The LGTBI Waffen Never Sleeps

Is it just me, or do you get the feeling that we’re being followed by the LGTBI lobby and its brigade of extreme activists?

As I logged into TMR the other week, an interesting little strip came across the top of my admin bar (not visible to the public). Needless to say, I didn’t put it there, didn’t ask for it to be put there – and have absolutely no idea how to remove it. I also have no clue as to when it will be removed by the folks at WordPress.

As for homosexual marriage, TMR’s position is simple: I couldn’t give less of a damn. In fact, you can go and marry your goat for all I care and call it whatever you want. Goodness knows I will. If two people want to call themselves ‘married’ and can find a church or other religious institution to sanction their ceremony, then they should go for it. In fact, go and set up the church of goat-love if you must.

Just think: if the government allowed this, it would facilitate:

  • society giving the appropriate weight to marriages and the churches which sanction them.

Heterosexual and homosexual people could then go and get married to their hearts’ content, while goat lovers would probably still be frowned upon. Probably.

Why do we need the government’s involvement in sanctioning marriages? Is it really necessary?

The government should have no business whatsoever in sanctioning, endorsing or categorising people’s private relationships – heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. Just call any relationship between two unrelated, adult human beings ‘statutory relationships’ and keep the rest as is when it comes to children, asset division… and carnal knowledge of animals being illegal.

From there, it should be left to churches and other religious institutions to sanction whatever marriages they choose – and for people to live their own lives as they please without the government getting in the way… or the LGTBI lobby rubbing everyone’s noses in its depraved Marxist agenda.

Of course, the odds of either of these things occurring are officially nil.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, Ethics and morality, Federal Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

142 Responses to The LGTBI Waffen Never Sleeps

  1. OneWorldGovernment

    You goat fetishist.

    What about pigs?

  2. pbw:

    The rainbow bar will remain until after the survey results are released, on November 15.
    If this causes you to choose to leave WordPress.com, we’re sorry to see you go. You can find documentation on how to move your site here: https://move.wordpress.com/
    We can also assist your move with our Guided Transfer service: https://en.support.wordpress.com/guided-transfer/

    So there’s your answer – a Great Big Fat ‘Fuck You’.

  3. Mark A

    As for homosexual marriage, TMR’s position is simple: I couldn’t give less of a damn.

    I do and so should everyone else.
    Not only because it demeans the meaning of ‘marriage’ but because of the downhill effects on social structures and behavior, pointed out by many and also ignored by many.

    Along the lines of ‘they came for … and I was not so I didn’t do anything’.

  4. Tom

    So there’s your answer – a Great Big Fat ‘Fuck You’.

    The arrogant idiots who run WordPress have just announced to the world that they’re leftwing lunatics. That’s sure to end well.

    When will leftoids running businesses understand that, if you try to pick winners and jump on fashionable leftoid causes du jour, your bullying pisses off the majority of your customers, who will consider taking their business elsewhere?

  5. jonesy

    There is your answer, Marcus…time to move your business. Just like prics that jump on the “happy holiday” wagon….if you dicks at Big W are listening, you do not get my business this Christmas!

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    It goes away if you sign out.
    It doesn’t go away if you only log out.

    So in my case if I log in to my gravatar account I get the bar. If I then “log out” of my gravatar account I still get the bar at any WordPress blogs. But if at one of those blogs I click one of the two icons on the top RHS of the rainbow bar I can click “sign out” and the bar then goes away completely.

    I’m using IE for this comment. It seems to use browser-specific cookies as firing up Brave on this PC or IE on my other PC doesn’t give me the bar.

  7. I’m glad that I self-host my WordPress site, which means I don’t have to put up with that sort of crap.

    However, note that WordPress.com is simply a WordPress hosting site (like any ISP) and is in no way associated with WordPress.org, the developer of the WordPress code.

  8. stackja

    Why do we need the government’s involvement in sanctioning marriages? Is it really necessary?

    Child welfare.

  9. a happy little debunker

    Marriage (and our understanding of it) developed and matured under religious guidance.

    Religion has directly influenced the laws developed for this country, traceable back to the 5th century in a combination of local customs, religious practice and the Law of Moses.

    Whilst we have a separation of Church and State – the State’s representatives swear an oath of fealty upon their favoured religious text (none of which condone or approve SSM) and cite the Lords Prayer with every sitting day.

    There is no definition of marriage that can be divorced from religion and it’s influence.

    Any redefinition of Marriage will logically affect religious practice and with no proposals on the table to protect those practices the derogable human rights of 23 million current Australians and all future Australians will be undermined.

    This is why Howard made available an equivalency to marriage – for those wishing to declare their special relationships to the State, without impacting on any human rights.

  10. sfw

    You’re spot on, if the gov got out of the marriage business and let any church or celebrant choose who it would or would not marry it would be a step to more freedom and personal autonomy. Why do the pollies want to have anything to do with personal unions?

  11. Robber Baron

    Repeal, repeal, repeal. There are so many acts that require repeal I don’t know where to start. Well, lets start with the marriage act, then the HRC act, then the income tax act…the list will be long.

    As for wordpress. I’m not surprised. Let the rainbow run free. When business takes its customers for granted, customers leave.

  12. stackja

    sfw
    #2503281, posted on September 21, 2017 at 7:15 am
    You’re spot on, if the gov got out of the marriage business and let any church or celebrant choose who it would or would not marry it would be a step to more freedom and personal autonomy. Why do the pollies want to have anything to do with personal unions?

    No problem with personal unions. There is a problem with using the word marriage. Marriage usually involves children.

  13. john malpas

    There will, of course, be a hate law introduced when the ‘yes’ people get their way. so watch your mouth.

  14. Louis Hissink

    The Enlightenment separated the church from secular life. Today the alphabet peoples and their task masters in the socialist camps, want to reverse the separation and return us to a theocracy.

    Religion is all about having an external cause for one’s present day miseries – the God explanation always is a final resort for the personally irresponsible.

  15. Baldrick

    Why do we need the government’s involvement in sanctioning marriages? Is it really necessary?

    This is the same argument put up by progressive libertarians as to why governments need to be involved in immigration and that we should embrace open borders.
    I wish for world peace and free love too, but it’s what comes after legalising homo-hoedowns when the problems begin.

  16. Mother Lode

    Religion is all about having an external cause for one’s present day miseries – the God explanation always is a final resort for the personally irresponsible.

    That is about one step up from the ‘sky fairy’ routine.

    Do you seriously believe that religious experience is a form of desperation? Is that what you see when you look at art by the likes of Raphael, Giotto and Michelangelo? In the music of Mozart, Bach and Vivaldi?

    They don’t succour the powerless. They elevate.

  17. Rabz

    Why do we need the government’s involvement in sanctioning marriages? Is it really necessary?

    It’s so that the apparatus of state “family law” can exist. No prizes for guessing why that apparatus exists and what it is seeking to achieve – hint, it isn’t “the welfare of kiddies”.

  18. struth

    Here’s a fact.
    The government is involved in marriage.

    We use government as a society of many different religions to represent what we believe marriage should be.

    It is asking us what we think as it should but it is doing it corruply.

    The fact is marriage is not between two people.
    It is between those two and their society.
    Now because the government is involved what do you think will be the flow on effects, especially regarding children and what they are taught?
    With the terms mother and father banned and parents really are just carers you have just handed over control of your kids to the Marxist safe school mob.
    Which is what this is all about.
    Diluting families to get at the kids.
    Marxism must break down strong mother and father families to gain control.
    I am afraid that the majority of Australians share your ignorance to what is going on here and the fact it is only left wing activists pushing it.
    With the help of narcissism and apathy.

