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 American business over gay marriage views > Comments

Bullying American business over gay marriage views : Comments

By Babette Francis, published 13/8/2012

Same-sex marriage campaigns challenge Christian philanthropy and activism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
You had me right up until the final paragraph. I believe in gay marriage but I also believe that people and businesses should be allowed to spend their money where they see fit. After all, just because I don't believe that a particular group or activity is in line with my personal beliefs doesn't mean that they aren't in line with yours. But by trotting out that old chestnut of "because they can't naturally have children it isn't a real marriage" you completely destroyed your own argument. My father and step-mother married about ten years ago, while both in their 60s. They are unable to have children naturally. Does that mean they shouldn't have been allowed to marry? I have a friend whose daughter will never be able to conceive or carry children. Should she never be allowed to marry? You also bring up that children have a right to be brought up by both parents. So what about those families when one parent, mostly the father, walks away either before or after the child is born? What are we going to do about them? Shall we force parents to stay together "for the sake of the children"?
Posted by Carz, Monday, 13 August 2012 7:48:06 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
Give me a call when Christ-stain groups stop their bulling tatics.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 13 August 2012 9:20:24 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
Only half-animals, half-humans could engage in endless discussion about this tiny group of folk whose instincts have let them down.

Not for them just having a loving relationship and keeping a low profile. No, they have to turn it into an extravaganza, get in the news every night, try to change the marriage rules that suit 90% of society, create children that have no choice about whether they want same-sex or opposite sex parents, etc.

And the thing that get me annoyed the most is the claim that most Australians support their ambitions. Rubbish. If this went to a referendum the Australian people would clearly show what they really thought of the same-sex marriage push.

Please gays and lesbians, just get on with your relationships quietly and maturely and stop bullying the rest of mainstream society.

Please!
Posted by David G, Monday, 13 August 2012 10:37:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boo-hoo! - the poor persecuted USA Christians?
But who are, and always have been the real bullies on a very consistent basis in the USA where many States have laws which actively prevent atheists from holding public offices.

The right-wing "catholic" cardinals and bishops in the USA are easily the biggest and most effective bullies on the block - in every city, town and village.

And of course an atheists could never ever be elected as the President in the USA.

Speaking of applied bullying in America, why not Google Discrimination Against Atheists in America.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 13 August 2012 11:27:03 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
Andy Nowicki and Richard Spencer discuss "Chick Fil A Madness", the relevant discussion starts at about the 12 minute mark of the podcast.
http://www.alternativeright.com/altright-radio/chick-fil-a-madness/

They make some interesting points, notably about the way silly White people effectively imagine the "injustices" and inequalities of the past, it is hilarious when you think about it in that light, how a White heterosexual person who has never been exposed to "Racism" or restrictions on their sexual habits can only rely upon their imagination to be able to hold fast to these egalitarian viewpoints.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 13 August 2012 11:39:51 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
I fully support the right of Chick-fil-A to operate their business on any basis that they choose, just as I support the right of people who disagree with them to withhold their custom.

It is also reasonable for "activists" to publish the background, and to label the company "anti-gay" - which it most clearly is. The fact that this activity has caused custom at Chick-fil-A to increase does not validate or invalidate the campaign, simply underlines the fact that there are people who agree with them as well as people who disagree.

But the article does blur the lines a little:

"The activists objective is not merely to win support for same-sex marriage but to marginalise Christian philanthropy"

"Christian philanthropy"? How did that get a guernsey? The suggestion that running a fast food outlet is somehow philanthropic is risible. McDonalds has a wealth of charity functions that it conducts without feeling the need to ram it down your throat. Sorry, some careless imagery there...

The rest of the piece is pure anti-gay propaganda, all of which is based on the premise that homosexuality is somehow to be i) swept under the carpet ii) hidden away from children and iii) labelled as evil. Not at all healthy, I'm afraid, however much the Christian lobby would think otherwise.

But hey, if an outlet wants to give a discount based on the presentation of a church bulletin, an anti-gay pamphlet, a membership card to the KKK or whatever, they should be permitted to do so. It's a business decision. And of course, using the Chick-fil-A example, any or all of these offers is likely to increase business, dramatically.

