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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

There is a lesson to learn from this gay uprising and bullying: as you sow, so shall you reap.

Christian churches were complicit all along in the rise of the state and its powers to interfere in people's lives. They kept believing blindly that the state would only oppress the unbelievers and transgressors, not themselves.

But now the pendulum swings against them and the power of the state which they helped creating is now turned against the church, now heterosexuals will want to flee underground, but given all the surveillance powers they allowed the state to have, they would now find it very difficult.

It's so sad to read:
"If the people are given the ultimate conscience vote of a plebiscite and they choose to repeal natural marriage and family, then even nauseating pieces of filth like little old bigoted me will have to accept it, with a heavy heart."

No need for a heavy heart, it helps no one. Instead, repent and help undoing what you created!

Don't ever think "it won't happen to me" - dismantle the state, at least reduce its powers and shrink it in size, dividing the monolithic state into smaller ones, so that if your state happens to turn against your values and conscience or ban that which is dearest to you, whatever that may be, you can at least find refuge in a nearby land.

phanto:

"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."

how do we know that this baker holds 'christian' beliefs? maybe she just wanted to hurt the couple?

"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?"

perhaps you could list a few reasons why two people of the same-sex would be standing before a marriage celebrant other than wanting to get married?

maybe another question you could wrangle with is: "how is it your business?"

I come from the perspective of having been active in the field of post-adoption work for more than a quarter of a century. I accept that people's sexuality is their own affair, but I do have concerns about the growing trend for parenting to be adult-focussed rather than child-focussed. It has taken many years for us to understand and acknowledge the long term outcomes of adoption separation and it will be many years before we will be able to assess the outcomes for children born through egg/sperm donation and surrogacy. However, to me it seems obvious that the outcomes in terms of genealogical bewilderment and lack of access to lineage will be very similar and I am very disappointed that the lessons of the past have not been learned. Australia has led the world in apologising to the Stolen Generations, the Forgotten Australians and Child Migrants and those who have suffered as a result of Forced Adoptions. In my view the sincerity of those apologies has become suspect,as the mistakes of the past are being repeated. No one has a right to have a child. Adults have a responsibility to protect children from the harm that can be caused by deliberately severing their links to their heritage.

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you David he or she could be right; that in fact you are a bigot?

Perhaps the message may have had more impact if it had stated, I am a prisoner of belief, as indeed were the also ran, homophobic Nazis?

That said, I'm inclined to agree with Prompete and would welcome a plebiscite; to put this matter where in now belongs; in the pages of history!

And indeed, provide a long overdue wake up call to the tail wagging the dog minority, who not only share your view David, but use that belief which imprisons them, to actively discriminate against folks, who gave them displeasure (and endless pleasurable sport) by daring to be born different! (No no David, the needle goes in dartboard quick and the injection slow; otherwise your patient will be black and blue!) (Oh you knew; and it wasn't you? Sorry!)

If Jesus walked among us today, with his preference for male company, and ultra gentle caring nature? Many with your disposition, would no doubt have judged/labeled him gay?

And indeed, "crucified" him for daring to be born different! As indeed are to my personal knowledge, some family members of the prisoners of belief?

Perhaps if the vandal returns? What should replace the blood red words are three wise monkeys, with the obligatory caption reading, see no evidence, hear no evidence, repeat no evidence!

Indubitably and based on more than ample evidence, the only element of choice here is to be or not to be a bigot; or indeed, take all our business/custom to those (straight or gay) who decidedly demonstrate they are not!

The only thing we have absolute control over in this life,(choice) is the thoughts we care to entertain in our heads, and through them the attitudes/imprisoning beliefs, that they in turn create in us!

You just don't happen to have a tiny toothbrush mustache under your nose by any chance, do you David? No? Perhaps you should grow one?
Ya? Atchung, click!
Rhrosty.

The marriage act only concerns state marriages. No matter what the new definition of state marriage becomes, Christians can always get married in a church without registering the marriage with the state, it's important that church leaders promote this to the Christians who get their definition of marriage from God.

What wild animals these loud advocates of queer 'marriage' are. Vandalism, threats of violence, calling people bigots while ignoring their own bigotry. They invent ludicrous descriptions of people who stand up to them. They think a sad, small minority can call the tune on morals and civil law in a democracy. They squeal about 'equality', but rubbish the institution of heterosexual marriage. They totally ignore those of their kind who have quietly adopted the defacto relationships and benefits of many straight couples who are not show ponies like them. In short, they are a thoroughly bad lot. It's all about power and anarchy with them. They have no depth of character, and they are dragging down the very small minority of people who are genuinely 'different' and a quietly living their lives without causing any offence or needing to draw attention to themselves.

ttbn, I asked you in an earlier thread to explain to me what you think I am "bigotted" about. I got no reply.

Now you've popped up again making the same claim. Care to have a go this time, or are you just making noises? You know, like a wild animal?

Rhrosty, you should open a greengrocers and call it "Low Hanging Fruit".
Homophobic Nazis? That's the biggest load of bollocks this side of the insecticide showers and pedal powered head smashing machines.
The Nazis used paragraph 175 of the German penal code which had been on the books since the 1870's and arrested a few thousand homosexual child molesters, male prostitutes, thieves and drug addicts, it was a three strikes system with the third offence incurring a prison sentence of not more than five months. For a socialist regime the NSDAP were remarkably tolerant of homosexuals, after the war the East Germans wondered why there was such an increase in homosexuality among children born during the allied "terror bombing" of the 1940's and actually executed a few of their Gay prisoners so they could dissect their brains. Their theory was that the fetus was damaged by the hormones released by their mothers while they were under extreme stress and suffering from the effects of starvation, so while the Stasi viewed homosexuality as either a bourgeois perversion or the result of brain damage the National Socialists saw it as a simple matter of a zero tolerance policy toward homosexual criminality and asocial behaviour.

