Gay Marriage?

[sms316]

Will the WAnkers be signing up by the 1000's?

[Webster]

No, just 2 at a time.

[MegaWatty]

Oh god.

I can see mass bannings as a result of this thread. :)

[MegaWatty]

No, just the 2 of them.

FTFY.

[Jarro]

I really don't care ..... as long as i don't have to watch them kissing in the streets

[Webster]

You dont have to watch Jarro

[sms316]

No, just 2 at a time.
No daisy chains?

[Jarro]

You dont have to watch Jarro

True

[Goldy]

I really don't care ..... as long as i don't have to watch them kissing in the streets

Is there a place you'd prefer to watch 'em, Jarro?

[Jarro]

Is there a place you'd prefer to watch 'em, Jarro?

Goldy, what people do in their own homes behind closed doors is their business and none of mine.

[Webster]

So no interest in voyeur porn then Jarro?

[Jarro]

Not really Jack

[Webster]

Not even if Rocco was in it?

[Jarro]

Not even if Rocco was in it?

I'd probably have a quick look

[BroKar]

Don't agree with it personally, on another note, why do blokes who turn gay develop a lisp which wasn't there previously, serious question

[Jarro]

Don't agree with it personally, on another note, why do blokes who turn gay develop a lisp which wasn't there previously, serious question

It's so you can tell they're gay.

Otherwise they'd have to wear a special t-shirt

[Stuartd147]

Don't agree with it personally, on another note, why do blokes who turn gay develop a lisp which wasn't there previously, serious question

Maybe the shape of their mouth has changed?????????????????????:?:?

[oncewasagolfer]

.

[WBennett]

I believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot

[live4golf]

Human caterpillars are now legal??? Damn

[BroKar]

It's so you can tell they're gay.

Otherwise they'd have to wear a special t-shirt

That's the part I hate so much, the advertisement to all.

Bloke I work with is gay, you would never be able to tell

[Yossarian]

Are they coming into the country via boats?

[Shadesy]

I think their selling uranium to India Yoss!

[Yossarian]

Personally I'm more worried about Chinese aircraft carriers.

[BrisWesty]

The ALP had so much more to worry about than this. Believe the saying goes, "It's the economy, stupid."

Given persons of a same sex persuasion are so popular in the Koran and the Bible, I'd suggest that they've just got a lot of their Muslim and Christian constituents off side. Maybe this is pseudo PM Bob Brown's way of trying to prevent overpopulation of the planet.

[sms316]

Will churches be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies or can they be discriminatory?

[Dotty]

I have no problem with equality.

We will have everything north of Sydney Harbour. They can have everything south of the harbour.

[oncewasagolfer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omvKySSRa2Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[LarryLong]

I have no problem with equality.

We will have everything north of Sydney Harbour. They can have everything south of the harbour.

Which team is 'we'?

I hope they do it soon. It's going to happen eventually, and I think the greens need to get this out of the way so that they can go back to meddling with the government on bigger issues. Not important to me either way though, because I couldn't find a bloke who wanted to marry me and had to settle for a chick in the end.

[Goldy]

Personally I'm more worried about Chinese aircraft carriers.

I don't want to see them kissing in the street, either.

[Eldrick]

does this mean Tourfit can propose to PtP now?

[Grunt]

So long as they go about their business and do not worry/influence me I am fine.

[dc68]

Working for airlines for 20 odd years meant a lot of exposure to gays, if they wanna
do what they do it's their business. I just dislike the over the top I'm a queer woohoo
look at me bullshit some of them have to go on with. If you want to be treated as a
normal human being act like one!!!! I have no problem if they want to get hitched.

[Jarro]

What about gheys that wanna raise families ???

I kinda have a problem with that

[poidda]

Who cares. Each to their own.

This is the best political smoke screen about. The Carbon Tax or Mining Super Tax hasn't been mentioned for weeks.

[chappy1970]

Each to their own I think.

Gays having families, also don't think there is too many problems with this. I don't see any reason why they could raised healthly, happy and balanced children.

There's plenty of Hetro parents who are not fit to do the job, they certainly should have sat some kind of test before having kids.

[Yossarian]

Will churches be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies or can they be discriminatory?

I imagine they will not be forced to do anything. It would likely get very ugly if so.

[Yossarian]

Working for airlines for 20 odd years meant a lot of exposure to gays, if they wanna
do what they do it's their business. I just dislike the over the top I'm a queer woohoo
look at me bullshit some of them have to go on with. If you want to be treated as a
normal human being act like one!!!! I have no problem if they want to get hitched.

IS it really any different to a bloke you barely know ect talking about how he ****ed some bird ect ect.

[Daves]

Will churches be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies or can they be discriminatory?

Wasn't the motion to allow Civil Unions? ie. non religious.

[Jarro]

IS it really any different to a bloke you barely know ect talking about how he ****ed some bird ect ect.

Um .... yes

[dc68]

IS it really any different to a bloke you barely know ect talking about how he ****ed some bird ect ect.


**** off Yoss, you wanker.

[poidda]

The church(s) are a different beast and who cares what they think as well as long as they don't impact your life?!?! I always thought God, Allah, Buddha or whoever created everything. But obviously not gay people.

IVF is another crack up. It isn't accepted by some, but then a virgin woman went and had a baby? hmmmmm, how is it possible? ;)

As I said, each to their own. Why they are even asked for a quote on political issues is beyond me.

[Yossarian]

Um .... yes

Fair enough.


**** off Yoss, you wanker.
Insightful as always.

[3oneday]

No impact on my life, so I guess I could care less.

[dc68]

And you're the troll as always. 18591 posts and I wonder how many of those were insightful. Dickhead.

[Yossarian]

And you're the troll as always. 18591 posts and I wonder how many of those were insightful. Dickhead.

Hahaha!

[oncewasagolfer]

Bitch fight ensues:)

[AndyP]

Settle down, dc. I think Yoss has a valid point. Just because it makes some of you uncomfortable, doesn't mean they shouldn't do certain things in public that is acceptable for a heterosexual.

[WBennett]

Jarro - I used to have my doubts and reservations too.One of the wifes best friends is lesbian - great cook, awesome lass. She wanted kids so went to a US doner and had AI. She is now the mother of 3 kids with her partner, and a more loving and stable environment could not be asked for.I've seen plenty of marriages where the family is nowhere near as strong or as loving as this one.

[Moe Norman]

http://www.adambohannon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/13568073_CeJ49QM1_c.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/tuQXO.png

[Pieface]

I tend to find something else to do when someone starts rabbiting on about one of their conquests.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY-VdxwxSas

DILLIGAF?

I don't care if they get married. Not sure what the big deal is really.

[meh]

And you're the troll as always. 18591 posts and I wonder how many of those were insightful. Dickhead.

Single digits :lol:

[PeteyD]

Talking about gheys and motions at the same time is kinda ick.

[Eldrick]

id like to see the results of this poll broken down to state to see which is the most tolerant

[Yossarian]

Single digits :lol:

We could say the same for most here.

Or are you talking about how many fingers you prefer.

[TheTrueReview]

Can anyone tell me whether Chaz Bono is heterosexual or homosexual?

http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2011/08/chaz-bono-gsi-credit.jpg

[Sydney Hacker]

Asexual

[mike]

If there's 2 things I hate it's homophobes and poofters.


But seriously folks...
Each to their own I think.

Gays having families, also don't think there is too many problems with this. I don't see any reason why they could raised healthly, happy and balanced children.

There's plenty of Hetro parents who are not fit to do the job, they certainly should have sat some kind of test before having kids.... great post.

[BrisWesty]

The trouble is not with the gays who just want to be left alone to live their lives peacefully and quietly. It is the gay activists who want to have everything their own way and scream blue murder when somebody says no to them.

If you don't believe me have a look at what has happened in Massachusetts. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.pdf

[Jarro]

The trouble is not with the gays who just want to be left alone to live their lives peacefully and quietly. It is the gay activists who want to have everything their own way and scream blue murder when somebody says no to them.

If you don't believe me have a look at what has happened in Massachusetts. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.pdf

great post

[BroKar]

As stated don't get it myself, but have no issue with people who go about there business, it's the ones that advertise it I can't stand

[dc68]

The trouble is not with the gays who just want to be left alone to live their lives peacefully and quietly. It is the gay activists who want to have everything their own way and scream blue murder when somebody says no to them.

If you don't believe me have a look at what has happened in Massachusetts. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.pdf


This is along the lines of what I was saying earlier.

What say you Yoss ya ****ing wanker?

[IamViva]

The trouble is not with the gays who just want to be left alone to live their lives peacefully and quietly. It is the gay activists who want to have everything their own way and scream blue murder when somebody says no to them.

If you don't believe me have a look at what has happened in Massachusetts. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.pdf

Isnt it just activists in general that are the true pains in the ass? i can think of countless others who whinge when they dont get their own way and they arent gay?

interracial marriage was once a talking point... is it an 'issue' in today society? more importantly has it ruined any of your lives?

[dc68]

Isnt it just activists in general that are the true pains in the ass?


No I am sure the gays would be a worse pain in the arse.

[Webster]

No I am sure the gays would be a worse pain in the arse.

How are you sure?

[mike]

The trouble is not with the gays who just want to be left alone to live their lives peacefully and quietly. It is the gay activists who want to have everything their own way and scream blue murder when somebody says no to them.No different to the outspoken minority of any minority group, gay, muslim, whatever.

Like it or not there are gays out there and they're part of our society. They're not gay by choice, it's the way they were born.

[Jarro]

They're not gay by choice, it's the way they were born.

What about the guys that change teams after 20 solid seasons in first grade ?

[mike]

What about them?

They were probably gay to start with. I don't think you can 'catch' homosexuality like you can catch a cold or the pox.

[dc68]

How are you sure?

I take it you have never been constipated Jack.

[Yossarian]

Working for airlines for 20 odd years meant a lot of exposure to gays, if they wanna
do what they do it's their business. I just dislike the over the top I'm a queer woohoo
look at me bullshit some of them have to go on with. If you want to be treated as a
normal human being act like one!!!! I have no problem if they want to get hitched.


**** off Yoss, you wanker.


And you're the troll as always. 18591 posts and I wonder how many of those were insightful. Dickhead.


This is along the lines of what I was saying earlier.

What say you Yoss ya ****ing wanker?

Sorry these are all your posts in this thread where did you say this


The trouble is not with the gays who just want to be left alone to live their lives peacefully and quietly. It is the gay activists who want to have everything their own way and scream blue murder when somebody says no to them.

If you don't believe me have a look at what has happened in Massachusetts. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.pdf

EDIT

Sorry missed this one as well


No I am sure the gays would be a worse pain in the arse.

[mike]

LOL

[timinsa]

What about the guys that change teams after 20 solid seasons in first grade ?

I think you'll find they've been walking the dogs late at night for a while.

FWIW. I don't care who you marry as long as you respect each other.

[mike]

I know a gay couple. Great people. Very happy. I feel they should be allowed to be legally married. On the other hand I know plenty of male/female marriages that have made more of a mockery of the sanctity of marriage than the two fags ever would.

[WBennett]

How are you sure?

sms's thread at tgf brings a tear to the eye. ouch

[markTHEblake]

Too many people say they do not care and do not understand what the problem or fuss is. Have you actually considered that the reason that you do not care is because you do not know what the problem is!Briswesty posted a very informative link. I'll bet most did not read it. Just go to the last paragraph it will only take a few seconds. If you dont want to know why keep posting here.SMS316 made a very valid comment a few months ago,, something like 'religion invented marriage so they should be able to decide what the rules are' and yes the next step is to remove the rights for religion to discriminate. The greens and democrats have been trying this for years and from memory have already been successful in victoria ( religious schools )The fact that the Greens are the ones that are pushing this disturbs me more,, they should change their name to reflect their true agenda. If they win this battle it wont be the last.