I would humbly suggest, though, that Chick-fil-A doesn't consider opening any overseas subsidiaries. They might not find such a tolerant audience.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 13 August 2012 11:57:25 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
An outfit that has got together with tyrants to bully people unmercifully from the fourth century to the 20th with torture and execution for the slightest sign of dissent from either church or state is the last to have the right to squeal “bully” today because society is defying its edicts.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 13 August 2012 12:02:25 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 understand that J.C. preferred the company of men and never ever married? [If he walked amongst us today, we may well have believed/judged he was gay?]
Nowhere in his teachings did he ever give anyone the right to judge others, [judge not and you shall not be judged,] or discriminate because of difference!
In fact, he went out of his way in his, Christian value foundation message, good Samaritan Parable, to argue against it!
How anyone can perceive gender, let alone gender bias, from tweets, is entirely beyond my comprehension.
[Witchcraft, hubble bubble toil and trouble, or reading the runes, or bone pointing perhaps?]
The Gay community and those who actually believe in the "Christian message" of GENUINE equality, [as opposed to those, with their look at me lord, pious humbug,] have considerable economic power and muscle, and are entitled to use it against those who continue to spread the messages of hate, or discriminate against difference.
The article is, I believe, just rebadged bigotry; and or, extreme pernicious ignorance.
Remember, at the end of the day, we will all be judged by a higher authority, and those who've practised discrimination in all of its clever forms and guises; will be found wanting and penalised accordingly, amid thunderous applause!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 13 August 2012 12:04:23 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 question! Why is the “gay-rights” movement not dissimilar to a bikie gang in its socially destructive intent? One shoots-up the town with bullets to reinforce that which is legally not theirs; while the other shoots up the basic marriage construct of society, by demanding a right which is patently not theirs to own.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 13 August 2012 12:09:35 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
What kenny said.
Babette, next time the religious lobby start bullying art galleries or TV stations or cinemas about art that they don't agree with, or next time Fred Nile tries to bully the govt over chaplains in schools, perhaps you might like to put pen to paper. I look forward to your outrage at these challenges to freedom of thought as well.
Posted by shal, Monday, 13 August 2012 12:27:02 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
Emperor Julian,
Q.E.D on my last post about imagined history becoming historical fact.
I wonder how many convictions for sodomy were recorded per annum in the "Bad old days"?
I'd "imagine" that most jurisdictions would have gone years without a single incident.
That's the thing with prohibition, banning something creates a laissez faire attitude towards enforcement and actually allows the proscribed behaviour to flourish away from the public eye.
Just as there are no doubt more "Gay Bashings' today than in the imagined past due to the fact that more men are "out" and visible in the community it never seems to occur to the bleeding hearts that in today's "enlightened times there are mor Indigenous people behind bars and more Indigenous children under state care or supervision than there were in the 1960's.
If I might point out another glaring problem with this imaginary view of Christian oppression of homosexuals it's that the clergy was effectively a safe haven for homosexuals, are we seriously suggesting that a life of male only company in an institution which kept it's internal business secret and scrupulously concealed it's indiscretions was not an attractive proposition to Gays?
Is it not the case that the churches, synagogues and mosques and their associated institutions have always covered for homosexuals in their ranks, even when they have behaved outrageously?
Or is this just another "Two legs bad, four legs good" scenario where the leftist's revisionist version of history pertaining to homosexuality trumps any other "for the greater good"?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 13 August 2012 12:43:43 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
A bikie gang shooting up a town with real bullets, is somehow similar to a group of activists, using their completely legitimate economic muscle to end thousands of years long; persecution, [anti Christian behaviour,] against a perceived minority?
Surely you jest D.D? Or, is it just more homophobic claptrap?
Perhaps we do need to very slightly amend the marriage act, which in Australia, is nowhere near as old as the tradition itself!
Perhaps we just need a set of inserted words, to distinguish between traditional marriage, ["holy wedlock" for the purpose of "naturally" begetting children,] and genuine commitment between loving couples, regardless of race, age, religion or perceived gender bias?
Perhaps a referendum and or widespread genuine conscience votes, would finally put this most divisive contradiction of genuine equality to bed?
But particularly, when we are beginning to finally and at long last, fully understand, that gender bias is created in the womb and a product of nature, rather than any element whatsoever, of choice!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 13 August 2012 12:46:02 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
JofM:

...Or maybe we could change the description of gay marriage to one closer to its biological accuracy, IE: "Poly-morphously perverse marriage"!

...Thanks for the interesting link!
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 13 August 2012 1:08:01 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
Rhrosty,
The "Gays" went a little bit further than taking their custom elsewhere, stores were vandalised and one activist is out on bail for criminal damage to a Chick -Fil-A store.

