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 > Sick and tired of the same-sex marriage debate? Here's why > Comments

Sick and tired of the same-sex marriage debate? Here's why : Comments

By Mark Christensen, published 29/8/2017

A Yes will further galvanise an ill-founded confidence in politics at the expense of the things that matter, including acceptance of minorities.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The violence associated with the rise of right wing groups in the US, is past due.

This issue of left wing ideological war on traditional society must be stopped, and if war on the streets is the only solution, then lets get on with it!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 9:02:25 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 desperate regressive on channel 10 now need lies and produce their own posters to demonise those in favour of natural marriage. How low can these scumbags go. History shows regressive media just love fake news that support their very sick narrative. We need a few Trumps to call out these liars.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 9:19:52 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
Well, there will not be a “radical shift”, as conservatives seem to have given up the fight, which means that we will surely “ end up in the same divisive mess as America.” There is no will to stand up for values any more; the cultural Marxists have won. In no time at all, their Muslim mates will take over the whole show.

Why Malcolm Turnbull gets a mention in all the gloom and doom is anyone's guess; he is the cause of most of our problems now. “ recent efforts to recognise past sins inflicted upon Aborigines and others” have been a major part of the problem, as has SSM. We are getting ourselves in a lather over minority issues, and ignoring Australia's real problems: debt, immigration, hostile colonising Muslims, 'free' trade and globalisation, and our ties with the corrupt United Nations – not to mention a lack of cheap, reliable electricity. Oh, yes, and 'equality' AKA Communistic wealth re-distribution. And, it's a very sad day when scum like Tim Minchin get a mention.

But, probably the very worst problem we have is a choice between Turnbull and Shorten. It can't get any worse than that!
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 9:57:00 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
"Once life, liberty and the right to pursue your own happiness has been secured"..the problem Mark is we haven't secured the first right.. the right to life...craven politicians have taken that away from us ...including Malcolm Turnbull in his vote for the use of the human pesticide RU486 on unborn children. He denies we have a right to be born alive but avows the right to marry people of the same sex. Mate, (Malcolm) you have to first be born to exercise any other rights.. including the right to marry whoever we want to marry.including my cat! Don't laugh that is already being mooted !
Posted by Denny, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 10:01:32 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
Well, if it were really a minority view, the Author's take might have some credibility!

Simply put, the science is in and here is a gay gene! Like it or not! And found not as a single gene but several, down near the bottom of the double helix DNA spiral.

An arguably why the, refuse to accept the evidence, recalcitrant troglodytes suddenly find they're sick and tired of the debate?

And reminiscent of Wannabe Imams, who just a little over half a century ago, compelled a belief in a flat earth! I kid you not!

Arguably based on a highly flawed belief system and nothing else, that includes a directive that women should be covered from head to toe in a Burqa.

Others want to mutilate the female genitalia for the same, stone age ignorance based reasons, none of which comply with the facts.

If the Author needs to conflate and confect the issue and make it apply to any all minority views? (S)He's not succeeding! And patently puerile parsimonious, pulpit pounding, presumptuous propaganda.

In any event, his/her and all other personal (cake baking/religious/free speech) freedoms would be seriously protected by a similarly long overdue, resisted to the last (die in a ditch first) conservative, bill of irrevocable rights! Go figure!?

Dates that mean something special to the overwhelming majority, should remain unchanged, but particularly if those who buck against it, "activist urban blacks," with an agenda? [Whose majority white ancestry would be turning in their graves,] actually want a recognition and reconciliation referendum to pass.

After which we can have a civil conversation about the promulgation of suppressed history etc/etc.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 29 August 2017 10:34:25 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
"mark off the limits of democracy... Exchange faith in the system for faith in real people."

Surely all the truly important, necessary laws already exist, and have existed for centuries.
Modern trends are just new variations on old concepts.

The only role democracy (direct democracy) can play now is to *repeal* all the unnecessary laws/policies, only introduced so politicians can "look busy", justifying the eternal perpetuation of parliamentary "representation".

Without perpetual parliaments, "activism" would virtually vanish, as the general population would rarely be itching for "reforms" of any kind.

An emergency-only elected government, convening only in times of national crisis, would enact laws/policies only when absolutely urgent.

These policies would still need confirmation by direct democracy within a short time period.
If the people's vote contradicts the law/policy, the law/policy goes.

Petitions (like Citizens Initiated Referendums) could decide what matters need ballots.

Direct democracy need not involve all adults voting on all matters, which would lead to burnout.
A large random sample should suffice.
Only matters involving serious national or international consequences (e.g. whether to go to war, sign a treaty) would need input from the entire electorate.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 10:36:50 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
Good point made, the twitter message, the quick thoughtless comment is dominating politics and social activity.

