Australia plan for vote on gay marriage hits stumbling block

[Si Thea01]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

I agree completely. I am all for gay partnerships with the same legal rights as straights, but calling it something other than marriage. However, I'm afraid this is one we are going to lose. The gay lobby have done to good of a job of convincing the public about "marriage equality" and all of that. I blame the hard-core conservatives who did not compromise when they could have.

 

Come on, you're normally an optimist. Unless the current government goes against the will of the people and breaks another promise, it is off the books for at least three years.  Even if someone tries to bring in a private members bill, it has to go through the house of reps first and the opposition does not have the numbers. 

[Si Thea01]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I'm sure that sooner or later Australia will come around and join the marriage equality club. As will Thailand. It's a good club. The water's fine. 

 

It may well be and good luck to those who want this lifestyle, that is their choice and as long as they're happy and they do not want to inflict their beliefs on those who do not accept their lifestyles.  People should not be critical of them and, in turn, allow them to live their lives in peace.

 

However, if I may ask, what is the urgency and need to use the word, marriage.  Prior to 2004, the marriage act made no reference to man and woman, yet no one seemed to want to hijack the word or run around crying out for the need to be married.  It's just over the last few years that it appears that a special group, who has it's own agenda, are seeking this so called equality, that is causing a divide in society. 

 

I am heterosexual but in our large circle of friends, we have a number of gay couples, who respect our views, as we do theirs however, none are seeking to be married now or before the act was changed and they are the ones who tell us that it is a minority of activists, who are seeking the change.  Our friends tell us that they are completely happy with their union, as they call it, and do not want to press any issue that divides society. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Si Thea01

[ddavidovsky]

21 hours ago, SABloke said:

 

I grew up with only a mother...amazingly,  I didn' t turn into a woman 

 

But if you had grown up with two mothers, you would probably have a skewed picture of the world.

[jak2002003]

Marriage is seen as something very special and wonderful between 2 people who love each other.  People get married to celebrate that love and make their relationship even stronger... to be proud to be a married couple and recognised as such in society.  I think any 2 people who love each other should have the right to get married... straight or gay.

 

What's the problem.... the only problem I can see if from people who don't like gay people or are religious nutters.  What other reason can there be?

 

Gay people don't need to be married to have children or adopt kids.  Many have children already, perhaps from previous relationships.  Do people think these children should be taken away from them because their parents are gay... and put into a straight married couples home?

 

There is no 'normal' relationship.  All relationships are different... because all people are different and have different personalities and views about the world.  There are many very bad straight married people who do a disgusting job or raising their children.... who would be better off being adopted by a gay couple!

 

One gay friend of mine has 3 children who are all very happy and well loved and have a great life. 

 

And I would say that gay people should stand up to people who discriminate and bully them.. same as any other minority group.  And gay people did not hijack the word 'gay', it was used by straight people to lable them.

 

Maybe you gay friends are telling you what you want to hear... because they know your views and are not wanting to 'inflict' you with their beliefs, as they know how upset and sensitive you are?

 

 

 

[HLover]

Similar to what Thailand face in future with a dwindling population. Women want to be lesbians or toms and men want to be katoeys or gay. Who is going to do the breeding? It will be a dwindling supply of hetrosexual relationships.

Sheesh....I guess I'll do it.

[ddavidovsky]

2 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Marriage is seen as something very special and wonderful between 2 people who love each other.  People get married to celebrate that love and make their relationship even stronger... to be proud to be a married couple and recognised as such in society.  I think any 2 people who love each other should have the right to get married... straight or gay.

 

What's the problem.... the only problem I can see if from people who don't like gay people or are religious nutters.  What other reason can there be?

 

Gay people don't need to be married to have children or adopt kids.  Many have children already, perhaps from previous relationships.  Do people think these children should be taken away from them because their parents are gay... and put into a straight married couples home?

 

There is no 'normal' relationship.  All relationships are different... because all people are different and have different personalities and views about the world.  There are many very bad straight married people who do a disgusting job or raising their children.... who would be better off being adopted by a gay couple!

 

One gay friend of mine has 3 children who are all very happy and well loved and have a great life. 

 

And I would say that gay people should stand up to people who discriminate and bully them.. same as any other minority group.  And gay people did not hijack the word 'gay', it was used by straight people to lable them.

 

Maybe you gay friends are telling you what you want to hear... because they know your views and are not wanting to 'inflict' you with their beliefs, as they know how upset and sensitive you are?