Diver Dan, I like the part where they asked what was the greater affront to the institution of marriage, a few harmless same sex couples playing mummies and daddies or Newt Gingrich!
I had good old laugh about that one.
They also point out the weird mentality of the Lefty and how people who actually do hold deep seated and lifelong convictions are agog at people on the Left who wake up in the morning and ask "What do I believe today?"
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 13 August 2012 1:36:19 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
"Labeling anyone who supports traditional marriage a "homophobe" or "bigot" is bullying."

No, labelling anyone who condemns gay marriage but cannot provide a rational justification for their view a 'homophobe' or 'bigot' is simply drawing an obvious and natural conclusion. When the opponents of gay marriage start living up to the reasons they claim to have for their opposition, then I will withdraw the epithets. Till then they stand.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 13 August 2012 1:39:03 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
only the bigotted and blind deny the huge increase in diseases caused by sodomy. Also those who care about children would not consider deliberately robbing a child of a mother or father. The homosexual lobby are bullies not stopping at anything to silence the truth. Unfortunately though only a small minority they display enough venom to fool many.
Posted by runner, Monday, 13 August 2012 2:05:40 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 the comments above show, some activists are quite happy to label "... anyone who supports traditional marriage a "homophobe" or "bigot". If someone disagrees with them, they call them names and morally denounce them. There is no doubt that this is a new form of bullying. They justify such tactics because they perceive they have been discriminated against by "the church" and society.

In reality the homosexual lobby is re-defining morality under a guise of "tolerance" and then attempt to muzzle anyone who disagrees with them. This is not tolerance but totalitarianism: everyone must be forced to acknowledge that homosexuality is normal, good, acceptable, virtuous and noble.

My case stands until I hear one (please) homosexual activist "come out" and support the rights of those who disagree with them to hold and broadcast their viewpoints. Can any of you say something like this: "I'm a homosexual but in the interest of freedom of conscience and speech I support your right to oppose gay-marriage". If you can't do that you are betraying an authoritarian approach.

As for me, I strongly support the right of everyone to have their own opinion, to speak in favour of gay-marriage, even though I believe it's an error.

It seems that it is not OK for Christians to take a moral stand against homosexual marriage because that is being judgemental, but it is OK to take a moral stand against the supposed sin of discrimination, that is not judgemental. Can't you see your own glaring double standards? If you can speak pro gay-marriage then I can speak against it. If you can call you opposition "homophobes" and "bigoted", I can say that homosexual marriage is not in the best interests of children, will lead to a legal mess, is not in the best interests of society, has nothing to do with equality, but has everything to do with promoting homosexual morality.
Posted by mykah, Monday, 13 August 2012 2:41:20 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
Don't worry Mykah,
Only "nice" homosexuals will marry and adopt kids and they won't get divorced because a bunch of silly White heterosexuals imagine that they had it rough in the past so of course they'll try harder to set an example.
That's the other congenital delusion afflicting silly White people, that everyone is "just like me", it's a companion to "Diversity is our greatest strength because deep down we're all the same".
I used to be outraged by the idea of same sex marriage but these days, having educated myself on the subject I've lately come to the conclusion that it's just silly and a little bit sad but I can understand why 60% of silly White heterosexuals support the idea.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 13 August 2012 2:55:24 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
The homosexual lobby don't believe in democracy. In California a referendum to legislate 'gay ' marriage was defeated (mainly due to the black vote). Of course not accepting of this the courts over ruled the wishes of the majority. The lobby is far more Chritophobic than most Christians are what they label (homophobic). Notice how silent the lobby is in Islamic nations.
Posted by runner, Monday, 13 August 2012 3:02:23 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 would argue that many of the self-righteous Christians that are involved in the support of this fast-food chain would have in times past been completely outraged by uppity brown-skinned Americans such as Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, and Martin Luther King.

Conversely they would have supported the white supremacy politics advocated by the john birch society, and the klu kluk klan with its deadly applied politics of lynching uppity brown-skinned Americans - and fire-bombing their churches, if they "got out of hand".

Anyone for strange fruit?

They would also be susceptible to murdering Sikhs in their place of worship. Not being intelligent enough to know that Sikhs are NOT Moslems, and generally the most peaceable people on the planet.

They would also be the kind of USA white christian supremacists who went out and bought guns of all kinds when Barack Obama was elected as President. And who joined the various white militias that emerged out of the rotten wood-work of the paranoid USA psyche when Obama was elected too.

In the context of Australian politics they would probably be quite sympathetic with the two wongs dont make a white policies of the league of rights.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 13 August 2012 3:46:29 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
My oh my the editors of this site are quite puritannically political correct. In my post I tried to use the word made up of these two segment nig and ger. I was thus censored for "profanity"
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 13 August 2012 3:49:24 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
One form of bullying in discussion is to deny your opponent's position and twist it around dishonestly so that it means something else – a tactic of propaganda. Babette has done this with marriage equality - she pretends it means ‘reproductive equality’ as if we gay men were trying to argue we have a womb, lesbians are going to start spermatogenesis and all heterosexual marriages are reproductively equal. Why does this patently silly argument keep going around? Too silly to be anything but religious propaganda, prejudice, bullying and insisting your freedoms overshadow ours no matter how ridiculous the argument.

We GLBTI want marriage equality at law and recognition of our significant relationships in the social fabric of our society – just like everyone else.

“Labeling [sic] anyone who supports traditional marriage a "homophobe" or "bigot" is bullying.”
Not Babette, it is supporters of traditional marriage who insist that their beliefs should annul our moral and religious beliefs and our right to marry who are homophobes and bigots. It is Christians who are greedy with their religious freedom and who steal our religious freedom who are bullies.

“In 2007 a federal judge ruled that because of gay marriage in Massachusetts, schools have an obligation to present homosexuality as normal..”
In Australia homosexuality is on the compulsory government curriculum because of State anti-discrimination legislation on sex, gender and sexuality. Anti-bullying must start at school because much of it occurs there and it is based on difference, and prejudice against those differences that kids have picked up from adults. And for GLBTI it leads to excessive rates of self-harm and suicide. Yet Babette would try to persuade us that this bully prevention is bullying instead.

Religious propaganda to bully people to maintain traditions made in ignorance, fear and bullying. Be nice and stop stealing our religious freedom.
Posted by Eric G, Monday, 13 August 2012 5:28:09 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
In reply to a serious article by Babette Francis and despite my call for freedom of conscience and speech (see my post above) we see more abuse from the homosexual lobby through Daffy Duck!

D.Duck denounces people who support a fast-food chain for their stance on traditional marriage as "self-righteous Christians", racist, murderous enough to kill Sikhs, ignorant of religious differences, "white christian supremacists", gun-hoarding militia-lovers, and sympathisers with the League of Rights. No reasonable argument is given to support these insanely wild allegations, it's just a load of puff.

Doesn't that prove the point of the original article by BF that anyone who supports traditional marriage is liable to be bullied by the homosexual lobby?

Doesn't it prove my point that there is a totalitarian bent in the underbelly of the the homosexual lobby?
Posted by mykah, Monday, 13 August 2012 5:40:33 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
What selective hypocrisy: Demanding that the term 'marriage' be all embracing, while the term LGBTIQ must be disaggregated.

What selective hypocrisy: Unrestrained abuse, all under the guise of tolerance and equality.
Posted by elizabeth4, Monday, 13 August 2012 5:59:42 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
>>everyone must be forced to acknowledge that homosexuality is normal, good, acceptable, virtuous and noble.<<

Nobody is asking for that. It would be silly. We're just asking you to recognise that homosexuality is not abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble. In exactly the same way that heterosexuality is not normal, good, acceptable, virtuous and noble OR abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble: it just is. Your sexual orientation doesn't inform your sense of ethics: it just determines who you're attracted to. Like heterosexuality, homosexuality isn't a sign of good or bad character. There are arseholes on both sides of the fence - but in my experience the nice people have the bastards well outnumbered.

As for the question of gay marriage: we are who we are and we love who we love. Why shouldn't two consenting adults be allowed to subject themselves to the horrors of marriage if they're crazy enough to ask for it? So far all the reasons why not boil down to three basic answers: a) It's against my religion. That's nice but your religion isn't everybody's religion. We live in a secular democracy so is it really fair that your religious beliefs are protected in law while those of other faiths are disrespected? Try again.
b) Gays can't have kids without outside help. Neither can a lot heterosexuals. And a lot of other heterosexuals can't have kids even with outside help. Not to mention all the ones that just don't want. Arguments against marriage that can apply equally well to homosexuals and heterosexual don't really count as arguments do they? Try again.
c) Innate bigotry. They'll dress it up in lots of fancy words but once you get right down to it a lot of the opposition stems simply from the fact that some people don't like gays very much. What can you say in the face of that sort of bigotry? Try again.

