The Forum > Article Comments > Why consult the electorate on gay marriage? > Comments
Why consult the electorate on gay marriage? : Comments
By Scott MacInnes, published 17/12/2010On moral matters members of parliament should follow their own beliefs rather than ask their constituents how they should vote.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Angry Oak, Friday, 17 December 2010 10:37:56 AM
| |
Angry....then you don't understand many things.
What is your value system? What is it's foundation? Do you have any religious beliefs? The natural order is heterosexual. "UN"natural is homosexual. Even without any recourse to religious dogma, common sense should tell you that a society which extends tolerance to the intolerant is self deceived. The Homosexual lobby is one of the most INtolerant groups I've ever come across. Not only that, it's desire to brainwash children who have no choice in the matter..through skilful manipulation of Media is abominable in the extreme. "NO" to Gay intolerance. "YES" to tolerance and fairness and a more inclusive civil society. Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 17 December 2010 11:01:07 AM
| |
A response to ALGOREisRICH and his patronising line "then you don't understand many things".
Q> What is your value system? What is it's foundation? A. What it's not is judging someone before I have even had a chance to meet them and understand their position. Q. Do you have any religious beliefs? A. None of your damn business Q. The natural order is heterosexual. "UN"natural is homosexual. A. This is a load of crap. Who are you to make this assertion, and what background in Genetics/Physiology/Psychiatry do you possess. For all you know a rise in homosexuality may be a natural response to built up living conditions in the cities as a "natural birth control measure" Even in the wild it is not unusual to see other male species mounting their same sex. Q/stm Even without any recourse to religious dogma, common sense should tell you that a society which extends tolerance to the intolerant is self deceived.The Homosexual lobby is one of the most INtolerant groups I've ever come across. Not only that, it's desire to brainwash children who have no choice in the matter..through skilful manipulation of Media is abominable in the extreme. A. I made no mention of any political lobby group, and even withstanding this, your logic is floored. Not all Homosexuals are part of your so called "Homosexual lobby". Ever heard the saying "All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles. Q/STM "NO" to Gay intolerance. "YES" to tolerance and fairness and a more inclusive civil society. A. You are full of hypocrisy, and karma dictates that someone close to you, whether a son/daughter, old school friend, will be gay. I sincerely hope you deal with such a situation using a greater perspective and tolerance than your narrow minded retort to my comment. Posted by Angry Oak, Friday, 17 December 2010 12:33:06 PM
| |
This article will be filed under the heading “Manipulative”. I would expect a Lawyer to mention the word “Referendum” somewhere in an article criticizing dismissive tactics used by the Gillard Government on the issue of Gay marriage.
If the public debate on gay marriage is such a sensitive one to Government, as was the debate on the Republic, which was roundly defeated at a referendum, then put the question of S/S marriage to a referendum at the next Federal election: That is a fair, just, historically proved and constitutionally correct method for Government to judge the issue openly and honestly in public and will satisfy all parties concerned. Posted by diver dan, Friday, 17 December 2010 8:47:41 PM
| |
<<Nobody believes slavery was moral when it was supported by majority opinion.>>
The same tedious old canard intended to confuse by deceptively drawing an analogy between the immutability of race and changeable homosexual behaviour. 70% of the descendants of slaves in the USA reject this analogy because it is blatantly false: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/14/are-gay-rights-civil-rights.html?from=rss It is no more than a ploy to manipulate opinion, along with the 10% lie and the homosexual gene lie. Posted by Proxy, Friday, 17 December 2010 9:08:52 PM
| |
Proxy, please explain the 'homosexual gene lie'?
I didn't know you were a scientist? What possible business is it of anyone else if two homosexual people want to marry? Homosexuality is not illegal is it? Why then is homosexual marriage illegal? Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 17 December 2010 10:21:11 PM
| |
<<What possible business is it of anyone else if two homosexual people want to marry?>>
--What possible business is it of anyone else if three people want to marry? <<Homosexuality is not illegal is it? Why then is homosexual marriage illegal?> --Polyamory is not illegal is it? Why then is polygamous marriage illegal? As demonstrated by the paraphrasing above, your argument has no logical basis. Posted by Proxy, Friday, 17 December 2010 10:34:29 PM
| |
@ suzeonline.
