Gay Marriage

[sydboy007]

They are one in the same, overhang, just like the islamic extremists, the homosexuals are trying to implement their lifestyle on our children.
Their activists are the same and crush people that don't agree.
They go through the same means, using PC, to silence the majority.

As I have said -- Political correctness is an insidious poison.
It prevents issues of vital importance from being discussed, and lets evil flourish unchecked.

I am standing up for Marriage -- Civil Unions are fine.

Tink, can you provide just one example of where political correctness has blocked your ability to speak your mind in public? I know it's been asked of you a few times in the past, but it would definitely help to understand your point of view with how PC has impacted you directly.

 

[Tisme]

Tink, can you provide just one example of where political correctness has blocked your ability to speak your mind in public? I know it's been asked of you a few times in the past, but it would definitely help to understand your point of view with how PC has impacted you directly.

I think we know what Tink is on about. The prospect of forced politeness is aggravating. There are already vilification laws in place where they weren't required for multiple generations before, but for the very few who couldn't care less about being pinged in exchange for hurling abuse.

We all know that the marriage act will be changed, merely by the onslaught of the opinion leaders. It's only right those who put great importance in marriage should be able to put in the good fight and go down screaming. Any negatives and failures on future generations will be the responsibility of future generations....probably thuggery Muslim the way we are giving them guest treatment.

 

[sydboy007]

I think we know what Tink is on about. The prospect of forced politeness is aggravating. There are already vilification laws in place where they weren't required for multiple generations before, but for the very few who couldn't care less about being pinged in exchange for hurling abuse.

We all know that the marriage act will be changed, merely by the onslaught of the opinion leaders. It's only right those who put great importance in marriage should be able to put in the good fight and go down screaming. Any negatives and failures on future generations will be the responsibility of future generations....probably thuggery Muslim the way we are giving them guest treatment.

So you don't think minorities groups need protection from people being able to stand up on their soap box and say thing like gays should be bashed or killed? Kill the Chinks?

When you're a member of the majority it's easy to be blase about the need for protections from the majority.

I don't believe anyone has said Tink or yourself don't have the right to air your opinions. Just as myself and others have the right to challenge the validity of what you say.

To give you an example of what I'm talking about, in the early 90s i was dating an Aboriginal guy. He's a member of an established Aboriginal dance company. One night after going to a movie we decided to go out to a club. There was a few of his friends with us. We were refused entry as we weren't members. The interesting thing is no one was asked in the preceding 30 mins if we they were members, nor was anyone after us asked as well. Turns out the club didn't have any form of membership.

I'm not sure why we were discriminated against. Was it racial? Was it the fact a couple of the guys in the group were a bit on the flamboyant side? If discrimination based on race / sex / sexuality is OK, then it saddens me that is the society we have allowed here.

 

[SirRumpole]

So you don't think minorities groups need protection from people being able to stand up on their soap box and say thing like gays should be bashed or killed? Kill the Chinks?

When you're a member of the majority it's easy to be blase about the need for protections from the majority.

I don't believe anyone has said Tink or yourself don't have the right to air your opinions. Just as myself and others have the right to challenge the validity of what you say.

If SSM went to a plebiscite and was soundly defeated, should the SSM lobby accept the result and stop campaigning ?

 

[sydboy007]

i'd normally say only in america, but some of the comments here makes me think there's be omeone saying the same thing

http://www.wect.com/story/29505071/...icy-after-lifeguard-flies-lgbt-flag-off-stand

Carolina Beach is changing town policy after a lifeguard reportedly decided to fly a rainbow flag from one of the lifeguard stands, supporting the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community on the Fourth of July.

“Pretty much immediately someone complained,” Zach Hupp said. “Told one of the other lifeguards that they thought because I was flying that flag that I would only rescue gay people.”

I'd love to know how you'd determine if a drowning person was gay. maybe it's the affectatious way they're signalling for help, their lisp, or some other facet of the gay lifestyle /sarc

 

[Tisme]

So you don't think minorities groups need protection from people being able to stand up on their soap box and say thing like gays should be bashed or killed? Kill the Chinks?

When you're a member of the majority it's easy to be blase about the need for protections from the majority.

I don't believe anyone has said Tink or yourself don't have the right to air your opinions. Just as myself and others have the right to challenge the validity of what you say.

I'm not baiting you and of course people should be protected, including being called witch in front of Canberra Parliament. I'm just saying very few of us want to be told how to behave when it's some low life who resorts to name calling and abuse to terrify people that should be taken to account.

There certainly are a few members here who do infact travel too far from the undercroft of their bridge, instead of giving three billy goats gruff. They do resort to name calling and insult when they can't crack the obstinate egg..... I think misinterpretation of bigot is one of their favourite taunts.

 

[sydboy007]

If SSM went to a plebiscite and was soundly defeated, should the SSM lobby accept the result and stop campaigning ?

I don't know. It's a bit like asking Tink to speak fro the religious right.

I'm not out marching for it like I did in the 90s for the anti vilification laws.

I do understand why quite a few want the equality afford via same sex marriage.

How would a plebiscite coming out in strong support of gay marriage cause you to change your views?

 

[sydboy007]

I'm not baiting you and of course people should be protected, including being called witch in front of Canberra Parliament. I'm just saying very few of us want to be told how to behave when it's some low life who resorts to name calling and abuse to terrify people that should be taken to account.

There certainly are a few members here who do infact travel too far from the undercroft of their bridge, instead of giving three billy goats gruff. They do resort to name calling and insult when they can't crack the obstinate egg..... I think misinterpretation of bigot is one of their favourite taunts.

yet you claim homosexuality is a life style and go on to add

Of course it is. You think the gay fashion, the gay lisp, the arm gesticulations are congenital? If they are it just proves how gays aren't normal, doesn't it. It's just like the push for marriage, it's just another fad to accommodate the socialists/fabians who need to rage against the machine.

So on the one hand you feel justified to make wildly inaccurate claims, but on the other feel minorities need to be protected.

Can you explain why anyone would choose to be gay? I think it's a lot easier for the millennials, but when I was growing up news papers ran blatantly homophobic stories and in some states it was still against the law. bashings were still fairly commong. My house mate was beaten to a pulb going out for his birthday in the late 90s. I came home to find a blood trail from the gate to front door to a pool of it in the kitchen. Freaked me out as no one was home. His face loked like raw meat for nearly 2 weeks. The doctor at the emergency department feared his eye might be damaged, luckily it wasn't. A bunch of late teens to early 20s thought it was Ok to beat him up and steal his wallet simply for being gay. They didn't understand why the police arrested them. He was their 3rd victim of the night.

So why would anyone want to choose to be a pariah of society, where the majority still do their darned best to link you as a paedophile if you're gay. Quite often that's the insinuation of why gays would want to have children. I'm not ashamed of who I am, but I do know my life would have been much much easier to navigate when I was younger had I been heterosexual. I definitely didn't choose to be gay, yet alone to live the lifestyle.

 

[SirRumpole]

How would a plebiscite coming out in strong support of gay marriage cause you to change your views?

Gay Marriage doesn't particularly bother me, but gay parenting does. One may lead to a greater acceptance of the other which I think will be bad for children.

Whatever, I think there needs to be a plebiscite with full discussion beforehand and not just the bandwagon that is being ridden on by some politicians and the media.

 

[sydboy007]

Gay Marriage doesn't particularly bother me, but gay parenting does. One may lead to a greater acceptance of the other which I think will be bad for children.

Whatever, I think there needs to be a plebiscite with full discussion beforehand and not just the bandwagon that is being ridden on by some politicians and the media.

Do your fears have any validity in the countries that have had SSM for a decade or more?

How old do you believe a child from a SSM would have to be before you could begin to determine any harm from only having single sex parents?

