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 > Bullying and the deconstruction of gender > Comments

Bullying and the deconstruction of gender : Comments

By Babette Francis, published 2/6/2015

There is real bullying happening in the adult world in regard to the issue of homosexual 'marriage'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
So being expected to do your job is 'bullying'? Gosh, I've been bullied for years, and never realised it.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 7:32:14 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
The big fear is of course , amongst this "set", if this issue goes to a referendum at the next election, it will not so much as reach the starting gate...hopefully Abbot will be smart enough to manipulate this outcome...
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 7:44:30 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
The article smells the same to me as the former opposition to equal pay for equal work for women. Scare tactics such as "It will destroy the home." and other nonsense.

Now it is the 'homosexual lobby'. More nonsense. Gradually our society is promoting equal justice for all people regardless of sex, ethnicity, religious belief or lack of it and nationality. Now many of us are concerned that this be extended to people regardless of their sexual orientation or sexual preferences. Apparently that is what the author labels the homosexual lobby. I am proud to be a heterosexual male who is part of that lobby.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 9:38:42 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
<<So being expected to do your job is 'bullying'?>>

Certainly. Being expected to do a job you never agreed to do is bullying.

The LGBTIQ people (by the time this is posted new letters will be added) are only used as pawns or a pretext by the real bullies', whose aim is not limited to promoting other forms of sexuality or even to burning Christians, but to destroying all families and everything else that requires restraint and discipline. The sight of a happy family makes them angry and upset, probably because they never had one, so they now want nobody else to have it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 10:43:02 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
Look at the number of people practicing homosexuality employed by the abc/sbs. Says is all. Such a tiny percentage of the population with such over representation.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 11:20:36 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
What is at risk here is the society we have built with the nuclear family as its fundamental building block i.e. institutionalised monogamy.
Marriage has been understood for millennia as not a contract between 2 people capable of procreation- an institution for the nurture and education of children.
The Judeo Christian culture in which it has been a feature is the ONLY culture which has brought children to the maximum of their potential to produce the innovations and science which has produced the wealth creation the world now enjoys- without which 90% of today's world population could not exist for lack of the means to produce , transport and distribute the food and shelter to sustain it.

What other culture has given rise to the steam engine, locomotives, steel ships, aviation, telegraph, telephone, radio, sky scrapers, television, internal combustion engines, computer, internet etc.?

Adoption of institutionalised monogamy has coincided with the huge increase in wealth of Japan and China. Co-incidence ?

Homosexual couples have, under existing personal relationship legislation, the same rights as the parties involved in traditional marriage dissolution.
So this "equal rights " brouhaha is about symbolism. Homosexual relationship is not and never will be the same as marriage in the traditional form and legislation cannot change that situation.

If this nonsense continues the next obvious step is recognition of Muslim polygamy as the equal of traditional marriage and we will be in a society based on the domination of the alpha male with the poverty and strife we see in Muslim societies where the overwhelming majority live in stark poverty on a sea of oil and seek to flee to monogamy based nations and bring their corrosive society with them.
Posted by Old Man, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 11:51:13 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
runner wrote: "Look at the number of people practicing homosexuality employed by the abc/sbs."

Dear runner,

I would like to look at the number of people practicing homosexuality employed by the abc/sbs. Please tell me the source for your statement, and I will look at the number of people practicing homosexuality employed by the abc/sbs.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 12:35:39 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
Homosexuality is a hobby, sexual activity which isn't intended to result in the birth of a child is purely a form of recreation, whether the parties involved are of the same or opposite genders. We don't need the state to recognise people on the basis of the activities they undertake in their spare time, homosexuality is like hunting, fishing or gardening, you can build a lifestyle around it and most people who undertake these activities take them very seriously and like to be around likeminded folk. Most people think that's fair enough but don't tell us that your hobby should be as important to us as it is to you and if, like the shooters and fishers you want to pursue the political interests of your fellow hobbyists then form your own party and try your luck on the hustings.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 1:33:54 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
Jay of Melbourne. What an excellent 'take' on the whole time consuming business. Well said that man.
Posted by Prompete, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 2:03:45 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
We've always had bullies, who will seize on any issue in order to engage in brutish bastardy!

Take gender issues of the table and these pea brains, without inculcated change are sure to find something or somebody else to menace?

