socialist Left’s anti-plebiscite position, it appeared there was no alternative. And that is perfectly consistent with the one-party-rule ethos of democratic socialism.
But it just happens to run counter to the Australian people’s will — namely, the democratic mandate for a plebiscite endorsed at the federal election.
Whenever a pro-plebiscite voice is raised, the Left howls it down in a chorus of contempt. Predictably, Christians and conservatives are the principal victims of the Left’s pre-emptive moral infallibility. For example, when it looked as though Stephen O’Doherty, chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, was winning the plebiscite debate on ABC’s The Drum, host Julia Baird interrupted to prosecute an anti-plebiscite line in unison with the other panellists.
Tony Jones, the host of ABC’s Q&A, so routinely interrupts politically incorrect panellists that the online forum Catallaxy Files holds bids for “interruption lotto” before each show.
The tendency of the political Left to contort democracy whenever it conflicts with politically correct ideology is evident also in its main counter-argument to the plebiscite, which actually constitutes a rationale for it.
Anti-plebiscite politicians and commentators believe they can relieve Australia of the people’s will by appeal to representative democracy.
Yet the zenith of representative democracy — the popular democratic election under a system of universal suffrage — yielded a yes vote for the plebiscite as a central feature of the Coalition’s election platform.
In recent years the appeal to representative democracy has been fashioned into a rhetorical tool of convenience to justify everything from policy reversals to unseating prime ministers. It is the default defence of those who seek a ready rationale for acting against the will of the people expressed in federal elections.
And it seems that appeals to representative democracy strip*ped of both genuine representation and democracy are especially popular among the members of left-leaning factions in both major parties.
Such appeals were used to unseat Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd and Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott.
However, hollow appeals to representative democracy threaten its future by subordinating the people’s will to party politics and replacing election mandates with polls.
They are the source of the growing democratic deficit — the vast gulf between the people and the elites — producing political instability across the West.
The government has a mandate to pass the bill for a plebiscite on same-sex marriage.
The mandate was provided by millions of Australians who voted for the Coalition in the July election.
Labor would have liked to win the election with its opposing campaign to legislate for same-sex marriage in parliament. But it did not win.
Having lost the popular vote, Labor seeks to subvert democracy by blocking the plebiscite.
The worrying implication is that the Left may actually loathe the people and mistrust democracy as much as its anti-plebiscite propaganda suggests.
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
Yeah it's completely unnatural. A figment of mind.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
So orphans shouldn't be adopted?
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,657
- Reactions
- 11,958
I didn't realise that IVF Australia was so overt about proudly providing livestock commodities to the LGBxyz community as that ad shows.
That sort of thing should be shut down imo, it does more harm to the children it produces than the good it does for the customers.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
There was a expert woman of note on ABC yesterday who was concerned about the manufactured three parent baby born a couple of days ago. She pointed out that the only thing in over abundance is people and admitted she thought IVF is tilting at windmills.
It's fairly obvious the promotion of LGBxyz is very much in part by people with their own peccadilloes flocking to the rescue of others in supposed distress. In a society where everyone gets a medal, everyone is equal, everyone has hurt feelings, there is no time to consider children let alone thousands of years of orthodoxy based on decency .
It seems that trend setters like orphaned kids, ghetto kids, sexually abused kids, children in the attic, etc are an excuse to willingly produce more of their kind because they already exist ... not abate the situation, but add to it ...a grotesque situation that apparently knows no shame !?
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,423
- Reactions
- 18,084
which is why a plebicite is the right way to go in my opinion.
But i tend to agree that some of the left radicals use this, in the same way as the fanatical feminists do in their own domains, to follow an agenda.
"out of chaos and from the ashes will a new brave world be born"
i push a little bit but that is the general idea
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,423
- Reactions
- 18,084
of course it is.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,289
