Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Gay Marriage

Jump to new
Tink said:
I don't agree that it is not related, Syd.

Marriage is about children, and always has been.
Marriage and family are connected.
I am standing up for both.

This thread is about redefining Marriage as we know it, out of existence.

If it is not about children, then why is it to be run through public schools?
Same sex, pornography are all connected, and I don't agree with this being put to primary school children to describe their lifestyle.

My side, keeping marriage as is, needs to stop being censored.
If they want a proper debate, they need to let people talk.

As I said, I am standing up for Marriage to stay as is.
Click to expand...

I know plenty of marriages that are not about children, and plenty of unmarried couples with children, so the two topics are not mutually exclusive.

It's not about redefining marriage out of existence, 99% of marriages will still be heterosexual, it's just extending the right to include same sex couples, you sound like a crazy person that thinks allowing people to drink vanilla coke will some how affect people who choose to drink classic coke.

What are you saying is being run through public schools?

Most pr0n is Herero sexual pr0n, and no one is suggesting putting pornography in schools, your just being silly.
 
In previous times, a "poll" could be established on this forum to "vote" ones opinions

Not sure whether this can still be done on ASF, but it would be interesting to see to results of an ASF "plebiscite"

I doubt the readers of this Stock Market forum, would be "far to the left" as a whole, probably a reasonable snapshot of slightly more conservative opinion (imo)

As I mentioned before, I havent actually come across ANY young person who are against gay marriage.

I myself am in my 50s, and support it

If it got up in Ireland and USA, its unimaginable to me a popular vote would not be well in support
 
Tisme said:
The millenium gen doesn't care so they will vote yes just to get the annoyance away from their tri lattes.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong there, the millennium generation care the most, they gay marriage has huge support among the young.

Gen Y care a fair bit, lots of support.

Gen X probably don't care so much, but will vote for it just to get it done.

Then you have the baby boomers and the dying elderly, who probably have the high rates against it, but their numbers are dropping by the day, and even some of them are coming around to the idea.

you guys are fighting a losing battle, you are living in the past, you are on the wrong side of history, and soon be viewed as the bitter old people that tried to stall a great civil rights achievement.
 
Value Collector said:
I think you are wrong there, the millennium generation care the most, they gay marriage has huge support among the young.

Gen Y care a fair bit, lots of support.

Gen X probably don't care so much, but will vote for it just to get it done.

Then you have the baby boomers and the dying elderly, who probably have the high rates against it, but their numbers are dropping by the day, and even some of them are coming around to the idea.

you guys are fighting a losing battle, you are living in the past, you are on the wrong side of history, and soon be viewed as the bitter old people that tried to stall a great civil rights achievement.
Click to expand...

My question is, what do we do after we get to Generation Z ? Go back to A , or is that when the whole world ends ?
 
This Gay marriage crap is nothing more than a humbug for the Government and is dividing the community.

The Government has lots more important things to do like cleaning up the Green/Labor left wing mess from 2007/2013...it will take a decade to do it with no help from Labor.
 
noco said:
This Gay marriage crap is nothing more than a humbug for the Government and is dividing the community.

The Government has lots more important things to do like cleaning up the Green/Labor left wing mess from 2007/2013...it will take a decade to do it with no help from Labor.
Click to expand...

Labor will be in next term to clean up the mess left by Abbott & Hockey.
 
SirRumpole said:
Her life with lesbian parents was no fairy tale.

(or maybe it is :D).
Click to expand...

She admitted that both lesbian parents were loving and caring to her. The only issue she seemed to have was feeling a bit intimidated to speak out against gay issues because of how her gay parents might react. She didn't, until recently, speak out against gay issues, so we do not know how her parents would actually have reacted.

But I feel absolutely certain that such loving and caring parents would not have demonised her, rejected her heterosexuality as just being a lifestyle choice and kicked her out into the street. This is often the sad experience of gay children being brought up by some (normal) heterosexual parents. Yet, I don't see anyone out campaigning to abolish heterosexual marriage because of that.

The issue of kids holding back from their parents is not limited to the example she gave. Kids of parents with strong political views often feel intimidated from expressing a different opinion. It would even apply to families that are fanatical fans of a particular football team.

If the only issue she is complaining about (and as far as I can see, it is) is not being able to speak her mind on what it is like to live with gay parents, then she has little to complain about in comparison to gay children raised in staunchly religious families. It certainly doesn't provide any credible argument against gay marriage as that has no bearing on her circumstances.
 
SirRumpole said:
Labor will be in next term to clean up the mess left by Abbott & Hockey.
Click to expand...

Really...I don't think the Green/Labor left wing socialist would know how, given their record in the past......Labor ...big taxers and big spenders.

Off thread again Rumpy.
 
noco said:
Off thread again Rumpy.
Click to expand...

Yes, you were
:)

But the way the Libs have handled this issue does them no good whatever.

They say they are a party of "individualists", but on this issue everyone has to toe the line. They say they are the party of individual freedoms, except on this issue when people can't marry who they want.

Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the Liberals have shown themselves to be a party of hypocrites (among other things), and this will weigh on them at the next election.
 
