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.
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.
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.”
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?