Are you against homosexuals from being foster parents? I believe most states allow this. There's an acute shortage of people being willing to be foster parents?

Would you believe it preferable that children are looked after institutionally than placed with a single gay or couple?

Foster care can be for a few days to extended periods. An aunt and uncle have taken the 3 children of drug addled relatives and will likely have them till they all grow up considering how little the biological parents want to turn their lives around. In a situation like this would you block a same sex couple helping the children? This is the real world we live in.

It's funny how there's so much gnashing of teeth around SSM and gay parenting, but i don't hear much from those same people about how their agitating for the harm that is currently befalling children. Possibly over 600,000 children living in poverty. That's a disgrace for what is one of the richest countries in the world. over 55,000 confirmed cases of child abuse each year around the country, yet more time and effort is spent on SSM than the more pressing issue of how to protect children from real and current harm.

What ifs are easy, taking concrete action requires a bit more effort.

 

[SirRumpole]

Do your fears have any validity in the countries that have had SSM for a decade or more?

I don't know because I don't think people have really looked at the facts, and how children raised by gay parents feel once they grow up and have children of their own (by natural means).

Here is one example (originally posted by trainspotter)

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

How old do you believe a child from a SSM would have to be before you could begin to determine any harm from only having single sex parents?

Once they leave their parents house and can make up their own minds.

Are you against homosexuals from being foster parents? I believe most states allow this. There's an acute shortage of people being willing to be foster parents?

A good heterosexual environment would be preferable.

Would you believe it preferable that children are looked after institutionally than placed with a single gay or couple?

Depends on circumstances. I don't believe that heterosexual kids (as most will be) should be exposed to relationships that are not in their nature.

It's funny how there's so much gnashing of teeth around SSM and gay parenting, but i don't hear much from those same people about how their agitating for the harm that is currently befalling children. Possibly over 600,000 children living in poverty. That's a disgrace for what is one of the richest countries in the world. over 55,000 confirmed cases of child abuse each year around the country, yet more time and effort is spent on SSM than the more pressing issue of how to protect children from real and current harm.

What ifs are easy, taking concrete action requires a bit more effort.

This is a bit of a red herring. Child abuse and domestic violence is a real problem and should be tackled, but there is nothing to say that gay couples are any less subject to domestic disputes that straights.

 

[galumay]

How many more hackneyed clichés do you have in that box of yours. You forgot to segue in the deep south of USA and blacks.

Why do you gays have to resort to labels when you can't come up with a valid reason for wrecking an institution that probably seeded your own births.

More shrill hysteria, what "hackneyed cliches" have i used?

What 'labels' are you rambling on about? I dont have any valid reasons for "wrecking an institution" because I am not proposing to wreck one.

We have repeatedley asked you to give us one reasonable justification for continuing the discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, you have abjectly failed to do so.

In case you dont know, sex is what "seeded" our births, not marriage.

Once again, do you have ANY plausible reason to think the civil act of marriage would be damaged, let alone 'wrecked' by removing the discrimination as proposed?

 

[galumay]

They are one in the same, overhang, just like the islamic extremists, the homosexuals are trying to implement their lifestyle on our children.
Their activists are the same and crush people that don't agree.
They go through the same means, using PC, to silence the majority.

As I have said -- Political correctness is an insidious poison.
It prevents issues of vital importance from being discussed, and lets evil flourish unchecked.

I am standing up for Marriage -- Civil Unions are fine.

Oh dear, bring out the tin hats! Do you really believe this conspiracy theory stuff? Do you think there are rooms full of gays and islamic extremists plotting to turn us into gay moslems!!!

(BTW, neither are "lifestyles", one is a sexuality and the other is a religion.)

Wooo...look out for the gays trying to crush people who dont agree! - why is those supporting an end to the discrimination are the reasonable and calm ones then and the religious conservatives are the conspiracy theorist, extremists who appear to have no rational arguments to support their viewpoint?