 

 

 

 

Kids learn from their parents in subtle and far-reaching ways. Children of gay couples will be more likely to grow into super-snowflakes. Without a macho father to learn from, they will be ill-equipped for all sorts of life's struggles. The hyper-sensitisation of society is already a problem. There's a real danger that society will end up like the Eloi in H.G. Wells.

 

As much as I respect and admire gays (most of the writers, artists and film directors I esteem highest are gay) I don't think this is what nature intended.

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

It may well be and good luck to those who want this lifestyle, that is their choice and as long as they're happy and they do not want to inflict their beliefs on those who do not accept their lifestyles.  People should not be critical of them and, in turn, allow them to live their lives in peace.

 

However, if I may ask, what is the urgency and need to use the word, marriage.  Prior to 2004, the marriage act made no reference to man and woman, yet no one seemed to want to hijack the word or run around crying out for the need to be married.  It's just over the last few years that it appears that a special group, who has it's own agenda, are seeking this so called equality, that is causing a divide in society. 

 

I am heterosexual but in our large circle of friends, we have a number of gay couples, who respect our views, as we do theirs however, none are seeking to be married now or before the act was changed and they are the ones who tell us that it is a minority of activists, who are seeking the change.  Our friends tell us that they are completely happy with their union, as they call it, and do not want to press any issue that divides society. 

Being gay is not a lifestyle any more than being straight is a lifestyle. Being gay is not a choice any more than being straight is a choice.

 

A lifestyle is something like -- SURFING.

A choice is something like -- I'll have coffee, not tea.

 

Not interested in your personal bigot proofing stories (as if we're supposed to believe them) of your "Uncle Tom" so called gay friends not wanting equality. In the U.S. we have gay republicans, identifying with the anti-gay rights party. They have a right but aren't at all representative of the vast majority.

 

As far as the politics and timing specific to Australia and marriage equality, that's up to Australians of course. I'm confident, however, that Australia will enter the marriage equality club eventually.

 

You're focused on current events minutiae. I'm seeing the big long picture. Gay people don't want "special" rights. No. It's about EQUAL rights. EQUAL rights means the same word for the inclusion in the same institution. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Jingthing

[Si Thea01]

14 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Marriage is seen as something very special and wonderful between 2 people who love each other.  People get married to celebrate that love and make their relationship even stronger... to be proud to be a married couple and recognised as such in society.  I think any 2 people who love each other should have the right to get married... straight or gay.

 

What's the problem.... the only problem I can see if from people who don't like gay people or are religious nutters.  What other reason can there be?

 

Gay people don't need to be married to have children or adopt kids.  Many have children already, perhaps from previous relationships.  Do people think these children should be taken away from them because their parents are gay... and put into a straight married couples home?

 

There is no 'normal' relationship.  All relationships are different... because all people are different and have different personalities and views about the world.  There are many very bad straight married people who do a disgusting job or raising their children.... who would be better off being adopted by a gay couple!

 

One gay friend of mine has 3 children who are all very happy and well loved and have a great life. 

 

And I would say that gay people should stand up to people who discriminate and bully them.. same as any other minority group.  And gay people did not hijack the word 'gay', it was used by straight people to lable them.

 

Maybe you gay friends are telling you what you want to hear... because they know your views and are not wanting to 'inflict' you with their beliefs, as they know how upset and sensitive you are? 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your opinion and I agree with a number of aspects, however, please do not try to analyse my psyche, as you have no idea what my views are and for you to suggest that I am one who would become upset and sensitive is beyond the pale. 

 

And you're only assuming that my friends are only telling me what I want to hear.  Do you know them, if so then I would appreciate your elaborating on this aspect, if not, then why the unsubstantiated statement?  My response that you are referring was not written to elicit someone's assumptions on what I might or might not believe.

 

If they have adopted children, and they provide, protection, love and bring them up with values and discipline, then why should they be taken away.  However, you should remember that it is the child who,  unfortunately suffers from other children at school because of their two mums or two dads, it's not the adults who suffer.  Children can be very cruel.

 

And yes, there are too many bad heterosexual couples who should never have children, however, if these children were removed does it really matter in whose care they are placed, either gay or heterosexual, as long as they are treated and raised with care, love and lead a disciplined life.

 

To distinguish one couple over another is not the way to go, either could provide what the children need, then again, either may not.  What you have stated is your opinion but really it too is only an assumption.  May I ask why, if prior to 2004, there was no restriction in the marriage act, yet no gay couples rushed into marriage nor expressed their need to.

