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
SirRumpole said:
Yes, I could go for that as well.
Click to expand...

Anyone whoever bothered with Liberal and Labor policies they were founded on would be wondering why they betrayed their own doctrines.

Once upon a time they prided themselves, in part, as the moral guardians of the various electoral segments they represented. These days they take their cues from the media who drive populist morality, effectively meaning that unelected people are driving the bus.
 

The Labor Party used to be run by Catholics as I recall.
 
Junior said:
Labour's policy is to change the marriage act, so if they are voted into power at the next election, that is one of their policies people are voting in favour of.
.
Click to expand...

Yes, who said Women don't have enough say, I'm sure they have all the say in some circles.
 
As the sun sets on the SSM survey how will the Churches react if/when it becomes clear their narrative has been rejected?
This is one view from a current Anglician Reverand.

Churches who campaigned for 'no' must apologise to gay community
  • Rev. Dr Keith Mascord
353 reading now
Show comments

As the final flurry of votes is counted in the postal survey, it's time to reflect a little on the experience of the last few months. As a deeply committed older Christian, I've been dismayed by the contributions of Australian churches to the acrimonious and damaging debate which has been imposed upon us, and particularly by those who have joined the Coalition for Marriage.

I've been dismayed, first, because Australian churches have been callous and un-Christ-like in their support for an extended public campaign, which they surely knew was certain to cause widespread distress and suffering to some of Australia's most vulnerable citizens. Even a small amount of research would have revealed already high levels of suicide, self-harm and mental health vulnerability among those whose lives, relationships, identity, and worth would become the subject of public debate.

But instead of taking heed of this research, instead of gently seeking the counsel of LGBTI-plus Australians, churches involved in the Coalition for Marriage pushed ahead regardless. They wagered on the lives of people the church should have been protecting, when it was already a sure bet that their actions would embolden Australia's bigots and hateful homophobes, which they have.

I've been dismayed, second, by the essentially dishonest, fear-driven and fear-creating nature of the campaign churches have signed up to, and put big money towards. The Coalition for Marriage campaign is pervasively dishonest. It is dishonest in not being upfront about the foundational reason conservative Christians are implacably opposed to marriage equality, and that is their belief that any and all sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage are immoral and defective.

Related Articles
The campaign is dishonest in trying to scare people into thinking that society will unravel if marriage is extended to include LGBTI-plus Australians. Scare-mongering, by its very nature, is dishonest, because it plays to people's fears, and doesn't require evidence. It is often best without evidence, except for cherry-picked and easily discredited examples from overseas, which, even when proved accurate, mostly amount to fundamentalist Christians resisting scientific and societal consensus, doggedly insisting on their right to discriminate and exclude.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...ologise-to-gay-community-20171106-gzfv6g.html
 
Apologise?

The yes vote will most likely win, but I can tell you that the never ending acronym group has lost a hell of a lot if goodwill and support.

As a result of how their campaign was conducted many of my contacts will be seeking to specifically avoid any cooperation with them. It is they who should be apologising.

That author is just a moronic virtue signaller.
 
Good on Archbishop Glenn Davies, standing up for traditional Marriage, and the law of this land.

As does our Australian Constitution, that reflects our public holidays.

Western Culture is based on our Christian heritage.

One man and one woman, becoming a father and a mother and raising their children.

It is about the TRUTH.

----------------------------------

Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous was taken to the brink in Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal for espousing views on marriage that accord with Australian law, let alone being the view of his church, as well as all churches and that which civilisations have held for millennia.
The avant-garde opponents of these time-honoured mores had hoped to silence him.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y/news-story/ab37e4c742c24b3506b1287e93e4303d
 
“scare mongering” , well that's interesting... I think the fear stems from the people themselves, but yeah, there seems to be fear in people about a lot of things (nuclear, the possibility of a future economic disaster, and this too if u explain the control of religion and conscientious objection occurring in other countries). If you're not afraid of anything, you got something I think.

If people start getting sick later, they'll probably just try to manage it better.
 
wayneL said:
#loveislove
Click to expand...

And incest is incest.

It's sad that a conversation about the giving of equal marriage rights is taken into the realms of incest. I suppose we should look out for examples of bestiality, pedophilia and anything else the cat can drag in.
 
basilio said:
And incest is incest.

It's sad that a conversation about the giving of equal marriage rights is taken into the realms of incest. I suppose we should look out for examples of bestiality, pedophilia and anything else the cat can drag in.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are damming those or asking for consideration?.. In for a penny, in for a pound perhaps?
 
basilio said:
And incest is incest.

It's sad that a conversation about the giving of equal marriage rights is taken into the realms of incest. I suppose we should look out for examples of bestiality, pedophilia and anything else the cat can drag in.
Click to expand...
Let's here your argument against this particular relationship bas... why not?
 
Saw two cars getting intimate on Parramatta Rd yesterday. Clearly attributable to SSM... that's if it's a YES. If it's a NO we'll have to invent some other excuse - like bad driverz
 
Tisme said:
It's about incest, the game the whole family can play.
Click to expand...
I thought incest only applied to heterosexual acts.

Does this mean that the homosexual community now has yet more cause for complaint about discrimination?
 
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...