Yet, we still have a political system that works through slow government processes that observes and tries to grapple with significant medium and long term problems. But this divergence is no longer recognized.

In Australia the result is similar to what all can see as conflict and confusion as American groups demand instant answers to systemic problems.

Really, it is one's fault - we just have to learn how to cope with the hand phone, app, instant messenger and so on ... and have a system of social organization that works.

Perhaps totally new social and political ways are needed. Maybe the (as some suggested) we have an app for 'voting' on issues. Maybe we turn 180 degrees and move to Far Right Dictorship(seemingly a tend in Europe).

Or maybe it will all go away like Pokeman:
Posted by don't worry, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 12:10:14 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 was watching a video where one of the (Western) world's pre-eminent social psychologists from a prestigious US university and utterly reputable, let slip for some seconds to be seen to boast about how he and some other social psychologists contributed to a Democrat's presidential campaign. Was it pride in having and using the levers? Or was he going further into the dark side, to believe that he had a mission, that he and his colleagues were doing what was 'right' for the public and secretly? Next step, why waste time on the appearance of elections?

It didn't mattered what side he was on, it was his own lack of insight (while talking about cognitive error at the time!) that mattered and many would argue, the conflict of using the unique things that make us human and help us to bond together and to survive, against us.

This top research and teaching psychologist, if he didn't understand how he was compromising his personal and professional ethics, that he was also displaying elitism, if not authoritarianism, the end justifies the means, who else might and what about scientists who fool around with chemicals and physics?

Gay marriage is the creature of a political elite who identify and rationalise their authoritarian, anti-democratic, overlord social experimentation as 'Progressive'.

But they are at heart no different to any other ruthless totalitarian SOBs, because it will always be their way or the highway and their desired ends will always justify the means. They are NOT happy that the perceived bovine public (who don't have the wit to know what's best for them) are being consulted at all, even though that 'consultation' is too late and half-arsed (a fitting word in the circumstances).

The article should have been about totalitarianism and the political elite, and the inability of universities, widen that to educators, to maintain their previously treasured independence, professional ethics and freedom of speech.
Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 1:12:57 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
As a labor voter I can tell you not all of us agree with gay marriage. If you post on the mamamia site you are not allowed to oppose gay marriage... this will be a guaranteed 'NO' vote because everyone knows it's an attack on Western Civilisation!

Fancy that mamamia girl telling us married women want gay marriage: that is the purest bull dust anyone ever said ever!!

Australian will be lost if it keeps listening to these globalist disillusion campaigners: bow down If you don't respect your war dead I say... People actually died for this country!
Posted by mememememememe, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 8:48:30 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
Equal rights for all people. But is marriage a right? Equal rights for all people ... Unless one person's rights hamper another person's rights. Take a lesson from the U.S. After several states legalized marriage, there were still some that would not agree. Legal suits on cake bakers who would refuse service do to their disagreeing on the marriage. The controversy over gay rights spread from just gay rights and religous rights, to also small businesses having their rights or not.

I don't blame Mark Christensen for being sick of this debate. Believe me it'll only get worse once it progresses, and it'll stay a current issue to push until gay marriage is legalized. It's not going to go away anytime soon.

I also agree with the points that politians need to not push an ever expanding political process. There needs to be ground that is past politics and legislation. Things for the people to descide without a law to enforce their decisions.

Which goes back to the first question. Is marriage a right that needs legal backing? Or is it something else. Personally I think getting married should be about a union with the person you want commit the rest of your life to (and hopefully love). The legal implications come second to that. If people can do with without an enforced legal element then that is what they should go for. It will bog down away from future civil rights being burdened under one right being held up.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 3:11:31 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 Not_Now.Soon,

Did you not realise until now that the purpose of this campaign for "gay marriage" is to hurt the religious? It never had any other.

In this context, "Rights" are man-given, whereas marriage is made in heaven and cannot be "bestowed" on us by other people. The legal term which mocks marriage has no relation with marriage itself - and should better not exist in the first place.

The question here should rather be, how do married couples who were previously deceived and are already trapped in the legal condition of "marriage", escape this condition [without being forced to separate and live apart for a whole year plus the divorce-application period].

If I had a cake shop, I would say to any approaching couple (regardless of gender) who wish to celebrate their marriage: you are welcome to pick any existing cakes off the shelf, but if you are about to seek the regime's blessings for your relationship, then I won't take part in that by making a special cake for that occasion.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 11:14:36 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
Yuyutsu - how does equality 'hurt' the religious? I thought their god holds that all are equal? The religious don't need anyone outside to 'hurt' them - they've done a fine job of that to themselves, while, of course, condemning those that are not exactly like them.
Posted by HereNow, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 4:52:02 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 HereNow,

I didn't claim (or think) that the religious would actually be hurt by that - only that the "gay marriage" people do it because they [incorrectly] believe that it would hurt the religious.

Down the road, however, having discovered that their aim was not achieved, they will continue to devise other ways to hurt the religious, then at times they might be successful.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 8:08:38 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
Dear Yuyustu, if gay rights is being used by those who have an agenda against Christianity specifically, or against religions as a whole, I won't be too suprised. I've seen as much in other things and have recoginized a growing trend of hostilities towards Christianity specifically and against religions as a whole. That hostiality has to come from somewhere and goes into action somewhere else.

But that said I don't think the magority of homosexuals are part of that conspiracy. Some might be swept away with it in agreement with it, but for the most part I think people are just trying to get their fair share of things. Homosexuals included. I know some are gay and struggle with it in combination of their faith. But they don't try to give up their faith. So if issues of homosexuality are used to harm the faith, I don't think those who are homosexual are guilty of the same conspiricy. Even if they support the issues they hope on to provide something they want.

Hi HereNow. Religions (for the most part) hold standards to live by. If the religion doesn't do this, to try and advocate the people to be better then they were before, then I'd call that religion pretty worthless and warn out. (Not just false but literally of no value). Condenention of criminals is not frowned upon, or else the justice systems applied world wide would be in as much an uproar as some would like religions to be in. Having a standard that condemn "those not like them" (those who fail the standard) is something I hope you would not critize when applied to terrorists, murder, rape, or torture. Some crimes are terror able enough the vast magority are right to condemn those who don't uphold at least that much of the standard.

Just a hole or two in your perspective. Consider it and move on.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 31 August 2017 2:57:28 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
Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I completely agree that homosexuals are not to be blamed - it's got nothing to do with them, the issue is with the "gay" movement.

Most homosexuals are not gay about it, they just live their life.
If they want to marry, then they just marry; and if they want their marriage to be before God, then there are already priests and ministers who are happy to marry them. The only thing they "miss" is this infectious piece of paper from the state which heterosexual couples cannot rid themselves of (other than by being quarantined from each other for over a year).

On the other hand, most members of the gay movement are not homosexual and would never consider sexual contact with a member of their own gender in their private life: being gay is a political orientation, not a sexual one.

Equality at any cost = "It's unfair: why have you got hepatitis and I don't?"
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 31 August 2017 9:01:16 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,

You say that most homosexuals are not part of the gay movement. I don't know the numbers behind that, but from what I've seen it's a rare thing to be homosexual and not support the gay social movements. (I don't know enough gay people though to have a reliable finding, but from what I've found it seems a rare thing). That said I'll keep the idea in mind and consider it. Expecially the part that most members of the gay movement aren't actually homosexual. That does make it a politics thing, so thanks for that observation.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 1 September 2017 1:50:01 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 Not_Now.Soon,

«it's a rare thing to be homosexual and not support the gay social movements.»

This is called "silent majority":

I have a relative who is homosexual. He has a very respectable job, he is in a steady relationship for many years with two boys who live with him and his partner. The boys are full brothers as he had them with the same lesbian lady, who is also in a stable relationship, thus those children have two loving fathers and two loving mothers, who see them regularly. My relative never attended a "gay" parade or spoke about those things; and he doesn't need a certificate from the government because the family accepts his relationship anyway and his partner as one of us.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 1 September 2017 8:31:27 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
Not_Now.Soon,

To prevent any possible confusion, I should inform you that Yuyutsu sometimes invents his own definitions for words.

In this instance, he has altered the definition of the word 'gay' to mean 'a political advocate, or political advocacy, for anything relating to homosexuality that he sees as a threat'. Only when he says 'homosexual' (or any of its parts of speech), does he mean anything everyone else would interchangeably label as 'gay'.

--

Yuyutsu writes: "Equality at any cost = "It's unfair: why have you got hepatitis and I don't?""

Nice reductio ad absurdum there, Yuyutsu.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/151/Reductio-ad-Absurdum
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 1 September 2017 8:52:19 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
AJ Philips,

I'm catching the word difference from Yuyutsu, not sure what to make of it all yet, but the point of the number of people in the homosexual movements that are actually heterosexual is making me consider the points for a bit. Either way I'll give it some time to consider before tossing or accepting the ideas.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 1 September 2017 5:19:01 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
"it's a rare thing to be homosexual and not support the gay social movements"

I would imagine most gay people supported the original movement's aims back in the 70s, but those necessary reforms succeeded ages ago.
Nobody gets electroshocked or charged with "buggery" anymore.

The "movement" now consists only of petulant narcissistic bullies who need a microscope to find "oppression".
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 1 September 2017 5:28:32 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
Hmm, I'll keep that in mind Shockadelic. Not sure of it yet. Thanks though. Adds to the "silent magority" idea.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 2 September 2017 5:45:29 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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