  19. PB

    “No problem with personal unions. There is a problem with using the word marriage. Marriage usually involves children.”

    Those were the days…..

  20. H B Bear

    Let’s just vacate this space so the neo-Marxists can fill it before they move on to the next stage of their Gramscian march.

    Which will happen anyway but let’s at least put up some token resistance.

  21. Whalehunt Fun

    This article ignores the overiding fact that makes a no vote mandatory: it will outrage the greenfilth. Angering scum is more important than nonsense about rights or feeedoms.

  22. a reader

    Oh so we’ve found another nutter who thinks churches are some sort of non-taxpaying super monsters of society

  23. Defender of the faith

    A yes vote is simply a vote against state intervention. Apparently some here are in favour of state intervention, in some cases to support religious preferences. Impossible for me to agree. I shall certainly vote yes. The author will, however, have some time to wait for the plebiscite on bestiality.

  24. candy

    I like Marcus’ view, actually. The marriage would have to be filed at the Town Hall, paperwork done. Those with genuine religious beliefs then have a ceremony appropriate to their faith.

    I have a hunch though that what the gay lobby truly desires, is to be married in Catholic churches, the girls both wearing glamorous white gowns of their dreams, or both grooms in flashy tuxedos, or even perhaps one lad in a white gown. It’s a social statement, nought to do with personal religious beliefs. It would be a mardi gras in a Catholic church. This is what they really want, to break into conservativism. And then “have” children.

  25. Muddy

    Please use a more appropriate word other than ‘activists’ to describe the people you claim to dislike. For as long as you use their preferred titles, you acknowledge and compliment them and their endeavours, despite whatever else you write. These people use blackmail to achieve their goals. While ‘blackmailers’ is not a particularly catchy descriptor, it is nevertheless more accurate than ‘activist’. The latter conveys a benign, noble intent. To play the propaganda game, we must at least participate.

  26. The Enlightenment separated the church from secular life.

    I think you’ll find that occurred much, much earlier. See Romans. In fact, it was a Christian invention.

  27. Indolent

    A Short Intelligence Test
    This is a brilliant (and rather frightening) article by Harry Richardson on the Pickering site about what marriage actually is and where all this is really headed.

  28. stackja

    Muddy
    #2503375, posted on September 21, 2017 at 9:36 am
    Please use a more appropriate word other than ‘activists’ to describe the people you claim to dislike. For as long as you use their preferred titles, you acknowledge and compliment them and their endeavours, despite whatever else you write. These people use blackmail to achieve their goals. While ‘blackmailers’ is not a particularly catchy descriptor, it is nevertheless more accurate than ‘activist’. The latter conveys a benign, noble intent. To play the propaganda game, we must at least participate.

    Activist synonyms: militant, partisan, organizer, warrior, AMPOW/SJW.

  29. stackja

    candy
    #2503356, posted on September 21, 2017 at 9:14 am
    I like Marcus’ view, actually. The marriage would have to be filed at the Town Hall, paperwork done. Those with genuine religious beliefs then have a ceremony appropriate to their faith.

    I have a hunch though that what the gay lobby truly desires, is to be married in Catholic churches, the girls both wearing glamorous white gowns of their dreams, or both grooms in flashy tuxedos, or even perhaps one lad in a white gown. It’s a social statement, nought to do with personal religious beliefs. It would be a mardi gras in a Catholic church. This is what they really want, to break into conservativism. And then “have” children.

    Getting legally married in France is only possible through a civil ceremony which takes place at the council offices (mairie). The couple can then follow this with a religious ceremony, a secular service, or whatever celebration they choose, in a destination of their choice. … Both are called a marriage (mariage).

  30. jupes

    If you don’t vote NO the totalitarians win.

  31. Roger

    This is a very ill thought out post on several levels…just one:

    removing tax concessions given to religious institutions – which clearly don’t need them

    In which case the churches might choose to withdraw their institutions – schools, hospitals, nursing homes – from the public sphere, leaving the government to fill the considerable gap in social services, necessitating massive tax hikes.

  32. stackja

    jupes
    #2503388, posted on September 21, 2017 at 9:51 am
    If you don’t vote NO the totalitarians win.

    Yes vote No!

  33. Ralph

    If the vast majority of Australians are happy to live their lives without any interference from the church, Christian or otherwise, why is it so important that the church’s view of marriage be upheld? The state needs to be involved in marriage precisely because that’s what’s needed to give it an unambiguous definition across all cultures and walks of life and take it out of the religious realm. It’s a law that applies to all, regardless of the religion that any one person may or may not subscribe to. Struth and Louis Hissink’s comments (above) say it well. We are the only known lifeform, living in a remote corner of a universe that is ~15 billion years old, whose size is large beyond comprehension and expanding at an accelerating rate. Where is there any room for God (or Allah) in that? Where exactly would heaven be?

    Religion has long ceased to be a valid reason for legislating in Australia. SSM will be legal in Australia some day soon and, when it is, the doubters will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. If it doesn’t happen in 2017, it will happen when the ALP is next in government. Why not just do it now and get on with it? This entire argument will very quickly be seen as an irrelevancy. Just like things like apartheid and slavery, people of the future will look back on us and wonder why they tried so hard to hold it back.

  34. Rococo Liberal

    I have a hunch though that what the gay lobby truly desires…

    Exactly right, Candy. They don’t want tolerance, they want acceptance. The funny thing is that when the lefties march through the institutions they find that they have trashed them to such a degree that they are no longer any good.

  35. PoliticoNT

    Yep – this is really annoying.

    I contacted the HelpDesk for mine (https://barbariapolitica.wordpress.com/) and was given a kind of dufus run around. ‘Sorry? What? Where is it? We can’t see it…. Sorry. What are you talking about?’ Etc) I was thinking breach of contract but it’s more amending the hosting infrastructure I pay for without consulting with me and without asking my permission.

    Regardless of my views, I do not pay to see their views, even if I was to agree with them.

  36. struth

    Please use a more appropriate word other than ‘activists’ to describe the people you claim to dislike. For as long as you use their preferred titles, you acknowledge and compliment them and their endeavours, despite whatever else you write.

    Tough audience!

  37. Ralph

    In which case the churches might choose to withdraw their institutions – schools, hospitals, nursing homes – from the public sphere, leaving the government to fill the considerable gap in social services, necessitating massive tax hikes.

    This is surely not the only reason to keep the churches happy. If religion continues to warrant a place in society it will do so because its followers genuinely believe in it. If not, it’s little more than government-sponsored fairy tales. If someone wants to run a private school or hospital, let them do so. There may even be a good economic reason to publicly subsidise it on the grounds of reduced government expenditure and choice. However, if a private school or hospital offered a truly compelling service that was valued by the population, the punters would pay full price willingly with no need to resort to public subsidy. The fact that most punters are not prepared to pay full price for private education and health care suggests that it’s true benefits are vastly overstated.

  38. Ralph, the Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc. all understood marriage as being a relationship between the sexes. No please stop your inane babbling.

  39. Roger

    It’s a law that applies to all, regardless of the religion that any one person may or may not subscribe to.

    In other words, erase freedom of conscience and religion to appease a tiny minority.

    Where will it end?

  40. Snoopy

    Exactly right, Candy. They don’t want tolerance, they want acceptance.

    No. They want submission. They want compliance.

  41. Roger

    There may even be a good economic reason to publicly subsidise it on the grounds of reduced government expenditure and choice.

    My point, precisely, which marcus overlooks.

    Tax concessions to churches, such as they are (and they do not include the deductibility of offerings as in the US or the exemption of clergy from income tax), are granted because they are not for profit organisations who contribute substantially to the public good. One doesn’t see many, if any, atheist societies investing in hospitals or nursing homes out of the goodness of their own hearts.

  42. Ralph

    Ralph, the Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc. all understood marriage as being a relationship between the sexes. No please stop your inane babbling.

    And that was based heavily (or partly, depending on one’s perspective) on the teachings of the bible, a book of fairy tales written many decades after the fact that is now widely discredited. Times have changed, our lives are rightly informed by science and we understand much more about the universe than ever before. The arguments against SSM these days are very few indeed. The Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc. should be respected for their views at the time based on what they knew at that time, but the world has moved on. SSM will soon be law and life will continue to evolve.

  43. Ralph

    Yes, Roger, there may be good economic grounds to subsidise private educations and healthcare. But it should not be a reason to keep churches happy just so that they can continue to provide institutions based around a philosophy (i.e. religion) that few people in Western societies believe in, much less take seriously any more.

  44. candy

    The funny thing is that when the lefties march through the institutions they find that they have trashed them to such a degree that they are no longer any good.

    I think that would be true. I can picture the first gay couple getting married in a Catholic church somewhere, as a slap in the face to the Bernardis, Abbotts, etc. A dream come true for the gay lobby.

    Nothing to do with any belief in God, mind you. The church/prayers/blessings would be a backdrop only to the homosexual marriage.

  45. candy

    SSM will soon be law and life will continue to evolve.

    Evolve in some way, as life evolves. The troubling thing (for me) is the children procured into those relationships, with no knowledge of their genetic and cultural background, and denied a mum or dad. Half of them is missing, in a sense.

    Given that we are told 10% of people are homosexuals, and SSM means more children being brought into these relationships and the concept of a family with two homosexual caregivers becomes a regular thing, there’s a question mark over the long term happiness of a particular generation, not just a child here and there, but a fair number of kids affected, I would think.

  46. And that was based heavily (or partly, depending on one’s perspective) on the teachings of the bible, a book of fairy tales written many decades after the fact that is now widely discredited.

    Do you apply that view to all religions and their religious text?

  47. Bruce of Newcastle

    Ralph – The pre-imperial Romans were marrying men and women well before Christ. They put a big emphasis on virtue. There were no same-sex marriages that I know of, and I’ve read many of the ancient authors. Romans didn’t know anything much about the J_ws until Josephus wrote them up for Vespasian in around 100 AD, which is why he wrote his histories.

  48. srr

    The Vote, is ultimately to make Christianity Illegal.

    Not churchianism. All those God mocking clubs pushing the Militant Atheist UN barrow will continue to be rewarded … until they finally find themselves having to pay all those hidden fees.

    If all the creeps and slipperies that have already long battered at the right of Christians to be Christian were gathered together, The Last Crusade would have already been on.

    Anyway, here’s just one more, “Oh Yes They Would, and They Have!”, to the answer the, “No they wouldn’t and never could.”, idiots and snakes – Police have Banned Christians from going to Christian Church in Christian UK –

    Britain First
    8 hrs ·
    BREAKING: Paul and Jayda CHARGED with “harassing” a gang of migrant child rapists!
    https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBritainFirst/videos/1454312481380675/

    Voice of Europe‏ @V_of_Europe 7h7 hours ago

    More and more churches are being converted into mosques in the UK.
    https://twitter.com/V_of_Europe/status/910564817026650112
    It’s the definition of Islamisation
    But remember folks, it isn’t rape if the child is bought as bride under Sharia Law. 😡

  49. Louis Hissink

    Do you seriously believe that religious experience is a form of desperation? Is that what you see when you look at art by the likes of Raphael, Giotto and Michelangelo? In the music of Mozart, Bach and Vivaldi?

    Either the artists were geniuses in their own right, or their abilities were not their own but of some externality which expressed itself through them.

  50. Ralph

    Candy, but what you’re referring to is going to happen anyway, with or without SSM. Gay couples can already ‘have’ children, be it through adoption, fostering, IVF or plain de facto relationships. And countless numbers of children these days are already born out of wedlock or are raised in broken families or with abusive parents. Keeping marriage to heterosexual couples doesn’t seem to be doing a great job of keeping many children safe or even give them an ideal home with a mother and father. Some of those kids turn out just fine, while others clearly don’t. Perhaps much of that is a reflection of our secular society and increased materialism. Nevertheless, there are many, many children growing up in far from ideal family situations as it is and SSM is currently illegal.

    All of this happens right now and SSM isn’t yet legal. If all of those things are happening without a change to the law, what good will not changing the law amount to? I can’t see how legalizing SSM is going to make a material difference to child welfare in either direction. So I don’t see any good reason not to do it.

  51. And that was based heavily (or partly, depending on one’s perspective) on the teachings of the bible

    The Roman, Greek and Persian view of marriage was “based heavily on the Bible”? You are obviously very ignorant.

  52. Bruce of Newcastle

    Also, the Spartans of Leonidas’ and Xenophon’s times are a good example of what went down in those days (5th century BC). At various times homosexual relations were encouraged in the ranks of the hoplites as a unit cohesion and trust enhancement. But Spartans were expected to marry the opposite sex and have lots of little Spartans to keep the phalanx full.

  53. A Lurker

    The arguments against SSM these days are very few indeed.

    Really?
    Argument against growing the power and influence of the State
    Wanting to protect Freedom of Speech
    Wanting to protect Freedom of Expression
    Wanting to protect Freedom of Conscience
    Wanting to protect Freedom of Religion
    Wanting to protect Freedom of Assembly
    Wanting to protect the interests of the innocent child.

    They seem like biggies to me.

  54. Gay couples can already ‘have’ children, be it through adoption, fostering, IVF or plain de facto relationships.

    In other words, gay couples don’t ‘have’ children. They are procured with the assistance of other people, not the couple itself.

  55. Ralph

    Do you apply that view to all religions and their religious text?

    Yes. It is highly unlikely that there is a god of any description. We live in a tiny corner of an immensely vast and expanding universe that has been in existence for ~15 billion years and will probably continue to exist for many more billions (or trillions) of years. It’s quite possible (even quite likely) that there are other life forms out there. The universe is just so vast that we may never find out. Each of us came into being from nothing and will return to being nothing. Very sad, but true. I can understand why previous generations took religion very seriously because the scientific body of knowledge at that time was just not there. Religion played a very important role in explaining away some of the unexplainables. That’s not the case today.

  56. candy

    Ralph,
    I think the idea of same sex couples is to be married and “have” a family. It will be a regular thing.
    Kids face lots of problems today, for sure, through poverty, drug culture, and poor family structure. A mish-mash of disadvantage to start a life in.
    I’m not keen on one more problem, being born without a sort of “heritage”, from an unknown sperm donor or egg donor and mysterious surrogate paid off somewhere never to be seen again.

    You know, it’s an awful way to start life.

  57. struth

    The arguments against SSM these days are very few indeed. The Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc. should be respected for their views at the time based on what they knew at that time, but the world has moved on. SSM will soon be law and life will continue to evolve.

    Brush up on a bit of history regarding say , Germany late twenties and early thirties.

    Marxism must abolish the family.
    Or more to the point, it must take away parental influence.
    The problem with all of this, which can be easily looked up, is that it is seen by Marxists as a stepping stone (a big leap) in government control and dilution of parental control.
    Which makes it a hell of a lot easier to brainwash kids.

    Now , let’s make a bet.
    Within a year of a successful yes vote, the terms Father and Mother will not be found on any government forms and never uttered in the Marxist halls of our education system.

    Carers or parents will be the official term for a while.

    It is, as they openly admit (safe schools leader loudly proclaims itself as a Marxist and openly proclaims that what the parents want doesn’t matter) the stated aim.

    If I am correct you pay for my airfare to the destination of choice for my migration.
    If I am not, I’ll pay for your trip to the Sydney Mardi Gris.

  58. A Lurker

    Emperor Augustus had very strong views on marriage.

    Here is a site outlining his laws written in 13BC (Ralph, BC means Before Christ)

  59. Ralph

    The pre-imperial Romans were marrying men and women well before Christ. They put a big emphasis on virtue. There were no same-sex marriages that I know of, and I’ve read many of the ancient authors.

    The Roman, Greek and Persian view of marriage was “based heavily on the Bible”? You are obviously very ignorant.

    To both comments, I concede my ignorance. Nevertheless, the point stands. Time moves on and things change. The South Africans believed strongly in apartheid until recently. Women couldn’t work in the public service in Australia after they got married. For a long time, women couldn’t even vote. And slavery was once well-accepted by almost everyone, including churches. I could go on. There are countless views that were perfectly fine in their day – until society as a whole improved its understanding and subsequently changed its mind about they way in which it would conduct itself. SSM is no different. The law will change and society will get on with it. Who knows what the next big social issue will be, but it’s coming, and we’ll deal with that too.

  60. Boambee John

    Rococo at 1008

    They don’t want tolerance, they want acceptance.

    They don’t want acceptance (they already have that). They want celebration of their “choice” by the deplorable heteronormatives.

  61. A Lurker

    Who knows what the next big social issue will be, but it’s coming, and we’ll deal with that too.

    Legalisation of polygamy?
    Decriminalisation of incest?
    Reduction in the age of consent to appease various voting blocs?

    The sky is the limit for those intent on Progressing Australian society off the cliff.

  62. struth

    All of this happens right now and SSM isn’t yet legal. If all of those things are happening without a change to the law, what good will not changing the law amount to? I can’t see how legalizing SSM is going to make a material difference to child welfare in either direction. So I don’t see any good reason not to do it.

    See above.

    How do you know gay adoption has had no effect on our society?

    I would argue that it has already helped the Marxist in our society implement safe schools, and involve themselves in more than they should regarding education.

    A child has a right to know their Mother and Father, and nurtured and taught by them until adults, and although not possible in all cases, it should be seen as a priority and not secondary to the wants of selfish adults.

    The aboriginal activists place this argument front and centre with regard to culture.
    We are not hearing about that right now are we?

  63. Boambee John

    Ralph seeems to be in a competition with test pattern for the title of worst anti-religious bigot on the Cat.

  64. Ralph

    I fully support religious freedom, but it has to be within the context of the law of the land. We don’t allow Muslims to practice Sharia law and all it entails in Australia because that’s not part of Australian law. No one seems to have a problem with that. Public stonings aren’t allowed simply because Muslims may like conduct them. The practice of separation of powers means that all religions must learn to adapt to the society in which they exist, particularly when that society is actively questioning the extent to which it should be bound by religious beliefs that are increasingly irrelevant to modern society.

  65. struth

    Women couldn’t work in the public service in Australia after they got married. For a long time, women couldn’t even vote.

    Now you are making me nostalgic.

    See, ever change is not a good one.
    If they hadn’t been given the vote, or allowed to stay in the public service after marriage, we wouldn’t be having this SSM debate at all.
    It’s called a slippery slope.

  66. To both comments, I concede my ignorance. Nevertheless, the point stands. Time moves on and things change.

    Sure, but why does “times change” mean marriage must change in this particular respect, that it is a relationship between the sexes? What “times change” gets you is nothing more than other types of relationship beyond marriage are now in vogue. Nothing more.

  67. Ralph

    The sky is the limit for those intent on Progressing Australian society off the cliff.

    We’ll just have to wait and see. I seriously doubt that polygamy or incest or bestiality will be intense topics of debate in the town square any time soon. But who knows? The future is the future and we can’t control it. On the topic of incest, I can see a situation (in the event of a widespread holocaust with few survivors, for example) where societal norms would need to change for the purpose of the continuation of the human race. All very speculative and uncertain, but its possible.

  68. struth

    The practice of separation of powers means that all religions must learn to adapt to the society in which they exist, particularly when that society is actively questioning the extent to which it should be bound by religious beliefs that are increasingly irrelevant to modern society.

    Islamic states are not “modern societies”
    The modern society you believe so enlightened was born out of Christian values.
    You don’t have believe in Christ to see that.
    Christian values.
    To deny this is wilful ignorance.

  69. We don’t allow Muslims to practice Sharia law and all it entails in Australia because that’s not part of Australian law.

    Once SSM marriage becomes law, please let everyone know when you and your boyfriend march to the Lakemba Mosque and demand to be married. The Christian churches will be the first to be tested by the new law, why not be the first to test the Islamic church?

  70. Tim Neilson

    Where is there any room for God (or Allah) in that? Where exactly would heaven be?

    Clearly humanity has regressed. The ancient Hebrews understood the difference between something being real and something having a physical manifestation. So did pretty much everyone else in the ancient world.

    And that was based heavily (or partly, depending on one’s perspective) on the teachings of the bible, a book of fairy tales written many decades after the fact that is now widely discredited. Times have changed, our lives are rightly informed by science and we understand much more about the universe than ever before.

    More evidence of the intellectual degeneration of the species. Science is a means of understanding the physical aspects of the universe, by application of the scientific method, which is based on the unproveable* assumption that the physical universe operates with uniform, predictable regularity. Science does not, and cannot, test the truth of assertions that do not relate to physical matters, e.g. ethical matters.

    * Inductive reasoning supports the existence of near absolute predictable regularity of the physical universe (except e.g. the theorised random movement of subatomic particles). The inductive basis for that is so strong that no-one would question its application in science. Where the pseudo-“science” atheists go wrong is assuming that science depends on there being absolute regularity, and their touchingly naive ignorant belief that science has proved or can possibly prove such absolute regularity.

  71. particularly when that society is actively questioning the extent to which it should be bound by religious beliefs that are increasingly irrelevant to modern society

    Ralph, you haven’t actually established that the claim that marriage is a relationship between the sexes is a religious belief. You’ve just asserted it. I thought my reference to extra-Biblical civilizations that thought the same demonstrated that there was nothing religious about such a belief but you obviously didn’t take the hint.

  72. Chris

    Exactly Ralph. Now kindly fuck off and leave my belief system economic arrangements and well-grounded moral system alone.

    For the exemption from tax thing, the leftists usually are pretty ignorant about what is going on, perhaps because their Facebook friends copy their talking points from Americans. In parts of the US, tithes to churches seem to be tax deductible. In Australia our tithes are income which has had full personal income tax paid on it. There is no tax deduction to the giver unless its to eg the building fund of an educational institution, or a genuine charity using the money to do charitable works.
    Ministers pay income tax on the part that becomes their salary.
    So remind me: why should the vile, twisted rationalisations of boy-seducing French philosophy academics that created the justification for a morality invented five minutes ago and re-invented to the needs of the moment, to blackmail me into surrendering my values to yours?

  73. Tim Neilson

    There are countless views that were perfectly fine in their day – until society as a whole improved its understanding and subsequently changed its mind about they way in which it would conduct itself.

    Change does not equal improvement. Do you think that attitudes to women in Iran, Egypt and Afghanistan are better now than they were in the 1950’s? The present is just a passing phase, and the future may look back on today’s society and laugh itself near to death about all the things which today’s “progressives” solemnly try to impose on the rest of us.

  74. Ralph

    Even if marriage between the sexes is not strictly a religious thing (although religious types are among the staunchest opponents), I don’t see a good reason to prevent SSM on libertarian grounds. If two people of the same sex want to enjoy the legal protections and advantages of a marriage, why should they be prevented from doing so just because they are of the same sex?

    I don’t buy the child-rearing argument because same sex couples already have multiple avenues to child-rearing, even without SSM. And that will continue. There are also countless examples of hetero couples producing a bad child-rearing environment and badly raised children. If same sex couples aren’t going to be locked up for damaging children, there’s no good reason to disallow the same imperfect institution of marriage that hetero couples already have access to.

  75. I fully support religious freedom, but it has to be within the context of the law of the land.

    What people like Ralph mean by this is that they fully support religious freedom so long as what you and others believe is consistent with secularism however they define that. Just as has occurred with marriage, you will soon seen people argue, actually they already do, that existence of the sexes is a religious belief as it is mentioned in Genesis and therefore anyone that opposes the gender ideology taught in ‘Safe schools’ propaganda is wrongly attempting to impose their religious beliefs on a secular society.

  76. Ralph

    Once SSM marriage becomes law, please let everyone know when you and your boyfriend march to the Lakemba Mosque and demand to be married. The Christian churches will be the first to be tested by the new law, why not be the first to test the Islamic church?

    I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that churches of any religious persuasion should be forced to marry anyone. I have no issue with any religious institution being able to refuse to marry any particular couple, gay or straight. What we’re talking about is state-sanctioned marriage.

  77. struth

    Forget it.

    I don’t see a good reason to prevent SSM

    None so blind that won’t see.

    Ralph has been given the reasons and still keeps his eyes shut tight.

  78. A Lurker

    I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that churches of any religious persuasion should be forced to marry anyone.

    You are very naive.

  79. struth

    Making laws regarding marriage is in the constitution.

    I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that churches of any religious persuasion should be forced to marry anyone.

    How long do you think it would take?

    I’ll again take you up on a bet that it will happen within a year.

    The only reason religious freedom to choose is even mentioned is to give mussies a get out of jail free card.

  80. Ralph

    That’s nonsense, Dover Beach. It’s unarguable that sexes (or genders) exist and will continue to exist. Legalising SSM is not going to change that.

  81. stackja

    struth
    #2503508, posted on September 21, 2017 at 11:47 am
    Ralph’s trolling.

    Ralph Kramden?

  82. Muddy
    #2503375, posted on September 21, 2017 at 9:36 am

    Cultural terrorist works for me.

    Marcus has pretty much the same view as I do, repeal the act and if Father Tilty McJesus wants to, he can have Gosford Gay weddings every Sunday morn and the State can register relationships for all the legal crap.
    Of course, if you actually put this to a plebiscite (which it would have to since it’s altering the constitution) then more leftards would vote against it than for SSSM. This is because, as most of us know, this shenanigans has got nothing to do with “equal rights” or any of the other hollow arguments. It is about weaponising yet another group to attack Western civilisation, it is about humiliating Christians (but no other religions oddly), it is about handing power to crybullies to wreak vengeance on their perceived enemies, it is about sad little fucking losers whose mission is to enmiserate everyone else’s lives and it is about more one more ratchet on the cultural Marxist descent to serfdom and soddom. The smart gays have realised they are being used by the left and that there will come a day when they will be sold out by them faster than you can say Caliphate. Even if this survey passes there will be another informal check in a few decades whereby people will be asked “Are you a homosexual?”. An answer of ‘Yes’ will be followed by a WHEEEEEEEEEE! and then a SPLAT!
    If a “Yes” is returned what will happen to someone who refuses to recognise a gay marriage? If a gay couple say they are married and someone says “Sorry, I don’t recognise you as married, regardless of what the law says.” Will they get dragged before the HRC for wrong think and sent off for re-education?

  83. Ralph

    Change does not equal improvement. Do you think that attitudes to women in Iran, Egypt and Afghanistan are better now than they were in the 1950’s? The present is just a passing phase, and the future may look back on today’s society and laugh itself near to death about all the things which today’s “progressives” solemnly try to impose on the rest of us.

    Do you want to go back to the 1950’s? Do you want to force women to retire from the public service after marriage, to not be able to vote? Do you want to go back to legalized child labour? To be able to keep slaves? For Aborigines not to be Australian citizens? These laws were all changed for very good reasons and few people would disagree.

    No doubt that change does not always equal improvement. But the vast majority of changes have been for the better and where a mistake has been made, future governments can always wind it back if they want to. Case in point – the carbon tax.

  84. stackja

    Mr Rusty
    #2503516, posted on September 21, 2017 at 11:54 am
    Muddy
    #2503375, posted on September 21, 2017 at 9:36 am

    Cultural terrorist works for me.

    Marcus has pretty much the same view as I do, repeal the act and if Father Tilty McJesus wants to, he can have Gosford Gay weddings every Sunday morn and the State can register relationships for all the legal crap.
    Of course, if you actually put this to a plebiscite (which it would have to since it’s altering the constitution) then more leftards would vote against it than for SSSM. This is because, as most of us know, this shenanigans has got nothing to do with “equal rights” or any of the other hollow arguments. It is about weaponising yet another group to attack Western civilisation, it is about humiliating Christians (but no other religions oddly), it is about handing power to crybullies to wreak vengeance on their perceived enemies, it is about sad little fucking losers whose mission is to enmiserate everyone else’s lives and it is about more one more ratchet on the cultural Marxist descent to serfdom and soddom. The smart gays have realised they are being used by the left and that there will come a day when they will be sold out by them faster than you can say Caliphate. Even if this survey passes there will be another informal check in a few decades whereby people will be asked “Are you a homosexual?”. An answer of ‘Yes’ will be followed by a WHEEEEEEEEEE! and then a SPLAT!
    If a “Yes” is returned what will happen to someone who refuses to recognise a gay marriage? If a gay couple say they are married and someone says “Sorry, I don’t recognise you as married, regardless of what the law says.” Will they get dragged before the HRC for wrong think and sent off for re-education?

    Left want to destroy Australia.

  85. struth

    Ralph Kramden?

    He’s doing Monty trolling.

    Picking little side issues and waffling.

  86. Ralph

    Ralph’s trolling.

    I hope it’s not seen as that. I just see it as a robust discussion – all good fun. I’m a liberal free marketeer by philosophy and just can’t see any good reason not to allow SSM. That’s all. I respect other people’s opinion on the subject but just don’t agree with it.

  87. Even if marriage between the sexes is not strictly a religious thing (although religious types are among the staunchest opponents), I don’t see a good reason to prevent SSM on libertarian grounds. If two people of the same sex want to enjoy the legal protections and advantages of a marriage, why should they be prevented from doing so just because they are of the same sex?

    Because they are not in a marital relationship. Why shouldrelationssimply wanting to enjoy the same rights and privileges though not in the same relationship be persuasive?

    I don’t buy the child-rearing argument because same sex couples already have multiple avenues to child-rearing, even without SSM.

    So? All of these avenues involve other people in all instances, and therefore a natural parent that is by choice or circumstance deliberately excluded from rearing their own child.

    What I don’t understand about libertarian arguments in support of SS’M’ is the insistence that same-sex relationships must be included in marriage. Nothing prevents same-sex partners living together, pooling their resources, and the like. So this is not a matter about freedom. Something else is in play that is not peculiarly libertarian.

  88. Ralph

    I’ll again take you up on a bet that it will happen within a year.

    We’ll see. I really don’t think any government will compel any religious institution to marry any couple that it does not wish to. Gay couples who want to marry but can’t do so in a church/mosque/temple/whatever because that institution refuses will have to get married via a civil ceremony. Simple. I could well be wrong, but I’d be surprised if churches are forced into it.

  89. stackja

    dover_beach
    #2503527, posted on September 21, 2017 at 12:02 pm
    Even if marriage between the sexes is not strictly a religious thing (although religious types are among the staunchest opponents), I don’t see a good reason to prevent SSM on libertarian grounds. If two people of the same sex want to enjoy the legal protections and advantages of a marriage, why should they be prevented from doing so just because they are of the same sex?

    Because they are not in a marital relationship. Why shouldrelationssimply wanting to enjoy the same rights and privileges though not in the same relationship be persuasive?

    I don’t buy the child-rearing argument because same sex couples already have multiple avenues to child-rearing, even without SSM.

    So? All of these avenues involve other people in all instances, and therefore a natural parent that is by choice or circumstance deliberately excluded from rearing their own child.

    What I don’t understand about libertarian arguments in support of SS’M’ is the insistence that same-sex relationships must be included in marriage. Nothing prevents same-sex partners living together, pooling their resources, and the like. So this is not a matter about freedom. Something else is in play that is not peculiarly libertarian.

    Again destruction of Australia.

  90. That’s nonsense, Dover Beach. It’s unarguable that sexes (or genders) exist and will continue to exist. Legalising SSM is not going to change that.

    People warned, following the decriminialisation of sodomy, that we will eventually get gay ‘marriage’. People like you said, nonsense, marriage is obviously a relationship between the sexes. Basic reproductive biology, etc. Yet here we are.

  91. Ralph

    So? All of these avenues involve other people in all instances, and therefore a natural parent that is by choice or circumstance deliberately excluded from rearing their own child.

    My point being that it already happens now anyway and it’s not illegal. Gay couples are simply doing what is already available to hetero couples (i.e. adoption, fostering, de facto child raising, single parenting, etc.). And we don’t have SSM yet. So surely allowing SSM is not going to make things materially worse because gay couples can already legally raise children. If children in gay relationships is a valid reason to prevent SSM, those relationships should be made illegal and the ‘parents’ locked up for breaking the law. But that’s not going to happen, at least not right now anyway. Therefore, it makes no sense to disallow SSM on those grounds.

  92. A Lurker

    I hope it’s not seen as that. I just see it as a robust discussion – all good fun. I’m a liberal free marketeer by philosophy and just can’t see any good reason not to allow SSM. That’s all. I respect other people’s opinion on the subject but just don’t agree with it.

    Can you Ralph make an absolute and unequivocal guarantee that our fundamental freedoms won’t be further eroded by writing SSM into law?

    future governments can always wind it back if they want to.

    And how much harm will be done to society in the meantime?

    Here is a parting thought for you. We are effectively being asked to vote/give our opinion on an unknown Bill/legislation that may bring with it unknown and unforeseen consequences to society.
    Are you prepared to trust politicians to craft such a Bill?
    Are you prepared to sign your name to something that you have not read?

  93. hzhousewife

    As someone commented to me this morning, ” I’ll be bloody furious if they make it compulsory”

  94. areff

    Do you want to go back to the 1950’s?
    You mean when one income was enough to support a family, before the days when two people had to work so a big part of their joint earnings could be confiscated in order to be returned as child-care subsidies? Also, women in the Fifties looked much better in their undies. Short answer: Yes, please, Fifties redux!

    Do you want to force women to retire from the public service after marriage, to not be able to vote?
    Education would improve dramatically if married female teachers made way for more men at the chalkboard in primary schools. They shouldn’t have to resign, but with lower taxes many would. The sort of women who carry on about the obligation to have “a career” are generally those in no-work jobs — professional feminist advisers to ministers and academics. People who actually do real, productive work are often very keen to not do much more of it. Anne Summers writing interminably about her favourite abortion is not ‘work’.

    Do you want to go back to legalized child labour?
    Yes, please. For children, delivering newspapers of a morning is a good introduction to the fact that getting up early and doing something useful has a direct relationship with the acquisition of wealth.

    To be able to keep slaves?
    Well, love slaves, anyway. I could use three or four of them on any given night.

    For Aborigines not to be Australian citizens?
    Ugghhh. This hoary old myth again.

    These laws were all changed for very good reasons and few people would disagree.

    Few people in your circle, Ralph. Fortunately there are only so many people who can gather shoulder-to-shoulder around a mound of Sao biscuits.

  95. stackja

    hzhousewife
    #2503548, posted on September 21, 2017 at 12:18 pm
    As someone commented to me this morning, ” I’ll be bloody furious if they make it compulsory”

    And we shall love it. Big Brother love.

  96. Boambee John

    Mr Rusty

    Will they get dragged before the HRC for wrong think and sent off for re-education?

    Yes.

  97. stackja

    dover_beach
    #2503537, posted on September 21, 2017 at 12:11 pm
    That’s nonsense, Dover Beach. It’s unarguable that sexes (or genders) exist and will continue to exist. Legalising SSM is not going to change that.

    People warned, following the decriminialisation of sodomy, that we will eventually get gay ‘marriage’. People like you said, nonsense, marriage is obviously a relationship between the sexes. Basic reproductive biology, etc. Yet here we are.

    Sodomy was made common in 1980s. STIs became more common.

  98. John of Mel

    Case against SSM for libertarians

    RalphI really don’t think any government will compel any religious institution to marry any couple that it does not wish to

    But they already do in countries that allowed SSM. Why can’t you see that?

  99. stackja

    Boambee John
    #2503557, posted on September 21, 2017 at 12:24 pm
    Mr Rusty

    Will they get dragged before the HRC for wrong think and sent off for re-education?

    Yes.

    Room 101 in the Ministry of Love.

  100. Zatara

    removing tax concessions given to religious institutions – which clearly don’t need them;

    Don’t mind taxing income twice?

    OK, then go after union income next.

  101. candy

    (i.e. adoption, fostering, de facto child raising, single parenting, etc.).

    The thing is though, in none of those cases, including adoption, is the child deprived of the knowledge, at least, of his or her beginnings. That knowledge is available and indeed it is encouraged for the child to form some kind of bond with the natural parent with appropriate social safety/appropriateness.

    SSM deprives the child totally of either a mum or dad. I see no SSM union with children being raised, where the natural mum or dad has a role, is known to the child. Everyone has a mum and dad, no matter the imperfections. We aren’t magicked out of air.