Always providing they can hunt as a collective noun; say a parliament of baboons?

And even then only pick on the weak and or defenseless!

The most successful solution I've seen, was making these large louts the Lancelot like (knights of the realm) chivalrous protectors of the weak and defenseless; put them in charge of that!

And at an age where that then inculcates the very different approach (we real men protect the weak and defenseless/different) as the new norm?

I mean people love to be liked and respected/publicly praised by officialdom; and the applauding appreciative wider mass! It's positively addictive!

I call it turning a negative into a positive or avoiding the water hazards of the mind.

Focus exclusively on what you would achieve and present people with affirmative alternative positive character building choices, rather than all too simplistic and endless criticism.

And be patient, it won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

Leaders need to be shown how much easier it is to lead by positive example, rather than bully others into following; one volunteer is worth ten pressed men.

And be consistent when remolding young minds; say what you mean and mean what you say!

Ask just once, include choice wherever possible (i.e.would you like to finish your home work before or after you clean up your room or cut the grass?)

Don't plead or threaten or repeat yourself!

Repetition is the surest way I know to transfer control to the bully?

Lastly if you say there'll be repercussions, loss of privilege/points/pocket money/play time/popular activity/friendship/approval/terminal time/the beach holiday? Follow through and see that there are!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 2:10:09 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
The problem for the all too recognizable homophobes/bullies, is that they are the new minority; and they are not liking the medicine they once dished out by the truck load!

And got away with because decent folk turned a blind eye or believed the endlessly put BS, that it was just lifestyle choice!

Almost as if they actually believed some heterosexuals, were able to go completely against their normal natural instincts; even where just that "choice" is quite literally impossible for themselves!?
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 2:28:37 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
Rhrosty:

What could be more bullying than to keep calling people who disagree with you homophobic or homophobes? Even if they are homophobes they still have a right to express their opinions or do you only allow such freedom to those with whom you agree?

If they are entitled to freedom of speech then what is the point of calling them homophobes? Are you like the school bully who thinks you can make people go away and become silent by calling them names? If you disagree with their opinions then say so. You would only need to lower yourself to name calling if you were not confident in your own opinion.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 4:17:54 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
Rhrosty,
Au contraire, if the Irish referendum showed us anything is that the support for homosexual marriage in that country accounted for somewhat less than 40% of the adult population. The marriage equality movement in Ireland was able to bank on a low turnout based on the falling rate of voter participation in that country and are we really so keen to follow in the footsteps of a failed state like Eire? It's interesting to note that opinion polls mean nothing to Labor politicians when they show their party to be at a disadvantage but opinion polls upon which they can capitalise are evidence of a "mood for change" even though the same professional pollsters provide both sets of figures. Australians have already voted against homosexual marriage by installing the coalition as our government and if Labor were still in power and freed of their obligation to the Greens we wouldn't even be having this conversation, Plibersek and Shorten don't support homosexual marriage and neither do the vast majority of Australians.
It's a stupid issue which boils down to whether or not a few hundred Lesbians each year get to play dress ups for a day.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 5:44:43 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
Babette may have her Christian, 'traditionalist' views on marriage, and that is her opinion. To my mind, the less religious people in our society have been bullied into accepting old religious rubbish for way too long now.

Babette lies about kids of all ages not being bullied at school.
It is a well known fact, and I know several people personally, that kids are definitely bullied at school for showing any difference to other kids at all.

How many times has everyone heard kids at school yelling at others that they are 'poofters', in a nasty way? Anyone would have to have been both deaf and blind at school not to notice this form of bullying.

They certainly did that when I was at school, and I heard it again when my daughter was at school.
My best friend's son had a very sensitive, soft manner all through school, and was teased constantly about being gay from a very early age.
He lived in a church-going home, with a very homophobic father, and he didn't know anything about homosexuality until later in his teens.
He 'came out' at the age of 19, and his father has come to terms with it now.