This quote from Theodore Dalrymple which popped up on my Facebook this morning just about sums up the state of play:

“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7445

Craig Minns,
It seems that your definition of "bigot" is "anyone who believes what David does not believe and anyone who does not believe what David believes".
My definition of "bigot" is " anyone who thinks the same way as David thinks".

Although as an atheist I put religion in the same category as ideology, in fact all non- evidence based belief, I accept as correct the statement made by all ministers at wedding ceremonies I have attended that " Marriage is an institution established for the nurture and education of children".

History has shown that marriage so defined, i.e. institutionalised monogamy or the nuclear family is the basic building block which brings children to the maximum of their potential. The society built on that building block is the ONLY society which has, since the Enlightenment given rise to the inventions and innovation from steam engine right through to the internet.

No other society has, by such progress, given rise to the huge increase in humankind's productivity without which 90% of the world's population today would not exist for lack of the means to produce, transport and distribute the means to feed, clothe and shelter that population.

Expand the definition of marriage and how do you refuse the right of a Muslim to "marry" his second , third and fourth "wife"?

We could end up with a society based, like the most of the animal kingdom on the Alpha male with the powerful male in his harem and the rest looking for sexual experience in war or with mythical virgins in a mythical heaven. We see the chaos of such a society in the Middle East right now.

Gay couples have available the personal relationship legislation to regulate their financial dealings in the same way as is available to married couples under the traditional definition.
We are dealing here with only symbolism.

Gays want the legal system to acknowledge that there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
In fact there is. If we were all homosexuals the species would die out.

Just accept that fact.

Phanto, yes your natural sexual orientation can be proved by which two of four sex centres are the active ones!

Two for blokes and the other two for ladies, located at the base and rear of the brain, in the Ganglia Obbligato, the site and control centre of all your entirely instinctive responses; including your God given (natural for you/anyone) sexual orientation!

Simply put mate, they're not like light switches that anyone, no matter how determined or diligent can voluntarily switch on or off as the fancy takes them; and or, as proposed by the homophobic community! [Basic anatomy!]

And we have instruments which can measure that activity, which produces tiny but measurable electrical signals; and indeed, if the gender appropriate ones, or some mix, are the ones firing! No ifs buts or maybes!

And it may be possible at some stage to burn out the inappropriately firing ones, given the external male/female physiography, with laser perfect pinpoint accuracy.

And no it's not just theory but reportedly has been successfully trailed in a vastly more medically advanced Scotland and decades ago?

Precisely located tiny wires conducting an overload electrical current into the Ganglia Obbligato, that's just strong enough to do just that and no more? [Or perhaps permanently burnout all four in the case of incurable recidivist sexual criminality?]

As I said and seem to need to reiterate, there is ample evidence out there, that homosexuality in all mammals; male and female, is part of nature or natural aberration! Ipso facto, end of story!

But only if your looking, without the blinkers or the blindfold! Ya?
Rhrosty.

Louise points to the real heart of the matter. She said:
"I do have concerns about the growing trend for parenting to be adult-focussed rather than child-focussed. It has taken many years for us to understand and acknowledge the long term outcomes of adoption separation and it will be many years before we will be able to assess the outcomes for children born through egg/sperm donation and surrogacy. However, to me it seems obvious that the outcomes in terms of genealogical bewilderment and lack of access to lineage will be very similar and I am very disappointed that the lessons of the past have not been learned."
The debate on this issue is not furthered by shouts of bigotry, nor by assumptions that the arguments for marriage being between a man and a woman are just based on religion.
Children need to grow up with a mother and a father, to know who they are, to benefit from the care of both genders, and to observe the care of each for the other. That this doesn't always happen in a man-woman marriage is no reason to change its nature

J.O.M, given your ability to quite massively revise history, I'm not sure your take on the gentle nature of Nazism holds very much water, anymore than your denial of the Holocaust? Or is any more gospel than the bible?

And cyanide showers killed just a little more than insects?

Or are you suggesting the victims of this extreme inhumanity were no more than mere insects; or the heinous practice, little more than just delousing?

And your knowledge of the inner thinking/attitudes of the Staci seems a little more intimate than that of the mere interested observer?

Pray enlighten us some more, with this seemingly intimate knowledge; handed on to you by a very near relative perhaps?
Rhrosty.

Simmple solution, Dave: if you don't want people pointing out your obvious character flaws in red paint, just stop being a bigot. See, wasn't so hard, was it?

I don't agree with violence or graffiti of any kind, whether the victim is a bigot or not. David I see that your description "... is a Toowoomba GP and Queensland secretary for the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life."

Gay people are live humans, yes?
You sure don't respect them or their wishes to be treated equally with other humans?
So this respect for human life is only limited to Christian heterosexuals then?
That is called bigotry.

Progressive Pat, where is there any actual proof that a god 'told' anyone at all what marriage should involve?
Or, did you get that notion from an actual human author?
No one is asking any Christian church, or anyone else, to marry gay couples, so I still don't see what the big drama is.