 

I have no doubt that then and now these couples were deeply in love, yet you're now saying that they need marriage to celebrate this and make that relationship stronger and be proud of being able to say they're married.  Wasn't their relationship strong before the act was changed: didn't they celebrate their love by staying together and weren't they proud of that relationship?

 

When did those, who are actively engaged in seeking change, realise they needed to be married to have all these feelings.  And please, this is not a gay bashing response, just seeking an explanation as to why it is so urgent now, when it was not in the past.

 

Gay was not only a word used by straight people, especially when one notes that a male prostitutes rounded up during the Cleveland Street scandal of 1889 described himself in court as “gay”.  There are many more examples of this but I'll leave it to you if you want to do some research. 

  

[Neurath]

"...as you have no idea what my views are..."

 

Certainly not from reading what you write

Edited August 31, 2016 by Neurath
Lost quote

[Si Thea01]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Being gay is not a lifestyle any more than being straight is a lifestyle. Being gay is not a choice any more than being straight is a choice.

 

A lifestyle is something like -- SURFING.

A choice is something like -- I'll have coffee, not tea.

 

Not interested in your personal bigot proofing stories (as if we're supposed to believe them) of your "Uncle Tom" so called gay friends not wanting equality. In the U.S. we have gay republicans, identifying with the anti-gay rights party. They have a right but aren't at all representative of the vast majority.

 

As far as the politics and timing specific to Australia and marriage equality, that's up to Australians of course. I'm confident, however, that Australia will enter the marriage equality club eventually.

 

You're focused on current events minutiae. I'm seeing the big long picture. Gay people don't want "special" rights. No. It's about EQUAL rights. EQUAL rights means the same word for the inclusion in the same institution. 

 

I am sorry if you took offence in my using the words lifestyle and choice, but in doing so it was not my intention to denigrate or demean gays in any way however, it's evident that this was your intention given the impolite response and the words used  to get you argument across.

 

But thank you for your opinion anyway.  However, is it difficult to be civil or do you always find it necessary to resort to calling someone a bigot or other names when they write something you obviously read things into and don't agree with? 

 

 

 

[Si Thea01]

23 minutes ago, Neurath said:

"...as you have no idea what my views are..."

 

Certainly not from reading what you write

 

When did you learn to read? Your also need to comprehend to understand, something else you are lacking. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I am sorry if you took offence in my using the words lifestyle and choice, but in doing so it was not my intention to denigrate or demean gays in any way however, it's evident that this was your intention given the impolite response and the words used  to get you argument across.

 

But thank you for your opinion anyway.  However, is it difficult to be civil or do you always find it necessary to resort to calling someone a bigot or other names when they write something you obviously read things into and don't agree with? 

 

 

 

I call a spade a spade, dude.

I think your  anti-gay civil rights  gay friends are imaginary.

Calling gay a lifestyle and a choice is indeed typical rhetoric of anti-gay bigots.

Lifestyle is more just DATED, but the insistence that it is a CHOICE is indeed pure ignorance and bigotry.

Don't use rhetoric like that unless you are prepared to OWN it.

On this very forum, the gay forum uses the word LIFESTYLE. Years ago, I tried to get that changed. It wasn't changed but it's still wrong as it TRIVIALIZES something in people's lives that is not trivial. 

Consider if because of YOUR sexual orientation identity, ignorant backwards bigots thought they were being reasonable to argue that YOU don't deserve the same civil rights as everyone else. Would you like that? You see -- NOT TRIVIAL. 

For those who claim RELIGIOUS objections to marriage equality, well that might be a valid reason, but it's not valid in any nation that is not a THEOCRACY for those religious feelings to dictate civil rights matters.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Jingthing

[Si Thea01]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I call a spade a spade, dude.

I think your  anti-gay civil rights  gay friends are imaginary.

Calling gay a lifestyle and a choice is indeed typical rhetoric of anti-gay bigots.

Lifestyle is more just DATED, but the insistence that it is a CHOICE is indeed pure ignorance and bigotry.

Don't use rhetoric like that unless you are prepared to OWN it.

On this very forum, the gay forum uses the word LIFESTYLE. Years ago, I tried to get that changed. It wasn't changed but it's still wrong as it TRIVIALIZES something in people's lives that is not trivial. 