I'm still waiting to see a convincing argument against gay marriage. You're welcome to try.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Monday, 13 August 2012 9:45:05 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
Tony Lavis: "We're just asking you to recognise that homosexuality is not abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble." But that is logically the same as "normal, good, acceptable, moral and noble"! You want everyone to think that way, and if they don't they must be homophobic and bigoted according to your ideology. But I say we have every right to disagree with you on a matter of morals, and we have every right to to say that homosexuality is immoral without being called homophobic or bigoted for simply speaking our mind.

If homosexual marriage is legislated, it is likely that the masses will not have freedom to disagree with you in public on this matter of morals and homosexuality will be promoted as normal in the public schools. There would be moves to force non-government schools and religious organisations to hire homosexuals etc. The implications for freedom of speech and conscience are enormous. Totalitarianism under the guise of toleration would be a real threat. This alone is a very strong argument against gay-marriage.
Posted by mykah, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 1:02:30 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
It’s not clear what point Jay of Melbourne was making (August 13, 12:43:43 pm, p2 of comments) but if he was referring to “convictions for sodomy” in the days when the Roman Catholic Church, joined at the hip to tyrants throughout the 17 centuries from the days of its inception in the fourth century, ruled the roost he should not indicate that he was responding to my earlier post on the same page.

I was referring to its blood-soaked history of torture and execution for dissent (not specifically for homosexuality) and to its consequent lack of qualification (and the lack of qualification of those who choose to take up its cudgels) to bleat about its being “bullied”.

It would take a mountain of words to tie the point down to eliminate misrepresentation totally, but the above will have to do
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 12:07:23 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 natural. Like other deviations from the norm, those with same-sex orientation probably have as much control as children born with an extra digit. However "Homosexuals" are as diverse a group as "Heterosexuals" with same range of character & personality traits.

Ditto it might be argued paedophiles, sadistic rapists, even psychotic serial killers have similiar lack of choice over their "hard wiring". Ultimately it's not the orientation but the acting out.

Australian society has become hugely tolerant of homosexuality since my young adulthood when evidence, admission or mere suspicion of being 'gay' invited serious negativity. I believe most people accept it as part of the wider human condition, that what happens between consenting adults in private is their business - even if for religious or cultural reasons, many consider homosexual practices abhorrent or morally wrong. Most people take a live and let live attitude and many, including myself support civil union rights.

Many of us however still oppose formal marriage on religious and cultural grounds. We are as entitled to our POV as the most strident Gay Activist.

I'm seeing similarities to Anti-abortion activists in the Gay Marriage campaign. Increasing militancy and acts of intimidation towards those who oppose the 'Holy War' against so-called discrimination. The backlash doesn't surprise me. It's also being played like the "Racist" Card. You oppose current levels of immigration? Racist xenophobe! Oppose Gay marriage? Oh you heartless homophobe ..! Be warned - moderate people are growing increasingly resentful of the intolerance being practiced by those demanding tolerance.

People in same sex relationships, please, quietly get on with the business of loving, living, working and planning for your future (like the rest of us) and accept the limitations of your biology - or pay for it yourself. Children are not a 'right' and in best case scenario belong in a biological family with BOTH parents. Marriage in the cultural and legal sense is between a man and woman and begetting of children ditto. Whilst people often marry without expectation of children and children are frequently born outside of marriage or marriage like relationships is immaterial.
Posted by divine_msn, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 3:17:43 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
if the anti 'gay ' marriage was nearly as homophobic as the 'gay ' lobby is Christophobic then we would of been locked up a long time ago. In fact the 'gay 'lobby is also familyophobic despising the natural order of kids having a dad and mum.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 3:29:40 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
Marriage has been defined as between a male and female for a long time. It is a cultural institution derived from biological factors but then we are no longer captured by biology, so OK, ban State marriage and make it personal only. Gay will be followed by others who feel "oppressed", multi-partner combinations, those who like sheep and why not, inflatable dolls and ?robots?. It's turned into a waste of time, Traditional Married can be for those who want it, so can Gay Married and etc.. Not like there are any tax or benefit implications any more.
Posted by McCackie, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 5:59:59 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're just asking you to recognise that homosexuality is not abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble." But that is logically the same as "normal, good, acceptable, moral and noble"!<<

Fail. It's not simply a case of being one or the other. The keyboard that I'm tapping away it isn't abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble - but it does not logically follow that this makes it abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble. It's just a keyboard. Trying to assign moral properties to it doesn't really make sense. It can be used as a means to achieve good or bad outcomes but it isn't good or bad by itself. A lot of things a like that: we usually only think of human behaviour - actions, speech and so on as being good or bad and there's a lot more in the universe than human behaviour.

