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 > Senate harmony on marriage glosses over the deep divisions in rainbow politics > Comments

Senate harmony on marriage glosses over the deep divisions in rainbow politics : Comments

By Lyle Shelton, published 24/2/2017

That there are far reaching consequences of redefining marriage is further reason why a people's vote is the fairest way to settle this debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. 16
  10. All
This should not even be an issue since there are no good reasons why the marriage act should be changed. The government is entitled to draw the line at recognising marriage as being between one man and one woman. It can draw the line where it likes and if you do not like where it has drawn the line then present a good argument in favour of it being re-drawn.

The government should not give in to the bullying and emotional manipulation of the homosexual lobby. It is the government who decides what types of marriage it will support and it should stand firm unless there is a good argument to change. There is no good argument and there never has been.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 24 February 2017 8:40:36 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
In reality, very little has ganged to the true intent of subverting society for their own cynical ends. Take no prisoners with negotiations. In fact don't negotiate. No is the answer to stupid ideas of normalising the abnormal!
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 24 February 2017 9:00:30 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
wasn't it just a few short years ago that Penny Wong was against same sex 'marriage'? What hypocrites!
Posted by runner, Friday, 24 February 2017 9:51:14 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
Now replace “same-sex” with “black” and “gay lobby” with “civil rights movement”, then read the article again. Those concerned about the freedoms of cake makers and religious institutions need to justify why it’s alright to discriminate against gay people, but not alright to discriminate against people of different skin colour. It’s all good and well to talk of differing ethos, but what if one's ethos were to not deal with people of different races? Where are the concerns for the freedoms of racists?

phanto,

No, the onus is on those want to withhold rights to justify why they should continue to be withheld. Nevertheless, a case for change has already been successfully made: equality.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 24 February 2017 10:06:38 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
Marriage is not the issue since in any case, receiving a piece of paper from the government does not make one married and not receiving such a paper does not make one un-married.

The deeper issue is the denial of freedom of association: people and groups of people, including businesses, churches and schools (provided that they receive no state-assistance) should always be able to choose whom they want to deal with. Why they choose so is nobody else's business, but if you don't like their choices, feel free to boycott them.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 24 February 2017 10:47:35 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
Phillips

On what grounds are gay people being discriminated against? They are not the only ones who do not receive government support of marriage. Polygamous marriages are not supported nor are marriages between same-sex heterosexual couples. There are many other types of relationship that people might like to call marriage but one type is enough to reject the claim that it is discrimination against homosexuals.

“the onus is on those want to withhold rights to justify why they should continue to be withheld.”

Who says they have a ‘right’ to government support of their marriage? Just because the government supports marriage between one man and one woman does not mean that those people have a right to that support. How do you judge what is a right and what is merely support to a particular type of relationship?

“Nevertheless, a case for change has already been successfully made: equality.”

So why are you bothering to argue the case? Are you trying to suck people into your paranoid web?
Posted by phanto, Friday, 24 February 2017 11:16:27 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. 14
  8. 15
  9. 16
  10. All

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