  102. If children in gay relationships is a valid reason to prevent SSM

    No, the claim is not the above, the claim is that same-sex relationships per se do not constitute a marital relationship because they are not orientated towards child-rearing. Less than a quarter of same-sex relationships involve children, and the figure is that high only because of lesbians. Gays less than 10% and there the figure relies on previous opposite-sex relationships largely.

  103. Senile Old Guy

    Ralph pops up here at intervals to troll, as he is doing now.

    And that was based heavily (or partly, depending on one’s perspective) on the teachings of the bible, a book of fairy tales written many decades after the fact that is now widely discredited. Times have changed, our lives are rightly informed by science and we understand much more about the universe than ever before.

    Science says children have mothers and fathers, are born through reproduction of male and female. That’s the only way science — i.e. nature — creates families. SSM is against nature.

    The arguments against SSM these days are very few indeed.

    No, they are numerous, and many have been given, but Ralph will not accept them. The children in SSM can never be the children of both “parents”.

  104. nilk

    Roger

    #2503422, posted on September 21, 2017 at 10:21 am

    It’s a law that applies to all, regardless of the religion that any one person may or may not subscribe to.

    In other words, erase freedom of conscience and religion to appease a tiny minority.

    Where will it end?

    In the usual trench of corpses.

  105. Stimpson J. Cat

    It’s BGTLI.

    How many f$cking times do I have to say it?!

  106. nilk

    My point being that it already happens now anyway and it’s not illegal. Gay couples are simply doing what is already available to hetero couples (i.e. adoption, fostering, de facto child raising, single parenting, etc.).

    Since it’s already happening, does anyone know how Christine Forster’s kids feel about their mum being all over every gay event in Sydney? First, nobody had ever heard of her and now that she’s leapt out of the closet she never shuts up.

    Millie Fontana, Katy Faust and Robert Oscar Lopez aside (who are they, you ask?), we never hear from children of same sex parents unless we go looking for their views.

  107. Gay couples are…single parenting, etc.?

    Really?

  108. struth

    Ralph is trolling because he won’t deal with the real issue, and that is that the state will be making law to reduce the effect on children of families , and the bond between real parents and their children,( thereby giving more power to the Marxists in government to indoctrinate them), by making real parents irrelevant, and diminishing their natural authority over their children.
    DUE to gay adoption the Marxists in schools went to the next level.
    I am thoroughly against gay adoption as well, and it is doing harm.
    There will never be anyone studying the harm………………………
    But it and decisions like it helped bring about Safe schools.

    No family is perfect, but governments should not purposefully put children on the back foot at the start.

    It’s like placing them with alcoholic heteros because , well they wanted kids.
    Not a good enough reason.
    Most gay parenting is done by bitter old divorced fatties who turn to lesbianism (couldn’t get a man if it involves putting down the fork) and have gained custody.
    Priority to both sex parenting should be a given in a sane world.

    Answer this question Ralph.
    Why is it only left wing organisations pushing this?
    Please don’t quote idiot narcissists and pressured business leaders.

  109. stackja

    As Chesterton said, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”

  110. Stimpson J. Cat

    As Chesterton said, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”

    As Stimpy said,
    “There is no definitive proof either way so don’t be such a smart-ass, Chesterton. Keep an open mind at all times, but not so open that you contract serious mental illness, alas. If you have to pray, pray that there is a God, and it does care, and there is a plan, and it is not insane, or dead, or gone. ”

    😁

  111. Boambee John

    struth at 1303

    (couldn’t get a man if it involves putting down the fork)

    Could you clarify which fork they will not put down please?

  112. Ralph

    Priority to both sex parenting should be a given in a sane world.

    Ideally, yes. And yet same sex couples are still legally able to bring up a child, regardless of the way in which that child came to be under that same sex couple’s care. If it was so bad, governments would go in and forcibly remove the children and convict the parents for committing a crime. In some cases, they may well do that. But plenty of poor hetero parents get to keep their kids too when they would clearly be better off elsewhere. If those situations are not illegal, I don’t see why gay couple should not be able to get married if they so desire.

  113. Chris

    If those situations are not illegal, I don’t see why gay couple should not be able to get married if they so desire.

    What dull, self-serving non sequitur.

  114. Ideally, yes. And yet same sex couples are still legally able to bring up a child, regardless of the way in which that child came to be under that same sex couple’s care. If it was so bad, governments would go in and forcibly remove the children and convict the parents for committing a crime. In some cases, they may well do that. But plenty of poor hetero parents get to keep their kids too when they would clearly be better off elsewhere. If those situations are not illegal, I don’t see why gay couple should not be able to get married if they so desire.

    Oh, because its not illegal for same-sex parents to bring up children they should be able to marry. Three men can also bring up children, (they even did a a movie about it), so by your reasoning they should be able to marry too. Seriously.

  115. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Same-sex marriage: Fair Work to investigate 18-year-old woman ‘let go’ for supporting No vote

    Makes no difference if she is a “contractor”, unless she has multiple clients, fair work will deem her to be an employee.

  116. Ralph

    He who does not believe in God will believe in anything

    Just believing does not make it so. All the available evidence suggests that there isn’t a god, but as Stimpson said, there’s no definitive proof either way.

  117. stackja

    Ralph
    #2503656, posted on September 21, 2017 at 1:57 pm
    He who does not believe in God will believe in anything

    Just believing does not make it so. All the available evidence suggests that there isn’t a god, but as Stimpson said, there’s no definitive proof either way.

    Is there a Ralph?

  118. All the available evidence suggests that there isn’t a god

    Seriously, dude, read a book, like this one for instance.

  119. Ralph

    Oh, because its not illegal for same-sex parents to bring up children they should be able to marry. Three men can also bring up children, (they even did a a movie about it), so by your reasoning they should be able to marry too. Seriously.

    But I didn’t say that. The debate is about two people regardless of gender, not three or more. And it’s not about dogs or goats or any other animal. There is no serious push for marriage between anything other than between two people. And if such a campaign does arise in the future, it will be dealt with then. Like anything, it’s all about the definition, which I suppose is arbitrary and subject to change according to the times. As it should. Some religions quite happily allow polygamy, and in those societies it’s as normal as eating weet bix for breakfast. Christian-based western societies don’t agree and see their view of the world as different and superior. But other religions do the same in respect of Christian-based western societies, thinking that their view of the world is the correct one and we’re the ones who’ve got it wrong. Who’s right?

  120. Kneel

    “If two people of the same sex want to enjoy the legal protections and advantages of a marriage, why should they be prevented from doing so just because they are of the same sex?”

    They shouldn’t. In fact, they currently aren’t. It’s called a civil union and it applies equally for LGBQWERTY as anyone else.

    They don’t want to “legalise” gay marriage – they already have it in all but name. They want to enforce the use of the word “marry/married” for their union – they want the word “marriage” to be defined the way THEY want it defined. If it was about rights, it would already be a dead issue. It’s not about legal rights etc, it’s ALL about what one word (and its derivatives) means. They are essentially demanding that they can not only call black white, but that I MUST call black white too – hope the bastards get run over at the next pedestrian crossing!

  121. Ralph

    They don’t want to “legalise” gay marriage – they already have it in all but name. They want to enforce the use of the word “marry/married” for their union – they want the word “marriage” to be defined the way THEY want it defined.

    So if it is effectively the same, why not give it the same name?

  122. Ralph

    Dover, the existence of a god is one of the great unknowables. We’ll all get to find out soon enough.

  123. struth

    But plenty of poor hetero parents get to keep their kids too when they would clearly be better off elsewhere. If those situations are not illegal, I don’t see why gay couple should not be able to get married if they so desire.

    You are trolling.
    This has already been answered.
    The government should go for the best option for the children.
    If it is not to be the actual parents, then the next best thing should be looked for.
    And two mums (insanity) or two dads(insanity) is not the next best option.

    You are not taking into account what this SSM will open up with cultural Marxism and children.
    This is an attack on families by allowing even more state intervention by Marxists by diminishing the natural family unit and strength of such, to be replaced by state indoctrination.
    It is true this is already happening due to the bullshit of gay parent families (unnatural, scientifically impossible and pure fantasy) and the acceptance of such by government.
    They might be two carers or a single parent with a homo lover, but they are not a family.
    When families are relegated equal status to this nonsense, so greater the power of the education system to indoctrinate the kiddies.
    This the Marxists openly admit to.

    They openly admit that this is their desire.

    Is this your goal?
    Is this what you want?

  124. struth

    So if it is effectively the same, why not give it the same name?

    Been answered.

    Troll.

  125. Tim Neilson

    Kneel
    #2503669, posted on September 21, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Absolutely correct.

    Ralph
    #2503674, posted on September 21, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    For the same reason that we shouldn’t legislate to deem, for the purposes of Australian law, that 2+2=5. It’s simply not true. Orwell’s 1984 was primarily about social manipulation of the language to hinder people from articulating the truth. That’s the real purpose of the “yes” campaign. It’s nothing to do with real rights at all.

    In the case of any real right, e.g. superannuation, hospital access, IVF, the proper analysis is:
    (a) why do we treat a marriage between a man and a woman this way in relation to this right (and foist that treatment on de factos)?
    (b) does the same rationale apply to a relationship between two men or two women who choose to sign on to a legally binding relationship?
    (c ) If not, is there any other rationale for applying the same treatment to two men or two women?

    Maybe that analysis will usually result in the same treatment, maybe it won’t. But it ought to be done on the basis of reality as it applies to each actual right. Blanket labelling of a relationship between two men or two women who choose to sign on to a legally binding relationship as “marriage” is an evasion of reality. They aren’t the same and therefore there’s no reason why they should be described the same.

    Also, “equal” treatment doesn’t always mean “the same” treatment.

    People are confusing “equal” with “the same”. We don’t let blind people have driving licences, for example. They’re not treated “the same” as sighted people, but there’s “equal” treatment in that the conditions for getting a driver’s licences are applied equally in every case.

    But as Kneel has said, the “marriage” issue has nothing to do with any real right – there isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a “right” to require society to call your relationship by the word of your choosing.

  126. Ralph

    Well, I’ll bow out here. It’s clear that we’re into circular argument territory. Some of you fervently believe that SSM will be something close to Armageddon and should be resisted at all costs. I don’t share that view. That’s fine and that’s life.

    Either way, the postal vote is underway and we’ll all find out soon enough what the result is. Either SSM will be legislated or it won’t. My guess is that it will be. But if it’s not, the ALP will do it when they are next in government, which could be in 18 months or in 4-5 years if Turnbull can get re-elected. Either way, and unless a stack of countries that have already legislated for it discover that it’s completely unworkable and destructive to their people (very unlikely), it’s coming.

  127. Senile Old Guy

    So if it is effectively the same, why not give it the same name?

    How is 2 men (or 2 women) the same as a man and a woman? It is not.

  128. Chris

    Well, I’ll bow out here. It’s clear that we’re into circular argument territory.

    Well, enjoy the rest of your day!

  129. Zatara

    Hey Tim, it’s a survey, not a vote. They didn’t have the balls for that.

    Sorry if I burst a bubble there.

  130. Senile Old Guy

    Hey Tim, it’s a survey, not a vote. They didn’t have the balls for that.

    No, the Senate would not allow a vote. The LNP tried for that but the ALP and Greens, and a few other useless sods, blocked it: can’t let the plebs have a say.

  131. Rococo Liberal

    I think Ralph is mixing up two different arguments. Those of us who are gainst SSM are not against gays having their relationships given the same rights and privileges in law as marriages. We just don’t want same sex unions being called ”marraiges”. We don’t want governments deeming words to have different meanings.

  132. struth

    Ralph is fairly relaxed about it coming.
    I am pretty sure it’s coming as well.
    That doesn’t mean you just bend over for it , so to speak.

    I know I fought it.
    That’s what lets me sleep at night.

  133. Oh, because its not illegal for same-sex parents to bring up children they should be able to marry. Three men can also bring up children, (they even did a a movie about it), so by your reasoning they should be able to marry too. Seriously.

    But I didn’t say that. The debate is about two people regardless of gender, not three or more.

    Oh, but you did. You put forward a principle, implicit in your argument, that where it is not illegal for X to raise a child that they should be able to marry. This is precisely the problem with people like you Ralph, you engage in what is an ad hoc argument without any idea of the principles your putting forward or their implications because all you are focused upon is a conclusion you’ve already reached before the argument has even begun.

  134. Like anything, it’s all about the definition, which I suppose is arbitrary and subject to change according to the times. As it should.

    Definitions are not arbitrary. The definition of triangle or marriage is not arbitrary, nor do they change over time. It’s only sloppy writers that imagine that the definition of marriage has changed over time or that the definition was somehow unconnected with a relationship between the sexes we encounter out there in the world.

  135. Those of us who are gainst SSM are not against gays having their relationships given the same rights and privileges in law as marriages. We just don’t want same sex unions being called ”marraiges”.

    RL, why should two separate things, denoted by different words, be accorded the same rights and privileges in law? Unless they were the same in the relevant aspect it is not prima facie clear why they should.

  136. Dover, the existence of a god is one of the great unknowables.

    I’ve yet to see a decent argument defending that claim.

  137. Dover, the existence of a god is one of the great unknowables.

    I’ve yet to see a decent argument defending that claim.

    I’ve yet see a valid argument opposing that statement.
    There is no evidence.

    Words have meanings. Belief in an all powerful divine being is called “faith”, for a reason.

  138. I’ve yet see a valid argument opposing that statement.
    There is no evidence.

    Things ‘change’. That, according to Aristotle, Maimonides, and Aquinas constituted evidence. Another is that since the world is full of composite things, things made up of parts, their ultimate cause must rest in something absolutely simple (without parts). You should read the book I link to above. It includes these two arguments and another three.

  139. Kneel

    “RL, why should two separate things, denoted by different words, be accorded the same rights and privileges in law?”

    I have a dog. You have a cat.
    Each of us has a pet.
    The laws regarding dogs is different to the laws regarding cats.
    There is some laws in common that refer to pets.
    Why is my pet regulated differently from yours?
    What if I call my dog a cat?
    What if I insist it’s a cat and demand that you call it a cat?
    What if I insist all dog and cat laws become laws about pets?
    Is any of this realistic? Why are you forcing me to call my dog a pet instead? Nothing has changed, I must suffer the same obligations and accept the same rights as before.

    It would be silly – a waste of time and resources to appease some blithering idiot who already has what they say they want, but wants everyone else to change how they speak so they don’t get “offended”.

    Piss off – go be offended, I don’t care!

    There IS no legal difference, what is the freaking problem?!?!?! The words used? Again – piss off! You already stole “gay” and “queer”, you’re not stealing “marriage” too!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *