Gay Marriage

[Atari rose]

Gay Marriage and the death of freedom?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australi...390702/gay-marriage-and-the-death-of-freedom/

 

[Value Collector]

Well no, it's just that there are laws against free speech these days? Privately, the views expressed by most are somewhat different to the inner city latte set and talking heads, air kissing society types who frequent TV and self appoint themselves as societies moral compass that we must all agree with?

Which laws would stop you stating your opinion on gay marriage?

 

[Value Collector]

Gay Marriage and the death of freedom?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australi...390702/gay-marriage-and-the-death-of-freedom/

Tell me, how exactly does two individuals getting married infringe on your rights or cause you to lose an ounce of freedom?

If there was a ceremony right now, and two lesbians were married and their relationship recognised as a legal marriage, what single freedom do you currently posses that would be taken away by their marriage?

I call bs on your statement.

It's simple, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have a gay marriage, but don't make up a bogus story about how it infringes on your rights in some way.

I have still not heard a single valid argument hear against it.

 

[Tink]

Yes, the lefts new social engineering, Atari rose.

Rights over responsibilities.

They forgot to mention the gays that voiced their opinion, that were ostracised, and their business boycott.
Not even gays are allowed to talk unless it's what they want to hear.

It seems that intolerance and the urge to persecute are endemic in human nature.
Rather than reacting to criticism and arguments with counter-arguments and an ultimate willingness to agree to differ, some authoritarian people attempt to penalise their critics by harming them economically with a boycott, or (as recently in the UK) by trying to dismiss them from their jobs and ensure that they are barred from future employment, or by requiring them to act against their conscience.

It is already happening here, Atari rose, as the PC hordes control the media and what we are allowed to say.

People have been speaking out more after the ABC interviewed those two gay guys that had expressed how hard done by they were for not being able to get married and have children, yet that child in the story was being abused around the world.

We will hear a lot more of that, and learn that the era of liberation was not always so good for those who never asked to be liberated, hence the children.

Destroy the family, Marriage, the fabric that keeps society together, so that anything goes.
We now have problems with paedophile rings, child pornography which is rampant.

The equality achieved will be - we will all be reduced to the level of animals.

I have still not heard a single valid argument for it, VC.

 

[Tisme]

Destroy the family, Marriage, the fabric that keeps society together, so that anything goes.
We now have problems with paedophile rings, child pornography which is rampant.

The equality achieved will be - we will all be reduced to the level of animals.

I have still not heard a single valid argument for it, VC.

You could always just forget about morals, comfort zones, religion, social cohesion, etc and take a homosexual under your wings and protect him from the big bad people who don't like their customs and traditions eroded. As part of the majority, you apparently have an obligation to embrace the poor unfortunates and defend them (a kinda perverse discrimination that polarises the community and consolidates the disdain).

The danger is when the majority finally have enough of the fad and object in numbers, Hollywood will wheel out more propaganda films to counter the threat to its (largely) immoral acting retinue. Tiresome social engineering flicks that keep the 1%ers in the darling group and food on the table for the actors who oblige.

 

[Value Collector]

Destroy the family, Marriage, the fabric that keeps society together, so that anything goes.
We now have problems with paedophile rings, child pornography which is rampant.

The equality achieved will be - we will all be reduced to the level of animals.

I have still not heard a single valid argument for it, VC.

So how would allowing to Women to marry destroy your family?

How would allowing to women to marry be reducing U.S. To the level of animals?

The most simple argument for gay marriage is that freedom should always be preferred to no freedom, we shouldn't ban something unless we have very good evidence that the thing is harmful to others.

Their are lots of valid reasons to allow gay marriage, but asking me to supply them is shifting the burden of proof. Societies shouldn't start with the notion that everything is banned until it is proven its ok, it should start with the notion that everything is allowed until it can be shown it is harmful.

 

[Value Collector]

You could always just forget about morals, comfort zones, religion, social cohesion, etc and take a homosexual under your wings and protect him from the big bad people who don't like their customs and traditions eroded. As part of the majority, you apparently have an obligation to embrace the poor unfortunates and defend them (a kinda perverse discrimination that polarises the community and consolidates the disdain).

The danger is when the majority finally have enough of the fad and object in numbers, Hollywood will wheel out more propaganda films to counter the threat to its (largely) immoral acting retinue. Tiresome social engineering flicks that keep the 1%ers in the darling group and food on the table for the actors who oblige.

Their is nothing immoral about being gay.

protecting your personal comfort zones is not a valid reason to takes other people's freedoms away.

Society has no obligation to follow your religion, that's like me saying cookies need to be banned because I am on a diet.

Social cohesion comes from tolerating a variety of life styles, and accepting others have the right to live the way they want so long as it doesn't cause direct harm to others or infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Tink]

Tisme, I agree with you, and am standing up for traditional marriage.

In Europe, there is now no tolerance for anyone that disagrees with gay marriage, and that is even if you are gay and against changing the institution.
Your business will be banned.

That was what I was saying.
Not sure where you were coming from with your post.

Freedom of speech is gone

 

[Value Collector]

Tisme, I agree with you, and am standing up for traditional marriage.