Consider if because of YOUR sexual orientation identity, ignorant backwards bigots thought they were being reasonable to argue that YOU don't deserve the same civil rights as everyone else. Would you like that? You see -- NOT TRIVIAL. 

For those who claim RELIGIOUS objections to marriage equality, well that might be a valid reason, but it's not valid in any nation that is not a THEOCRACY for those religious feelings to dictate civil rights matters.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I call a spade a spade, dude.

I think your  anti-gay civil rights  gay friends are imaginary.

Calling gay a lifestyle and a choice is indeed typical rhetoric of anti-gay bigots.

Lifestyle is more just DATED, but the insistence that it is a CHOICE is indeed pure ignorance and bigotry.

Don't use rhetoric like that unless you are prepared to OWN it.

On this very forum, the gay forum uses the word LIFESTYLE. Years ago, I tried to get that changed. It wasn't changed but it's still wrong as it TRIVIALIZES something in people's lives that is not trivial. 

Consider if because of YOUR sexual orientation identity, ignorant backwards bigots thought they were being reasonable to argue that YOU don't deserve the same civil rights as everyone else. Would you like that? You see -- NOT TRIVIAL. 

For those who claim RELIGIOUS objections to marriage equality, well that might be a valid reason, but it's not valid in any nation that is not a THEOCRACY for those religious feelings to dictate civil rights matters.

 

 

For some reason you are a very angry person.  I've already apologised if you took offence, as there was no intention to denigrate or demean.  I am not really interested in you past history nor am I upset about the way you are lashing out at me, at least you are leaving others alone. So please, if you want to display such intolerance, feel free, as it will give those who read your posts a clear understanding.  I will leave it at that as there's no need to say anything further. 

 

[Jingthing]

That was a very weak deflection.

Intolerance of intolerance is NOT intolerance.

The movement to oppose marriage equality is an example of intolerance.

In the U.S., marriages between RACES used to illegal in many states.

Pretty much everyone now recognizes that the people fighting (with basically the same kinds of arguments) to keep it illegal were intolerant bigots.

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to see the connection. 

If you choose to be on the WRONG side of history in the Australian marriage equality movement, which you can bet the house WILL win someday, so be it.

But accept there are already many people that see opponents of such legal equality the same way the racist bigots that opposed legalizing marriages between races are seen now.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Jingthing

[anotheruser]

10 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

I agree completely. I am all for gay partnerships with the same legal rights as straights, but calling it something other than marriage. However, I'm afraid this is one we are going to lose. The gay lobby have done to good of a job of convincing the public about "marriage equality" and all of that. I blame the hard-core conservatives who did not compromise when they could have.

 

It should only be civil unions(gay or straight) that are recognized by the government for legal purposes. Churches themselves can decide who they want to marry but marriage itself should have no legal standing. 

[Scott]

A post with what appears to be replies inside of the quote boxes has been removed.   This is not allowed.   It is difficult to know what is the quoted text and what is the reply.  

[OMGImInPattaya]

I'm curious...when was the vote for straight marriage?

[jak2002003]

21 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Thank you for your opinion and I agree with a number of aspects, however, please do not try to analyse my psyche, as you have no idea what my views are and for you to suggest that I am one who would become upset and sensitive is beyond the pale. 

Your welcome.

I have a good idea what you views are from you posting your views on this thread.  You do seem to be upset and sensitive about this issue.. because you keep posting on here about your views and get rather defensive when people don't agree with you as you have shown in this and several other replies to posters. 

21 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

And you're only assuming that my friends are only telling me what I want to hear.  Do you know them, if so then I would appreciate your elaborating on this aspect, if not, then why the unsubstantiated statement?  My response that you are referring was not written to elicit someone's assumptions on what I might or might not believe.

I may know them... let me know their names and I'll get back to you on that one.

21 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

If they have adopted children, and they provide, protection, love and bring them up with values and discipline, then why should they be taken away.  However, you should remember that it is the child who,  unfortunately suffers from other children at school because of their two mums or two dads, it's not the adults who suffer.  Children can be very cruel.

Very weak argument.  Children can be picked on for anything.. from being tall, short, fat, thin, ginger hair, wearing glasses, black, white, Asian, mixed race having disabled parents, being disabled, wearing different clothes, etc etc.  It's the parents job to educate their children not to be like that.. and to respect other people.. as they get they views from their parents.... so parents like you who think gay parents are wrong will pass that on to their kids and create this bullying problem.