[Lagerlover]

A school mates parents had a gay marriage... mind you that was a time you could go to the local deli and ask for a gaytime for 80 cents

[just]

Unlike westy and blakey, I know there is no conspiracy, no hidden subtext or ulterior motives underlying the issue of extending marraige to gay couples. I have gay friends and they just want to get married. It'll happen eventually.

[TheTrueReview]

My view?

Civil union for homosexual couples? Yes.
Marriage? No.

The media keep stirring crap by using the label "Gay marriage". Same as the way the media refer to sex education in schools as "sex classes" in schools. Not once have I heard the media referring to a push for "civil unions" for gay couples. They know that using the term "gay marriage" will attract & stir up the readership. I don't think too much of the population is resistant to the concept of a recognised civil union for gay couples. But changing the Marriage Act to permit "gay marriage" ... that's another story.

[Peter]

The old "you don't agree with me so you must not understand the issue" argument. Classic stuff.

[Webster]

Blakey wasn't Jesus a homosexual? Just hanging out with the boys all the time?

[AlexMc]

Our local MP has suggested that he's going to vote against because he believes his constituents want "education and health rather than gay marriage". Because of course you can't have both...

Religion might have invented marriage (wouldn't mind some evidence), but they didn't invent people wanting to get together and spend a period of their lives together. A church has no right to tell people they can't signify it in some form, and I have a hard time with a bunch of politicians telling people the same.

[goughy]

Religion had zip to do with my marriage. So does it mean mine is less than a full marriage?

I'm more concerned with the shits beating and molesting their kids / wives/ neices etc. And they're allowed to get married as many times as they want, either with a celebrant or in the eyes of their god. That seems more wrong to me.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

[hocko]

So long as they go about their business and do not worry/influence me I am fine.
If you have an inclination then they may influence you, if you don't then it can't be influential.


Too many people say they do not care and do not understand what the problem or fuss is. Have you actually considered that the reason that you do not care is because you do not know what the problem is!Briswesty posted a very informative link. I'll bet most did not read it. Just go to the last paragraph it will only take a few seconds. If you dont want to know why keep posting here.SMS316 made a very valid comment a few months ago,, something like 'religion invented marriage so they should be able to decide what the rules are' and yes the next step is to remove the rights for religion to discriminate. The greens and democrats have been trying this for years and from memory have already been successful in victoria ( religious schools )The fact that the Greens are the ones that are pushing this disturbs me more,, they should change their name to reflect their true agenda. If they win this battle it wont be the last.
Agreed, they invented it, we are a religious society (whether you like it or not), therefore we "have to" abide by their rules.
Funny that the Labour party has not had a conscience vote on the wearing of a Burka, again, religious rules.
Friggin hypocrites.

[goughy]

I read the whole document. Biggest load of propaganda rubbish I've read since the last time I opened the Bible.

Ready to be slammed...

[ddasey]

I read the whole document. Biggest load of propaganda rubbish I've read since the last time I opened the Bible.

Ready to be slammed...

Or struck by lightning :lol:

[Moe Norman]

Too many people say they do not care and do not understand what the problem or fuss is. Have you actually considered that the reason that you do not care is because you do not know what the problem is!Briswesty posted a very informative link. I'll bet most did not read it. Just go to the last paragraph it will only take a few seconds. If you dont want to know why keep posting here.SMS316 made a very valid comment a few months ago,, something like 'religion invented marriage so they should be able to decide what the rules are' and yes the next step is to remove the rights for religion to discriminate. The greens and democrats have been trying this for years and from memory have already been successful in victoria ( religious schools )The fact that the Greens are the ones that are pushing this disturbs me more,, they should change their name to reflect their true agenda. If they win this battle it wont be the last.

Sorry what?

Marriage was around long before religion.

And Westy's link is no more concerning than the Westboro baptists picketing funerals in the name of religion, in fact probably less so.

[virge666]

The best article I have read on gay marriage was penned by Mia Freedman in August last year. It completely demolishes all arguments against and is worth Googling.

Her broad point is that marriage is a civil, not religious, institution and all objections on biblical grounds are beside the point. As citizens we have equal rights and it is wrong to deny those rights.

[markTHEblake]

On that point, gays already have civil unions recognised, so that nullifies the arguments for, thus the issue IS about 'religion'.And thommo you are right. God instituted marriage on day 6 long before any man made religion began.

[TheTrueReview]

On that point, gays already have civil unions recognised, ....

But not across all state jurisdictions. If there were civil union laws in all states and territories, I don't think the current controversy would exist. It would be an empty argument.

[goughy]

On that point, gays already have civil unions recognised, so that nullifies the arguments for, thus the issue IS about 'religion'.And thommo you are right. God instituted marriage on day 6 long before any man made religion began.

I don't get this. What has marriage exactly got to do with religion? Does that mean in the eyes of the church I have a civil union and not a marriage?

I don't specifically remember anything in Genesis that says God instituted marriage on the 6th day.

When I got married I remember signing legal documents, having witnesses etc and needing a justice of the peace (a celebrant) there for it to be legal in the eyes of the law. Don't remember anything about religion being involved. But I'm sure those documents meant something to the government of australia etc etc. In a civil union do they have to have witnesses, a jp, signed documents etc that are required by the government to recognise the union? If not, then it's not the same thing. And I see no reason why they can't have the same thing.

[LarryLong]

Read BrisWesty's link and Mia Freedman's article and I still don't care either way.

One thing I will say though, is that I'm tired of the pro-gay marriage people coming out with the "Conventional marriage is in pretty bad shape and there are plenty of shit man-woman marriages that bust up quickly, oh and let's talk about Kim Kardashian" line. So what? That's completely irrelevant as an argument, and you've lost me the minute you go there. I'm sure there will be plenty of poorly thought out gay marriages (particularly in the first year they make it legal), just as there will be plenty of gay marriages that last for a long time. Straight people don't have a monopoly on stupid relationship decisions and last time I enquired, gays don't all mate for life.

Anyway, that's my rant. When's the vote?

[TheTrueReview]

... One thing I will say though, is that I'm tired of the pro-gay marriage people coming out with the "Conventional marriage is in pretty bad shape and there are plenty of shit man-woman marriages that bust up quickly, ... So what? ...

Precisely. A completely flawed argument.

[Moe Norman]

Westy posting that link is completely ridiculous. I can link you to Westboro baptist church and then pretend all Christians are just like them?

MTB don't be an idiot, whether you're religious or not, people were getting married long before the bible, or Jesus or any of the other religions people choose to believe - its a simple fact of life.

Hell some religions let blokes marry a few wives, why no a husband too?

I'm not up with religion though, do you guys just ignore everything BC and not acknowledge the existence of the planet and humans prior to the bible? Are dinosaurs just fairy tales?

[Tomson]

Quoted from Bill Hicks (It makes me laugh)

You know, the world's twelve-thousand years old, and dinosaurs existed in that time, you'd think it would've been mentioned in the ****ing bible at some point. "And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And o, the disciples did run a-shrieking 'What a big ****ing lizard, Lord.' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus' paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat ****ing families and their fat dollar bills. And O Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you, Lord."

[clikchic]

I read that entire document posted and it does not make a lick of sense. It is propaganda at it's finest. Use your common sense people, do you seriously think that rubbish sounds real? Religion has no business in making state decisions, by the sheer fact that not only are there hundreds (or more) religions but by the fact that not everyone HAS to believe what one religion says versus another, let alone those of us who do not believe in God.

This is nothing other than a human rights issue and the fact that all people do not have the same rights is simply wrong. Whether you are gay or straight, we are all just human beings who should all have the same rights regardless of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not a choice it is something you are born with, just like race. You have no say in how you are born, and who in their right mind would choose such a difficult way of life? Who would choose the discrimination and abuse that people of gay sexual orientation have to endure?

A civil union is NOT the same as marriage and therefore also not equal rights. No one on this earth had the right to say whether or not my husband and I could as two consenting adults who love each other could get married or not, and it should not be the case for anyone else. No one has the right to make the moral decisions for someone else unless it is hurting other people which gay marriage DOES NOT. The fear mongers who wrote that propaganda a playing on fear of the unknown to gain support. To say that aids has increased since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts is a load of CRAP! What the hell does marriage have to do with aids??? How does a showing of commitment increase the incidence of aids? IT DOESN'T. It is a made up statistic with not a bit of proof That is just ONE of the things that makes no sense in that document.

To make out that improving compassion is a bad thing is just as ludicrous. A little more understanding and compassion in this world instead of hate and ignorance would go a long way. How would you feel if this was your son? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdkNn3Ei-Lg) This video breaks my heart. No one should have to feel this way because of hatred and ignorance and lack of compassion. That boy has a right to be happy and a right to get married to the man he loves when he is old enough. No one should be allowed to take that right away from him.

What will happen when gay marriage is legalised? Gays will be able to get married as should be their right and it will have no impact on any other person. It will not affect my marriage, and it will not affect yours. Churches will still have the right to marry whoever they want to, just like they do now. Why would that change? I wouldn't be able to get married in a Catholic church and I wouldn't want to. I was more than happy to get married in Japanese Gardens. But NO-ONE, not even my parents, has the right to tell me I cannot get married to the person I love, whether that person is a woman or a man. I have no problem with a church not marrying a gay couple, but I do have an issue with the church telling two people they cannot get married at all. It is none of their business!!! They are not the government, or the will of the people.

This issue is one that is close to my heart, for no other reason than for anyone to not have equal rights to the rest of us in this day and age is disgusting. We should know better, and we should DO better.

[BrisWesty]

Westy posting that link is completely ridiculous. I can link you to Westboro baptist church and then pretend all Christians are just like them?

MTB don't be an idiot, whether you're religious or not, people were getting married long before the bible, or Jesus or any of the other religions people choose to believe - its a simple fact of life.

Hell some religions let blokes marry a few wives, why no a husband too?

I'm not up with religion though, do you guys just ignore everything BC and not acknowledge the existence of the planet and humans prior to the bible? Are dinosaurs just fairy tales?


Moe,

I'm a Christian. I have been for getting on for 40 years. It works for me.

Moe, have you actually checked what has been going on in Massachusetts, or are you just going to say it's ridiculous? Again, have I said I have a problem with gay people, or did I say I have a problem with activists? What that link primarily relates to are the activists who insist their opinion is the only opinion that counts, and their willingness to force everybody else to accept their point of view.

Do I agree with the Muslims who blow themselves up for Allah? Do I agree with the people who shoot doctors who perform abortions? Of course not. In my opinion they are just as fanatical (and wrong) as the gay activists. As for Westboro Baptist, they may call themselves Christian but they don't behave like it.

Moe, why would I ignore BC? Why would you think I think dinosaurs are fairy tales? You tell me. But tell me how can we confirm that something is 180M years old, give or take 16M years. That's a pretty rubbery figure. If we use the break down of radioactive isotopes, carbon dating etc, we have to work from the assumption the past has worked in the same way as the present, or we have to be able to assume that the current amounts of material left came from a specific source of the initial isotope. I'm not sure our universe is that simple.

On a slightly lighter note Queensland Health have indicated that 16M ($ in this case) matters to them.

So despite my faith, I guess I'm a skeptic. I was taught to not accept things blindly. And I accept the fact that other people have different opinions to me, because I don't know everything about anything. And that's one of the reasons I'm happy to be a member here, instead of some happy clapper forum.

And Tomson, that Bill Hicks thing is funny (even though the Loch Ness monster is more likely to be a plesiosaur (spelling?) than a brontosaurus). ;-)

Night all. Play nice.

[clikchic]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with peaceful protest, without it we would still have segregation. I can't believe you are comparing gay activists to terrorists and nutso's who shoot people. If I was well enough I would be out there protesting right along with them. Gay marriage is about love, not hate.

People are protesting because they have a need to be heard, and they should be!

[Yossarian]

Clikchic you think churches should be forced into allowing homosexuals to get married under their precepts and traditions?

[AlexMc]

They won't be getting married mate - they'll be getting "unionised". Won't happen in a church because it doesn't rely upon the church getting involved.

[TheTrueReview]

... A civil union is NOT the same as marriage and therefore also not equal rights. ...

Why is that CC? What legal rights do those in a civil union lack compared to married heterosexuals?

In the UK, Darren Hayes (formerly of Savage Garden) is in a civil union with his partner. Likewise Elton John.

I'm trying to understand your proposition. Is the difference that you contend, merely the different labels (ie. civil union & marriage)? Or is there a difference in the substance of the legally recognised relationship? Please explain.

[goughy]

Clikchic you think churches should be forced into allowing homosexuals to get married under their precepts and traditions?

I think you missed this part.


Churches will still have the right to marry whoever they want to, just like they do now. Why would that change?

Neither of us think the church, or any other religion should be forced to do this. We don't think anyone celebrant should be forced to do something they personally/morally/ethically/religiously don't believe in. In fact, to both of us this has got zip to do with religion. There are other ways to get married, but there not allowed either. But I bet you the shirt off my back (I wouldn't take it if I were you, I slept in it and it's a bit stinky) that if it were legalised and even if the church was against it, there will be some priests/ministers that would jump onto the bandwagon and start performing ceremonies for gay couples. There are always radicals.

But there will be plenty of celebrants/priests/ministers who would do it if legalised. I have no doubts about that.


But if allowed I think the problem with Robs statement above is that people will believe the church doesn't have the right to choose, which we both don't think should be the case. But heck, nothing's easy these days!

[Moe Norman]

Seriously, who gives a shit what the church thinks about a ceremony and tradition that pre dates the church?Why do we even care about the opinion of one religion over any other? Are the Muslims, Buddhists & scientologists ok with it, do we care?

[Moe Norman]

Moe,

I'm a Christian. I have been for getting on for 40 years. It works for me.

Moe, have you actually checked what has been going on in Massachusetts, or are you just going to say it's ridiculous? Again, have I said I have a problem with gay people, or did I say I have a problem with activists? What that link primarily relates to are the activists who insist their opinion is the only opinion that counts, and their willingness to force everybody else to accept their point of view.

You mean like Christians? Except they get to call themselves Christians instead of activists


Do I agree with the Muslims who blow themselves up for Allah? Do I agree with the people who shoot doctors who perform abortions? Of course not. In my opinion they are just as fanatical (and wrong) as the gay activists.

I'm sorry , gay activists looking for human rights are as bad as Muslims blowing themselves up for Allah and Christians shooting doctors?


As for Westboro Baptist, they may call themselves Christian but they don't behave like it.

Who determines how a Christian should behave?


Moe, why would I ignore BC? Why would you think I think dinosaurs are fairy tales? You tell me. But tell me how can we confirm that something is 180M years old, give or take 16M years. That's a pretty rubbery figure. If we use the break down of radioactive isotopes, carbon dating etc, we have to work from the assumption the past has worked in the same way as the present, or we have to be able to assume that the current amounts of material left came from a specific source of the initial isotope. I'm not sure our universe is that simple.

I was asking a genuine question, sounds like you're not really prepared to answer it though. What was going on in the world before the bible hit the fiction section at the Jerusalem library? People sure as hell were already getting married before Mary was telling fibs about being a virgin



So despite my faith, I guess I'm a skeptic. I was taught to not accept things blindly.

That doesn't make sense. Taught not to blindly accept things, but you believe in the biggest movement of people blindly accepting things there is?

The same thing responsible for every war in human history. Religion.

[Webster]

Moe you're going to hell if you keep this up.

[TheTrueReview]

Moe you're going to hell if you keep this up.

You gonna save him a place. :razz:

[virge666]

It is a legal issue IMHO.

Gay person 1 moves in with Gay person 2 and live together for a decade or so. Both have good jobs and earn a more than good living. They accumulate a valuable estate.

If Gay person 1 dies - There are some situations where Gay person 2 has little to no rights to the estate that they both built together, especially if family members did not approve of Gay Person 2. If they were married - it would be very different in the courts.

Equal rights is what it is about - no one cares about God.

[virge666]

The same thing responsible for every war in human history. Religion.

Bullshit.

I think you will find that Politics, Hatred and Greed are responsible for every war in human history. They just use religion to inspire the masses.

Religion by itself can be a wonderful thing.

[Grunt]

Agree with you there Virge.

[clikchic]

Clikchic you think churches should be forced into allowing homosexuals to get married under their precepts and traditions?

I did cover that one, but not at all. As goughy said, there will be plenty of celebrants and the odd progressive church who will marry gay people. I don't see why churches would be forced to marry people against their belief system.


Why is that CC? What legal rights do those in a civil union lack compared to married heterosexuals?

In the UK, Darren Hayes (formerly of Savage Garden) is in a civil union with his partner. Likewise Elton John.

I'm trying to understand your proposition. Is the difference that you contend, merely the different labels (ie. civil union & marriage)? Or is there a difference in the substance of the legally recognised relationship? Please explain.

From http://www.actnow.com.au/Issues/Samesex_marriage.aspx
(http://www.actnow.com.au/Issues/Samesex_marriage.aspx)
In theory, civil unions are designed to give couples the same rights that marriages do. Yet, unlike marriage unions, the legal rights given to same-sex couples vary from state to state. In some states, partners in civil unions are only given property rights, while in other states, they can legally adopt children. While you can get married anywhere from Vegas to Vanuatu – civil unions are only offered in very specific places.

But even if it is just about the title, why should a gay couple have a civil union instead of a marriage, that is still NOT equal rights. That is STILL discrimination.


Seriously, who gives a shit what the church thinks about a ceremony and tradition that pre dates the church?Why do we even care about the opinion of one religion over any other? Are the Muslims, Buddhists & scientologists ok with it, do we care?

This perfectly illustrates my point about so many religions being out there, and so many different beliefs. We cannot have any one belief system dictate what the entire country does. There MUST be separation of church and state. I don't care what the different religions believe, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but everyone should also have equal rights.



But if allowed I think the problem with Robs statement above is that people will believe the church doesn't have the right to choose, which we both don't think should be the case. But heck, nothing's easy these days!

Yeah, I really don't think that will be the case. I don't think it is reasonable to force anyone to do anything against their beliefs.

[sms316]

I don't think it is reasonable to force anyone to do anything against their beliefs.
Do you think it is reasonable that Fernwood can exclude men?

[PeteyD]

The main reason this is an argument at the moment is the Green party having a balance of power, and that they push it strongly.

Like most emotive arguments it allows people to assume they are correct and everyone else is wrong. People are entitled to a freedom of religion (it is the ONLY right we are granted under the constitution).

The lack of equity in the way relationships are treated under law (as outlined by Virge) needs to be addressed. Which is the civil union argument.

Not sure I can see a compelling argument to change the definition of Marriage. Defining it as a union between a man and a woman is not discrimination, it is how it is defined.

[Daves]

Do you think it is reasonable that Fernwood can exclude men?

Some, yes;)

[Moe Norman]

Politics, Hatred and Greed

Plenty would argue that this is what defines religion, so 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

Except the buddhists, they seem like a pretty peaceful bunch - of all the religions out there, they seem to be the good eggs.

[Moe Norman]

back to old faithful with this topic

http://i.imgur.com/tuQXO.png

[PeteyD]

But what if a plague of frogs breaks out?

[Moe Norman]

that will be Phil Hughes fault

[PeteyD]

Bwahahahaha

[clikchic]

Do you think it is reasonable that Fernwood can exclude men?

Don't really care that they do! Probably not completely right but there are plenty of gyms men can go to so I really don't see it as a serious issue. There are also plenty of gyms out there that women don't go to because they are not overly female friendly. What man would want to do workouts on a bunch of girly equipment anyway? Unless of course you were just there to perv, in which case you prove the whole point as to why women want their own gym. There are still mens clubs out there as well (such as the downs club in Toowoomba), and CWA's. I really don't see those as a huge issue. They are clubs based on common interest, kind of like religious institutions without the extra rights

[clikchic]

The main reason this is an argument at the moment is the Green party having a balance of power, and that they push it strongly.

Like most emotive arguments it allows people to assume they are correct and everyone else is wrong. People are entitled to a freedom of religion (it is the ONLY right we are granted under the constitution).

The lack of equity in the way relationships are treated under law (as outlined by Virge) needs to be addressed. Which is the civil union argument.

Not sure I can see a compelling argument to change the definition of Marriage. Defining it as a union between a man and a woman is not discrimination, it is how it is defined.

But considering not all relationships of romantic love are male & female, the definition in itself is discriminatory. Not allowing gay couples to marry is discriminatory.

[Peter]

Moe,

Should religious organizations be exempt from income tax?

[clikchic]

A comment on a Brisbane times post re: civil unions versus marriage.


Civil union = same-sex couples are still prevented from adopting in Queensland, even though they are permitted to be foster parents and access altruistic surrogacy and even though same-sex adoption is permitted in New South Wales, ACT and Western Australia.
Civil union = limited societal understanding and respect.Civil union = bizarre "civil union" proposals aka "would you do me the honour of entering into a civil partnership legally recognised only in Queensland with me" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "will you marry me".Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/whats-the-difference-between-a-civil-union-and-a-marriage-20111201-1o8lg.html#ixzz1gHYCBY2q

[Peter]

Hang on a second - you mean we actually let these homosexuals raise children? They might brainwash them.

These kids might infect the normal kids with 'gay'. Won't somebody think of the children!

[Moe Norman]

Moe,

Should religious organizations be exempt from income tax?

Certainly not.

[clikchic]

Hang on a second - you mean we actually let these homosexuals raise children? They might brainwash them.

These kids might infect the normal kids with 'gay'. Won't somebody think of the children!

On that tongue in cheek thought. As it is one of arguments against gay marriage... proof you can raise a happy and healthy child as a gay couple.
http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/

(http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/)IMO raising a child is about love and not what sex your parents are.

[markTHEblake]

Certainly not.

and your reason for supporting that is? Collingwood FC is also exempt from income tax, because like any organisation, whether it be the Mormons or the Junior Baseball club they are a Not For Profit organisation. Under our current tax laws, how can an organisation be taxed that does not payout any dividends and cannot be sold, or liquidated for profit?

[Moe Norman]

They shouldn't be exempt because they are a religion, they should only be exempt when they meet the required guidelines of being not for profit and/or charitable organisations.

[PeteyD]

Adoption laws need to be changed if that is the case. Just because people see civil union as a bit weird due to a lack of understanding is no reason to write it off.

[Shadesy]

hahaha NOT for Profit.....Never been to the Vatican?

[markTHEblake]

I'm more concerned with the shits beating and molesting their kids / wives/ neices etc.
What about the starving people in the world, economic concerns and 'world peace' ;-) for an issue that so many people are indifferent to by saying "it doesnt matter one way or another to me" they spend so much time and effort supporting it. I suspect the underlying reason that most people that proactively support this is only because the "religion" is against it


I read the whole document. Biggest load of propaganda rubbish I've read since the last time I opened the Bible.

Ready to be slammed...

:-)
That you do not beleive the bible to reflect true history is moot, and as that is your right, you will not be slammed about that. However there are people who believe that it is true and are using that as the foundation for their views on social issues such as this. You should be able to respect that, and thus denigrating our view based on your position on the bible is not an argument at all. Because, nobody, not you, me, Clikchik or Thommo have absolute knowledge. None of us may be right and we will never know in our lifetime


I don't get this. What has marriage exactly got to do with religion?
Thats the issue isnt it, you dont get this. :-) perhaps you might like to find out what the reasons are for the theistic support against gay marriage and then you will 'get it' - that will not mean you have to agree though


MTB don't be an idiot, whether you're religious or not, people were getting married long before the bible, or Jesus or any of the other religions people choose to believe - its a simple fact of life.
Nobody has said that marriage did not exist before "religion" or the bible. It is plainly obvious to everyone that Christianity as a specific religion began in the 1st Century AD.


I'm not up with religion though, do you guys just ignore everything BC and not acknowledge the existence of the planet and humans prior to the bible? Are dinosaurs just fairy tales?

No, No, No, No. The Old Testament records human history up to 4004 BC (or thereabouts) and is the foundation of the New Testment. Without the OT the NT makes no sense.

p.s. Athiest regimes in the 20th century have murdered more people than in all of human history. The religion causes wars argument is long debunked.


Quoted from Bill Hicks (It makes me laugh)

You know, the world's twelve-thousand years old, and dinosaurs existed in that time, you'd think it would've been mentioned in the ****ing bible at some point. "And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw.

Bill Hicks is an idiot then. Dinosaurs were not in existence in the 1st Century AD, if they were you would think that the Romans would have mentioned them as well in the Gallic Wars or other notable historical documents. As for the Old Testament does anyone want to give a name to the Behomoth described as having a tail like a cedar tree? The word dinosaur or brontosaurus is only a few centuries old, so to expect such names to be written in documents <2000yo is nonsense.
;)

Religion has no business in making state decisions
neither does the gay minority! "religion" is not (an cannot) making state decisions anyway they are lobbying on behalf of their demographic.
Seperation of Church and State has no relationship to this issue either.


Sexual orientation is not a choice it is something you are born with
Agreed I was also born with a sexual orientation of a sexually perverted polygamist male. My natural urges are to "shag anything that moves silly" but I do realise that is wrong, so I choose not to. There is always a choice.


What will happen when gay marriage is legalised? Gays will be able to get married as should be their right and it will have no impact on any other person.

The Massuchusets document listed a whole bunch of events that actually happened. To blow it off as propaganda (as you and others have done) and then claim that nothing will happen is a seriously flawed argument. These things either did happen or they did not, and you have failed to address any, except the flimsy statistical argument.

The Greens/Democrats and certain factions of the Labor party have a proven track record of pushing 'religious' issues for a long time, including,
- removal of tax exemptions
- removal of anti discrimination exemptions in private schools
- removal of school chaplains

to suggest that the gay marriage proposal will not affect all religions has little merit. You have been provided evidence of this already based on what happened in Massachusets. What evidence do you have that the same things will not happen here?

[markTHEblake]

they should only be exempt when they meet the required guidelines of being not for profit and/or charitable organisations.

They do.


hahaha NOT for Profit.....Never been to the Vatican?

Look up the definition of Not for Profit and then restate your argument.

[BrisWesty]

... People are entitled to a freedom of religion (it is the ONLY right we are granted under the constitution). ...

If you wish to retain that, then beware the creeping tide of Sharia, not just re Christianity but any other religion. If you don't believe me, try reading some of Barnabas Fund's links http://barnabasfund.org/AU/News/News-analysis/

[AndyP]

Agreed I was also born with a sexual orientation of a sexually perverted polygamist male. My natural urges are to "shag anything that moves silly" but I do realise that is wrong, so I choose not to. There is always a choice.

Oh.

Can I confirm that you are implying that being gay is wrong?

[Peter]

Makes sense now.

Gays should realize that they are doing something 'wrong' and simply choose to not do it.

[PeteyD]

If you wish to retain that, then beware the creeping tide of Sharia, not just re Christianity but any other religion. If you don't believe me, try reading some of Barnabas Fund's links http://barnabasfund.org/AU/News/News-analysis/

Not particularly, merely stating a fact as lots of people are bleating about Rights etc.

[markTHEblake]

Can I confirm that you are implying that being gay is wrong?

No you cant. But you may confirm that I believe it is wrong.


Gays should realize that they are doing something 'wrong' and simply choose to not do it.

Why should they realise this? I cant force my belief onto anyone, no more than you can force your beliefs onto me.

[Vinegar Stroke]

Gays should realize that they are doing something 'wrong' and simply choose to not do it.

They are doing something wrong.

[clikchic]

Adoption laws need to be changed if that is the case. Just because people see civil union as a bit weird due to a lack of understanding is no reason to write it off.

The simple reason that it is not the same as getting marriage is reason to write it off. Their rights should be the SAME not slightly different even if it is the label with the same rights.



What about the starving people in the world, economic concerns and 'world peace' ;-) for an issue that so many people are indifferent to by saying "it doesnt matter one way or another to me" they spend so much time and effort supporting it. I suspect the underlying reason that most people that proactively support this is only because the "religion" is against it

No I genuinely believe it is a travesty that in our free society that not everyone is free to get married. It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or that of others. Those issues you mention mean as much to me as this one, but not all of them are achievable in our lifetime nor are they something that this topic is about.



:-)
That you do not beleive the bible to reflect true history is moot, and as that is your right, you will not be slammed about that. However there are people who believe that it is true and are using that as the foundation for their views on social issues such as this. You should be able to respect that, and thus denigrating our view based on your position on the bible is not an argument at all. Because, nobody, not you, me, Clikchik or Thommo have absolute knowledge. None of us may be right and we will never know in our lifetime

No one is saying we do have absolute knowledge. We cannot make human rights decisions based on any one religious belief simply because of the fact that we do all have different beliefs. We should have the same rights and the right to believe what we choose, but by the same token, we should not have the right to force our beliefs on someone else by using biblical arguments as a reason not to allow something such as gay marriage. Just because one religion or another believes it is wrong, doesn't mean other people believe it is, and doesn't mean it is. But having different rights for different people IS wrong. I don't expect any religious person to accept a gay couple into their church, but I do expect people to accept that they have a need for their love to be accepted by law. It is WRONG to force your belief onto someone else, and not allowing gay couples to get married on the basis of religious beliefs is exactly that.



Thats the issue isnt it, you dont get this. :-) perhaps you might like to find out what the reasons are for the theistic support against gay marriage and then you will 'get it' - that will not mean you have to agree though

He gets it alright, he read the document you sent and disagrees it is credible evidence, as do I


neither does the gay minority! "religion" is not (an cannot) making state decisions anyway they are lobbying on behalf of their demographic.
Seperation of Church and State has no relationship to this issue either.
How can you say that when your arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature. You can't force your religious beliefs on others. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean everyone should follow your beliefs, hence why we need separation of Church and state. Decisions like these need to be based on civil rights not religious ones.



Agreed I was also born with a sexual orientation of a sexually perverted polygamist male. My natural urges are to "shag anything that moves silly" but I do realise that is wrong, so I choose not to. There is always a choice.
Shagging anything that moves is not two consenting adults. Good luck finding your multiple wives, I bet your wife would LOVE that idea...


The Massuchusets document listed a whole bunch of events that actually happened. To blow it off as propaganda (as you and others have done) and then claim that nothing will happen is a seriously flawed argument. These things either did happen or they did not, and you have failed to address any, except the flimsy statistical argument.

Where is your proof that they actually happened.


to suggest that the gay marriage proposal will not affect all religions has little merit. You have been provided evidence of this already based on what happened in Massachusets. What evidence do you have that the same things will not happen here?
What evidence do you have that that propaganda is real and not twisted reality, what evidence do you have that it will happen here? Since you are so keen for me to address the document, I will do so in a separate post.


They are doing something wrong. Says you.

[Webster]

I hope this legislation is well thought out, as there would appear to be a few physical issues that the ladies may need to resolve:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=530840

[Jarro]

I hope this legislation is well thought out, as there would appear to be a few physical issues that the ladies may need to resolve:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=530840

You a regular poster over there Jack ?

Do they have PM's ???

[Moe Norman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJwAMa94_q0&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw0uUT6p0gQ&amp;feature=related

this is why christianity shouldn't be allowed.

(of course christianity should be allowed, but thats the same as posting some random link and using it as an argument to suggest consenting adults shouldn't be permitted ot marry)

[TheTrueReview]

I hope this legislation is well thought out, as there would appear to be a few physical issues that the ladies may need to resolve:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=530840

This comment was particularly enlightening in their discussion thread -> "Infertile couples may marry. Impotent couples may not."

[Webster]

Surely they are entitled to their opinion Moe?

[matty]

Just came across this thread. A very interesting read. My 2c.........
Have a few good gay friends but I don't think they should marry. My belief is that it's between a man and woman.
No problem with a legal union.
Can't stand the gays who carry-on like a hyperactive 16 year old girls sneaking up to the cross on a friday night when talking about even the most mundane subjects.
Don't understand the need to lisp.
Public displays of affection by gays make me feel off.
Don't approve of being given 'attitude' by gays because I'm hetero.
I believe some of those supporting gay marriage are more intolerant of those not accepting of their views and set out on a crusade to convince them they are wrong in their beliefs, as if their belief is absolutely correct. Prove it is. Prove to me my view is correct. It is what it is.
I don't care if someone has a different view, just don't throw it on me.
btw, my gay friends don't seem to care too much about their relationship being called 'married' or not. They just want the relationship legally recognised, which I think is fair.

[clikchic]

I hope this legislation is well thought out, as there would appear to be a few physical issues that the ladies may need to resolve:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=530840

Maybe based on the religious definition of marriage, but really isn't how they consummate their marriage their business?

[Webster]

Clikchick, I don't mind how they do it. Wouldn't mind seeing the highlights reel though!

[clikchic]

Clikchick, I don't mind how they do it. Wouldn't mind seeing the highlights reel though!

Guess you are pro gay marriage then..

[Webster]

Only if both chicks are hot!

[clikchic]

Only if both chicks are hot!

So now you are discriminating against ugly chicks? ;)

[Webster]

Of course. Doesn't everyone?

[Yossarian]

The same thing responsible for every war in human history. Religion.

Anti Semite hey.

[BrisWesty]

Isn't this a great distraction? Classic diversion. We've all forgotten what a crap, morally bankrupt government we've got and have gone off on a tangent.

[BrisWesty]

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/10c/Britain_consent.html

Again, I'm referring to ACTIVISTS. My daughter is 2 years away from their proposed age of consent and is in no way emotionally mature enough to enter into a sexual relationship.

[markTHEblake]

Unfortunately BW they will just write that off as more propoganda.

[clikchic]

No that is not propaganda, that is an idiot. No one will ever pass a law to lower the age of consent to 14. Ludicrous! I have pretty liberal views on a lot of things but teenagers brains are still maturing at that age, they don't yet have the ability to properly assess the possible consequences for their actions.

And yes, you might even call him an extremist, but at least he isn't killing people...he is still a peaceful protester. He can try all he wants to lower the age of consent to 14, but it simply is not going to happen. Teenagers (under 18's) are not consenting adults.

[Yossarian]

Aren't civil and human rights just a construct like religion beliefs, what makes them any more valid as tools for deciding what should and shouldn't be passed as law?

[clikchic]

Aren't civil and human rights just a construct like religion beliefs, what makes them any more valid as tools for deciding what should and shouldn't be passed as law?

Democracy as apposed to dogma.

[Yossarian]

I see, so 64% in the 2007 census with some kind of Christian beliefs/ideals/ yada yada... And I think it was 1% who identified as homosexual in a much smaller survey, lets bump it up to 10% or something, which seems really high but who knows.

Not saying civil unions shouldn't be legislated on, not that I really agree with it, but if democracy is your argument.

[clikchic]

I see, so 64% in the 2007 census with some kind of Christian beliefs/ideals/ yada yada... And I think it was 1% who identified as homosexual in a much smaller survey, lets bump it up to 10% or something, which seems really high but who knows.

Not saying civil unions shouldn't be legislated on, not that I really agree with it, but if democracy is your argument.

Many Christians are pro gay marriage!

1% homosexual does not equate to 1% pro gay marriage.

I am hetro and last I checked I was allowed to vote.

Here are your statistics...
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/marriagereligion.pdf


Six in ten (60%) Australians believe that same-sex couples should be able to marry.
 Females are more open to allowing same-sex marriage than males (72% compared to 47% among males).
Similarly young age groups are more open to allowing same sex marriage than older age groups (67% among
18-34 years compared to 52% among ages 50-64 years).
Religious affiliation
 Half (49%) of Australians are Christian with 20% being Catholic, 16% Anglican and 12% ‘Other Christian’.
 Only 5% are of ‘Other religion’ with 43% saying ‘No religion
 The majority (53%) of Christians are open to allowing same-sex marriage. There is an even greater level of
support for same-sex marriage among people who do not have a religion (67%) and members of other religions
(62%).


http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/7197/Many-Christians-dont-mind-gay-marriage.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WMnRxsPWuw

The majority of Australians, including Christians are pro same sex marriage. THAT is democracy not dogma.

(http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/7197/Many-Christians-dont-mind-gay-marriage.htm)

[Yossarian]

A sample of 1000 people.

A twitter survey and a youtube video.

[mike]

The Sudanese are very relaxed with their views on marriage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stm

[markTHEblake]

Clicchik. Which organisation did the survey and what was the question that was asked that resulted in their claim that the majority supports gay marriage?

[BrisWesty]

No that is not propaganda, that is an idiot. No one will ever pass a law to lower the age of consent to 14. Ludicrous! I have pretty liberal views on a lot of things but teenagers brains are still maturing at that age, they don't yet have the ability to properly assess the possible consequences for their actions.

And yes, you might even call him an extremist, but at least he isn't killing people...he is still a peaceful protester. He can try all he wants to lower the age of consent to 14, but it simply is not going to happen. Teenagers (under 18's) are not consenting adults.


clikchic,

You're the one who mentioned under 18s are not consenting adults, yet somehow the age of consent is now 16. Please reread the following from the last link.

"Ten years ago, after fierce lobbying by the the homosexual movement, Britain lowered the age of consent for homosexual sex acts to 16. Now they have announced they are working to lower it to 14."

Do you not get it, people like this are never satisfied with leaving things the way they are. They always have to keep pushing the envelope, one small step at a time.

I've watched the increased sexualisation of kids over the last 20 years. Try watching Rage. The stuff we thought was full on 20 years ago barely raises an eyebrow now. Compare the vids in the 80s music thread. Go check out the slutty stuff in places like Supre, marketed at 10-12 year olds. Seriously, do you want your kids going out in that crap? I quite happily protested against Diva selling Playboy stuff, because my girls were shopping there and my girls are worth a damn sight more than what Hugh Hefner thinks they are worth.

Tatts, piercings, drugs, porn, attitudes towards authority. You tell me, are we happier with the way things are now, than they were 20 years ago? Is the world a better place? I don't think so. All the extra individual freedoms we have and the world is still a steaming pile of sh*t. If anything we're more selfish than we used to be.

Earlier this year my wife went to Cambodia to help work with girls who had been brought out of sex slavery. 6 years old and younger some of them. Previous years, she's been to South Africa working with AIDS orphans. You tell me where the justice is in those situations?

Now, I'm sure you'd say those things are wrong. So do I. But why is your opinion or mine preferable to that of a pedophile who thinks that that sort of treatment of children is quite OK? Why are we right and they are wrong?

Do you see what I am trying to say? This is the consequence of the moral relativism that has florished over the last 40 years. No rights, no wrongs, however it seems I am no longer entitled to an opinion where it conflicts with a minority group's goal or objective, therefore I have to just bend over and take it, despite the fact that can impact on how I bring up my family.

As a person, as a dad, as a husband, I have a responsibility to make a stand on certain things, because I consider them to be right, and that includes speaking out against injustice. I think marriage is one of those things that is worth preserving in its current form, between a man and a woman, despite how badly people have distorted it in the past (and how activists are seeking to distort it into the future). Imperfect as I am, imperfect as my wife is, marriage in the way that it is meant to be between a man and a woman is the best that it can be. I know enough single mums who do an amazing job with their kids, but their kids still don't have those male role models that they need. If I was a single dad, I know my girls wouldn't do as well, because they need the feminine part that Alaina brings to their life, that I don't have.

Robyn, I respect your position to have a differing viewpoint but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

[BrisWesty]

Democracy as apposed to dogma.

Like the 88% of political parties that were opposed to a Carbon Tax at the last election? ;-)

[Pieface]

While I'm not opposed to some of the thoughts you have expressed there Brissy I do find relating the child sex trade in cambodia to western media/consumerism a teensy bit of a long bow to draw. If anything the western consumers of the cambodian child sex trade are likely products of this more idyllic age of 20+years ago...

I agree that the increasing sexualisation of children is an issue and something that I worry about for my kid(s). Not sure what it has to do with gay marriage tho'

[markTHEblake]

Not sure what it has to do with gay marriage tho' Because it fundamentally changes the definition of family.

[dc68]

therefore I have to just bend over and take it, despite the fact that can impact on how I bring up my family.




No homo?


;)

[TheTrueReview]

The Sudanese are very relaxed with their views on marriage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stm

At least he made an honest goat of it.

[Dotty]

The goat was asking for it, by parading around with an uncovered midriff.

[dc68]

I fail to see the relevance, unless the goat was male.

[virge666]

How did you guys get some rubbish about the "age of consent" trying to be lowered to 14 in an arguement for and against gay marriage. Is some muppet going to bring up Hitler soon ????

FFS: BrisWesty, Quoting the christian nutters "lifesite" news as a real push is like saying that Fred Nile is saying Asians are such bad drivers, they now have to have two driving tests in this country... it just something shocking the so called "journalists" at LifeSite can use to push their agenda. I have two daugthers and can easily ignore that for the crock of shite it is.

Back on topic . . .

Instead of looking at marriage being a part of religion . . . try looking at religion being part of Marriage. I was married by a celebrant, my fiends were married in a christian church, other friends have been married in an Orthodox church, I even have a mate who was married by his Dad to save himself some cash...

The point is that you do not need religion to be married, so stop bringing the arguement back to God... Religion has very little to do with marriage for a lot of people, on the other hand, religion is a guideline for marriage for others.

The bit you all seem to miss is that it is a civil union - therefore if you allow a homosexuality under your country's law, you must by definition allow homosexual marriage.

[idgolfguy]

Is this part of the discussion about property ownership should one partner die or choose to divorce?

While being a Catholic with Hinduist undertones and a pragmatic, I believe the law of the country takes precedence over religion. Unfortunately, without religion, the law would not exist as its premise is based on the religion or dogma of the ruling majority.

I am with Bris in most of what he says, having two teen daughters, my reality is that there is very little we can do. I can go with the flow and offer resistance where I can.

[virge666]

Is this part of the discussion about property ownership should one partner die or choose to divorce?


I am sure it is part of it . . . but a large part of it just equality.



While being a Catholic with Hinduist undertones and a pragmatic, I believe the law of the country takes precedence over religion. Unfortunately, without religion, the law would not exist as its premise is based on the religion or dogma of the ruling majority.

I am with Bris in most of what he says, having two teen daughters, my reality is that there is very little we can do. I can go with the flow and offer resistance where I can.

This is the bit I really don't understand. Allowing gay marriage has absolutely no effect on you, your daughters or any of your family. Quoting Leviticus 18:22 is a purely religious argument, and therefore Christian Priests will not allow gay marriages in their churches... which is fair by me. But for the rest of us who could not give a shit about your religion should not have to binded by it.

Christian faith on one scale has created and protected child molesters and on the other scale STILL won’t support condoms usage FFS, it is not like you lot have any credentials on sexuality anyways.

Religion has built civilisations, it has also destroyed others. Religion can be an amazing and beautiful thing and congregations when united can achieve some brilliant outcomes. But there are times when the fear imposed on its congregation is unsubstantiated and unfair. This is one of those times.

[clikchic]

The Sudanese are very relaxed with their views on marriage.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stmAnother idiot, not exactly two consenting adults.


A sample of 1000 people. A twitter survey and a youtube video.Based on data obtained from polls.


Clicchik. Which organisation did the survey and what was the question that was asked that resulted in their claim that the majority supports gay marriage?
It is all in the link I posted.http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/marriagereligion.pdfThe survey was conducted by Galaxy Research, the questions and results are all in the pdf.


clikchic,You're the one who mentioned under 18s are not consenting adults, yet somehow the age of consent is now 16. Please reread the following from the last link."Ten years ago, after fierce lobbying by the the homosexual movement, Britain lowered the age of consent for homosexual sex acts to 16. Now they have announced they are working to lower it to 14."Do you not get it, people like this are never satisfied with leaving things the way they are. They always have to keep pushing the envelope, one small step at a time.

I actually do get it. While 16 isn't adult, it is a time when they are maturing and parenting has to come into it somewhere. Besides which 16 year olds don't get married without the consent of their parents which is what I am referring to regarding two consenting adults. I don't have a problem with the age of consent being 16 but 14. Definitely! That idiot can push all he wants, no parent are going to allow the age of consent to drop to 14. It will never make it through parliament as even those on the extreme left are not going to agree with something like that.


I've watched the increased sexualisation of kids over the last 20 years. Try watching Rage. The stuff we thought was full on 20 years ago barely raises an eyebrow now. Compare the vids in the 80s music thread. Go check out the slutty stuff in places like Supre, marketed at 10-12 year olds. Seriously, do you want your kids going out in that crap? I quite happily protested against Diva selling Playboy stuff, because my girls were shopping there and my girls are worth a damn sight more than what Hugh Hefner thinks they are worth.Tatts, piercings, drugs, porn, attitudes towards authority.

We don't watch rage, or any of the music shows because I have no desire for my kids to watch them. In fact Dean and I were commenting the other day after watching some youtube videos of an artist we like saying how refreshing it was not to see everyone in the video half naked. To me all of that is parenting. You don't have to let your kids watch that stuff, you don't have to dress your kids in supre. I buy my kids clothes on ebay and a lot of them are urban angel and pumpkin patch still. Good wholesome clothes while still being fashionable. Tatts and piercings have nothing do do with anything but expressing yourself. I have a family member who has a Christian fish tattooed on her ankle. I don't think you would consider that an attitude towards authority would you? Things change, fashions change, but tatts and piercings do not equate to bad attitudes. My brothers best friend (was his best man for his wedding) is a pastor with dreads longer than my own hair and piercings on his face. Do I like the look? Well I kinda think it looks cool but it doesn't mean I would want it for myself. I tend to dress reasonably conservatively and I don't have any tats and no piercings other than on my ears. My kids won't be getting tats or piercings (apart from Jasmines ears) until they are 18 and can properly decide for themselves as an adult.

Porn and attitudes towards authority, well really not sure how I feel on the subject of porn. But there is a reason it is rated R or X. We don't have it in our household, so I don't feel concerned how it will effect my children.

Attitudes towards authority have been since the dawn of time, and if they are increasing it is because of bad parenting. It has nothing to do with gay marriage and a right of a human being to get married.

[/QUOTE]You tell me, are we happier with the way things are now, than they were 20 years ago? Is the world a better place? I don't think so. All the extra individual freedoms we have and the world is still a steaming pile of sh*t. If anything we're more selfish than we used to be.Earlier this year my wife went to Cambodia to help work with girls who had been brought out of sex slavery. 6 years old and younger some of them. Previous years, she's been to South Africa working with AIDS orphans. You tell me where the justice is in those situations? [/QUOTE]

There is no justice in those situations. Yes they are wrong. Something needs to be done about it but it has nothing to do with gay marriage. gay does not equal pedophilia.



Now, I'm sure you'd say those things are wrong. So do I. But why is your opinion or mine preferable to that of a pedophile who thinks that that sort of treatment of children is quite OK? Why are we right and they are wrong?Do you see what I am trying to say?

Pedophiles have also been around since the dawn of time, we just hear more about it now because it gets talked about and reported on. Why are our opinions preferable, because pedophiles hurt children. As far as I am concerned, two consenting adults can do what they want, but pedophiles don't do things as consenting adults.


This is the consequence of the moral relativism that has florished over the last 40 years. No rights, no wrongs, however it seems I am no longer entitled to an opinion where it conflicts with a minority group's goal or objective, therefore I have to just bend over and take it, despite the fact that can impact on how I bring up my family.

Of course you are entitled to an opinion, just as anyone else and just as I am entitled to disagree with it. Gay marriage however, won't impact your family unless one of your kids happens to be gay. Gay people aren't trying to hurt your family, they are just trying to have the same rights as anyone else. As a parent, it is your job to teach your kids morals, that doesn't come from society, that comes from at first you, and later their own thought processes. Just because other people are bad parents doesn't mean you have to be or will be.

[virge666]

Gay marriage however, won't impact your family unless one of your kids happens to be gay. Gay people aren't trying to hurt your family, they are just trying to have the same rights as anyone else. As a parent, it is your job to teach your kids morals, that doesn't come from society, that comes from at first you, and later their own thought processes. Just because other people are bad parents doesn't mean you have to be or will be.

+1

[Moe Norman]

clikchic,

You're the one who mentioned under 18s are not consenting adults, yet somehow the age of consent is now 16. Please reread the following from the last link.

"Ten years ago, after fierce lobbying by the the homosexual movement, Britain lowered the age of consent for homosexual sex acts to 16.

Cooincidentally, the same age of consent for heterosexual sex. So you would prefer 16 year olds that are hetero to be legally allowed to have sex, but not homosexuals?




I've watched the increased sexualisation of kids over the last 20 years. Try watching Rage. The stuff we thought was full on 20 years ago barely raises an eyebrow now. Compare the vids in the 80s music thread. Go check out the slutty stuff in places like Supre, marketed at 10-12 year olds. Seriously, do you want your kids going out in that crap? I quite happily protested against Diva selling Playboy stuff, because my girls were shopping there and my girls are worth a damn sight more than what Hugh Hefner thinks they are worth.

What the hell does that have to do with gay people wanting equal rights? Is hugh Hefner gay, is her marketing lesbian gear in supre to 10 year olds?


Tatts, piercings, drugs, porn, attitudes towards authority. You tell me, are we happier with the way things are now, than they were 20 years ago? Is the world a better place? I don't think so. All the extra individual freedoms we have and the world is still a steaming pile of sh*t. If anything we're more selfish than we used to be.

Relevance to gay people is what?


Earlier this year my wife went to Cambodia to help work with girls who had been brought out of sex slavery. 6 years old and younger some of them. Previous years, she's been to South Africa working with AIDS orphans. You tell me where the justice is in those situations?

Sounds like heterosexual people were bringing them out, perhaps we should ban heterosexual sex and marriage to stop this!


Now, I'm sure you'd say those things are wrong. So do I. But why is your opinion or mine preferable to that of a pedophile who thinks that that sort of treatment of children is quite OK? Why are we right and they are wrong?

Do you see what I am trying to say? This is the consequence of the moral relativism that has florished over the last 40 years. No rights, no wrongs, however it seems I am no longer entitled to an opinion where it conflicts with a minority group's goal or objective, therefore I have to just bend over and take it, despite the fact that can impact on how I bring up my family.

Morality and religion are mutually exclusive. What is morally right and morally wrong has nothing to do with religious beliefs. In fact the only 'organisation' that is over represented with pedophiles is the Church. Pedophilia is abhorrent and clearly morally wrong, letting 2 people that love each other get married is not, whether they are same sex or not and it has no impact on how you bring up your family.


As a person, as a dad, as a husband, I have a responsibility to make a stand on certain things, because I consider them to be right, and that includes speaking out against injustice.

Then why take on such an unjust position?

The only people suffering any injustice in this discussion are those that are deemed immoral because they are a homosexual, and as such are not granted equal rights.

What injustice exactly are you speaking out about here?

[markTHEblake]

You all keep whining that religion has nothing to do with it yet it is YOU who keeps bring up the topic.

And Virge,! The Roman Catholic church does not represent Christianity and neither BW or myself have any allegiance to the RCC so critisising their dogma is moot.

If you want to use the religion argument you need to do some better research.

[virge666]

You all keep whining that religion has nothing to do with it yet it is YOU who keeps bring up the topic.

And Virge,! The Roman Catholic church does not represent Christianity and neither BW or myself have any allegiance to the RCC so critisising their dogma is moot.

If you want to use the religion argument you need to do some better research.

Read the rest mate . . . equal rights and all that.

You know - the important bit.

[clikchic]

How did you guys get some rubbish about the "age of consent" trying to be lowered to 14 in an arguement for and against gay marriage. Is some muppet going to bring up Hitler soon ????

I have to agree, age of consent has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage. It is a separate issue altogether.

[markTHEblake]

It is a separate issue altogether. we know it is a seperate issue. However you are being deliberately ignorant of what the gay activists want and continue to claim 'nothing will happen'

[Moe Norman]

and you're being deliberately ignorant of what religious activists want, and in some cases already have.

[BrisVegas]

As a handicapped, homosexual, middle-eastern woman who identifies as Indigenous, I voted Yes.

[TheTrueReview]

Okay, we're up to 8 pages now. Shaun set off a real bush fire with this thread. My question is whether it will top the length of the Zigwah/Scott Laycock thread? Place your bets my gay & hetero fellow Ozgolfers. :)

[virge666]

Okay, we're up to 8 pages now. Shaun set off a real bush fire with this thread. My question is whether it will top the length of the Zigwah/Scott Laycock thread? Place your bets my gay & hetero fellow Ozgolfers. :)

I can debate the shit out this...

[3oneday]

I haven't read it for about 6 pages, doubt I've missed much. Only popped back in wondering why it had taken so long.

[virge666]

we know it is a seperate issue. However you are being deliberately ignorant of what the gay activists want and continue to claim 'nothing will happen'

No, we are deliberately ignoring the report of a right wing Christian website report based in the UK about a single UK gay moron, pushing what is obviously a ridiculous cause and one that will not get any traction is any developed country. One idiot based in the UK does not represent the Australian Public, nor it's laws.

If you read any of the other "reports" in said Christian website, you will see more of the insane right wing biased sensationalism in every other article.

[virge666]

I haven't read it for about 6 pages, doubt I've missed much. Only popped back in wondering why it had taken so long.

You waiting for the DVD ?

[Moe Norman]

You all keep whining that religion has nothing to do with it yet it is YOU who keeps bring up the topic.

.

You're spot on, it's nothing to do with religion - it's just that only religious folk seem to oppose it, for other unrelated reasons of course.

[3oneday]

You waiting for the DVD ?depends ;)

[i Golf]

I've got no issue with 2 blokes or chicks getting married. I hav eno issues with gays just so long as they don't make it compulsory.

I do however have a big issue with 2 gay blokes adopting children. Look back at your school years, if you were different you were an automatic target of abuse, even wearing the wrong shoes or brand of clothes was enough for ridicule.

Imagine how much crap a kid will cop at school when its known his parents are 2 gay blokes, the harrasment the kid will get would be enough for him to jump off a cliff, is anyone thinking of the kids here, or is it just self fullfilment and rights that these people are pushing without any thought of how the kids will feel?? You want an increase in youth suicide allow 2 gay married men to adopt a child, the suicide rates amongst that group of kids will exceed any others.


Sure go get married, its an outdated and irrelevant institution in todays world, after all most marriages end in divorce, so its hardly a lifetime commitment is it??? But you aint adopting kids, I'll protest against gay adoption every day of the week.

And before any gays or gay supporters jump down my throat, this is looking out for the kids not you and your misguided belief in that you think everything should be equal.

[PeteyD]

Does anyone know what the actual law is now?
and at what jurisdictions (Federal / state)?

[Jono]

At the start of senate sitting everyday, the president reads a prayer. A Christian prayer. Whether we like it or not, this is a Christian country with a Christian government. You can not separate passing of a law from the Christian faith. IMHO.

[markTHEblake]

and you're being deliberately ignorant of what religious activists want, and in some cases already have.You mean like, Christian activists saying no to the social and ethical changes being pushed by greens democrats Labor and gays? Of course I am not being ignorant, I fully support all of this. Perhaps you should be more specific.

[Moe Norman]

I'm not a green, democrat, Labor or gay - nor am I an activist.

I still think anyone over 18 should be able to get married to whoever they like though.

Here's a good agenda from a Christian activist


Whatever righteous cause the Jewish victims of the 1930s–40s Nazi Holocaust had, (probably minuscule), has been drowned in sodomite semen. American taxpayers are financing this unholy monument to Jewish mendacity and greed and to filthy fag lust. Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany ... The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke ... And God has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness ... Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda... Jews are the real Nazis

[PeteyD]

wtf is that?

[LarryLong]

I think it's called a straw man.

[markTHEblake]

I'm not a green, democrat, Labor or gay - nor am I an activist.I never said you were so not even sure why you would need to say that.
still think anyone over 18 should be able to get married to whoever they like though.Thats fine for you to have that opinion,, I have not criticised you for that.But why 18? Thats discriminating against peodophiles. They cant help it if they were born that way and as evolution allowed females to reproduce at about the age of 13 so it must be OK.
Here's a good agenda from a Christian activistI cant even tell what is the agenda from that nor what he is trying to change so it seems a meaningless thing to post.

[clikchic]

we know it is a seperate issue. However you are being deliberately ignorant of what the gay activists want and continue to claim 'nothing will happen'

One idiot gay activist in another country is not gay activists as a whole. Just because one gay activist wants to lower the age of consent doesn't mean the rest of them do. Just because one gay activist wants to lower the age of consent, doesn't mean it will happen. No parent in their right mind would vote for something like that. No government would be game to put it through parliament for fear of backlash.


I've got no issue with 2 blokes or chicks getting married. I hav eno issues with gays just so long as they don't make it compulsory.

I do however have a big issue with 2 gay blokes adopting children. Look back at your school years, if you were different you were an automatic target of abuse, even wearing the wrong shoes or brand of clothes was enough for ridicule.

Imagine how much crap a kid will cop at school when its known his parents are 2 gay blokes, the harrasment the kid will get would be enough for him to jump off a cliff, is anyone thinking of the kids here, or is it just self fullfilment and rights that these people are pushing without any thought of how the kids will feel?? You want an increase in youth suicide allow 2 gay married men to adopt a child, the suicide rates amongst that group of kids will exceed any others.

Sure go get married, its an outdated and irrelevant institution in todays world, after all most marriages end in divorce, so its hardly a lifetime commitment is it??? But you aint adopting kids, I'll protest against gay adoption every day of the week.

And before any gays or gay supporters jump down my throat, this is looking out for the kids not you and your misguided belief in that you think everything should be equal.

This is a problem with parenting, not gay marriage or gay adoption. Yes it is possible the child will be teased, but a gay couple will be well equipped to help that child deal with any negative backlash because they have lived with it most of their lives. Not to mention the fact that most kids get teased about something. I got teased because I used fake tan. Our daughter was getting teased by a boy on her bus for no reason other than the fact she is friends with his sister. That is when parents need to step in and help the kids deal with it, weather it is by talking to the bully's parents or helping the child with coping mechanisms or comebacks. Bullying comes from fear and ignorance and is about the bully not the person being bullied. Introducing compassion and understanding to schools and families is the way to combat bullying. The possibility of bullying which is not a given really shouldn't be a reason to say no to gay couple adoption.


At the start of senate sitting everyday, the president reads a prayer. A Christian prayer. Whether we like it or not, this is a Christian country with a Christian government. You can not separate passing of a law from the Christian faith. IMHO.

Since when do we have a president?



Here's a good agenda from a Christian activist

Goes to show there are nuts on both sides. Again, just one person, not the whole christian community.

[clikchic]

I never said you were so not even sure why you would need to say that.Thats fine for you to have that opinion,, I have not criticised you for that.But why 18? Thats discriminating against peodophiles. They cant help it if they were born that way and as evolution allowed females to reproduce at about the age of 13 so it must be OK.

THAT is an idiotic thing to say.

A child can't protect themselves from an adult. A child is not a consenting adult. A pedophile is taking advantage of a child.

Two consenting adults are taking advantage of no-one.

[Jono]

Since when do we have a president?


1901.

President of the Senate.

[markTHEblake]

A child can't protect themselves from an adult. A child is not a consenting adult. A pedophile is taking advantage of a child.You have failed to address the fact that evolution allowed girls of 13 to reproduce. And also that in many countries girls in their teens get married earlier than 16. Also how can you concede gays as normal because they were born that way but not pedophiles who were also born that way?

[clikchic]

1901.

President of the Senate.

My bad, I knew there was a reason I wasn't a politician. That would irk me to no end to have that at the start of every session.


You have failed to address the fact that evolution allowed girls of 13 to reproduce. And also that in many countries girls in their teens get married earlier than 16. Also how can you concede gays as normal because they were born that way but not pedophiles who were also born that way?

So what? They have to sexually mature sometime don't they. Are you saying you want them to get married at 13? Not sure I am seeing your point there.

Gays do not hurt children, pedophiles do. I thought I already addressed that??

[Iain]

You have failed to address the fact that evolution allowed girls of 13 to reproduce. And also that in many countries girls in their teens get married earlier than 16. Also how can you concede gays as normal because they were born that way but not pedophiles who were also born that way?So you think gay people should be thrown in jail?

[markTHEblake]

So you think gay people should be thrown in jail?No. Its pretty hard for me to figure out why you would think I do.

[clikchic]

No. Its pretty hard for me to figure out why you would think I do.

Because it sounds like you are implying that gays are the same as pedophiles.

[mike]

The last 6 pages ...

http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t325/yumbotto/didnt_read_dance_gif.gif


... just sayin'.

[Peter]

Blakey, Westy,

How would you react if you found out that one of your kids is gay?

[markTHEblake]

So what? They have to sexually mature sometime don't they. Are you saying you want them to get married at 13? I am not saying what I want at all, I am asking you to answer in the same context of your view on this topic. Some countries allow under age kids to a marry but australia does not. Who is wrong us or them, and who gets to decide.
Gays do not hurt children, pedophiles do. I thought I already addressed that??If you are talking about toddlers yes. But we are not. If you concede that homosexuals are not doing anything wrong because they were born that way you have to give the same concession to others. If you cant then you are being inconsistent with your moral relatism.

[BrisWesty]

Thommo, what I am trying to say is that this is a frog in a pot situation. The standards are being taken down, point by point. For example, if Rihanna had been on Rage 20 years ago, she'd have been banned. They wouldn't have played a number of her videos. But because there has been a progressive loosening of standards, her stuff is now deemed to be OK.

What I have been trying to explain, with limited success, is that the underlying gay activist position is that they want to infiltrate and remake the church according to their precepts, because some denominations do not agree with homosexuality.

Therefore they will push the agenda, and when the church disagrees they seek to wedge it by saying the church hates gays. Not so, that's simplistic.

If you think a gay activist couple will not seek to create a flash point by demanding they get married in a church that doesn't support homosexuality, then sorry but you are naive. It's no different to the feminists who demand to become members of the Tattersalls Club etc. Trying to put it as simply as I can, it would be like me demanding to become a Collingwood member while wearing my full Geelong regalia and then expecting to be able to sit in the Collingwood cheer squad or on the board of the Collingwood FC. Would that be a just position? What would Eddie say about that? Am I making myself clear yet?

There is a whole industry set up to mollycoddle the easily offended and professional victims; whether it's race, gender, sexuality, age, weight etc. I'm not buying it.

[markTHEblake]

How would you react if you found out that one of your kids is gay?Silly question. Who would know what they really would do.

[i Golf]

You need to take your rose coloured glasses off, we all know bullying is rife in schools, however there ar every few if any cases dealt with by principals in most schools.

If you think that 2 gay ppl are any more equiped to talk to their child about being bullied than a pair of straight parents because they were bullied all their school life your tripping. This to a half smart person would prompt them to say I never want to put my loved one through any of that. I know ppl to this day who will not have kids because they were bullied at school.

The kids bullying someone because they are tall or short will stop when the kids grows up or others catch up, however the bullying and isolation that a kid of a pair of gays will not stop until that kid leaves school at 17 or 18.

Do you seriously want to inflict a child hood and teenage schooling years to a life time of abuse, I can tell you now and no I am not on the other side of the fence that the kid of a pair of gays will cop abuse like none before him.

Remember this kid will have NO say in who adopts him, this adoption BS is all for the fullfilment of the parent, No consideration is given to the life that this child will have to endure.

[markTHEblake]

Because it sounds like you are implying that gays are the same as pedophiles.No i am asking you a question.

[Iain]

Is it actually proven that pedeophiles are born that way?

[goughy]

I'm loving reading through this debate, and am really happy that it's stayed quite civil throughout (civil compared to what many might have expected). It could have ended up differently, but I'm really enjoying it. The fact is it's a debate with no end as no one is gonna change their opinion/belief and no one is going to give any quarter. Still I think it's been quite lively from all sides.

Viva la free choice!

[i Golf]

briswesty has a point re todays standards dropping bit by bit.

I blame shows like Home and away, here we have a half baked child porn programme on prime time TV, It must be a pedos paradise that show, with all those young chicks getting it on with randoms all over the joint, call me old fashioned but I think the way that show sets up its openly sexual scenes is offensive and give syoung girls the impression that it is on Tv it must be OK. Its hardly appropriate to have a character such as April shagging a bloke who is 10 yrs her senior and portray it as normal. The show is contributing to the decay of society. Or Ruby rooting a bloke she just met in the back of a broken down car busted by her mother???

FFS the show is a soft porn episode.

[Peter]

Silly question. Who would know what they really would do.
Ok, what do you think you would do?

And the 'it's ok because they were born that way' argument is obviously flawed. It seems like more people here are using the 'it won't affect me so I don't care' argument.

[markTHEblake]

Is it actually proven that pedeophiles are born that way?No and neither have gays.

[clikchic]

I am not saying what I want at all, I am asking you to answer in the same context of your view on this topic. Some countries allow under age kids to a marry but australia does not. Who is wrong us or them, and who gets to decide.If you are talking about toddlers yes. But we are not. If you concede that homosexuals are not doing anything wrong because they were born that way you have to give the same concession to others. If you cant then you are being inconsistent with your moral relatism.

Given that I have mentioned the words two consenting adults multiple times, I would think that I believe TWO CONSENTING ADULTS can get married (regardless of sex). Not a child and an adult or two children. Last I checked you become adult at the age of 18 which means I think you should be able to marry any other consenting ADULT once you have turned 18. Not getting where any inconsistency lies. I have stated two consenting adults getting married through the entire thread. AND YES I believe getting married at an earlier age is wrong since non adult teen (ie <18) brains are still maturing and cannot foresee the consequences of their actions.

ADULT = 18+
CONSENTING = BOTH PARTIES AGREE

THEREFORE TWO ADULTS WHO CONSENT to get married, should be able to do so.

A child <18 and an adult +18 should not be able to get married. A CHILD <18 is not an adult.

Not sure how much clearer I can explain my reasoning...

[clikchic]

Thommo, what I am trying to say is that this is a frog in a pot situation. The standards are being taken down, point by point. For example, if Rihanna had been on Rage 20 years ago, she'd have been banned. They wouldn't have played a number of her videos. But because there has been a progressive loosening of standards, her stuff is now deemed to be OK.

What I have been trying to explain, with limited success, is that the underlying gay activist position is that they want to infiltrate and remake the church according to their precepts, because some denominations do not agree with homosexuality.

Therefore they will push the agenda, and when the church disagrees they seek to wedge it by saying the church hates gays. Not so, that's simplistic.

Stating that gays are trying to infiltrate the church according to their precepts is also simplistic. Most of them probably don't want a bar of a church that openly tells them they are evil.

However on the grounds of standards being taken down, sure it is happening, has been happening for 200 years and more. People change, life changes, technology changes. You can't however blame that on gay marriage...


If you think a gay activist couple will not seek to create a flash point by demanding they get married in a church that doesn't support homosexuality, then sorry but you are naive. It's no different to the feminists who demand to become members of the Tattersalls Club etc. Trying to put it as simply as I can, it would be like me demanding to become a Collingwood member while wearing my full Geelong regalia and then expecting to be able to sit in the Collingwood cheer squad or on the board of the Collingwood FC. Would that be a just position? What would Eddie say about that? Am I making myself clear yet?

There is a whole industry set up to mollycoddle the easily offended and professional victims; whether it's race, gender, sexuality, age, weight etc. I'm not buying it.

Of course their will be the odd gay couple who will do that, but there also girls who want to join male football teams. The church doesn't have to marry the gays, and generally speaking a male football team doesn't have to accept a female player.


Silly question. Who would know what they really would do.

It is not a silly question at all, it is an important one. I DO know what I would really do. I would probably be a little sad because of what prejudice they have ahead of them, but I would show them as much love, acceptance and support as I always have.


You need to take your rose coloured glasses off, we all know bullying is rife in schools, however there ar every few if any cases dealt with by principals in most schools.

If you think that 2 gay ppl are any more equiped to talk to their child about being bullied than a pair of straight parents because they were bullied all their school life your tripping. This to a half smart person would prompt them to say I never want to put my loved one through any of that. I know ppl to this day who will not have kids because they were bullied at school.

The kids bullying someone because they are tall or short will stop when the kids grows up or others catch up, however the bullying and isolation that a kid of a pair of gays will not stop until that kid leaves school at 17 or 18.

Do you seriously want to inflict a child hood and teenage schooling years to a life time of abuse, I can tell you now and no I am not on the other side of the fence that the kid of a pair of gays will cop abuse like none before him.

Remember this kid will have NO say in who adopts him, this adoption BS is all for the fullfilment of the parent, No consideration is given to the life that this child will have to endure.

Not having kids because of fear of bullying is a very simplistic approach to broaching the problem. They are two separate issues and both need to be addressed.

The problem of bullying should be addressed by parents, schools, principles, the general public and peers. Our kids school has a strict anti bullying policy and it is becoming more and more common for schools to have a similar stance. The school offers instruction on how to deal with bullies, and has discipline for those who bully..

A gay parent (and a hetero parent) can become a member of the schools P & C to ensure that bullying policies are enacted in their child's school.

Once a child leaves their parents home, bullying is not going to happen anymore. Most adults are not that cruel, and that child does not need to tell every man and his dog his parents are gay if he/she thinks it is going to cause problems.


No and neither have gays.

Pedophiles harm minors therefore should not be allowed to.
Gays do not harm anyone. They just love their partner.

With all the bigotry and hate associated with being gay who would CHOOSE to???

[BroKar]

I am going to post some information in regards to religion and gay marriage, religions are supposed to be based on beliefs derived from the bible yet this is very rarely adhered to by many religions today due to the fact they try to please the masses, religion in most cases has become big business and is no longer providing the moral compass it is supposed to.

In regards to gay marriage from a genuine religious standpoint look at the following scriptures

Leviticus 18:22
New International Version (NIV)
22 &ldquo;&lsquo;Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:22&version=NIV

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11&version=NIV

Romans 1:26
New International Version (NIV)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

Romans 1:27
New International Version (NIV)
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26,27&version=NIV

Based on the above scriptures taken from the Bible any religion that does support gay marriage is not basing there beliefs or adhering to the bible which they promote as gods word.

[Ronny]

I like boobs, beer and golf!

oh sh*t wrong thread!

[Moe Norman]

I read that as 'boys, beer and golf' and assumed you were a minister!

[dc68]

I read that as 'boys, beer and golf' and assumed you were a minister!


If you read boobs as boys maybe it's time you did swap sides Moe.

[Moe Norman]

If you concede that homosexuals are not doing anything wrong because they were born that way you have to give the same concession to others. If you cant then you are being inconsistent with your moral relatism.

Homosexuals are not causing harm to others, it is not a predatory trait. Pedophiles are causing harm to others, so it's a stupid comparison to make.

Also

http://www.news.com.au/national/penny-wong-and-sophie-allouaches-labour-of-love-their-new-baby-girl-alexandra/story-e6frfkvr-1226221336839

good news!

[PeteyD]

Roooowwwwwwwwwwwwwr

[td42t]

All I can say is Australia must be in a good state if this is topping the headlines.
My view.
I'll start with religion, its is single most destuctive thing world wide. It may not have started every conflick, but it is the driving force behind the motivating of people to take up a cause and run with it.
Religion as far I'm concerned is for weak minded people with no self belief or guidence.

I don't see the fuss about gay marriage? What extra rights do they get if married? Adopt kids, divorce settlements, tax break for a spouse,family insurance maybe.

As a golfer I like tradition and traditionally Marriage is between a man and women, lets keep it that way.

Gay people can do as like as far I'm concerned with the exception using the word marriage to descibe their union, and of adopting children, this is not what a normal everyday family is and no child should be forced into living with a same sex couple. If they want to have kids then they can get the turkey baister out and have their own.
The gay community like to have all their own little things so lets keep it that way and call it something else if we must, and stop raming this shit down the throat of the majority of the population who think there are bigger issues.

[Moe Norman]

I'll start with religion, its is single most destuctive thing world wide. It may not have started every conflick, but it is the driving force behind the motivating of people to take up a cause and run with it.
Religion as far I'm concerned is for weak minded people with no self belief or guidence.




Amen I agree

[clikchic]

Gay people can do as like as far I'm concerned with the exception using the word marriage to descibe their union, and of adopting children, this is not what a normal everyday family is and no child should be forced into living with a same sex couple. If they want to have kids then they can get the turkey baister out and have their own.
The gay community like to have all their own little things so lets keep it that way and call it something else if we must, and stop raming this shit down the throat of the majority of the population who think there are bigger issues.

That's the trouble tho, to the gay community and those that support them, this IS one of the bigger issues.

[sms316]

Has clikchic ever posted this much?

[clikchic]

Probably not! But despite the fact that I am the one who originally created this site, I am not into golf.

This topic however interests me and since goughy insisted I read 'the document' I had to come post since this is a topic close to my heart. ;)

[AndyP]

Has clikchic ever posted this much?Not for years anyway.

[Moe Norman]

That's the trouble tho, to the gay community and those that support them, this IS one of the bigger issues.

why do we even refer to them as the 'gay community'? they're just people.

I suppose we used to refer to coloured communities too?

progress is slow.

[AndyP]

I think you are nitpicking, Moe. 'Community' is tagged onto many things.

It turns out that I've been wasting my time walking around naked in front of the dog and toaster.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali

[Yossarian]

Is it ok to refer to Christians as a community Moe?

[Yossarian]

I'll start with religion, its is single most destuctive thing world wide. It may not have started every conflick, but it is the driving force behind the motivating of people to take up a cause and run with it.

So what is the driving force behind motivating people to take up a cause, gay marriage, and run with it.

If you'd had a Christian Brothers education you might be able to spell conflict, at the very least. You might even be a little more enamoured of anal sex.

[Moe Norman]

Is it ok to refer to Christians as a community Moe?

yes. Although I prefer Cult

[Yossarian]

How original.

But I guess when the religion has started every war line gets trotted out you can't expect too much.

[clikchic]

I think you are nitpicking, Moe. 'Community' is tagged onto many things.

It turns out that I've been wasting my time walking around naked in front of the dog and toaster.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali

Love this, I have seen it before. Says it all really.

[goughy]

yes. Although I prefer Cult

This is my kind of cult
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yLVufAfby0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[BrisWesty]

Given we've had the topic of paedophile priests raised several times, I'd be interested if anyone has any stats as to whether there is a higher percentage of people who are in homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships who had been sexually abused by paedophiles (of either gender). I'm aware of people who have put their compulsion towards people of the same sex to having been abused when they were a child.

I know from what I have heard and read that having been abused as a child generally makes it more difficult to form stable relationships as an adult. Similarly, those who have been abused, may be more likely to abuse others themselves.

I'm not sure whether this becomes a factor toward choosing a homosexual lifestyle.

For what it's worth, I think the church hasn't done a good job regarding these priests. With respect to the Catholic Church, I think there would be quite a few priests who decided on celibacy in the past because they had difficulty with particular urges (of whatever type) and they have tried to deal with this stuff (terribly badly and tragically for people around them) on their own. For what it's worth I don't think enforced celibacy is a good idea.

That said, rather than moving priests on, the church should have treated them as criminals, and handed them over to the authorities.

[clikchic]

This article discusses it quite in depth with statistical references.
http://www.pandys.org/articles/abuseandhomosexuality.html

[clikchic]

This one is from a Christian writer who also disputes the theory although discusses bonding as well as abuse.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/gay-children-their-same-sex-parents-fault-11598775.html

[td42t]

I couldn't give a **** what you think of my spelling yoss you got what I meant ya tool.
Was just expressing my thoughts on the subject and religion had been raised.

[Johnny Canuck]

Arguing about gay marriage is like c graders debating how a no handicap match play should be run.

It won't affect you, so let it go.

If it brings more love, joy and happiness to the world, bring it on.

Times have changed, and the gay movement is here to stay. You don't have to embrace it, but if it is not going to affect you or cause any harm, why should it be resisted?

[Moe Norman]

because of Maschetusassajdajao!

[Eag's]

Arguing about gay marriage is like c graders debating how a no handicap match play should be run.

It won't affect you, so let it go.

If it brings more love, joy and happiness to the world, bring it on.

Times have changed, and the gay movement is here to stay. You don't have to embrace it, but if it is not going to affect you or cause any harm, why should it be resisted?

I have read just about every post thus far in this debate, but JC is spot on with his response.
Move on people.

[Yossarian]

I couldn't give a **** what you think of my spelling yoss you got what I meant ya tool.
Was just expressing my thoughts on the subject and religion had been raised.

I couldn't give a **** what you think about religion you tool.

[Lobsta]

Who wears SHORT SHORTS?!

[markTHEblake]

Given that I have mentioned the words two consenting adults multiple times.... Not getting where any inconsistency lies.

Sorry, I have not made myself clear, I know you have said that multiple times, but that is not what I say you are being inconsistent about. You claimed that "being gay is not wrong because they were born that way and have no choice" [my paraphrasing] yet you are being inconsistent as you won't give the same concession to others, like Pedophiles or the stereotypical male tendency towards pologomy my personal example, which you brushed off :-)

If my wife came in and caught me in the sack with three hot ladies , and in my defence say "I was born this way so I cant help it" can you see her saying "oh thats all right then, I'll cook dinner". And yes this is entirely possible, over here 'it' is on tap absolutely everywhere and very very cheap, and the missus is back home in Australia. The only thing that stops me from trangressing is that it is wrong. However the temptation is very real as any male will testify (except to their own wives).

Wrong is always wrong, isn't it?

I agree, being a pedophile is always wrong, So Thommo you are correct, it is a stupid comparison to make, thus being born that way cannot possibly be a valid excuse for being 'right'.


AND YES I believe getting married at an earlier age is wrong since non adult teen (ie <18) brains are still maturing and cannot foresee the consequences of their actions.
But other countries in the world allow girls to get married at younger ages (given some marry many years before consumation, but they still do it young). If you have the right to decide they are wrong, they also have the right to decide they are right, unless one side has an absolute basis for their morality, ie what is right and wrong never changes.


However on the grounds of standards being taken down, sure it is happening, has been happening for 200 years and more. People change, life changes, technology changes. You can't however blame that on gay marriage...

So are you saying that morality changes? what was once considered wrong will change, and can later be considered right, like age of consent maybe.

Who gets to decide what is right and wrong?


The church doesn't have to marry the gays,

So If Gay Marriage becomes law you support that all religions will be able to discriminate. On the other hand you continue to claim gay people are being discriminated against. They will not stop until all discrimination is removed, as has been demonstrated.


It is not a silly question at all, it is an important one. I DO know what I would really do.
After your kids have done something wrong what do they have to do to earn your love back?
Nothing of course.

There is no hope in hell that I would know what I really would do do in any situation I have not yet experienced. I could pretend to be a hero and say something really cool but in reality it never happens how you want to, you cannot script something like that. Not to mention it is a question based on a fallacy according to my view, it is a choice, not 'turn out to be'. So there is little difference to being gay, and any other kind of immoral lifestyle that he might take up.


Religion as far I'm concerned is for weak minded people with no self belief or guidence.
On what basis do you know that you are not weak minded, given that you appear to be an atheist.

Yes, this is a late post. I am on holidays and I don't often get much time to sit in front of a computer, thanks for allowing me the courtesy of a reply.

[TheTrueReview]

Not necessarily my viewpoint but now the Pope has weighed into the debate. Report here (http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/12540871/gay-marriage-a-threat-to-humanity-s-future-pope/).


VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said Monday that gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined "the future of humanity itself."

The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage in a new year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican in which he touched on some economic and social issues facing the world today.

He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper "settings" and that "pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman."

"This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," he said.

[Jarro]

Pfft ..... what would he know :roll:


;)