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 > Denying equality smacks of apartheid > Comments

Denying equality smacks of apartheid : Comments

By Alastair Nicholson, published 7/6/2006

Anyone who stands by the values of commitment, relationships and equality should support the rights of those in same-sex relationships.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. All
The longer the campaign of fear and hatred eminating from christian groups such as the Australian christian lobby continues, the longer homophobic community attitudes will exist. Some christians need to take a good hard look at themselves. I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it says it's ok to taunt and bash any member of society and yet here we see not just right wing christians, who laughingly condem Muslin regimes like the Taliban and yet who by their own bigoted actions are equally as bad, but our own Government leaders who preach tolerance on one hand and dole out hatred by the other simply to "protect" their sad little marriage act. I'd like to start a group myself where everyone is welcome to live as they like, provided their lifestyle causes no harm to anybody else, where no harm is caused to others by way of action or deed, where all life is sacred and where the perpetuation of wealth creation and greed has no place. Oh heck!! I forgot!! It already exists. It's called Budhism. The right wing christian churches could do with a few lessons in Budhism. It would most certainly magnify their distorted view of the Bible.
Posted by Wildcat, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 11:22:10 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
Despite Alistair Nicholson's angry talk of "oppression" and "apartheid", the simple fact is that the common understanding of marriage is of a permanent relationship between a man and a woman, and a relationship between two men or two women is something different. Coalition and Labor policy, not surprisingly, reflect this understanding.
Posted by GeorgeT, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 11:22:25 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
George
Not all common beliefs are good beliefs. Consider this. If it was a common belief that all Christians should be lined up against the wall & shot would you support it? Of course you wouldn't! You would argue that such a belief was unreasonable & unjust. Likewise discrimination against a group of people because of the way they were born is unjust & unreasonable & MUST be opposed.

I popose a NEW definition of marriage. A union between two loving adult individuals of sound mind. How's that?

By the way the recent actions in the ACT were to provide homosexuals with a civil union that would be the equivalent of marriage but not BE marriage. BIG difference.
Posted by Bosk, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:09:44 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
That we even discuss same-sex marriage is alarming. As is Judge Nicholson’s use of the word “respect” for homosexual “couples”.

Forget the law and religion. Let’s get back to what is natural and what is perversion. Sexual union with a member of the opposite sex is natural. Sexual union with a person of the same sex is perversion; you don’t have to be a religionist or a lawyer to know that.

So some people enjoy homosexual relationships. Fine, if they keep it to themselves; it really doesn’t affect anyone else. But, to attempt to legitimise homosexuality and legalise unions between people practising it is beyond the pale.

Pathetically, for a man of Nicholson’s standing and ability, he has to resort to suggesting that Australia should legislate for same-sex union because some other countries do. He also passes judgement on Australian law on the matter as “contrary to principles of humanity and decency”.

He might be trying to bluff people into accepting that this is true because of his legal knowledge, but his opinion is no more objective or right than that of people who disagree with his views on human rights and/or those who would vigorously question his use of the word “decency” in connection with homosexual practices, and who simply find in impossible to offer the respect he apparently feels.

The suggestion that a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship, and the belief that people who disagree with Nicholson are either religious or “confused” is the final straw, and is insulting.

When a person like Alastair Nicholson feels it is right to put forward views such as has here, humanity is well and truly on the skids.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:09:50 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 think it is in the nature of humans to resist and repress the abnormal in our society. By nature, in order to perpetuate our species, we are attracted to the opposite sex. Most of us therefore view same sex relationships, like pedophilia, as unnatural and repugnant. This rejection does not stem necessarily from Christianity, which actually teaches tolerance and love, but is widespread in non-Christian societies, like China and Japan. Hostility to homosexuality is built into our nature, just as it is built into our nature to repress natural feelings of hostility. No laws will change this. Perhaps homosexuals should consider psychiatric help for their abnormality rather than trying to force the community to accept it. I particularly dislike how some people use so called progressive European countries as some sort of moral benchmark. We should never emulate these countries, but make our own decisions on what we think is best for our society.
Posted by Robg, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:17:07 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 am all for the recognising the same sex relationship, but not as a marriage, define it as something else. And there is a very big difference between the two. One can physically create a life the other cannot. So they cannot be treated the same.

Also if we want same sex marriages defined in equal basis as traditional marriage then where does it stop? Poligamy? Why not if consenting adults want to be married to more than one person or have multiple partners is that not given same standard. To do otherwise would be commiting the same thing same sex couples say Hetros are doing.
Just a thought.
Posted by The Big Fish, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:33:15 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. All

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