.

Traditional marriage is not under threat, no one is suggesting taking away your right to have a traditional marriage

But I would like you to answer the questions I posed to you.

So how would allowing two Women to marry destroy your family?

How would allowing two women to marry be reducing U.S. To the level of animals?

If you really want traditional biblical marriage, well that often included selling women to men as property, capture women in battle and taking them as wives, forcing women to marry their rapist, etc I don't really think you want that, so your version of marriage is a relatively modern one any way.

 

[sydboy007]

Yes, the lefts new social engineering, Atari rose.

Rights over responsibilities.

They forgot to mention the gays that voiced their opinion, that were ostracised, and their business boycott.
Not even gays are allowed to talk unless it's what they want to hear.

It seems that intolerance and the urge to persecute are endemic in human nature.
Rather than reacting to criticism and arguments with counter-arguments and an ultimate willingness to agree to differ, some authoritarian people attempt to penalise their critics by harming them economically with a boycott, or (as recently in the UK) by trying to dismiss them from their jobs and ensure that they are barred from future employment, or by requiring them to act against their conscience.

It is already happening here, Atari rose, as the PC hordes control the media and what we are allowed to say.

People have been speaking out more after the ABC interviewed those two gay guys that had expressed how hard done by they were for not being able to get married and have children, yet that child in the story was being abused around the world.

We will hear a lot more of that, and learn that the era of liberation was not always so good for those who never asked to be liberated, hence the children.

Destroy the family, Marriage, the fabric that keeps society together, so that anything goes.
We now have problems with paedophile rings, child pornography which is rampant.

The equality achieved will be - we will all be reduced to the level of animals.

I have still not heard a single valid argument for it, VC.

So exactly how would a married Gay couple have a more detrimental effect on the solemn institution of marriage that what heterosexual people have? Gay marriage in some countries is relatively recent, yet marriage has in many ways has been eroded and sullied by heterosexual infidelity, heterosexual spousal and child abuse, heterosexual polygamy and bigamy, heterosexual divorce.

What would gay marriage do to the institution of marriage that heterosexual people have not already done to undermine it?

Heterosexual people abuse children, so by your abc interview logic, all heterosexuals should be banned from having or adoption children, and leaving children unattended with any religious leader would be tantamount to wanton child abuse. The RC into child abuse is continually shedding light on heterosexual sanction and committed child abuse. One would think children around heterosexuals are in constant danger of being abused.

If the PC hordes control the media, then how was Maurice Newman able to have an opinion piece published today that says AGW is a giant conspiracy to bring in a UN one world Govt? Could it be that not many people actually have the extreme religious views that you do, and therefore don't have much of a problem with gay marriage?

Please explain to me how gay marriage brings us down to the level of animals. To be honest as a gay man I find that idea to be downright offensive. How about you base your arguments on facts rather than religious ideology? I'd argue not using critical thought, but rather placing uncritical blind faith in religious texts and supposed infallible religious leaders, brings us closer to behaving like unthinking reactionary animals.

 

[Value Collector]

.

Freedom of speech is gone

not true, you are free to say what ever you want, and people are free to avoid you if after you speak they decide they don't want to associate with you.

The guy that owns my local fish and chip shop is free to say he hates blacks and that gays should be stoned, If he did honestly believe those things, then I would find some where else to buy my calamari snack pack and serve of tartare sauce.

That doesn't mean I have taken away his freedom of speech, freedom of speech doesn't mean people should be forced to associate with you if they find you repugnant.

 

[Tink]

You still haven't answered mine, VC.

For what reason do gays need to force children to know about their sexual lifestyle through schools?
Why do they need to change marriage by law?

Why aren't you standing up for incest, polygamy, and all these others that pay taxes that can't get married?
What makes gays better than them?

You are the one that keeps talking about discrimination.

I have given my reasons -- a father and mother and their child is equal, nothing else needs to be changed.

 

[Value Collector]

You still haven't answered mine, VC.

For what reason do gays need to force children to know about their sexual lifestyle through schools?



.

What are you talking about?

Are you talking about the existence of gays being mentioned during a sex ed class? If so well I think that's a valid thing to talk about, because 1, some of the children in the classes will be gay 2, the children will be growing up in a society that has members who are gay, So it's important to understand it because later in life their friends, children or family may be gay.

Why do they need to change marriage by law?

Because at the moment the laws are not inclusive of gays

Why aren't you standing up for incest, polygamy, and all these others that pay taxes that can't get married?
What makes gays better than them?

those are separate topics, but I don't have a problem with consensual polygamy, doubt there would be many people out there that want that life style, but if there were, I don't care if that's the way they want to live. I guess you would have the burden of proof to show that polygamy is harmful to others.

When it comes to incest, that can be shown to cause harm to the resulting off spring, So the water is muddy there, But If someone wants to marry their cousin or brother or sister, that's their business. It's not what I would do, but as long as its consensual and doesn't cause harm, It's up to them. Maybe there would be a case for outlawing close relatives from breeding, but we would have to look to the science on that.

 

[Hodgie]

The guy that owns my local fish and chip shop is free to say he hates blacks and that gays should be stoned, If he did honestly believe those things, then I would find some where else to buy my calamari snack pack and serve of tartare sauce.