So what's next on the agenda for homosexual activists? Will a change in the marriage act be a sort of peace treaty to end their war against heterosexual "normative standards"? Given that lowering the age of consent was a founding principle of the "Gay liberation" movement in Europe, where it all began, is the "emancipation" of children from "oppressive" heterosexual norms the next taboo to be smashed? I'm asking you because you support "Gay" marriage, which must mean you are an expert on the subject. Let's read from the old "Gay Manifesto": http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751204/posts The very first line of the very first point for action read thus. "The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality." Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 18 December 2010 5:53:06 AM
| |
This is a very good article that addresses
an aspect of the gay marriage debate that I don't think I've seen discussed before. No politicians consulted their electorates when the Howard government cynically amended the Marriage Act with the spineless support of the ALP. A great majority of them probably just assumed that amending the Act to avoid the possibility of gay marriage was 'good' for society, or in the case of the gutless Opposition, uncontroversial enough that nobody would notice their support for a clearly discriminatory legislative amendment. I wonder what quid pro quo the ALP members received for their backing of Howard's homophobic amendment? Now that it's clear that the amended legislation has provoked a concerted backlash in the community by gay activists and those of us who oppose discrimination on the basis of sexuality, MPs of all persuasions should take note and vote with their consciences when a Bill is presented to Parliament. Unfortunately, with a couple of notable exceptions, this discussion looks like it will go the way of every other discussion in this Forum that concerns homosexuality - it will just provide a platform for the strident and repetitive expression of hateful and fearful sentiments about homosexuality and gay people, from the same old tiresome purveyors of bigotry. Posted by talisman, Saturday, 18 December 2010 8:14:30 AM
| |
The practical issue, rather than the moral one, that I have never heard mentioned is tihs.
Since equal numbers of men and women are born each year, each gay man represents a woman who won't find a husband. As I said, it's not a moral argument, just a mathematical one Posted by partTimeParent, Saturday, 18 December 2010 10:21:46 AM
| |
@Talisman,
That, Sir/Madam is what we call a rhetorical reply to a question nobody asked. The Pro "Gay" movement uses force and coercion every day of the week, you've just done so yourself by labeling us bigots. Were Stephanie Rice and Jason Akermanis subjected to coercion, blackmail and the use of force earlier this year? Does the reaction to the NZ TV advert this week constitute a use of force, coercion and blackmail (Gay youth suicide..again)? The "Gay" movement has at it's foundation the sexual liberation of all people from they tyranny of the heteronormative family unit starting with children. Short version: Destroy families. Saying that the early movement thought and writing praising pederasty and the destruction of families is of no relevance to the present "Struggle" is like saying the Declaration Of Independence had no influence on the American Revolution or that Mein Kampf had no influence on the Third Reich. As I posted in the other thread, I don't even need to mention homosexuality, homosexual practices or social problems in any indictment of the "Gay" movement to sell my story. All I have to do is repeat back the information the movement itself produces for public consumption and the illusions and false assumptions about "Gays" fall away. If I wanted for some reason to mount an "Anti Gay" protest I'd be on the corner handing out photocopies of the Gay Manifesto, not some "Hate Tract". Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 18 December 2010 3:13:30 PM
| |
@ Jay of Melbourne, at least my comment
addressed the content and argument of the article. Yours is just another anti-gay rant, just as I predicted. QED. Posted by talisman, Saturday, 18 December 2010 3:34:54 PM
| |
@Talisman.
So you won't address my indictment of the "Gay" movement? Given that the aims of the original "Gay" liberation movement have to a large extent been met then surely the destruction of the Tyrannical Heteronormative structure of the Family must be front and centre on the agenda right now? You have eliminated or neutered all your rivals within the mainstream by the use of force and now you want to begin the destruction of the Hetero family as laid out in the manifesto? What do you say to this allegation? True or not true? If you choose the latter do you repudiate the "Gay" movement which has sprung from that document? Finally answer me this: Why should I support "Gay" marriages and Families if they are enabled by a movement that has zero tolerance for "Heteronormative" Families and basic, natural Heterosexual child rearing? Why should I support you when you don't support me? Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 18 December 2010 4:17:29 PM
| |
Hi Jay of Melbourne:
Do you need supporting? I think that you'll find that most people don't cause needless suffering. They believe in free speech and protect it even if they disagree with what is being said. Most people pay their taxes, don't cheat, don't kill, don't commit incest, don't do things to others that we would not wish done to us. As for making judgements about other people's lives - my goodness, life is complicated enough as it is dealing with our own lives, without having to worry about telling others how they should live theirs. It's one thing to feel that you're on the right path (good for you), but it's another to think that yours is the only path. Posted by Lexi, Monday, 20 December 2010 3:29:35 PM
| |
Dear Scott MacInnes, thank you for your article, it was most interesting and its production is most welcome. Not because I agree with the position that you are taking but rather that the point needed in itself to be made; the point being one of political correctness.
Someone earlier in the comments to your article referred to the Declaration of Independence. In a manner you are advocating a similar point. The original ‘declaration’ came about as the settlers in Virginia baulked at lack of parliamentary representation and thus refused to bow down to the English parliamentary system that imposed same. I consider that we similarly have an un-representative parliamentary system, that is inherently undemocratic and can be more accurately described as ‘delegated dictatorship’ – we the plebiscite vote a group of candidates, as limited by a gerrymandering constitution, into office where they can do effectively whatever they wish for a term of about four years, wherein they can do much as they wish according to their own bent and in total ignore of the voters within their electorate and without the need to consult as they are NOT REPRESENTATIVE PARLIMENTARIANS. The bottom line is – we do not have representative government and therefore we do not have a democracy, as the process is not by the people for the people. So I can empathise with you Scott, why share the decision making with a bunch of mindless idiots who think differently to you? Posted by deadly, Monday, 20 December 2010 6:51:14 PM
| |
<< Most people pay their taxes, don't cheat, don't kill, don't commit incest>>
We have just been demonstrating, over and again, that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of incest. Substantiating this, the homosexual apologists among us have finally, unequivocally declared that they have no problem with incest. Your statement could therefore equally and accurately state: "Most people pay their taxes, don't cheat, don't kill, don't commit incest and don't engage in homosexual behaviour" Posted by Proxy, Monday, 20 December 2010 6:59:53 PM
| |
Proxy:
You seem to have missed entirely - the point that I was trying to make. However, I won't argue with you because from reading your posts it appears that you feel threatened by anybody who doesn't share your absolutist point of view. I simply no longer have the patience or the will to bother dealing with such ill-informed bigotry. Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 10:12:59 AM
| |
<< it appears that you feel threatened by anybody who doesn't share your absolutist point of view>>
It appears that you feel threatened by anybody who doesn't share your relativist point of view <<I simply no longer have the patience or the will...>> Goal achieved. <<...to bother dealing with such ill-informed bigotry.>> And I thought my contributions were the most well-informed bigotry on this post. At least I have the data to back up my claims, as opposed to the easily refuted politically correct feel-goodisms of homo-apologists. Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 6:55:07 PM
| |
Proxy:
You say that at least you have the data to back up your claims? Now if you'd said that you have information, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, I'd be impressed. The goal is to transform data into information, and information into insight. Good luck with that! Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 4:13:31 PM
| |
<<Now if you'd said that you have information, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, I'd be impressed.>>
At least I don't claim insight while studiously ignoring mountains of data which contradicts my position. Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 6:28:02 PM
| |
Proxy:
Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom. Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 23 December 2010 10:10:28 AM
|
If you are against gay marriage, then it's simple, don't marry anyone who is the same sex as you. To go any further than this is to impose one's beliefs onto a group where no consequences will be felt by the complainer.
I am a conservative voter, and some may accuse me of hypocrisy, but before you do just remember and acknowledge, Conservative politics is centrally about minimalist government, not a moral agenda.