21 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

And yes, there are too many bad heterosexual couples who should never have children, however, if these children were removed does it really matter in whose care they are placed, either gay or heterosexual, as long as they are treated and raised with care, love and lead a disciplined life.

 

To distinguish one couple over another is not the way to go, either could provide what the children need, then again, either may not.  What you have stated is your opinion but really it too is only an assumption.  May I ask why, if prior to 2004, there was no restriction in the marriage act, yet no gay couples rushed into marriage nor expressed their need to.

So you think before 2004 gay people were free to get married and live in society same as straight people?

21 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I have no doubt that then and now these couples were deeply in love, yet you're now saying that they need marriage to celebrate this and make that relationship stronger and be proud of being able to say they're married.  Wasn't their relationship strong before the act was changed: didn't they celebrate their love by staying together and weren't they proud of that relationship?

Was not your relationship strong before you got married... why did you marry? Why do straight people get married?

21 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

When did those, who are actively engaged in seeking change, realise they needed to be married to have all these feelings.  And please, this is not a gay bashing response, just seeking an explanation as to why it is so urgent now, when it was not in the past.

Because in the past gay people were treated very badly in society and as was a crime to be gay not so long ago.  There was a lot of persecution to gay people and many hid that they were gay because of this.  Nowdays its more accepted in society.. so not gay people have the comfidence to ask for equal rights. 

21 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Gay was not only a word used by straight people, especially when one notes that a male prostitutes rounded up during the Cleveland Street scandal of 1889 described himself in court as “gay”.  There are many more examples of this but I'll leave it to you if you want to do some research. 

  

Just that one prostitute guy huh? 

 

You seem to know a lot more about gays and gay 'lifestyle' than most gay people........ 

 

Thank you for spending so much time on researching gay things on the internet, and gay topics. And you have clearly spent a lot of time with all you gay friends talking about them getting married.

 

What is your real reason to oppose gay marriage... in one sentence?  I suspect you don't like gay people and think they are wrong and bad for society and morals.... so you like to discriminate against people you don't even know... even people you call you friends!  Why would you concern yourself with this topic so much if you don't have some agenda? 

 

Think how you would feel if you were madly in love with someone.. and you both had a dream to get married... but you were told you could not get married because its wrong for people like you to get married? 

 

 

 

[Prbkk]

The lunacy in this situation is that if put to a simple vote in parliament it would pass 70/30 . Opinion polls show public support and have been trending that way for years: a plebiscite is just a waste of money but reflects the attempts of the sleazy yesterday's men , Abbott, Abetz, Bernardi, along with the Christian nutters, to have a public brawl. Pathetic. Just get on with it: the world is not going to end.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

Your welcome.

I have a good idea what you views are from you posting your views on this thread.  You do seem to be upset and sensitive about this issue.. because you keep posting on here about your views and get rather defensive when people don't agree with you as you have shown in this and several other replies to posters. 

I may know them... let me know their names and I'll get back to you on that one.

Very weak argument.  Children can be picked on for anything.. from being tall, short, fat, thin, ginger hair, wearing glasses, black, white, Asian, mixed race having disabled parents, being disabled, wearing different clothes, etc etc.  It's the parents job to educate their children not to be like that.. and to respect other people.. as they get they views from their parents.... so parents like you who think gay parents are wrong will pass that on to their kids and create this bullying problem.

So you think before 2004 gay people were free to get married and live in society same as straight people?

Was not your relationship strong before you got married... why did you marry? Why do straight people get married?

Because in the past gay people were treated very badly in society and as was a crime to be gay not so long ago.  There was a lot of persecution to gay people and many hid that they were gay because of this.  Nowdays its more accepted in society.. so not gay people have the comfidence to ask for equal rights. 

Just that one prostitute guy huh? 

 

You seem to know a lot more about gays and gay 'lifestyle' than most gay people........ 

 

Thank you for spending so much time on researching gay things on the internet, and gay topics. And you have clearly spent a lot of time with all you gay friends talking about them getting married.

 

What is your real reason to oppose gay marriage... in one sentence?  I suspect you don't like gay people and think they are wrong and bad for society and morals.... so you like to discriminate against people you don't even know... even people you call you friends!  Why would you concern yourself with this topic so much if you don't have some agenda? 

 

Think how you would feel if you were madly in love with someone.. and you both had a dream to get married... but you were told you could not get married because its wrong for people like you to get married? 

 

 

 

Your welcome.