He may find himself in trouble with the law if the guy at your local fish and chip shop says those types of things, especially to a black or gay. There are limits to freedom to speech which is reasonable in some cases.

Similar situation to this racist women being issues with an infringement which carries a penalty of up to $1,100.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-issued-transport-infringement-after-racist-rant-20150507-ggwqh8.html

 

[Value Collector]

He may find himself in trouble with the law if the guy at your local fish and chip shop says those types of things, especially to a black or gay. There are limits to freedom to speech which is reasonable in some cases.

Freedom of speech laws do not protect you in the event you are harassing someone or Making public statements about an individual which are untrue.

Eg. you can stand in a public square and state your opinions about tony abbot till the cows come home, However you can't stand their and call him a paedophile, unless it's true, and if he decides to sue you for saying that, then you won't be protected by the freedom of speech laws, because you said things that were untrue.


You also can't follow some one down the street harassing them on an individual level. eg. If Tink was wearing something that identified hear as a catholic, Freedom of speech does not give me the right to harass her and state untruths and false accusations

 

[McLovin]

Freedom of speech laws do not protect you in the event you are harassing someone or Making public statements about an individual which are untrue.

Eg. you can stand in a public square and state your opinions about tony abbot till the cows come home, However you can't stand their and call him a paedophile, unless it's true, and if he decides to sue you for saying that, then you won't be protected by the freedom of speech laws, because you said things that were untrue.


You also can't follow some one down the street harassing them on an individual level.

Speech as expression is generally free. Speech as conduct has legislated limits. Consider two people yelling fire in a crowded theatre, one is on stage acting the other is in the audience and wants to create panic. One is speech as expression the other is speech as conduct.

 

[sydboy007]

If this is how non gays behave, in a devoutly Catholic country, I'm waiting to see how anyone can argue gay marriage could be any more harmful to children.

http://m.smh.com.au/world/the-horri...s-tearing-paraguay-apart-20150512-ggzcb2.html

 

[Tink]

Syd, I think we have been through this many times, and this subject has been done to death.

Standing up for Traditional Marriage is standing up for truth, biological truth, and family values, exactly what Marriage means.

Marriage should not be changed by law, and children in schools should be taught the gold standard.
Mothers and fathers with their children.

Making children medical and social experiments is not part of marriage.

The left have become as authoritarian as what you complain about, in their pursuit for themselves on social engineering.
Rights before responsibilities.

 

[Tisme]

If this is how non gays behave, in a devoutly Catholic country, I'm waiting to see how anyone can argue gay marriage could be any more harmful to children.

http://m.smh.com.au/world/the-horri...s-tearing-paraguay-apart-20150512-ggzcb2.html

Disgusting behaviour and reinforces the need/desire for ordered society with sacrosanct rules. Unfortunately the strictness of those rules and penalties is dependent on the most morally corrupt amongst us, therefore restricting our freedoms of the jungle.

I'm not sure there is a corollary for poor behaviour being a positive determinant for a disparate cause. The only linkage is child abuse of one kind or another; mental, social, physical, etc.

 

[sydboy007]

Syd, I think we have been through this many times, and this subject has been done to death.

Standing up for Traditional Marriage is standing up for truth, biological truth, and family values, exactly what Marriage means.

Marriage should not be changed by law, and children in schools should be taught the gold standard.
Mothers and fathers with their children.

Making children medical and social experiments is not part of marriage.

The left have become as authoritarian as what you complain about, in their pursuit for themselves on social engineering.
Rights before responsibilities.

Yet you gloss over the fact that this poor girl is being forced, due to Catholicism in the country, to have the child. Talk about punishing the victim.

Your gold standard is too often more like a lump of rusted steel. Even the concept that a single parent family is inferior harks back to the good old days where women who had children out of wedlock were scorned and looked down upon by society.

You brought up the issue of the gay couple on the ABC:

People have been speaking out more after the ABC interviewed those two gay guys that had expressed how hard done by they were for not being able to get married and have children, yet that child in the story was being abused around the world.

and used that as an argument against gay marriage.

But how do you reconcile what is happening in too often in traditional marriages? Is it right to judge a group of people before they have even done something wrong?

Can I suggest you have a read of the below Govt publication. It might help you to realise that children are already have same sex parents and are growing up with no issues.

https://www3.aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/same-sex-parented-families-australia

Overall, research to date considerably challenges the point of view that same-sex parented families are harmful to children. Children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families.

Further information can be found at

http://groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Griffiths ACP 2 11.pdf

In contrast to these claims, there are no known detrimental effects of being raised by homosexual parents in any academic literature (Patterson, 2005). Children raised in such families display typical age-appropriate emotional, cognitive and social development
(Patterson, 2005) and furthermore, display higher levels of positive attributes such as a higher tolerance of diversity than children raised in heterosexual families (Negy & McKinny, 2006). No significant differences in gender identity, gender role behaviour, or sexual orientation have been found in research comparing children raised by heterosexual parents with children raised by homosexual parents (Golding, 2006).

The reality is very different to your beliefs / bias / perception.