Gay Marriage

[Ald123]

It is seriously both hilarious and embarrassing reading this thread... The highlights should be printed and posted in a museum in about 20 years time...

Do you people against same sex marriage even realise that GAY PEOPLE ALREADY LIVE TOGETHER IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS, MILLIONS OF THEM????

Do you realise that GAY PEOPLE CAN ALREADY HAVE CHILDREN IF THEY WANT TO? (most prefer a couple of Dachshunds)

Just because they get married isn't going to change a bloody thing and yet it means so much to them. It is the ultimate commitment to one another.

What is wrong with you people seriously? Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? Can you not see that this is inevitable? It is just a matter of time... You don't have to like it but you will have to accept it. You're like children that have a toy that you're bored with but you won't let the other kid have it because you can see how badly they want it.... Have a heart and and stop embarrassing yourselves. AND for gods sake stop hiding behind this "it's all about the children" argument. THIS ISN'T ABOUT LEGALISING CHILDREN INTO GAY RELATIONSHIPS, THAT ALREADY EXISTS! Open another thread if that's what your issue is!

Be honest with yourselves and GROW THE HELL UP.... The next generation is coming


View attachment 63221

Watch and wait what happens, then you will see.

For me it's about dilution of the value of my marriage and the dilution of a principle that should be held sacrosanct.

Nothing wrong with civil unions, between humans and animals if they so wish, I don't even give a damn about 1 woman having a civil union with ten other women and 3 men and a blue whale. Give these unions the same rights, don't allow any form of discrimination.

But get your hands of the value of my marriage and its single meaning and the legacy of it that I want to pass down to my kids. Don't go teaching my children your views, because I care about my bloodline, it's good name and its survival down the generation. Don't go degrading my morals and my beliefs. I won't interfere in yours you leave mine alone. Go get your own name for your definition of your same sex unions and f-off from mine.

Marriage is between a single man and a single woman, always has been, always will be. No descendant of mine will ever be taught different.

If the filthy rich lobby (probably the majority of gays who have no stress due to no family life and plenty of income due to no children) managed to get laws changed in another patently stupid country that's their problem America is a parasite anyway, which by the way if you read the opinion of the dissenting judges you see that Americans took their constitution and just threw it away into the dirt pile of being able to be changed by judges when this was only to be possible by the people.

Get your own name for your own particular sex Union. Don't come attacking us for ours. Have some decency and respect what is ours.

 

[Logique]

Is this the future we want? As Sen Abetz said this morning, this is a Pandoras Box.

The case for same sex marriage has neither been fully nor honestly made. Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

As for a majority wanting it - you mean like the majority supposedly wanted the republic? Look how that turned out.

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/18/local/me-mom18

Lesbian Sues Over Physician's Refusal to Do Insemination

Appeals court reviews case that pits civil rights claim against a doctor who declined for religious reasons to perform procedure.

February 18, 2003|Peter Y. Hong | Times Staff Writer

Eager to start a family, Lupita Benitez asked her doctor to help her conceive a child through artificial insemination. Benitez thought her request was routine -- just another of many from women who face infertility and seek medical help to get pregnant.

But Benitez's doctor, Christine Z. Brody, refused to perform the procedure. Her reason: Benitez is a lesbian, and Brody said it was against her Christian beliefs to help a homosexual become pregnant.

After that 1999 appointment in her doctor's office in the San Diego suburb of Vista, Benitez filed a civil rights lawsuit against Brody and the doctor's medical group. The trial court initially dismissed the lawsuit. Now the matter is before the 4th District California Court of Appeal in San Diego....

 

[SirRumpole]

Is this the future we want? As Sen Abetz said this morning, this is a Pandoras Box.

The case for same sex marriage has neither been fully nor honestly made. Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

As for a majority wanting it - you mean like the majority supposedly wanted the republic? Look how that turned out.

Best way out is to hold a plebiscite.

 

[Logique]

No one is trying to change the constitution, what the majority of Australians want is the legal definition of marriage to be changed. This requires an amendment to the Marriage Act 1961.

When the ACT legalised same sex marriage in 2013, it went to the High Court, who ruled against it as invalid under the constitution.

This was because of the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act. Hence, a change to the Marriage Act is a change to the constitution.