>>But I say we have every right to disagree with you on a matter of morals, and we have every right to to say that homosexuality is immoral without being called homophobic or bigoted for simply speaking our mind.<<

Sexual orientations are like keyboards in that they're not really good or bad. How can you reasonably assign moral value to somebody's sexuality? Being attracted to the opposite sex isn't noble or ignoble - me liking women doesn't a better person or a worse person. Rudolf Hoess was a committed family man; JFK was a serial womanizer - both clearly heterosexual and at opposite poles of the moral compass. So if being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't make you a good or bad person then why would liking the opposite sex make you a good or bad person?

TBC
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 6:02:01 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
You can disagree as much as you like but if your reason for saying that homosexuality is immoral is just because you say so and that's all there is to it then your argument isn't going to convince many people - and it does make a strong case that your opposition is based only on bigotry. Even the staunchest of moral relativists relies on a stronger ethical framework to make their moral judgements than 'because I say so and that's all there is to it!'. On what ethical framework do you base your opposition to homosexuality?

>>If homosexual marriage is legislated, it is likely that the masses will not have freedom to disagree with you in public on this matter of morals and homosexuality will be promoted as normal in the public schools. There would be moves to force non-government schools and religious organisations to hire homosexuals etc. The implications for freedom of speech and conscience are enormous. Totalitarianism under the guise of toleration would be a real threat. This alone is a very strong argument against gay-marriage.<<

Epic fail. This is a strawman. Rather than argue the case on its merits you invent a whole bunch of bogeymen and argue against them instead. And if anybody was actually arguing for limitations to freedom of speech or inappropriate state interference in the Church or the affairs of private organisations like private schools other than you I would be arguing against them. But they're not are they? They're arguing for the right for gays to get married. Let's try to stick to the argument at hand and not worry about the unlikely future prospect of totalitarianism. Because while I can't predict the future any better than you - ie not at all - and therefore must grant the possibility that such an unthinkable situation could play out; the probability of Australia going collectively insane and embracing totalitarianism over our pleasant and free society doesn't seem very high to me.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 6:02:39 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
I watched this clip of this attendant (Rachel) at Chick-fil-A show only grace when she was been bullied by an irate customer supportive of the LGBT movement(who filmed the whole encounter and put it on You Tube) The guy bullying the attendant not only lost his job but a whole lot of respect. Good on Chick-fil-A for saying what they believe and backing it up with grace towards this bullying tactic. Surely anyone after watching must see the irony in this, accusations of hate when love is shown and showing love when the accuser is hateful. Good on you Rachel
Posted by up the ante, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 10:10:12 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
So what is a viable argument against Homosexual marriage?
I'm opposed to any sort of state mandated assimilation, so I suppose the process of "Christianising" Homosexuals is dangerous because it seeks to neuter what has traditionally been an Avant Garde sub culture.
Are we going to see middle class married Gays siding with the state against radical Queers and other non conformists? That's a sure bet IMO.
This is all sliding toward Marcuse' "Tyranny Of The Masses", the LGBTIQ rights crowd are censorious and cloying as it is, I can easily imagine what they're going to be like when they have social standing within the establishment. I guess my main worry isn't that Gays will desecrate the institution of marriage with their customary "Edgy" lifestyles, it's that they'll all turn into Cam and Mitchell from Modern Family, I can deal with weirdos and outsiders, that's where I come from anyway, it's the squares who really worry me.
Whither the counter culture?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 10:54:55 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
It is a pity that the discussion has degenerated into the usual pro-gay and anti-gay dialogue. The article is about a business that conducts itself on principles that it has chosen, and the reactions of the public to that choice.

We surely should be discussing whether the author's description of this reaction as "bullying" is apt, and whether the public reaction is reasonable or over the top.

Personally, I think the LGBT movement is shooting itself in the foot over this situation. It is one thing to decide to withhold your custom from places whose ethics you disapprove, totally another to provide them with an excuse to pose as religious martyrs.

But I guess that, as eventually happens to every "movement", they feel that they have to make a statement every time someone coughs. Sad.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 9:13:52 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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