I will tell you what is an insidious poison, religious righteousness, It prevents issues of vital importance from being discussed, and lets evil flourish unchecked.

Finally marriage is a civil union, it is legislated for by the state and religious leaders can become qualified to carry out the act of the civil union of marriage.

You too, dont have to marry another person of the same gender if you dont want to.

 

[Value Collector]

the homosexuals are trying to implement their lifestyle on our children.

Your children (or future generations of your family), will be born with whatever sexuality they are born with, no one can change that. I just support their right express their sexuality and life style in an open way.

It's actually you that is trying to force a life style on your children, not the homosexuals.

I want equal rights, you want unequal rights, I want to give your children more freedom, you seek to deny freedoms.

 

[trainspotter]

Your children (or future generations of your family), will be born with whatever sexuality they are born with, no one can change that. I just support their right express their sexuality and life style in an open way.

It's actually you that is trying to force a life style on your children, not the homosexuals.

I want equal rights, you want unequal rights, I want to give your children more freedom, you seek to deny freedoms.

Do you have children VC?

 

[trainspotter]

Oh dear, bring out the tin hats! Do you really believe this conspiracy theory stuff? Do you think there are rooms full of gays and islamic extremists plotting to turn us into gay moslems!!!

(BTW, neither are "lifestyles", one is a sexuality and the other is a religion.)

Wooo...look out for the gays trying to crush people who dont agree! - why is those supporting an end to the discrimination are the reasonable and calm ones then and the religious conservatives are the conspiracy theorist, extremists who appear to have no rational arguments to support their viewpoint?

I will tell you what is an insidious poison, religious righteousness, It prevents issues of vital importance from being discussed, and lets evil flourish unchecked.

Finally marriage is a civil union, it is legislated for by the state and religious leaders can become qualified to carry out the act of the civil union of marriage.

You too, dont have to marry another person of the same gender if you dont want to.

Go and read Lord of the Flies and get a clue as to what you are debating here

 

[Tisme]

More shrill hysteria, what "hackneyed cliches" have i used?

What 'labels' are you rambling on about? I dont have any valid reasons for "wrecking an institution" because I am not proposing to wreck one.

We have repeatedley asked you to give us one reasonable justification for continuing the discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, you have abjectly failed to do so.

In case you dont know, sex is what "seeded" our births, not marriage.

Once again, do you have ANY plausible reason to think the civil act of marriage would be damaged, let alone 'wrecked' by removing the discrimination as proposed?

LOL, it's them and us now.

It's not sexuality, it's a lifestyle choice. Just like marriage is a choice in 1st world countries, unless you live in the deep south USA and allergic to shotguns

The only thing you got right is the sex at birth = female or male

 

[galumay]

LOL, it's them and us now.

Well you do appear to be in the significant minority, so yeah.

It's not sexuality, it's a lifestyle choice. Just like marriage is a choice in 1st world countries, unless you live in the deep south USA and allergic to shotguns

Really you do not make any sense at all, please, if you want to disagree at the very least present some sort of rational and logical point of view. Of course its sexuality - why on earth do you think its called "homosexuality". No intelligent person would seriously suggest gay people 'choose' to be gay or that it is a lifestyle choice.

Why you would then compare sexuality to marriage i have no idea.

The only thing you got right is the sex at birth = female or male

If you are going to quote me, get it right at least.

 

[galumay]

Go and read Lord of the Flies and get a clue as to what you are debating here

You would be drawing a very long bow to conclude that Lord of the Flies describes the sort of "tin hat" conspiracy theories being thown round by the homophobes!

 

[trainspotter]

You would be drawing a very long bow to conclude that Lord of the Flies describes the sort of "tin hat" conspiracy theories being thown round by the homophobes!

If you read the book you would know that one group Biguns is a "church Choir" and they descend the most rapidly into chaos.

"He begins to sob, as do the other boys. Moved and embarrassed, the naval officer turns his back so that the boys may regain their composure."

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/flies/section12.rhtml