Gay Marriage

[sydboy007]

I don't think so. The same sex couples wanted a show trial, and that's what they got.

We in Australia have the the opportunity to avoid this sort of consequence for innocent officials, that's the real point.

If Australians vote for same sex marriage in a plebiscite, fair enough, but we should not be criminalizing personal conscience on this issue with a jail term.

Lets swap things around. Say Kim Davis was a Lesbian, instead of a born again Christian. It was a year before the SCOTUS marriage equality decision and to protest against the injustice of the situation her conscience told her to stop issuing marriage certificate.

She refused to allow any of her subordinates to do the work as well. She basically did everything in her power to force her views ontot he community in violation of her official oath of office.

Gay groups came out to support her. Fund raising ensued to ensure she had good legal defence. The gay groups were ecstatic that the judge was threatening to jail her for contempt of court.

Gay groups were sending out propaganda across the country in support of their Kim Davis for doing what her conscience told her was right.

Eventually she was sentenced to serve jail time due to her contempt of court for failing to follow a lawful court order.

What would your views on this situation be?

 

[sydboy007]

Pity you have to resort to ad hominem instead of addressing the issue I raised.

If the person had the same responsibilities in this country the issue would have been resolved quickly by sacking her, giving her other duties or whatever.

A system that gives such powers to an individual has faults that this issue has exposed.

And, on learning more about this issue, the woman seems like a loony.

Happy now ?

But your justifying yourself based on well if they had a different system then this wouldn't happen.

But that is the system, and that is the situation. Saying it couldn't happen in Australia is irrelevant. It has no bearing on your initial defence of her.

What you did in instantly attacking the gays, linking us to some form of militant Nazi agenda, before bothering to even get the basic details, shows the level of bias you have on this issue.

it's that in the back of the mind deep seated bias that still permeates most countries around the issue of homosexuality. It's similar to how blacks are treated in the USA, and why so many of them end up dead when they come in contact with the police.

 

[symmetry]

from an article - why Gay Marriage is wrong and will destroy our country

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.


Please help us fight for marriage as a Guardian of Truth -- Click here for details.





2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children””all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upo Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

 

[Macquack]

Spare us the bible bashing.

 

[SirRumpole]

But that is the system, and that is the situation. Saying it couldn't happen in Australia is irrelevant. It has no bearing on your initial defence of her.

I said she should have been sacked not jailed, that's hardly a defence your Honour.

 

[sydboy007]

I said she should have been sacked not jailed, that's hardly a defence your Honour.

OK

I just hope that next time you stop and think "Why am I instantly blaming the homosexuals? I read a headline and I just know they're at fault. There's no need to get all the facts."

Ask yourself why you did that in this around the Kim Davis issue and hopefully you'll be less likely to defame the homosexual community in future. It's a form of homophobia.

Maybe you'll even realise that much of the criticism thrown at the gay agenda and supposed gay militism is due to too many people doing what you did and jumping to a conclusion based on their biases and own agendas.

As Hiram Johnson said "The first casualty, when war comes, is truth" and the Christian lobby definitely see this as a war.

 

[SirRumpole]

OK

I just hope that next time you stop and think "Why am I instantly blaming the homosexuals? I read a headline and I just know they're at fault. There's no need to get all the facts."

Ask yourself why you did that in this around the Kim Davis issue and hopefully you'll be less likely to defame the homosexual community in future. It's a form of homophobia.

Maybe you'll even realise that much of the criticism thrown at the gay agenda and supposed gay militism is due to too many people doing what you did and jumping to a conclusion based on their biases and own agendas.

As Hiram Johnson said "The first casualty, when war comes, is truth" and the Christian lobby definitely see this as a war.

There's no doubt that there is a militant homosexual lobby, like people who gather round churches and disrupt services etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA

So let's not pretend that all gays are angels and are always the ones being picked on.