I have a good idea what you views are from you posting your views on this thread.  You do seem to be upset and sensitive about this issue.. because you keep posting on here about your views and get rather defensive when people don't agree with you as you have shown in this and several other replies to posters. 

I may know them... let me know their names and I'll get back to you on that one.

Very weak argument.  Children can be picked on for anything.. from being tall, short, fat, thin, ginger hair, wearing glasses, black, white, Asian, mixed race having disabled parents, being disabled, wearing different clothes, etc etc.  It's the parents job to educate their children not to be like that.. and to respect other people.. as they get they views from their parents.... so parents like you who think gay parents are wrong will pass that on to their kids and create this bullying problem.

So you think before 2004 gay people were free to get married and live in society same as straight people?

Was not your relationship strong before you got married... why did you marry? Why do straight people get married?

Because in the past gay people were treated very badly in society and as was a crime to be gay not so long ago.  There was a lot of persecution to gay people and many hid that they were gay because of this.  Nowdays its more accepted in society.. so not gay people have the comfidence to ask for equal rights. 

Just that one prostitute guy huh? 

 

You seem to know a lot more about gays and gay 'lifestyle' than most gay people........ 

 

Thank you for spending so much time on researching gay things on the internet, and gay topics. And you have clearly spent a lot of time with all you gay friends talking about them getting married.

 

What is your real reason to oppose gay marriage... in one sentence?  I suspect you don't like gay people and think they are wrong and bad for society and morals.... so you like to discriminate against people you don't even know... even people you call you friends!  Why would you concern yourself with this topic so much if you don't have some agenda? 

 

Think how you would feel if you were madly in love with someone.. and you both had a dream to get married... but you were told you could not get married because its wrong for people like you to get married? 

 

 

 

 

I see your last effort got kicked off before I was able to respond.  Not interested in the stupidity that you are looking for an answer to but if I may ask, why are you so touchy about the subject?  Marriage, I was brought up that this was between a man and a woman, not what is written into any act.  That is my belief, has nothing to do with gay hate, religion or anything else, just what my parents instilled in me.

 

Gay people, back in those days appeared to have been content to be in a union, they never whined or carried on like many do today.  If they weren't happy then don't you think that this matter would have been brought up in the papers, on the news  and dealt with many years ago.  But it wasn't so, why the need now,? 

 

Why do you find the need to refer to it as gay marriage?  Why not just marriage, if that's what you want?  Your last question is just plain hyperbole, look at the number of defacto couples in the world, who are in love but do not find the need for the little piece of paper that has marriage written on it.  They are content with their union and the legalities that are afforded to them, much of which is also afforded those in the unions that you are not obviously happy with.

 

Really, I find it hard to understand why people like you protest so much, all you are doing is dividing.  It would be much easier and more acceptable if you debated the subject and not attacked the person but given you appear to be an activist for the cause, that might be hard to do. 

 

Ever thought,  that if you were civil in you responses instead of denigrating everyone who has a different opinion, then maybe want you want will come.  But until you learn that civility costs nothing,  you stop the name calling and the constant berating and ridiculing of people, who have a different opinion, then what you are looking for may linger in the wilderness for some time. if you're not happy with you lot, then maybe you should go to another country where this has been allowed and there you can live in total contentment. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Si Thea01

[PTC]

Bigots on these types of threads complaining and whinging about being called bigots. Easy fix. When your brain farts lead you to make a comment about a minority, just keep your mouth shut.

 

Posters thinking that 'allowing' LGBT people to conduct their 'lifestyle' is not hate speech but perfectly alright to say in public. Thinking that they have some right to define minorities and what they can and cannot do. Bigotry, pure and absolute. And then they complain when people objective to such hate speech.

 

LGBT people are acting according to their genetics. In other words they are acting perfectly normally. Such actions to not entitle anyone who does not identify with that minority to be denied equality with everyone else.

 

People who object to other LGBT people are in the minority. The majority no longer tolerates hate speech and the marginalization of minorities. This is well established around the World now. Political cowardice by reactionary, bigoted Australians notwithstanding, it will be soon be legally recognized in Australia. Slimy John Howard and his cowardly maneuvering changes nothing. Most normal Australians respect diversity and equality of human rights.

[PTC]

On August 31, 2016 at 11:14 AM, ddavidovsky said:

 

Kids learn from their parents in subtle and far-reaching ways. Children of gay couples will be more likely to grow into super-snowflakes. Without a macho father to learn from, they will be ill-equipped for all sorts of life's struggles. The hyper-sensitisation of society is already a problem. There's a real danger that society will end up like the Eloi in H.G. Wells.

