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 > Demonise and censor: the winning strategy of the gay marriage movement > Comments

Demonise and censor: the winning strategy of the gay marriage movement : Comments

By David van Gend, published 5/6/2015

As for me, I am a “bigot” in big red painted letters on the wall of my medical centre this week, courtesy of a local vandal who does not like my opposition to same-sex marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. 15
  10. All
David, you're a "bigot" because you advocate policies derived from your personal bigotry toward homosexuals.

Apparently you're not a big fan of truth in advertising either...
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 5 June 2015 8:02:30 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
David. I am truly appalled with the tenure of discourse on this and a variety of other subjects over recent years. You have been the subject of 'bullying', an activity that those who object to bullying seem to have mastered. It's a queer old world isn't it?

There does seem to be a plethora of deniers, racists, Islamaphobes, mysogenists, bigots and such other loathsome people/institutions in Australia today that I have given up watching ABC/SBS as it really is too depressing.

The subject has become so politicised that, considering its import to our society, a plebiscite is the only just way for Australia to 'own' the decision, be it yes or no.

This question is perhaps a little more important than our national anthem, and that went to a plebiscite to decide. (I think I may have been on the losing side of that one).

Polite, good mannered and persuasive argument seems not to be employed by the majority those that disagree with you. From my observations this tends to be an indicator, indeed, the hallmark, of a bigot.
Posted by Prompete, Friday, 5 June 2015 8:59:08 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
Prompete, the author is advocating for differential treatment of people based on a characteristic over which they exercise no capacity for determination and which has no effect on their integration within society.

That is definitionally bigotry, no matter how politely it is expressed.

Someone who expresses bigotry is a bigot. Someone who argues against bigotry is not a bigot. Someone who doesn't understand the difference is a fool.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 5 June 2015 9:07:45 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
david, i think you need to come to terms with the fact that the reason your side has not been very successful in this debate is due to your poorly thought out arguments.

marriage is about legally binding two unrelated, unencumbered, consenting adults to become kin. often, children are involved [before or after the wedding] sometimes they're not. either way, children are not part of the marriage act as the act is purely a legal document uniting two adults.

the lgbtiq community respects the right of churches to decide who it does and does not marry however, this wider debate is about the civil institution of marriage which should be made available to all couples provided their relationship is legal.

the 20+ countries around the world who have opened up marriage to include same-sex couples have not suffered as a result; neither will australia when the marriage act is changed here to reflect the feelings of the majority.
Posted by james505, Friday, 5 June 2015 9:38:38 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
Craig Minns:

“the author is advocating for differential treatment of people based on a characteristic over which they exercise no capacity for determination....”

How do we prove that someone actually has this ‘characteristic’? In order to claim discrimination you should have to prove that you have a homosexual orientation. As it stands anyone could claim discrimination without there being any proof needed. If a person claims racial discrimination it is easy to observe that their claim is reasonable by looking at their racial features – it is there for all to see. The same with gender discrimination – it is plain to see there is a difference.

Anyone can claim to be homosexual but how can it be proven? What exactly is a homosexual person? How many homosexual acts do you need to have performed to have an ‘orientation ‘? Who defines orientation or sexuality and how do they describe it?

The law does not seek to clarify any of these things but simply relies on the claimant’s own description of himself. In what other area of law do we allow the claimant to be the sole judge of their own behaviour? Where is any kind of measure by which to judge a person’s claim to be homosexual? Any system of law which accepts an individual’s own interpretation of their behaviour is ludicrous. ”I don’t consider it murder your honour”.

The recent gay cake incident could just as easily have been carried out by a heterosexual man who just wanted to hurt someone on the basis of their religious beliefs. The claimant was never asked to prove he had a homosexual orientation and yet this is the fact on which the whole case rested? What kind of justice is that?

Now we are being asked to change the Marriage Act on the basis that some people have a homosexual orientation and yet they are not obliged to prove it. Should not every same-sex couple who come before a marriage celebrant be asked to prove their orientation or should we just take their word for it?
Posted by phanto, Friday, 5 June 2015 10:00:32 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
phanto, just taking a wild stab in the dark here, but I reckon that if someone says they prefer to have sex with people who they share a gender with, then there isn't any need to look any further into it.

Why do you ask?
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 5 June 2015 10:06:54 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. 15
  10. All

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