 

[symmetry]

There's no doubt that there is a militant homosexual lobby, like people who gather round churches and disrupt services etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA

So let's not pretend that all gays are angels and are always the ones being picked on.

the key point is its not a civil rights nor a legal.. its moral issue and sexual issue , its about people who are a minority, just like the republic issue with the minority claiming the media and surveys were saying 70% people want it, when it comes down to the people and a referendum , you will find 90%+ of people agree , its wrong and its a proven fact its not equality but lust and devalues the institution of marriage

 

[Macquack]

There's no doubt that there is a militant homosexual lobby, like people who gather round churches and disrupt services etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA

So let's not pretend that all gays are angels and are always the ones being picked on.

Is that the best youtube video you can come up with? Piss weak.

The anti-gay protests at funerals have to be the lowest act I have ever seen.

 

[SirRumpole]

Is that the best youtube video you can come up with? Piss weak.

I'm sure there are others if I bothered to look which I can't.

Let's just say there are radicals everywhere for every cause you can think of. None of them are any good.

 

[sydboy007]

There's no doubt that there is a militant homosexual lobby, like people who gather round churches and disrupt services etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA

So let's not pretend that all gays are angels and are always the ones being picked on.

Then let me ask, why did you blame the homosexuals in regards to Kim Davis?

Why didn't you take 2 or 3 minutes to get the facts of the story before claiming this reeks of some gay Nazi in the management trying to make an example of her and still not bothering to understand the facts continue to beat blame the homosexuals with This smells like a setup to me, the certificate could have been posted out. It looks to me as though she's been singled out by some militant gays for retribution.

You've gone over 5 hours continually blaming the wrong group. Why?

I'd be interested to see what your response would be to the question I posed to logique - post 1841 at the top of this page. Would you have been so quick to jump to the conclusion that it was, to paraphrase you, the militant Nazi church groups baying for her to be thrown into jail, if that had been the situation instead?

It always seems you defend bigotry towards gays by saying they're not perfect and sometimes they do the wrong thing. So what. It doesn't make it right to falsely blame them when it suits your particular view. When have I or anyone else argued that homosexuality automatically makes one perfect?

I'm tired of the false claim that gays have a secret agenda to destroy the fabric of society, ar out white anting family values and marriage and....

Gays are someone's child, someone's grandchild. Gays laugh and cry, just like you and you friends and family do. When we're unfairly the targets of physical abuse, far more than the general community, our blood is red and we hurt just as much as you would if you had been targeted.

Start seeing us as just a one of the many sub groups within the community that wants a better future for themselves, their families and loved ones. Stop viewing us as the enemy.

 

[SirRumpole]

Syd,

Saying that motherhood is not important in the case of two gay men raising a child, or that fatherhood is not important in the case of two lesbians raising a child IS white-anting family values, no matter how much you try and pretend otherwise.

A section of the community is trying to muscle their way in to an area where they are not biologically or genetically equipped to be, and they are trying to pretend by a series of biased studies that the children and the adults that they grow into are not disadvantaged by this confected environment.

In every other way except parenting I'm prepared to accept that gay people are just as capable as heterosexuals, but afaic the best family unit is a biological mother, father and children living in a loving family unit and there is nothing you can say that would convince me otherwise.

Gays can have marriage for all I care, as long as they don't use children as white mice in a social experiment to try and prove their "equality" in an area where it's obvious to the vast majority of the population that they are not equal.

 

[SirRumpole]

Would you have been so quick to jump to the conclusion that it was, to paraphrase you, the militant Nazi church groups baying for her to be thrown into jail, if that had been the situation instead?

Yes I probably would, because I dislike militant religions as much as I like dislike militant anyone elses.

They are all trying to force their opinions on others and they can all sod off afaic.

 

[sydboy007]

Saying that motherhood is not important in the case of two gay men raising a child, or that fatherhood is not important in the case of two lesbians raising a child IS white-anting family values, no matter how much you try and pretend otherwise.