SirRumpole said:
Yes, you were
:)

But the way the Libs have handled this issue does them no good whatever.

They say they are a party of "individualists", but on this issue everyone has to toe the line. They say they are the party of individual freedoms, except on this issue when people can't marry who they want.

Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the Liberals have shown themselves to be a party of hypocrites (among other things), and this will weigh on them at the next election.
Click to expand...

But hang on old pal.....Pleberzeck said at one stage the Labor Party would have to toe the line or get expelled....Then we had Shorten saying there should a free vote...which one is right?

We live in a democracy and it should be left for the people of Australia to decide....Not politicians...I would be happy to accept what the majority of voters think....Would you?
 
SirRumpole said:
I suppose it's a convenient tactic to shut down debate to allege that an argument is off topic, but it's a bit thin in this case.

Anyway, what are your views on a proposed plebiscite on gay marriage ? Imo it should be held at the next election so as not to drag the issue on for years. Should a bare majority decide the outcome or should it be 60-40 at least ?

As for gay foster parents, if the care agency decides that they are the best people available then that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out multiple times

* You don't need to be married to have children
* You don't have to have children if you get married.
* Gay people already have children.

I'm all for a plebiscite as long as the Govt is not able to poison the well. The way the Govt frames the question and presents it to the public will be very telling. A simple question like

Do you support a change to the Australian marriages act from <legal definition> to <new definition including people of the same sex>

Hopefully the new rules for MP entitlements will be in place so that they can't use public funds to promote their views. The Govt is arguing let the people decide, so my money shouldn't be used to try and lead the decision one way or the other.

So what time limit would you put on a child being in foster care with a homosexual carer? You're argument is that all children under that scenario will be negatively affected. How would foster care be any different to adoption? Should there be a time limit on single foster carers as they present the same "issues" you believe will be caused by homosexual parents.
 
sydboy007 said:
So what time limit would you put on a child being in foster care with a homosexual carer? You're argument is that all children under that scenario will be negatively affected. How would foster care be any different to adoption? Should there be a time limit on single foster carers as they present the same "issues" you believe will be caused by homosexual parents.
Click to expand...

As I suggested before, children would go to gay foster parents if there was no equivalent heterosexual parents available. If that situation changes, then the child gets moved.

I really believe that children need the balance of both sexes for a proper upbringing in a vastly predominating heterosexual world which is the one they are most likely to be living in when they grow up.
 
It is not including, it is redefining - I wish these activists would tell the truth.
Their social engineering and indoctrination, that children don't need their mother and father, is disgraceful.
The public schools, which don't teach numeracy and literacy, just how they need to think with their political correctness etc, needs a good shake up.
The dumbing down of society -
Chaos in Australian Education
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851

If you went by the mainstream media version of events, there is only one truth out there: homosexual marriage is a must, and children do not need a mother and a father. The militants in the homosexual lobby and all their willing groupies sing from this page incessantly.

It is the party line, and no one must divert from it. The activists and their media supporters know full well how propaganda and indoctrination works: just keep saying the same thing over and over again, while censoring out all contrary points of view.

And that is exactly how truth is crucified and radical agendas are implemented. Keep the party line going at all costs, and refuse to run with any alternative points of view. We find this all the time in most Western media outlets.

Political correctness has signalled the death of truth in the modern age.

As I said, good on Abbott and others for standing by their party policy of NO change, not like the Labor party that have swung like the wind.
They have done what the public wanted.

Two thirds of the party room voted to keep it as is.

If the family collapses, communities disintegrate, society atrophies, and civilisation withers””the family is the great progenitor of order.
 
sydboy007 said:
As has been pointed out multiple times

* You don't need to be married to have children
* You don't have to have children if you get married.
* Gay people already have children.
Click to expand...

add:

* You don't need a licence to be able to drive a car
* You don't need a prescription to buy ICE
* Lawyers and other professionals smoke pot
* Priests fiddle with children
* US Southern black males commit crimes
* Black African men have homosexual sex and infect their wives with AIDS
* etc


I still fail to see why the push for solemnising sodomising and legislating for same gender marriage... what does it hope to achieve. There is no way it and its orbit will ever be anything more than a fiasco sideshow for the entertainment of the mainstream. Don't kid yourself that it isn't talked about widely as a joke or under breath snide remark amongst the millennium gen, coz it is; they just don't value marriage because it's already a farce due to the financial penalties of forming a relationship and trying to walk away with assets intact...... Whitlam legacy and stacking family court judiciary with feminists.

We all know it will become law to force society to accept it or else, but that does not translate to modifying our primal blueprint and natural tendency to marginalise the weak and the different from the herd....which is what the social engineering Labor Party exists for these days rather than the working class.
 

Similar threads

basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
1K
sptrawler
sptrawler
basilio
Married Sunday, Fired Monday... really?
Replies
18
Views
4K
grah33
G
sydboy007
Combating the stereotypes around homosexuality
Replies
2
Views
992
sydboy007
sydboy007
C
  • Locked
Answers to Islamic Apologism
2 3
Replies
48
Views
9K
doctorj
doctorj
Top