As for Ireland, the fact remains that of those that voted , the majority voted for gay marriage, and the rest of the population who didn't vote, obviously didn't mind if it was voted in or not, so it still appears as though the majority of the strongly Christian Catholic Irish people WERE either supporters, or didn't really mind, if gay marriage was made legal.
Everyone needs to get over that fact, and move on.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 6:06:51 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
I certainly get annoyed at people referring to those opposed to gay marriage as bigoted or homophobic. Surely there is nothing wrong with a conservative approach to these kind of things. It is only in the very recent past where people have lived openly in homosexual relationships and raised families under such arrangements. Until the seventies or eighties homosexual activities were illegal almost everywhere in the world. In the short space of a couple of decades, we are supposed to not only accept these as legitimate relationships, but also bestow on them the title of marriage. Nowhere in the whole history of the world has marriage between individuals of the same sex been recognised until the last couple of years. It is not unreasonable for people to say "hey, this is all pretty new. Why don't we wait and see how this experiment pans out before embracing it?"
The experiment with the recognition of gay relationships may well work out fine. But I don't think that believing we should take things slowly makes me either bigoted or homophobic.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 6:12:43 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
The article shows that introducing Same Sex Marriage has led to serious problems for people connected with marriage as an occupation. These problems should be dealth with if we are to have SSM.
This issue has now become very much a central issue of the parliament due to Bill Shorten's bill. That bill may well be supplanted by another bill "owned by the parliament" and sponsored widely by different political parties. If we are to have SSM it will probably come from the second bill which looks like having a conscience vote for all sides. In my view we should first have a referendum on something so fundamental to our society. This has been sprung on us without warning. Two weeks ago this issue was not even talked about. Now it is THE ISSUE OF THE DAY. There should be a debate and a vote for the whole community with a draft bill available so that everyone knows what the proposition is that they are voting for.
Posted by Gadfly42, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 10:53:15 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
Dear david f,

>> The article smells the same to me as the former opposition to equal pay for equal work for women.<<

I reread the article but could not find any analogy between what the author - rightly or wrongly - calls bullying (by LGBT activists, not homosexuals as such) and fights for equal pay for women. She is personally opposed to same sex marriage (SSM), but the article is not so much about this but about people being not allowed to run their business, or be employed, in a way that does not endorse it.

There is the case of the fundamentalist Christian baker - silly in my view - who was punished for not providing a kind of service requested of him (not for discriminating against LGBT customers since he would probably have refused irrespective of who asked for the inscription). On the other hand, you have the case of the jeweller who made wedding rings for a lesbian couple but had to refund them when they found out that he was personally against SSM.

Would a computer shop be punished for not wanting to repair my MacBook because they specialised in Windows based computers only? Not likely. Would a conservative Christian bookshop be forced to sell, or a Christian printer forced to print, material they saw as pornography? Today if you wish to sell or publish these sort of things, but also political material, slogans on paper or on a cake, you have many possibilities without having to request the service from those providers who for whatever reason are against the content of what you want to have printed.

There are many examples you could think of, where a business could be made to sell products or provide services they cannot or would not for whatever reasons. This is what, I think, the author was worried about.

Censorship means you must not publish certain things, but what do you call being forced - by law or by pressure groups - to publish certain things, whether you like it or not ?
Posted by George, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:39:37 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
Dear George,

I was writing about the article not the obligation of a business owner to sell to all customers. I wrote how the articles smells to me. I think the baker was in his rights to refuse the cake.

You are taking issue with things I did not write.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 8:22:35 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
Dear david f,

>> I wrote how the articles smells to me. … You are taking issue with things I did not write.<<

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I did not want to take issue with you only to expand on what I thought was the gist (that she called “bullying”) of her article, because that is how it "smelled" to me.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 8:38:47 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
Dear George,

We can disagree in good faith or we can disagree by denigrating those who disagree with us by accusing them of bad faith in their tactics.

On the question of rights for homosexuals those against those rights can accuse those who are for those rights as bullies. Those for those rights can accuse those against those rights as bullies. There are those on both sides of the issue who use those tactics. However, a blanket condemnation of one side which accuses all of the other side of using those tactics is wrong. That is what I thought the article did. Rather than discussing the question it denigrated those on the other side of the question.

Laws written to ensure rights can be blunt instruments. In the case of the cake I think it was. It was enforced with a rigidity that I think was oppressive.

I do not think homosexuals should be discriminated in employment where the employment has nothing to do with sexual preference or in having their personal unions recognised by the government. That does not mean to me that a baker should have to bake a cake containing sentiments not to his liking.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 9:19:14 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
Dear David,

<<I do not think homosexuals should be discriminated in employment where the employment has nothing to do with sexual preference>>

I also don't think they should be discriminated as above.

