The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Moving forward to same sex marriage > Comments

Moving forward to same sex marriage : Comments

By Jennifer Wilson, published 11/8/2010

For Gillard infertile heterosexuals have better rights than gays.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Well, “one lives and one learns”. Doug, you appear to me to be proud of your disease “homosexuality”. Unfortunately that pride (or is it insecurity) is a side effect of the illness; (for it was once treated as an illness did you know)?
I say “good on Johnny Howard” for his brazen stand against the tsunami of the march for homosexual rights. Here is a cheer for good old “straight” Californians, and their referendum success against gay marriage.
And “runner” , Do you really mean to say a “bill of Wongs” not a bill of wrongs? Keep that eye on the "wong ball"(pun) folks.
Suzieonline, worry-not, Bob Brown and his merry band, will do a marvellous trade for you on winning the balance of power in the senate, in the up-coming elections; I am sure.
And Celivea, In answer to your plea for the right to love, you have it. Could I suggest though you keep it private and cease from advertising the fact at gay mardigras.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 11:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar Rose, thanks for that information.

I wasn't aware that gay couples had ever legally married in Australia before Howard added the words -"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others...", in 2004?

The 1961 Marriage Act was ambiguously worded apparently, leading to some narrow minded people believing that homosexuals may actually be allowed to marry. (Shock/horror :-O )

Diver Dan, what are you afraid of if gays are given the right to marriage? It is a terribly old-fashioned and scientifically debunked view that homosexuality is a disease.

The disease of homophobia is far more sinister I believe.
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 12 August 2010 1:08:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Dan: Suppose you were to discover that some of your closest and best friends were homosexual and had been all along. Suppose that until that time, you had not noticed a single thing about them that was in the slightest bit bad or unattractive. Would you be able to re-classify them instantly as abnormal and diseased?
Are you aware that it is is almost certain that some of your closest acquaintances are homosexual and that there are probably more homosexuals in your community, maybe even in your street, than left handers?
If you were in a position where you could rescue one occupant from a burning car before it exploded but not both, and you knew that one of them was a talented homosexual musician and the other was his heterosexual and very old and ill father, do you know which one you would rescue? Does that knowledge disturb you?
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 12 August 2010 1:54:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suzeonline - same sex marriage wasn't happening here prior to 2004, which only makes it more bizarre that Howard felt the need to make certain it wouldn't happen by re-wording the 1961 Marriage Act to legally prevent it.

In Rooty Hill last night, Gillard re-iterated that she and her party would not be amending the Marriage Act to allow gay marriage.

Diver Dan - enough, already. Stop spewing hate. What have you got against people loving one another?
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 12 August 2010 7:44:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deliberately creating children to put them in a situation where they will never know either their father or their mother is moving forward?
Vilifying anybody who speaks out against such a travesty of natural justice is moving forward?
The “right” of somebody to have a child is greater than the natural rights of a child?
What is wrong with you people?
I know it’s the me generation but what about the children?

Briar Rose,

<<same sex marriage wasn't happening here prior to 2004, which only makes it more bizarre that Howard felt the need to make certain it wouldn't happen by re-wording the 1961 Marriage Act to legally prevent it.>>
"More bizarre"?
John Howard, like many of us, could see where the "gay" agenda was leading and had the vision to do something about it.

<<Stop spewing hate.>>
The standard line to shut down debate. No arguments, just vilification.
I personally don't hate any "gays".
I just care that we as a society create the best possible conditions for any child.
ie, we do not sanction that a child is deliberately deprived of a mother or a father, solely for the gratification of those whose behaviours naturally exclude them from natural parenthood.

<<What have you got against people loving one another?>>
What on earth stands in the way of "gays" loving one another?
Absolutely nothing.
Go love one another, just leave the children to their natural rights.
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 12 August 2010 8:45:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That’s the problem with “human rights”

Some things are not rights, they are privileges.

Whilst it is right to be free to copulate with the partner of one’s choice:

If that union, due to the technical detail, of not being from opposing sexes, is doomed not to issue forth progeny, then so be it.

There is no human right to the equal application of unnatural intervention,

And “artificial insemination” is, as its name implies not natural, just as same-sex relationships are not normal but abnormal.

Extending the “artificial” to the “abnormal” cannot be construed as a just application of what some claim to be a “human right”.

Whilst we must be tolerant of the abnormal,

Extending all the global definitions of “Human rights” is inappropriate

and since we have the future rights of a child involved,

Any “right of parenthood” should be limited to the rights of the “natural” and “normal”
Posted by Stern, Thursday, 12 August 2010 8:50:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy