This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

  • Yes

    Votes: 77 55.8%

  • No

    Votes: 61 44.2%
  • Total voters
    138
Jump to new

Stupid comparison.

Short people would have made a bette point!
 


You obviously don't know the two sacrocanct rules:

1) " Never go the full retard"
2) "Never use a ranga by example"

 
Value Collector said:
Not everyone is born with red hair, does that make it a defect?
Click to expand...

It depends on the environment.

A black polar bear would be abnormal and certainly would be a problem in trying to hide in the snow.

Is being gay a defect ? Not 90% of the time. Gay people are very succesful in many areas, maybe one reason is that not having to raise families in a lot of cases gives them time to concentrate on careers.

It's when they try to do things that they were not designed for, like raising children that there starts to be a problem.

Maybe they should concentrate on things that they are good at instead of trying to prove an "equality" status in everything for the sake of it.
 
We noticed that Tony (Mr Sensitive) Abbott came out with his considered comments on the SSM question. There was a neat analysis of what he said and the logical vaccuum and dishonesty behind the comments.

A voluntary, non-binding open letter to former prime minister Tony Abbott
411 reading now

Dear Mr Abbott,

It is right to give you praise for your compelling, although inadvertent arguments, for ending the outlawing of same-sex marriage.

Your piece on our opinion pages last week was such a masterful mix of lies, baseless assertions, illogical contortions and brazen inversions, I could kiss you for it.

You write that it's important to maintain "intellectual integrity". "Like most, I have tried to be there for friends and family who are gay." (Decent of you. They must have been grateful.)

``They are good people who deserve our love, respect and inclusion but that doesn't mean that we can't continue to reserve the term 'marriage' for the relationship of one man with one woman, ideally for life and usually dedicated to children." (The "but" is utterly unreasoned.)

"I want a country where everyone gets a fair go ..." (Problem is your actions have created a credibility deficit for you on this one with Australia's 2-million-plus queer community, their families and friends and the millions more who support marriage equality) "...and where no one is discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, religion, political opinion or sexuality." (George Orwell – who knew a thing or two about the way language could be manipulated and subverted – would have wanted to kiss you, too.)

``It's a long time, thank God, since gay people have been discriminated against and just about everyone old enough to remember that time is invariably embarrassed at the intolerance that was once common." (Bangs head on desk. LGBTI young people, for example, endure far more bullying and persecution than their heterosexual peers, and consequently suffer tragically elevated rates of mental ill-health, self-harm and death by suicide.)

``Same sex couples in a settled domestic relationship have exactly the same rights as people who are married." No, Mr Abbott, they do not.

``This debate is about changing marriage, not extending it. And if you change marriage, you change society; because marriage is the basis of family; and family is the foundation of community." (Humanity is the foundation of community.)

"So far, it's the supporters of change, not the opponents, who've been responsible for bullying and hate speech." (An insulting perversion of reality. The children of same-sex couples have been denigrated as a "stolen generation" at heightened risk of sexual abuse. These families are being told they are dangerous, abnormal and inferior to those of heterosexual couples, the only category worthy of marriage. Further, you are in effect saying a victim who stands up to a bully is actually the guilty party.)

``No one is saying that one type of loving relationship is better than another, just that they can be different. By all means, let's find a way to solemnise what is intended to be a sacrificial love between two people of the same sex; but it remains a different love even though it's not a lesser one." (Once again the "but" doesn't make sense.)

``When big businesses from Uber, to Subway, to the makers of Magnum ice cream are virtue signalling on same-sex marriage, it's time to say that political correctness has got completely out of hand and to vote `no' to stop it in its tracks." (This is not about freedom of religion or speech, nor about political correctness. It is about human liberty; the only thing that will happen when we join most of the rest of the industrialised world, is people in love will get married.)

When one strips away all the obfuscation and dissembling, the only conclusion that stands the intellectual scrutiny you claim to champion is that you discriminate against non-heterosexuals. There is no justification for that.

In his novel, Animal Farm, George Orwell nails the unfairness of those who seek to maintain control: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

The following is an excerpt of some writing published on Facebook by my mother, a committed Christian who studies theology and is a specialist in early childhood development.

"I write as a grandparent of two young people who we love dearly and who are exemplary humans. They are kind, compassionate and caring, as well as showing a tremendous joy of life, maturity beyond their years, and who are wonderful contributors at school, university and in the wider community.

"We are similarly proud of their parents, two mothers who have raised their children within a loving, stable and consistent family environment, as well as a wider extended family, friend and neighbourhood environment … How I wish our parliamentarians had taken courage, acted with love and shown they would not allow children and their families to be the target of hate, vitriol and misinformation.

"What is Australia doing to itself? What is it doing to so many children and adults who simply wish to be given the same opportunity, value, respect and love, as are others in our country? Where is the example of Jesus?"

Mr Abbott?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...ime-minister-tony-abbott-20170915-gyi05m.html
 
Ohhhh my heart bleeds. Have you got any 5 page excerpts of SSM advocates throwing themselves down on the ground if they don't get their way? Who is Tony Abbott?
 

It's not an analysis at all, it's another obsessive gay apologist prattling on and on and on. He has form as being a a gay warrior.
 
If it's a no
The whole world will fall apart for the minoriy.
If it's a yes the majority will simply accept it.

Who's more tolerant?
 
After this Dunkirk (barring any Trumpian surprise), the true war begins basilio. enjoy wearing your brown shirt as long as you can, as slowly, I notice people are waking up to the real agenda.
 
Shared from a friend on FaceAche :

~ Promises, Promises ~

You know, it occurs to me that in all the history of humankind, there has never been an ideology that has promised so much and delivered so little as communism. Aka Marx Leninism. Aka dialectical materialism.

In Russia, for example...

The promises were massive: Utopia for everyone, workers liberated from slavery and poverty, injustice erased, an ideal paradise.

The delivery was the complete opposite: A more oppressive, controlling totalitarian clique was installed (than what previously existed), workers impressed into slavery, but now with no one except the ruling elite having anything but poverty, 60 million citizens murdered, hell on earth.

This pattern has been the same almost everywhere communism raised its ugly head.

Flash forward to the 1950's. Die-hard Marxists realized there was no way the Haves vs. the Have Nots - aka violent revolution of the poor - was going to knock down the United States, or Europe, or Australia, etc. Too much prosperity in the Western Christian cultural sphere.

Solution? Destroy the system from within via corruption. Change classical Marxism to 'Cultural' Marxism, pitting cultural minorities against cultural majorities. Corruption of morals, corruption of family, corruption of all the values that underpin Western prosperity - self-governance, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of economic growth.

Push moral and spiritual breakdown, promote welfare and reliance on the State as the Big Daddy who would take care of things, promote marriage breakdown by rewarding promiscuity and irresponsible behavior, etc. Destroy sexual mores that lie at the bedrock of any healthy society.

Then, penetrate to core areas: Education system. Entertainment and eventually Media system. Political system through promising people stuff - aka welfarism - as a leverage for socialist-type programs.

Bingo. 2017 in Australia.

But let's think about this. The postal vote goes until November 7. The determined, decided voters on either side will have cast their ballot. But the undecided, the apathetic, and the 'don't affect me' people will still be there. These are the one's whom we need to reach out to.

Only one way: Education. Information and real truth about the consequences. Aka waking people up. And this is exactly why the rainbow agenda wants to block any information, free communication, and knowledge on the part of these undecided citizens.

Reach out to those people. Talk about 3 main points why the Same Sex Marriage issue is about more than same sex marriage. Why it is about more than feeling sorry for marginalized gay people. Why it is more about rights, law, coercion, and the well-being of children in education.

Reality of Safe Schools
Reality of firings and attacks on anyone who voices views supporting natural marriage
Reality of the way of religions and charities in nations that have redefined marriage.

You know, the drivers of the communist agenda never actually cared about the poor hungry proletarians. They just used them, manipulate them, their emotions, resentments, their anger and pain. Then they used them to manipulate young, idealistic, and conscientious people

Try to remember this. The Rainbow agenda is NOT about improving the lives of people who are same sex attracted, or the gender confused, etc. No. It's the same old pattern. Manipulation of emotions. And many, (but not all) young, idealistic conscientious people have bought into it. They cannot or do not want to see behind the curtain. But they need to.

The marginalized are once again being used as political fodder by bitter intellectuals bent on destroying anything they cannot control. And they cannot control free-thinking, conscientious, responsible sovereign citizens.

It's not about gay people. It's ALL about control.

Time to wake up the sleeping!

https://www.whyvoteno.org.au/lgbt-agenda/
 
Tisme said:
It's not an analysis at all, it's another obsessive gay apologist prattling on and on and on. He has form as being a a gay warrior.
Click to expand...
Really Tisme ? SO as usual white is black.
A deconstruction of Abbotts nonsense isn't an analysis. And anyway the guy is an obsessive gay apologist warrior. Therefore he can be trashed and ipso facto nothing he says needs to be addressed.
 
Has anyone considered the history of Christianity in defending Freedom of Religion ? In fact which theocratic State also allows free religious expression for all its citizens ? Perhaps we have have Freedom of Religious expression because we have a secular state which doesn't attempt to dictate what citizens must or must not believe.
Check out this argument.


The best guarantee of religious freedom is keeping religion out of politics
  • Matt Holden
Former prime minister Tony Abbott was on about it on this website a few days ago, Liberal Party vice-president Karina Okotel said it on ABC Radio recently and Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby repeats it at every opportunity: the debate about marriage equality is not, as the survey question will ask, about whether the Marriage Act should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, but is really a debate about religious freedom.

Hang on a minute – since when has Christianity been so concerned about religious freedom?

Not ever, really, is the short answer.

Since the beginning, Christians have been busy attacking other people's religious freedom by trying to convert them. Christianity has suppressed other people's religious freedom everywhere from Rome to the outback.

Where was Christian concern for religious freedom during the Spanish Inquisition? During the Counter-Reformation, when Catholics persecuted Protestants and drove them out of Europe to the New World?

Where was concern for religious freedom when the traditional beliefs of Africans taken into slavery in the Americas were suppressed? Where was respect for religious freedom when native Americans and Indigenous Australians were dispossessed of their land – the basis of their spiritual beliefs – and herded onto Christian missions?

Where were the defenders of religious freedom in 2016 when the racist, right-wing United Patriots Front rallied to oppose the construction of a mosque in Bendigo?

Of course, it's not just Christianity – whenever one religion dominates a society, religious freedom suffers. Think of the persecution of people of the Baha'i faith in Iran, of Orthodox Christians in parts of Syria controlled by Islamic State, and of Rohingya Muslims in Buddhist-majority Myanmar today.

This sudden defence of religious freedom by churches and religious lobby groups just doesn't wash.

The best guarantee of religious freedom is a secular society where people of all faiths – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, whatever – and people of no faith are free to practice their beliefs in the privacy of their homes, churches, temples, mosques and synagogues, and don't get to tell anyone else what to believe or how to live.

The best guarantee of religious freedom is keeping religion out of politics. The only religious freedom threatened by changing the Marriage Act is the freedom of organised religion – whether established churches or lobby groups – to tell the rest of us how to live. That's a freedom that has no place in our secular society.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...religion-out-of-politics-20170914-gyhjt8.html
 
basilio said:
The best guarantee of religious freedom is keeping religion out of politics.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that really. Religions don't own marriage imo, society does. But we should not force religions (or anyone else) to do what they don't want to do.
 
I am surprised that 60% voted Yes on this site. I am also surprised that 60% of Australians know what plebiscite means, in fact I’d even be surprised if 10% knew the meaning.

Someone on this forum stated that it is not a vote it’s just a survey.

I googled the word as I admit, I had never heard the word plebiscite in all my 64 years.

“The meaning of Plebiscite: The Direct vote of all members of an electorate on an important question such as a change in the constitution. “the administration will hold a plebiscite for the approval of a constitutional reforms”.

Synonyms: Vote, referendum, ballot, poll.”

Doesn’t sound like a survey to me.

This vote will not impact me in any way, crikey I’ll be dead in 20 to 30 years anyway if I am lucky enough to live that long. However, it is important to future generations, so until you know what your voting for vote No.

No way is there enough information out there on the subject or its consequences for people to make an informed decision.

Get on You Tube > look up the “Voice of the Australian Constitution” Watch and listen to proud Australian document before you are silly enough to vote emotionally. Don't be surprised if you don't get the urge to stand up and solute.

Vote intelligently, find out how it will impact your children and their children. Imagine having to prove you are not in a de-facto relationship with your flatmate.
 
Bruliatrader said:
Your supposedly against bullying? What about bullying of people who are against same sex marriages? Does that count or is that different bullying that is allowed? I thought this was an Aussie Stock Forum? Why aren't you discussing Aussie stocks?
Click to expand...

I am opposed to bullying no matter what form it takes or the underlying reason. It's something I've seen enough of and if there's one thing I know about it it is this. Bullies always have a weakness somewhere and will target anyone who is a perceived threat in that regard.

As for discussion on this forum, well it does have a "general chat" section and the owner of the forum seems to be happy with such subjects being discussed.

Which brings me to another thing I know from experience. Anyone or any "side" of an argument which seeks to limit discussion and analysis does so due to fear of scrutiny. They either lack confidence in their own position or know it to be flawed. Been there, seen this one many times in many scenarios and it's always the same story.
 
What'sUp said:
Someone on this forum stated that it is not a vote it’s just a survey.
Click to expand...
Two plebiscites were rejected by the Senate so it is a postal survey and it is non compulsory. Wiki.

At a guess it was blocked by Labor leader Bill Shorten with a rejection from a compulsory vote being more likely.
 
basilio said:
Really Tisme ? SO as usual white is black.
A deconstruction of Abbotts nonsense isn't an analysis. And anyway the guy is an obsessive gay apologist warrior. Therefore he can be trashed and ipso facto nothing he says needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...


That's about it. You should maybe add in mass hysteria too.

Pavlov would be proud of his prediction modelling and John B. Watson even more astonished his work has been adopted by Australian Govts,complete with a fancy "Safe Schools" name.
 
No wonder so many people support SSM and destruction of the nuclear family:

Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: a national cohort study of two million Danes.
Department of Epidemiology Research, Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Statens Serum Institut, 5 Artillerivej, DK-2300, Copenhagen S, Denmark. mfr@ssi.dk
Two million people sampled, how many criteria fit your predisposition?:

 
The oldest propaganda play in the book - "Time to wake up the sleeping!" because the reds are under the bed.

Now the commos are masquerading as gays with the sole purpose of destroying Australia. I can't believe this utter bullsh*t.
 
Macquack said:
The oldest propaganda play in the book - "Time to wake up the sleeping!" because the reds are under the bed.

Now the commos are masquerading as gays with the sole purpose of destroying Australia. I can't believe this utter bullsh*t.
Click to expand...
Perchance, are you worried that these underhanded tactics are being exposed for what they truly are?
 
What'sUp said:
Get on You Tube > look up the “Voice of the Australian Constitution”
Watch and listen to proud Australian document before you are silly enough to vote emotionally. Don't be surprised if you don't get the urge to stand up and solute.
Click to expand...
Yes for people generationally of Australia the freedoms can be taken for granted. Compared to dictatorships and Communism, our British inherited Westminster system operates more toward individual freedoms and rights. Need to drop the religious tilt. I mean Moses and God have no significance in 2017 though I do recognise Christianity having a structural role in our society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Are you Face blind or can you remember absolutely everyone?
Replies
8
Views
733
finicky
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Give Tony the Job!
Replies
12
Views
950
sptrawler
Finding the truth vs. "The Rule of Law"
11 12 13
Replies
240
Views
18K
Garpal Gumnut
A truly Christian school...!
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
cynic
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...