 

[SirRumpole]

When the ACT legalised same sex marriage in 2013, it went to the High Court, who ruled against it as invalid under the constitution.

This was because of the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act. Hence, a change to the Marriage Act is a change to the constitution.

If that were the case, then the Parliament could not change the Marriage Act without a referendum. I don't think that is the case.

 

[Ald123]

Is this the future we want? As Sen Abetz said this morning, this is a Pandoras Box.

The case for same sex marriage has neither been fully nor honestly made. Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

As for a majority wanting it - you mean like the majority supposedly wanted the republic? Look how that turned out.

There you go an example of an lgbt who does not respect the right of another human being to have their own freedom.

If I go to the dentist and tell the doctor to remove my front teeth and he says no he won't, I then go to court and sue him? What a terrorist this lgbt person has become.

I go to the city with my children and I see a gay parade with such lewdness shoved into my face. I don't see a normal peaceful march, my children get scared and confused.

I go to the local beach which has a nude section and there are only gay people openly having sex and soliciting in the dunes. Is it their right to do that and my discrimination against them if I object to my kids seeing that.

Why are my rights not important?

 

[Value Collector]

Watch and wait what happens, then you will see.

For me it's about dilution of the value of my marriage and the dilution of a principle that should be held sacrosanct.

.

How would it dilute the value of your marriage?

 

[Value Collector]

There you go an example of an lgbt who does not respect the right of another human being to have their own freedom.

If I go to the dentist and tell the doctor to remove my front teeth and he says no he won't, I then go to court and sue him? What a terrorist this lgbt person has become.

I go to the city with my children and I see a gay parade with such lewdness shoved into my face. I don't see a normal peaceful march, my children get scared and confused.

I go to the local beach which has a nude section and there are only gay people openly having sex and soliciting in the dunes. Is it their right to do that and my discrimination against them if I object to my kids seeing that.

Why are my rights not important?

Lol, maybe you should stop taking your children out to nude beaches and gay parades.

 

[sydboy007]

Watch and wait what happens, then you will see.

For me it's about dilution of the value of my marriage and the dilution of a principle that should be held sacrosanct.

Nothing wrong with civil unions, between humans and animals if they so wish, I don't even give a damn about 1 woman having a civil union with ten other women and 3 men and a blue whale. Give these unions the same rights, don't allow any form of discrimination.

But get your hands of the value of my marriage and its single meaning and the legacy of it that I want to pass down to my kids. Don't go teaching my children your views, because I care about my bloodline, it's good name and its survival down the generation. Don't go degrading my morals and my beliefs. I won't interfere in yours you leave mine alone. Go get your own name for your definition of your same sex unions and f-off from mine.

Marriage is between a single man and a single woman, always has been, always will be. No descendant of mine will ever be taught different.

If the filthy rich lobby (probably the majority of gays who have no stress due to no family life and plenty of income due to no children) managed to get laws changed in another patently stupid country that's their problem America is a parasite anyway, which by the way if you read the opinion of the dissenting judges you see that Americans took their constitution and just threw it away into the dirt pile of being able to be changed by judges when this was only to be possible by the people.

Get your own name for your own particular sex Union. Don't come attacking us for ours. Have some decency and respect what is ours.

lets delver into the concept of sacrosant. The dictionary definition is very sacred or holy; inviolable. sacrosanctity, sacrosanctness, noun. Word Origin. C17: from Latin sacrōsanctus made holy by sacred rite, from sacrō by sacred rite, from sacer holy + sanctus, from sancīre to hallow

Judging by this, there would be a religious element into you belief that the current form of marriage is how God intended? But as others have shown, in the bible polygamy was condoned by God, even had instructions from him. Concubines AKA sex slaves were also quite acceptable. Even Jesus had no issues with polygamy or concubines. So why is the current restriced form of marriage held us as the will of God, as the only for of marriage that is right?

Many gays are not filthy rich. I don't believe there's a gay billionaire in Australia, and I don't recall there being any openly gay people on the BRW rich list here. I know Paul Zarah is openly gay, and for a time I think he was the only oopen gay CEO on the ASX 200, though now he has Alan Joyce there with him.

Gay do have stress in life, usually due to discrimination and intolerance. Still too many young gays face rejection by family and friends when they come out. Gay life is certainly not all sunshine and lollipops. There's plenty of heterosexual couples and singles who choose not to have children. I work with some straight couples that choose not to have children. What right do you have to judge anyone on how they choose to live their life?