However, disgusting as such practice may be, I don't believe that the state has any right to force itself on private employers, telling them whom they may or may not employ.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 11:33:52 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

I think the state has a right to demand that employers not discriminate on any basis that has nothing to do with the job that workers are employed to do.

Your feeling that homosexual practices are disgusting is not relevant to the discussion.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:26:24 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
Dear David,

By "such practice" I referred to the discrimination of employers against homosexuals, rather than to homosexuality, thus my feelings are that discriminating against homosexuals is disgusting.

(for the record, I have no particular feelings about homosexuality, though I pity anyone who over-emphasises their sexuality and considers it the centrepiece of their life, whomever/whatever they happen to be sexually attracted to)

Nevertheless, the fact that a practice is disgusting, or that some people find it disgusting, doesn't allow the state to criminalise it (including homosexuality). Private employers should be able to employ whoever they want, whenever they want and not those they do not want, for whatever reason or even for no reason at all - it's their money which they should be free to spend as they wish.

Of course, if people find an employers' behaviour disgusting, then they should be free to blacklist and boycott their business, but not to bully the employer with the violence of the law.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 2:01:33 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank you for your clarification.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 2:19:55 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
Yuyutsu,
Have you ever met a homosexual who was involved in Gay rights activism?
I can say that even though for the duration of the 1990's almost all of my male co-workers in the hospitality industry were Gay I've never met a homosexual who was at all interested in anything beyond their own immediate wants and desires, I've found them to be a singularly focused sub set of people in that regard.
Human rights is a circus show for middle class White women and a display of misdirected maternal instincts, that motherly urge to protect anyone and anything which can be seen as weak or in peril.
Marriage equality, as I stated before is primarily for the benefit of White middle class Lesbians, who as evidenced by statistics from states where such unions are legal will make up 75% or more of same sex couples.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 4:51:43 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
Dear Jay,

Indeed, I know a number of homosexual people, none of which to the best of my knowledge is involved in the gay movement.

However, you write: "I've never met a homosexual who was at all interested in anything beyond their own immediate wants and desires"

- perhaps so, but I have met some who are also interested in their long-term future and career as well as the welfare of others, including their children. Other than their sexual orientation which should not mean much anyway, they are just ordinary people.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 7:25:12 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
Yuyutsu,
I guess in terms of hedonism it takes one to know one, all of the homosexuals I've known were to be blunt, from the scummier end of the spectrum if not outright criminals but truth be told I went looking for that "low life" in my twenties. As I've said before we can't judge groups by their outliers, Bevan von Einem or Miller and Worrell aren't representative of all homosexuals and neither are Michael Kirby and Bob Brown however there are "clusters" along the axis from outright perversion to clean living.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 9:30:09 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
Dear david f,

>>On the question of rights for homosexuals those against those rights can accuse those who are for those rights as bullies. <<

I am sorry again, but I was not commenting on rights for homosexuals, but rather on the right of the baker (or printer) to refuse to provide a service he cannot, for whatever reasons. In Communist countries you had not only censorship but if you wanted to provide a service - e.g. publish a magazine - you had to include services (articles) dictated by the Party, whether or not you liked its contents.

>>In the case of the cake I think it was. It was enforced with a rigidity that I think was oppressive.<<

In that case we are in agreement except that I am afraid that this is not an isolated case where “political correctness” is “rigidly enforced”, as can be easily checked on internet. This is what Babette, for better or worse, called “bullying” by law (or else) of those e.g. bakers, printers or just employees. Is this criticism - and warning of where it could lead - a “denigration” of those law enforcers? (I admit that I am over-sensitive in these matters because of my experience with the Stalinist system.)

Let me repeat, this has nothing to do with discrimination of the customer. It would be a discrimination - call it violation of the customer’s rights - if the baker refused to sell an ordinary loaf of bread with an explanation that the customer was black, homosexual, too fat or what. This was the case where a hotelier refused to rent out a room to a homosexual pair (or maybe a heterosexual couple who could not prove that they were legally married).