 

As much as I respect and admire gays (most of the writers, artists and film directors I esteem highest are gay) I don't think this is what nature intended.

 

 

In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate your lunatic claims, in fact there is now evidence that directly contradicts these stupid assertions, I will take it that it is personal bigotry and prejudice that motivates these false claims. In which case, we should give your analysis of what 'nature' intends the dis-respect and dis-regard that it entirely deserves and assign it to the trash can of the narrow-minded.

 

Speculative Fiction writers, including Wells, are quite notorious for neglecting LGBT themes in their genre. Your mischaracterization of gay males as weak, indulgent and soft based on a book shaped by 19th Century thinking is entirely bogus and does not sustain more intense scrutiny.

 

If you are threatened by LGBT people, then fine, stay away from these types of threads. One has to wonder your interest in posting such ridiculous assertions in these types of discussions. Some issues about 'manliness' I guess. Perhaps seek assistance elsewhere?

[Jingthing]

Gay people are not required to marry and have children. We just want the same legal OPTIONS as other citizens.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Gay people are not required to marry and have children. We just want the same legal OPTIONS as other citizens.

 

OF course they're not but it still takes man + woman = child.  And yes, a gay man can be the donor and a gay woman the birth mother.  Now, if one is a single gay man or female, what legal options aren't afforded them that are afforded to a single heterosexual man or woman? 

 

Don't they,  as individuals, have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.  Does it only becomes an issue when gays form a relationship?  If so, what are the legal options you want afforded in this situation?   Marriage equality and what else? 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

OF course they're not but it still takes man + woman = child.  And yes, a gay man can be the donor and a gay woman the birth mother.  Now, if one is a single gay man or female, what legal options aren't afforded them that are afforded to a single heterosexual man or woman? 

 

Don't they,  as individuals, have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.  Does it only becomes an issue when gays form a relationship?  If so, what are the legal options you want afforded in this situation?   Marriage equality and what else? 

Marriage equality period. 

If there is a same sex couple and children, it is abusive to the the children for only of them to be their legal parent. For example if one dies, then that child is an orphan.

It doesn't actually take a man and a woman to have a child.

It does take sperm and an egg.

Also keep in mind many gay people have children already from previous heterosexual relationships.

I've known many gay men who had children that way.

The mother doesn't always get or deserve custody and of course sometimes the mother has died.

Deal with it.

Your views are fading in civilized countries. 

[Neurath]

Why is it that people object to a gay person getting married to another gay person? It's because they believe that their marriages will be devalued if gay people can be married. How and in what sense would heterosexual marriage be devalued by gay people being allowed to be married? Simple. It would be devalued because these heterosexual people believe that marriage is their exclusive right and privilege and should be denied gay people. Gay people, precisely because they are gay people, do not deserve and should not have this right - or option if you like. Simple as that really. All the waffle over definitions and genetics and all the rest is just cover for the simple proposition that gays don't deserve to have marriage as an option in the way that heterosexuals do. Why? Well, Sir, because they are gay. Allowing gay marriage would make gays seem more normal and if they seem more normal that's a problem because they might get close before you know it. Can't have that. Scary. Before you know it they'll be demanding the vote and the right to serve in the armed forces!

[ddavidovsky]

2 hours ago, PTC said:

 

In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate your lunatic claims, in fact there is now evidence that directly contradicts these stupid assertions, I will take it that it is personal bigotry and prejudice that motivates these false claims. In which case, we should give your analysis of what 'nature' intends the dis-respect and dis-regard that it entirely deserves and assign it to the trash can of the narrow-minded.

 

Speculative Fiction writers, including Wells, are quite notorious for neglecting LGBT themes in their genre. Your mischaracterization of gay males as weak, indulgent and soft based on a book shaped by 19th Century thinking is entirely bogus and does not sustain more intense scrutiny.

 

If you are threatened by LGBT people, then fine, stay away from these types of threads. One has to wonder your interest in posting such ridiculous assertions in these types of discussions. Some issues about 'manliness' I guess. Perhaps seek assistance elsewhere?

 

Gay men are more sensitive, in general, aren't they? Any evidence disproving that?

 

I have no problem with gay 'marriage'. Good luck to them. But when it comes to bringing up children, a father/mother system is surely best, for commonsensical reasons, such as the exposure to a variety of influences and modes of social interaction.

 

Society is already becoming over-sensitive. It is hardly possible to have a proper discussion any more - people fly into a neurotic rage at having their world-view challenged, as the nature of your post shows.

If society gets any more sensitive it will become effete, and there will be all sorts of harmful consequences - psychological problems will become more common, more young people will be killing themselves etc. The snowflake generation is already displaying these symptoms. 

[Si Thea01]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Marriage equality period. 

If there is a same sex couple and children, it is abusive to the the children for only of them to be their legal parent. For example if one dies, then that child is an orphan.

It doesn't actually take a man and a woman to have a child.

It does take sperm and an egg.

Also keep in mind many gay people have children already from previous heterosexual relationships.

I've known many gay men who had children that way.

The mother doesn't always get or deserve custody and of course sometimes the mother has died.

Deal with it.

Your views are fading in civilized countries. 

 

You started with a civilised response but don't tell me I have to deal with it.  You expect people to respect you point of view, so respect mine, without having to slip in a smart a##@ response. Just remember it is not your way or the highway, nor it my way.  If you want marriage equality, then ok but why are those pushing for it so worried about giving the people of the country their rights and that is to have their say, like they did in Ireland.

 

Bill Shorten, the leader of the opposition gave a response the other day, which may have some bearing on why many want the parliament to decide.  Now, we know he says he is for equality yet, when asked why he did not want a plebiscite, his response.  We might not get the right answer. Is that what you are frightened of?

 

If the citizens vote in favour they will accept the result, what will the gay lobby do if the vote is against, will they accept it? It's like voting in an election, even if some of do not like the result, it is accepted.  If the polls are saying the "Yes" vote will win, then trust the polls, you seem to do in other matters.

 

Whatever way it goes and the people are not fools, they will accept the result, after all we are still a democracy but t this is taken away from the people, then this together with other factors is giving the death Nell  to democracy in Australia.  And please don't quote the cost, as those in government, on either side, have never worried about that before.  Hence the 500 Billion debt and the 1 billion a month interest.  $160M is  drop in the ocean.   

 

If you're an Aussie, then you would now that we give everyone a fair go, providing they are  reciprocal.  You say it doesn't take a man and a woman to have a baby, just sperm and eggs. Forgive me but that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever been presented.  Where does the sperm and eggs come from and who carries the baby during the gestation period? 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Gay men are more sensitive, in general, aren't they? ...

Wow. Not even trying to conceal the bigotry. 

There is no reason to reply to a post that starts off that way.

You live with the prejudices and you're stuck with them.

 

Societies like Australia can and will move forward. 

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

You started with a civilised response but don't tell me I have to deal with it.  You expect people to respect you point of view, so respect mine, without having to slip in a smart a##@ response. Just remember it is not your way or the highway, nor it my way.  If you want marriage equality, then ok but why are those pushing for it so worried about giving the people of the country their rights and that is to have their say, like they did in Ireland.

 

Bill Shorten, the leader of the opposition gave a response the other day, which may have some bearing on why many want the parliament to decide.  Now, we know he says he is for equality yet, when asked why he did not want a plebiscite, his response.  We might not get the right answer. Is that what you are frightened of?

 

If the citizens vote in favour they will accept the result, what will the gay lobby do if the vote is against, will they accept it? It's like voting in an election, even if some of do not like the result, it is accepted.  If the polls are saying the "Yes" vote will win, then trust the polls, you seem to do in other matters.

 

Whatever way it goes and the people are not fools, they will accept the result, after all we are still a democracy but t this is taken away from the people, then this together with other factors is giving the death Nell  to democracy in Australia.  And please don't quote the cost, as those in government, on either side, have never worried about that before.  Hence the 500 Billion debt and the 1 billion a month interest.  $160M is  drop in the ocean.   

 

If you're an Aussie, then you would now that we give everyone a fair go, providing they are  reciprocal.  You say it doesn't take a man and a woman to have a baby, just sperm and eggs. Forgive me but that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever been presented.  Where does the sperm and eggs come from and who carries the baby during the gestation period? 

 

 

You're polite enough I suppose, but you're arguing against equal civil rights for gay Australians. So I can't ever respect that any more than I could ever respect bigots using polite reason to argue against equal civil rights based on race, etc.

 

As far as accepting results. Well, I can assure you that the people fighting for marriage equality in Australia will never accept any result as final until the victory is won. Why is that so hard to understand? This is a CIVIL RIGHTS struggle. You win when you win, no matter how long it takes.