Specifically what family values?

Are you saying SS parents can't pass on values like not hurting others and also standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves, being honest with others, treating everyone equally and not judging others based on race, sex, religious or sexual orientation.

Is it not possible for SS parents to impart to their children the understanding of the need for compassion to others, to being modest in relation to others, being respectful, instilling the idea of doing your best at school, that saving for the future is important, that failing is OK but to not give up, that you are responsible for your actions.

Why couldn't SS parents help their children to learn these important family and community values?

A section of the community is trying to muscle their way in to an area where they are not biologically or genetically equipped to be, and they are trying to pretend by a series of biased studies that the children and the adults that they grow into are not disadvantaged by this confected environment.

In every other way except parenting I'm prepared to accept that gay people are just as capable as heterosexuals, but afaic the best family unit is a biological mother, father and children living in a loving family unit and there is nothing you can say that would convince me otherwise.

Basically what I hear from this is you have a view that SS parenting is wrong, any evidence to the contrary is in someway tainted so you will ignore it, and your mind is closed on this topic.

 

[SirRumpole]

Specifically what family values?

Things that boys can't get from their mothers, and girls can't get from their fathers and vice versa.

Basically what I hear from this is you have a view that SS parenting is wrong, any evidence to the contrary is in someway tainted so you will ignore it, and your mind is closed on this topic.

I don't ignore evidence, but I look for biases, inconsistencies and incorrect procedures, a few of which I pointed out in that study you quoted.

 

[sydboy007]

Things that boys can't get from their mothers, and girls can't get from their fathers and vice versa.



I don't ignore evidence, but I look for biases, inconsistencies and incorrect procedures, a few of which I pointed out in that study you quoted.

But the words of what 4 children from SS parents against SS marriage are taken as gospel. The fact that katy Faust has become overtly religious didn't seem to lead you to believe she's in any way biased.

 

[SirRumpole]

But the words of what 4 children from SS parents against SS marriage are taken as gospel. The fact that katy Faust has become overtly religious didn't seem to lead you to believe she's in any way biased.

As someone else said, she's a point on the graph.

I also asked the question before why she became religious when her parents weren't, and she may well have got a dose of anti religion at home which you would think would have put her off religion.

It's speculation, but maybe the lack of a male role model drove her to find it in the church. Maybe there is some evidence that something was missing in her life.

 

[Value Collector]

1. It Is Not Marriage



Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

A Vegemite sandwich and a bowl of ice cream are two entirely different things, yet both are considered food.

a gold fish and a shark are both considered fish

Motorcycle and a garbage truck are not considered vehicles

Golf ball and foot ball are both considered balls

I could go on and on.

Your entire copy and pasted post is rubbish, not a single point is valid.

 

[bellenuit]

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage.

Actually it does. Marriage is a man made construct and as such is deemed to be whatever we decide it to be. In the US, Ireland, Scandinavia and some other regions, marriage now includes same sex relationships.

Since the first statement in your epistle is patently rubbish, the rest is probably the same and not worth reading.

 

[Tink]

I don't think so. The same sex couples wanted a show trial, and that's what they got.

We in Australia have the the opportunity to avoid this sort of consequence for innocent officials, that's the real point.

If Australians vote for same sex marriage in a plebiscite, fair enough, but we should not be criminalizing personal conscience on this issue with a jail term.

+1

The first thing they did was smash the ten commandments -- open slather.

Modern Leftists are now often so consumed with self-righteousness that they can't accept that others may hold different views to their own.

The present generation is nonchalant about our noble forefathers and shrugs its shoulders at the sacrifices that they made on their behalf.

The family in addition is the first line of defence against totalitarianism.

Every totalitarian regime in the twentieth century was characterised by an obsessive desire to persecute the adherents of Christianity.

Homosexual marriage is the single best illustration we have of narcissism in the modern age.