So when interacial couples wanted to get married, do you think it was reasonable for those against them being able to marry had the right to say Get your own name for your own particular sex Union. Don't come attacking us for ours. Have some decency and respect what is ours. I'd argue since you want marriage to be sacrosanct that those who want polygamy and concubines, as the good Lord supported in both the old and new testaments, have first claim to the word marriage and those wanting to have monogamous marriages should have to call their unions something else.

 

[sydboy007]

Is this the future we want? As Sen Abetz said this morning, this is a Pandoras Box.

The case for same sex marriage has neither been fully nor honestly made. Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

As for a majority wanting it - you mean like the majority supposedly wanted the republic? Look how that turned out.

Just how exactly would Same sex changes to the Marriage Act would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

No political wishy washyness please. I'd like some specific examples of how you believe this would occur.

As for the example of the doctor you provided. Would you support a doctor that refused life saving treatment to a homosexual on the basis of their religion? At what point does someones religious beliefs over ride law and the secular state? Do we renounce discriminations laws so those who don't like <insert minority group> can just tell them to F off? Would it be OK for a gay run business to refuse to serve Christians and Muslims due to the centuries of persecution they've dished out to homosexuals? In your doctors case, would it be Ok for a gay doctor to refuse to treat a religious person?

 

[Trembling Hand]

 

[luutzu]

No, Luutzu, I don't agree with changing Marriage, and I have given my reasons why.

As stated in this video, there is no benefit to same sex marriage in society, it actually harms society.
I have also added more throughout this thread.

This trying to steamroll people with this victim mentality, doesn't wash.

How does gay getting married and deemed equal before the law harm society?

For one, it let the confused and gay children (the one group we're all worried about right?), it let the kids know that it's not a crime or wrong or weird or mutant or otherwise harmful if they happen to be gay, happen to be attracted to Steve instead of Eve.

That would do wonders for gay kids mental and psychological development. Maybe even cause most of them to not be so depressed and morose as to become poets and artists

Serious though, there are cases where young gay teens commit suicide due to bullying or just self-loathing caused by social disdain and discrimination. Making it legally and socially acceptable for homosexual to get married, have a family if they want to... that will send a good message.

But while it's tough on teen homosexuals, they have come to deal with it and I'm sure most do not grow up with this victimisation mentality - they find strength and resolve issues as we all do, then work, contribute, go about their lives, and work to forced change in the laws and institution that make them out to be some alien, some second class citizens.

Marriage is not like money or goods where if you give it to others it lessens it. And even if legalising gay marriage somehow demean the holy institution of traditional marriage where there's no abuse of children, no abuse of partners, no break-up, no divorce and all live happily ever after... homosexuals are citizens too are they not? So who the heck are we to say they can't enjoy all the natural rights all other citizens are automatically given?

 

[Tink]

Well they are on the same par, TH.

The homosexual activists and the Islamic activists are becoming almost one and the same.
Both are using similar means to achieve similar goals.

 

[Value Collector]

Well they are on the same par, TH.

The homosexual activists and the Islamic activists are becoming almost one and the same.
Both are using similar means to achieve similar goals.

lol Tink, you are fast becoming one of the most hysterical religious nuts I have interacted with.

 

[Tink]

VC, you are only good at putting people down when you have nothing to say, go learn some manners.

Maybe you should think about it before mouthing off.

 

[Ald123]

How would it dilute the value of your marriage?

My marriage is a symbol for ever, to be handed down as an inheritance to my descendants, that they will be happy and our family will continue as a family supporting one another, united and not divided, if they follow my example then we can pass down the riches we accumulate to tide us over against future rascals and governments who wish to steal what my family creates. If amongst them perchance a gay member of family is born, they will be loved but their line will not prosper. It is about my right to say that in my family, the men shall only marry women and the women shall only marry men. It is about being true and owing justice to the creator who in creation instituted it naturally to be so. I will not let it be otherwise.

Keep your hands off our marriages! Get your own word for it.

Call it Gayrriage and go be happy I won't bother you. You can even put it into the constitution for all I care. I want it distinct from my values.

 

[sydboy007]

Well they are on the same par, TH.

The homosexual activists and the Islamic activists are becoming almost one and the same.
Both are using similar means to achieve similar goals.

Actually I think you have far more in common with the activist Islamist trying to force your religious based dogma onto the the rest of us than gays do.

What do you believe Jesus would be saying about same sex marriage? The same Jesus that supported polygamy mind you.

 

[Ald123]

Lol, maybe you should stop taking your children out to nude beaches and gay parades.

Listen I have enough respect for the dignity of the person that I can teach my children that there is nothing wrong with nudity and that it is the natural way of a person. If they become doctors or nurses they will see naked people all the time. I don't raise children with the fault of a prudish mind. Go read up on the harm prudity does in the professional literature and how it creates problems of body image. Body shapes come in all sizes and shapes and I would not want my children to be afflicted by an incorrect philosophy.

Live sex on the other hand is something sacred that happens between two people that love each other in the privacy of their sanctuary.

Do you not see the difference?

Did you ever see what happens on those parades? As it turns out I don't take the children there because I have a brain. Nor do I take my children to beaches where people fornicate. But I should not be the only one protecting my children. We live in a village and everyone should be protecting the children.

Why are you so selfish that you don't want to help protect children form what they are too young to experience?

 

[sydboy007]

VC, you are only good at putting people down when you have nothing to say, go learn some manners.

Maybe you should think about it before mouthing off.

Ah Tink, your level of hypocrisy on this.

On the one hand you claim gays and muslims are the same, but on the other hand you say you shouldn't put people down.

Now let me make a counter claim for you, one that is based on facts.

What does the Catholic Church and Islam have in common? They both protect rapists and child molesters, and condemn and blame the victims.

Maybe you got too carried away with the CNN report of the ISIS flag at the London pride. They never did apologise for the slur, nor correct their mistake for viewers. I wont bother telling you what was actually on the flag, as you might find it offensive.

 

[Ald123]

lets delver into the concept of sacrosant. The dictionary definition is very sacred or holy; inviolable. sacrosanctity, sacrosanctness, noun. Word Origin. C17: from Latin sacrōsanctus made holy by sacred rite, from sacrō by sacred rite, from sacer holy + sanctus, from sancīre to hallow

Judging by this, there would be a religious element into you belief that the current form of marriage is how God intended? But as others have shown, in the bible polygamy was condoned by God, even had instructions from him. Concubines AKA sex slaves were also quite acceptable. Even Jesus had no issues with polygamy or concubines. So why is the current restriced form of marriage held us as the will of God, as the only for of marriage that is right?

Many gays are not filthy rich. I don't believe there's a gay billionaire in Australia, and I don't recall there being any openly gay people on the BRW rich list here. I know Paul Zarah is openly gay, and for a time I think he was the only oopen gay CEO on the ASX 200, though now he has Alan Joyce there with him.

Gay do have stress in life, usually due to discrimination and intolerance. Still too many young gays face rejection by family and friends when they come out. Gay life is certainly not all sunshine and lollipops. There's plenty of heterosexual couples and singles who choose not to have children. I work with some straight couples that choose not to have children. What right do you have to judge anyone on how they choose to live their life?

So when interacial couples wanted to get married, do you think it was reasonable for those against them being able to marry had the right to say Get your own name for your own particular sex Union. Don't come attacking us for ours. Have some decency and respect what is ours. I'd argue since you want marriage to be sacrosanct that those who want polygamy and concubines, as the good Lord supported in both the old and new testaments, have first claim to the word marriage and those wanting to have monogamous marriages should have to call their unions something else.

Actually since the beginning in the bible it was one man and one woman. The corrupt corrupted this and then in the New Testament it was corrected. It was stated that the corruption had occurred.

Stop using things out of context.

Terrible sorry but there is a huge leap of difference between inter-racial but opposite sex marriage, and then a massive chasm to polygamy between opposite sexes and then again an Everest sized leap to discuss relations between the same sexes.

I won't be drawn into this line of reasoning and return to the real world of biology and existence.

A male has a sexual organ used together with the female sexual organ to create a natural child, this has been a precedent nature has selected and placed upon us to bear. This Is hundreds of thousands years old and is inviolable and sacrosanct irrespective of the bible. It is sacrosanct to existence.