By the way, I tried to sketch my view of same sex marriage - or more precisely of the brouhaha around it - in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17393#307196 .
Posted by George, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 11:20:05 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

>>Private employers should be able to employ whoever they want, whenever they want and not those they do not want, for whatever reason or even for no reason at all - it's their money which they should be free to spend as they wish.<<

The right to refuse to employ somebody without having to give reasons? I tend to agree although it goes further than what I was defending, Would it include the right of the hotelier not to rent out a room in my example above?
Posted by George, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 11:21:54 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
Dear George,

A hotelier is firstly an individual, only then a hotelier: it is wrong to command an individual, under threat of violence (which is what police, courts and prisons are all about) to do something against their will.

Nevertheless, there are circumstances when an individual is rightly deemed to have voluntarily given up some of their freedoms in exchange for some freely-accepted benefits from public bodies. These include:

* Direct business subsidies.
* Subsidised business inputs.
* Tax relief.
* Public contracts.
* Solicited listings on public boards/directories/maps.
* Incorporation, if the business operates as a company, because for example it enjoys limited-liability.

In such cases it is not unacceptable to apply anti-discrimination laws on the business, though I think it should be used sparingly.

Besides, individuals should keep their freely-given promises (otherwise it's a fraud), so if they ever stated for example that the hotel welcomes anyone, then anyone means anyone and the law would be right to protect people against fraud.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 11:56:03 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

I completely agree.

I think you rightly pointed to the question of whether or not a business, or school etc, receives financial benefits (including tax advantages) from the state in an open society. The baker probably does not, a private, e.g. Catholic, school does, so it should be clearly stated under what conditions those benefits are granted. If unacceptable to the Church then it should have the courage to refuse them with the possible consequence of the school(s) going bankrupt. On the other hand, the state should also be aware of the consequences of loosing the service provided by e.g. Catholic schools (after all, they teach also things useful for the whole society, like science and mathematics).

Anyhow, I am aware that this is much more complicated than the case of our baker.
Posted by George, Thursday, 4 June 2015 7:00:23 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
Congratulations Babette for a well researched article ofthe negative effects foisted on Australian public by self-interested agendas. These include politicians, trendies, big businesses protecting their market share from homosexuals and homosexuals and lesbians who demand non-discriminatory rights.

Homo means man and phobia means fear of. How this has been hijacked to be the catch all discriminatory label of those being in disagreement with lesbian and homosexual agendas to now mean hate of, rather than fear of and homosexuals is an interesting marketing exercise.

The vested interests have I admit, done a wonderful job of ‘sanitising’ the sexuality preferences of homosexuals away from any sensible debate or opinion into a sacrosanct right that MUST have no opponents.

The sooner those that have opposite views collectively start to counter the rot the better off will our society be.

Discrimination is something we all practice whether we are homosexual, straight, or whatever. Parents discriminate daily about who it is best for their children to mix with; the law discriminates against adults having sex with children, etc., etc. Discrimination is both a right and a responsibility and should not be sullied by vociferous demands of one group who are but a small minority of our society.

I would be interested to receive comments of those who see any value in ‘inventing’ by repeated usage of an opposite word of ‘homophobic’ or ‘homophobes’ such as ‘Christophobes’ or Christophobic’ meaning those that disagree but not ‘hate’ with the homosexual lobby group.

Inaction by traditional families and traditional adherents to heterosexual marriage will only allow the so-called parliamentary representatives to vote in this nonsensical agenda.

Protest to your federal politician advising them that unless they adhere to the protection of marriage to define heterosexual partnerships that you and your friends will NOT vote for them nor their parties.

You may also wish to email all the targeted companies so that they get the message that their income could be threatened more by heterosexual adherents of marriage boycotting their products. Or could this be discriminatory.

The frog is getting warmer in the pot
Posted by Citizens Initiated Action, Thursday, 4 June 2015 7:15:38 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
This could all be settled by a referendum on the four big issues with which most Western governments (not just Australian) are completely out of sync with majority opinion - same sex marriage, taking abortion off the statute books, legalising marijuana and voluntary assisted euthanasia.

All indications are that these would all be passed with substantial majorities if a referendum were held tomorrow. How we arrived at this point is no longer important. We are here now.

All the 'bullying' and PC badgering incidents reported by the author (and these are definitely happening in many Western countries at present) are mostly the result of cultural fault lines created by societies in transition.
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 6 June 2015 1:48:39 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. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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