As for any kids living with a gay couple, I believe that in many gay households at least one of the couple is a biological parent to the kids, unless they were both infertile or too old.

Gee, just the same as in some heterosexual households!
I have seen some gay couples who make sure they have their child's other biological parent in their lives too, as I am sure even gay people are well aware of a child's need to know both their parents if at all possible.

It seems to me that anti-gay proponents are now just clutching at any bigoted straw before the inevitable happens and gay marriage is made legal.
And guess what? The sky won't fall in...

Suse,
How is it inevitable? Homosexual marriage is nowhere supported by the voting population, the only way it can be approved is by act of parliament or court order, the decision lies in the hands of 226 people, 150 MP's and 76 Senators. You may be right in one sense because it's inevitable that politicians will betray their constituents and act against their interests, they do it all the time without consequence but it doesn't make it right. The overwhelming majority of Australians oppose continuing involvement in the "war on terror" and believe that history will not be kind to those who sent the troops on these adventures, the same can be said of those who support homosexual marriage, history will not be kind to them.

Rhrosty, if you don't want to talk about Nazis don't talk about Nazis.

Let's look at the issue from a realistic point of view through a simple example. In the U.S the latest government census information suggests that about 1.8% of the male population is homosexual, polling of homosexuals would indicate that around 4% would consider marriage now that it's available, that's 0.072% of the population.
Translate that across to Australia, a similar society and with our population of 23 million theoretically there's around 8,000 men who might possibly want to marry another man. The maths work out the same for the U.K where since it became legal only about 1100 same sex couples have tied the knot, other jurisdictions are difficult to speak on as many, like Germany simply don't collect the information but you can bet that it's the same. Even Brazil which is a magnet for homosexuals in conservative South America shows about 0.03% of couples as same sex and co-habiting.
This is a trivial issue which in a strong society with a healthy political culture would not even be debated.

Craig,

I did reply to you. You are just too thick to understand the reply. I explained why I think I am not a bigot, without resorting to calling you names. Any one could be called a bigot at times; you are just too arrogant to think that it also applies to you. That's the trouble with narcissism; another problem for you is that your narcissim led you to believe that my remarks today were directed at you. They were not. Others do not find you as interesting as you yourself do. You are just another bore who replaces argument with name-calling, because you don't have any arguments to back your silly opinions.

Jay of Melbourne, I generally view any figures provided with posts here that are not supported by evidence suspiciously.
Even if only a few gay people do legally marry after it is made legal, the fact remains that they will have the same choice as heterosexual people already do.

How on earth would you know how many people in Australia would support legal gay marriage? I don't.

What I do know is that this country has citizens very similar to other Western countries like England, Germany and Ireland, and that Irish people voted it in.
The Irish who didn't vote at all in that referendum obviously couldn't care if Gay people married or not, so do you see Australians being much different, given the overwhelmingly British/Irish ancestry we have?

Comparing the war against terror in the Middle East with gay marriage made me laugh.
The horrible effects of war on our soldiers in no way compares with any possible fallout from legalising gay marriage, except for the angst felt by anti-gay people.
I doubt this 'angst' will lead them to mental health problems....but then again, maybe it will!

David your concern for children is admirable. You also as a doctor can easily see that bodies and body parts are designed in certain ways. Sticking the male organ up the waste passage is obviously extremely unhealthy. Sticking other objects up vaginas that are obviously designed for the penis is also perverse and unhealthy. The denial of this leads to being labelled a 'bigot'. Obviously the real bigots are the ones who want you silenced. You are a hero for decency.

Latham is right:

<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.

“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.

“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?

“We didn’t hear anything.

“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”

Mr Latham said legalising same-sex marriage would not “improve” anyone’s standard of living, nor would it improve their capacity to “function in society”.

“It’s a legal document,” he said. “It’s a piece of symbolism. It might make some people feel better to have a marriage document but it really is a low order priority.

“On the Richter scale of social justice Struggle Street is a 10, gay marriage is a point one..>
http://tinyurl.com/p6kts6c

I think we need to 'invent' another word: christophobia - unrealistic hatred of Christians.

If the homosexual lobby can hijack Latin:'homo'meaning man and 'phobia' meaning fear of; adroitly changed to mean 'hate' as "homophobia" why can't those who hold that same sex marriage is against the 'natural order' - creation or evolution, coin a trendy word to trot out whenever anyone disagrees with their viewpoints.

Discrimination is not bigotry - we all discriminate daily so let's not confuse bigotry with 'unfair' discrimination.

It would appear that those that so stupidly emblazoned bigot on the business address of Dr David van Gend are only advertising that they do not want to nor can engage in decent discourse but only know how to engage in intercourse in the anal passage 'designed' by or whatever for eliminating waste.

Mark Lathan is right - the Labor party are labouring the issue because they think that they will earn Australia-wide accclaim. There are more important issues for them to engage in - leave marriage as the traditional world-wide ceremonial contract between two people of different sexes with or without religious involvement.

Sodomites can do want they want freely without being 'nicely married'.

Why should adults who want to have sex with 9 year-old females after being married be be denied their rights? To oppose this would equally be bigotry?

'Why should adults who want to have sex with 9 year-old females after being married be be denied their rights? To oppose this would equally be bigotry?'

so true ZhanPintu and why should adults who want to have sex with animals be denied their writes? Just ask one of the Christophobes High Priests(Singer).

"Progressives" throw the 'bigot' reference around a lot. They use it in racial, gender, asylum seeker, and class issues. Oppose them on any of their positions in these matters and you'll be called a bigot. You can guarantee though that if you're called a bigot that you're on the right track. To be called a bigot from a "progressive" is a badge of honour.

Calling someone a bigot isn't a refutation. It's merely labelling. As intellectually superior as "progressives" claim themselves to be, they haven't distinguished between refutation and description. Moreover, gay marriage is a moral issue. It's not a scientific matter where you can do measurements and then come to a conclusion. Moral issues are beyond measurements; they emit from feelings and ideas we harbour. It's debatable whether a moral stance can be refuted. It can be disagreed with, but can it be refuted?

Anyway, "progressive" bullying just needs to be dealt with rational argument and counter bullying.

Suse,
Do your own research like I do, I shouldn't have to footnote everything and what you usually do is reply that you can't be bothered reading links. It's not as if facts even matter to supporters of homosexual marriage anyway, as we've seen anyone who contradicts the narrative is shouted down and threatened with censure or worse.
The Irish vote proves that an overwhelming number of voters in that country did not support changing the constitutional definition of marriage, just because the vote passed doesn't legitimise the policy and in Australia we won't be allowed to vote on it at all.
The Australian people made their views on Gay marriage crystal clear in 2013 when they put 145 of the 150 lower house seats in the hands of parties who expressly said they would not support changes to the marriage act, the fact that they have now decided to vote on the issue is a betrayal of their constituents. Just because the parliament passes a bill doesn't mean that homosexual marriage is legitimate, we all know it's a sad charade played out by sad, hollow people and legalising such a farce will only increase discrimination toward homosexuals.

Two wrongs don't make a right but I think there is a lot of reaping what you sow in this. Christain's have for a long time been leaders in the field of calling homosexuals names, of inciting harm to them (in proportion to the power they happen to hold at the time).

It's been very really obvious over the years on OLO how few christian's take runner ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=25098&show=history ) to task for his often vile comments about those who don't subscribe to his own views on sexual morality despite what appears to be a relatively high proportion of posters claiming christian belief.

So while I strongly disagree with the tactics described I think christains wanting to be outraged by those tactics should remove the plank first.

Many of you have generally either engaged in similar or worse tactics or sat quietly by while fellow believers have used those tactics seemingly without complaint from their co-believers.

R0bert

OTB and others trot out an old has-been politician in Latham as their spokesperson against gay marriage? Lol! Who cares what that strange, aggressive guy says in any case?

ZhanPintu and his good mate Runner are excited by their childish questions that have been answered so many times that it is beyond boring:

'Why should adults who want to have sex with 9 year-old females after being married be be denied their rights? To oppose this would equally be bigotry?'

No, not bigotry, it would be illegal. Homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults is legal.

"so true ZhanPintu and why should adults who want to have sex with animals be denied their writes? Just ask one of the Christophobes High Priests(Singer)."

Do you mean 'rights' Runner? No, that wouldn't be bigotry, that would be illegal also.

One doesn't need to be a 'christophobe' to support gay marriage Runner.
There are plenty of Christians who support equal human rights.

Hi David,
I accept that some of the comments are genuine but must say I am more comfortable with your take on things. Thanks for your article.

Let’s see how many Slippery Slope and Appeal to Nature fallacies we can rack up in one Comments thread. We could possibly work in the reductio ad absurdum fallacy if one of you could be so kind as to make the, “I want to marry my [insert pet or inanimate object here]”, comment at some point.

Suseonline is right. Same-sex marriage is inevitable. We live in a country that is progressing and issues surrounding equality are generally improving, not stagnating or regressing. Every poll I see shows a majority support for same-sex marriage and even if they didn’t, the trend towards the acceptance of same-sex marriage is undeniable and shows no signs of slowing.

The arguments against same-sex marriage are pretty much the same as the arguments against interracial marriage a few decades ago…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

Have fun on the wrong side of history, folks.

P.S. I'm liking this marriage privatisation angle some are approaching the issue from. Just as some men have chosen an anti-abortion stance as a means of controlling women (now that doing it more overtly is just too socially unacceptable), same-sex marriage is being rejected through a similarly roundabout way using a push for the privatisation of marriage.

It’s an encouraging sign. Twenty years ago I never would have dreamed that opposition to same-sex marriage could be considered that socially unacceptable one day.

[Warning: much of the following was censored on another Australian site]
This aggressive Western Empire's campaign for gay marriage is obviously meant to further divide and weaken society in order to 1) keep strengthening a minority transgressive and ultra-loyal political elite bound by purely personal allegiance based on sexual habits, and 2) to cow and distract the majority of constituents ie. those either not given to such habits or not identifying them as definitive to their identity, thereby rendering such a more cooperative and cohesive majority increasingly disenfranchised, disempowered and ignored by destructive policies driven largely by the massive bailed-out merchant banks and their political servants.

What's perhaps most shocking in a longer-view historical sense is that the regime's fostering of an exclusive anti-traditional gay political "elite" is hardly unprecedented. The Nazi case demonstrated how such a close-knit and opportunistic circle of many such personally limited or traditionally transgressive people succeeded in shattering moral limits and values in an aggressive and hysterical assault against not only religion but against all efforts at justice and social progress.

An elephant in the room of this strident campaign against marriage is Lothar Machtan's thorough expose of Adolf Hitler's background as a promiscuous gay who had not even once been able to form a sexual relationship with a woman. Another parallel aspect of that Nazi-gay nexus is its political elite so crucial during Hitler's rise, in which an almost exclusively homosexual leadership elite in the Nazi's SA controlled around 3 million thugs used to terrorize political opponents and those they deemed racio-religious enemies in a strategy run for over a decade.

It's offensive that the gay marriage campaign compares itself to anti-racism, and relies on terms like "equality" and "socially progressive": this is a regressive, anti-social and divisive campaign consistent with the western regime's criminal, destructive and destabilizing conduct against the rest of the world, especially to those countries where religion and morality are still strong and command wide respect.

Mil.observer, welcome to OLO.
I fail to see why your post was censored on another site?
Boiling it all down, you don't like the idea of legal gay marriage.

What I don't understand is you seem to be comparing the campaign for gay marriage to that of Hitler and the Nazi's? That is a bit much surely?
There hasn't been mass gassings and shootings of those against gay marriage has there?

Just one point though, no where has it ever been proved that the non-religious or non-Christian people are any less 'moral' in the way they conduct their lives, than Christians.
In fact, I would suggest the contrary in many instances....

suse – thanks for the welcome. But I suggest you read: Machtan, Lothar, The Hidden Hitler, 2001.

Machtan's forensic study of Adolf Hitler's homosexuality, and of the incidentally high incidence of homosexuality among Hitler's founding and formative Nazi colleagues and mentors, is a vitally important insight into those transgressive, anti-traditional, and gender-exclusive political opportunists who overwhelmingly glorified homoerotic bonding, scoffed at traditional family and religious values, and deemed themselves above and beyond moralistic and behavioural scrutiny.

Given a similarly fanatical, arrogant and absolutist attitude among backers of S-S marriage, it came as no surprise that censorship immediately countered my posts which identified certain parallels between the political ambition and intolerance of 1920s Nazi gays and the political ambition and intolerance of gay marriage campaigners now, whether the latter be ambitious gays or their non-gay fellow travellers.

Threats and censorship against David van Gend, and censorship of my own comments on the predominance of Gays in the Nazis' rise, all rather confirmed the timeliness of such warnings from history.

suse - suggest all you like. But yes, genuine Catholics/Christians did come to form a bulwark of morality in the resistance to that scourge of fascist deviancy we call "Nazism"; many traditionally religious Jews identified the absurdly immoral personal behaviour of their tormentors too, though often much earlier than their Christian/Catholic counterparts did given the matter's obvious and direct urgency for them when continually vilified and attacked from early in that period.

The homosexual lobby always targets Christians as the enemy. Never Muslims. Why? It is non PC to critise Muslims, you might get accused of Racism

Lothar Machtan's work isn't reliable and has been dismissed by reputable holocaust scholars, Hitler was definitely heterosexual and enjoyed normal relations with Eva Braun and several other women before her. All of the speculation about Nazism being a homosexual cult is bogus, it comes either from anti Nazi sources or anti Gay sources, neither can be taken seriously.
The main sources, William Shirer and Scott Lively are neither historians nor unbiased writers and neither of them employ any scholarship in their writing, their books are widely read but largely fiction. Fanatical right wing Christians like Lively use Nazism as a stalking horse, their real agenda is opposition to homosexuality on biblical grounds, Shirer was an anti Fascist and the numerous pornographic "profiles" of Hitler assembled by Jewish psychoanalysts and OSS operatives who'd never met the man can be taken with a grain of salt.
Think rationally for a moment, if Hitler and his inner circle were "not 10% of them normal men" then don't you think that one of the factions opposed to Hitler would have used that information to depose him? The Third Reich was a deeply divided and factional regime with cliques and warlords all plotting against one another and trying to gain advantage, if homosexuality had been rife at any level of the power structure then the avaricious ladder climbers would have used it against each other and against the bosses, no question about it.

JoM, you obviously haven't read Machtan's study: some precious reputations may have ignored Machtan's breakthrough analyses and source discovery (a fitting legalistic term), but no-one has been able to "dismiss" his work at all. The silence of its reception has been deafening, just as is the silence when one brings the issue up in discussion of "Gay" politics and agitation for such ongoing legal upheaval as the redefinition of "Marriage".

Interesting that you use only second-hand English language scholars as specific reference, because such secondary sources are all literally and substantively "foreign" to the wealth of forensic and legalistic primary sources which Machtan makes available.

Machtan himself comments on the stunning echo of silence on this subject: the Nazis' publicity machine for that (mostly, deeply) dysfunctional plastic actor was bizarre and confected then; now it's as though such grotesque contrivance has greater durability than some granite monument in Nuremberg.

In fact, it's fair to say that Machtan's work has not only been ignored but actually suppressed due to the many deeply uncomfortable aspects it confirms about Hitler's and the Nazis' self-projection, especially where so many others have accepted such Nazi self-projections or personae still today.

However, the detailed intimate sources, key facts and context have all been there for us to consider. Even bunker intimates confirmed that AH never engaged in physical congress with Eva Braun (who attemptyed suicide twice after having supposedly “netted the country's most eligible bachelor”!)

Indeed, Machtan dissects the origins of much of the closer OSS portraiture by reference to AH confidante Ernst Hanfstaengel and his drawn-out efforts at blackmailing Hitler via his own intimate knowledge. Machtan exposes several successful earlier blackmails too, made before Hanfstaengel's abortive move too little and too late (hence his over-the-top caricature to Donovan's OSS).

"No doubt" indeed, "the avaricious power climbers" did use "it" against each other when it suited them: AH used it against Roehm when Roehm, with lawyers' backing, held that blackmail trump against AH, and AH and the Party wanted the opposing Army, churches and Junkers onside. Brinkmanship won and still, sadly, prevails on this horrific truth.

David, I'm sorry your property was vandalised. But perhaps people would have more respect for your beliefs if you could actually demonstrate how 'laws that institute single-sex marriage and parenting' deprive a 'child of her mum or her dad'. Children who have mums and dads will presumably continue to have them (or not have them) at more or less the same rate they do now; while children of gay marriages can't be 'deprived' of something that they never had. It's this kind of silly manufactured hysteria that irritates your critics.

So JonJ gives apologia for property damage / vandalism a la "sorry 'bout that - you brought it on yourself". That's a "slippery slope" right there, and all to endorse blatantly and biologically sham "marriages".

And if David does not change his views and stop irritating the prevailing "elite"? Physical attack on the person as has already been threatened?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Trouble is, they doom also those of us too who have learned from history. Thus the urgency of the lesson about the hysterical SA "Gay elite" and their promiscuously Gay leaders Hitler and Roehm.

Gawd, speaking of "hysterical"...

It appears that most great civilisations lose their morals & moral fortitude as their greatness wanes, & they slowly degenerate into a rabble, fit for the garbage.

Why would we expect ours to be any different? From what is offered on this thread, ours is hardly worth saving, & probably won't be.

'One doesn't need to be a 'christophobe' to support gay marriage Runner.'

that is true Susie however usually the ones making the loudest noise via propganda channels like the abc/sbs, fairfax etc are well and truely Christophobes. There are actually some practicing homosexuals who know how bad it is to deny a child a father or mother and are honest enough to admit to it.

If the patent gay bashing homophobes posting here, and gay bashing takes many forms, including denial of equal rights or treatment/service, and in many more ways than just equality in the rites of marriage; believe they represent a majority view, then bring on the plebiscite! [If the cap fits!?]

Or failing that, just require our representatives to finally, honestly and accurately represent the wishes/actual views of the majority of those who elected them! BRING EITHER ON!

And the latter by just allowing a conscience vote on the floor, for all representatives!

Or failing that, just give those trying to suppress any of the above options, clicked heels accompanied by an almost obligatory and appropriate stiff arm salute!
Rhrosty.

I know what you mean, hasbeen. Similar sentiments were expressed regarding interracial marriage and the abolition of slavery.

"The world's going to hell in a handbasket!"

Those were the days, eh?

Like I said before, have fun on the wrong side of history.

Aristocrat,

Well put. I don't know why these clowns call themselves "progressives". They are anything but progressive, trying to drag us backwards into to the dark ages of animalistic bevaviour, lack of moral fibre and no ethical standards. If they are not deviants themselves, they get pleasure from supporting deviants and weirdos believing that it makes them enlightened, the poor, ignorant fools.

Runner, one doesn't need to be gay to have single parent families do they?
How is a gay couple and family any different to the myriad combinations of families we have in our society?

ttbn, just out of interest, where has anyone on this forum called themselves 'progressives'? Isn't it you and other 'regressives' who persist in this silly name calling?
Mind you, anyone who wants to keep our society back in the good ol' days of the '50's, is certainly regressive ....

As the more astute among us realise, forcing gay marriage onto a society that actually hotly opposes the idea, is about something else entirely.
Only a fool and the uninitiated believe otherwise.
forcing this unwanted dictate onto the electorate will severly erode free speech and citizens rights further, as it has in Canada.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

I really can't understand all this name calling,
labelling, and personal insults, simply because
of an issue that according to recent statistics and
recent surveys most Australians approve of.
In any case one way to perhaps settle this matter
once and for all is by having a Referendum and
letting the country decide on the matter.
Politicians should also be allowed to have a
conscience vote on the topic.

I believe that it was John Howard who changed the
wording of the Marriage Act in this country.

It was the democratically elected federal Parliament that confirmed the meaning and intent of the Marriage Act.

Why should the federal Parliament have to again confirm the meaning of the Act?

It is just the federal Opposition wasting Parliamentary time (House of Representatives) in the same way that the headline-hunting Greens wasted Senate time.

The previous Labor leader was right,

<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.

“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.

“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?

“We didn’t hear anything.

“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”

Mr Latham said legalising same-sex marriage would not “improve” anyone’s standard of living, nor would it improve their capacity to “function in society”.>
http://tinyurl.com/p6kts6c

Foxy, the surveys are biased and unreliable, in Ireland before the vote pollsters claimed that over 70% of voters surveyed supported same sex marriage, in the end only around 35% voted for it.
We don't want any change to the marriage act because there's no compelling reason to do so, this is not an issue of social justice it's wholly political and only serves the interests of MP's and Senators.
What can be achieved by going against the will of the people and using minority groups as pawns in political games? Until now nobody really had a reason to retaliate against Gay rights advocates because they didn't actually do anything, now that they've allied themselves with the hated mainstream political operators they're part of the power structure and fair game. If I was an anti government activist I tell you how I'd proceed, in my narrative I'd describe all same sex marriages as purely political acts and encourage militants to disrupt them and to do everything they could to shut down any business which did business with same sex couples. Same sex marriage is going to be a chink in the armour of the coalition if parliament passes the bill, in coming years as conservative and religious migrant groups begin to assert themselves repeal of the changes to the marriage act would become a wedge issue and a viable tactic for activists. Imagine if in 2016 or 2019 a handful of seats go to Islamists or conservative Christians and one of the majors needs coalition partners? What then?
We know the Lib/Lab duopoly will do anything to stay in power, there is no principle or policy which is not negotiable, we could easily end up with an annulment of all same sex marriages and Russian style bans on "homosexual propaganda".
The bourgeois posters are under the impression that Australia is a "progressive" society, it isn't, the majority of us are dumb, conservative, angry and intolerant and the voice of the discontented masses is growing louder every day.

I'm intrigued, Jay, how do you think it serves the interest of politicians especially to foster discussion of this topic?

You might like to bear in mind that the author of this piece is not a politician, he's a free-lance bigot, although no doubt well-supported by some of the nuttier fruit-cakes within the Darling Downs evangelicals, as can be seen in some of this forum's newer members..

//It was the democratically elected federal Parliament that confirmed the meaning and intent of the Marriage Act.

Why should the federal Parliament have to again confirm the meaning of the Act?//

Because they are beholden to the will of the voters, and if they think they can escape the wrath of the voters by hiding behind Parliament then they just don't understand the Westminster system of democracy.

Tony Lavis,
Yes and the voters in 2013 installed three major parties which were publicly opposed to same sex marriage, neither the Coalition or Labor have a mandate to change the marriage act.

Craig Minns, Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek don't support same sex marriage they are using the issue to drive a wedge into the coalition, nothing more, Shorten even goes as far as quoting the Irish decision as proof that it's time for change, enough said we might think. It's a one shot political manouvre being employed by a desperate and unpopular opposition against an equally unpopular, weak and fractured government, in fact it has absolutely nothing to do with human rights or homosexuals full stop.

strangely enough no one labelled Ms Gillard a bigot when she supported the traditional view of marriage.

//Thus the urgency of the lesson about the hysterical SA "Gay elite" and their promiscuously Gay leaders Hitler and Roehm.//

(Sung to the tune of the 'Colonel Bogey March')

Hitler! Liked to suck men's balls;
Roehm! Liked fellas if they were tall;
Himmler! Preferred something similar;
Whilst poor Goering got no balls at all.

//Yes and the voters in 2013 installed three major parties which were publicly opposed to same sex marriage, neither the Coalition or Labor have a mandate//

If they want a man date, I'm happy to take them out for dinner. But they have to pay, because they earn more than me.

Craig Minns:

"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."

Well of course there is if you are going to base the law on the fact that someone has a homosexual orientation. Facts have to be substantiated - we can't just take someone's word for it. The Irish Equality Commission just took Lee's word for it and he may not even have a homosexual orientation. Someone could lose their business or even be fined on the word of the claimant.

james505
“how do we know that this baker holds 'christian' beliefs? maybe she just wanted to hurt the couple?”

Well we don’t know but he is not the one who went to the Commission claiming discrimination against him.

“perhaps you could list a few reasons why two people of the same-sex would be standing before a marriage celebrant other than wanting to get married?”

Well they might be two heterosexual men and the law would have been changed to accommodate homosexuals and not two same-sex heterosexuals. People marry for all kinds of reasons. Homosexual people would not want same-sex heterosexuals getting married because there would be no way of telling the difference between same-sex heterosexuals and same-sex homosexuals and they want equality with heterosexuals but not same-sex heterosexuals.

“maybe another question you could wrangle with is: "how is it your business?"

Of course it is my business if the fundamentals of justice are being denied. If the law is being changed on the basis of sexual orientation we need to be very clear what sexual orientation means and that those who apply to take advantage of the law are indeed people with a homosexual orientation.

Jay, you may well be right that Shorten and Plibersek see an opportunity to reduce support for the Government among the electorate, After all, they are the Opposition and I'm sure that at some time they'd like to be sitting on those lovely benches on the other side of the chamber. However, I don't think you've really thought this through.

Let's see if we can't do that together.

C: How large is the homosexual population?
J: Tiny. Poofs all have diseases.

C:How many is that, in percentage terms?
J:Bugger all percent. Poofs don't breed.

C: Righto then, let's say 10%, since most surveys show considerably fewer, and we should try to be conservative, I'm sure you'd agree?
J:Some of them aren't even White!

C:So, assuming that 10% of the population are homosexual, what is the proportion of that homosexual subpopulation who vote for the Conservative side of politics all other things being equal?
J:Huh?

C:That's OK, it was a silly question, let's take a wild stab in the dark (no, not a stab at a darkie, Jay) and say half.
J:As if a poof would vote for Tony Abbott!

C:Well, actually, there are homosexual people in all social strata, although without the costs of raising children, they tend to be better off financially than the population mean, so it's likely that some do.
J: Cheating mongrels, riding on the back of decent people. They shouldn't be allowed to breed!

Hi Jay, Craig here. I wouldn't normally log in using my former ID, but I ran out of posts and I just wanted to let you know that there is another part to our dialog yet to come. It's up to you whether you want to jump in now, but around 8:35 the next part will be posted.

The "Irish Baker" story has been given the typical internet treatment and become something other than what it actually is. The bakery accepted and order then changed their mind because they didn't want to serve a cake to a political organisation which promoted same sex marriage. Remember this wasn't a wedding cake, it was just a regular cake to be decorated with a political slogan which was to be served at a function for a Gay rights group.
Who writes on wedding cakes anyway? This writing on cakes is a relatively new fad, my Mum used to make and decorate wedding cakes as a sideline in the 1980's and she'd just deliver the cake as was, I guess when you're at a wedding reception it's kind of redundant to have the bride and groom's names on the cake eh?

Craig, What's this got to do with homosexuals? The people, be they straight or queer aren't being asked to make a decision, and it's clear that the political parties don't care what their constituents think about same sex marriage. Homosexual activists don't get to vote on the issue either but are happy to cede their authority on the issue to corrupt politicians who turn about face so frequently that their knickers must be quite literally in a knot.

Phanto, there's already a problem with over regulation in society, every time you turn around there's some Indian bloke with a clipboard and high vis vest wagging his finger at you. People are getting sick of being told what they can and can't do, especially since we traditionally lived in a high trust society where you could rely on the majority of people to do the right thing and for people who didn't get their own way to behave like adults and accept that life wasn't always fair but on the whole we had it pretty good. I'm not just talking about White people here either, a small town or tight knit suburban area in Asia has the same level of trust among it's citizens, heck Asians pretty much do whatever they want in their own towns, not so over here, the state treats us like we're children.

C: So, the next question then, is what percentage of those homosexual people would vote Labor just on the issue of marriage equality?
J:All of 'em, poofs are all the same, they just want to destroy society.

C: I'm sure you're right, but let's assume that there are those who actually think about other matters. Being conservative again, let's say half of Conservative-voting homosexuals shift their vote. Now, have you been doing your sums as we go along?
J: Huh?

C: OK then, we can go through it together. We agreed to assume that 10% of people are gay, that half of them would normally vote conservative and that half of those who vote conservative would change their vote just on this one issue. So, what percentage of the vote of the conservatives does that represent?
J:You can't fool me, that's a 5% swing! See, I told you it was all down to those cunning buggers Shorten and Plibersek!The thinking people of Australia see right through their sneaky tricks.

C:I'm sure you're right. So presumably that means there will be a large swing AGAINST Labor by all those deep thinkers for this proposal?
J: Damn right! We won't let them get away with this!

C: Now I'm confused. I guess there's only one way to resolve this.
J: Put 'em in a Camp!

C: Perhaps something a little less drastic. I know, we can vote on it!
J: Yeah right, as if that ever works.

Craig Minns:
Why do you need to use words like ‘poof’ and ‘stab at a darkie’ when you could have just as easily presented your argument without using them? I don’t see any evidence that Jay would be that aggressive so you must be using them for your own satisfaction. Hiding your real intent behind some parody is pretty gutless.

JOM:
The "Irish Baker" story has been given the typical internet treatment and become something other than what it actually is.

Well it may have been given the internet treatment but what it actually is remains unchanged and that is it was a claim brought before the Equality Commission where the claimant was free to say that he had a homosexual orientation and it was accepted without any proof whatsoever. It is our legal system which is undermined when no proof is required.

“there's already a problem with over regulation in society”

If it was accepted that you could neither define sexual orientation nor prove it then you would have to remove anti-discrimination laws against homosexuals since they do not follow legal principles. This would mean even less regulation and it would render the whole same-sex marriage debate pointless.

On average, queers and their apologists rubbish Christianity and protect Islam from we nasty right-wingers. They overlook the fact that Christian countries got around to decriminalizing unnatural sexual practices, and some now permit gay 'marriage', while others, like Australia, are considering allowing it. The more immoral the West becomes. The weaker the will of the West to fight against Islam becomes (Obama has almost stopped action against ISIS) the more likely is that we will be overrun by Islam. Our friends had better learn to fly, or live wherever there are no tall buildings, because we all know what Islamists think of, and do to, queer folk.

Phanto,
My use of the words you refer to is what is known as "satire". It's an art form that's been around for a while now. If you look it up I'm sure you'll find lots of references.

Now, on another note, you seem terribly concerned that heterosexual people will masquerade as homosexual people and marry each other. At least, I think that's what you're concerned about; I could be wrong.

Whatever your reasons are, you are certainly very concerned about the possibility that someone might claim to be homosexual when they're not.

I'll tell you what, you go first: prove you're really heterosexual. After all, how do we know you're not just a homosexual person trying to make heteros look bad by making nonsensical comments?

Hmmm, this is really deep: you might be a really smart straight person pretending to be a gay person pretending to be a really stupid straight person to throw us off the scent!

Where will it all end?

“My use of the words you refer to is what is known as "satire".”

Well there is no need to explain yourself if you haven’t done anything wrong.

‘Now, on another note, you seem terribly concerned that heterosexual people will masquerade as homosexual people and marry each other. At least, I think that's what you're concerned about; I could be wrong.’

Why would I be concerned about that? Homosexual people who are married might be concerned since they would be indistinguishable from heterosexual same-sex couples. Since they seem to want everyone to know that they are both married and homosexual it would weaken the impact they hope to achieve.

“prove you're really heterosexual”

Why should I have to prove anything since I am making no claims of being discriminated against? Don’t you agree that if a person goes before a court claiming that they have been discriminated against that they should have to prove the fundamental fact that they have a homosexual orientation? Don’t you agree that people could and maybe already have abused this major flaw in the discrimination laws? Do you not think that justice should be based on facts and if facts cannot be proven that a person is innocent until proven guilty or do think that these rules and values should not apply to homosexual people which would be a form of discrimination itself?

Phanto, you are getting a bit silly now.

How on earth would someone 'prove they are homosexual'? I can't think of many heterosexual men who would stand up in court to say they are actually homosexual.

Should they need photographic proof?
Would that take the form of stereotypical 'gay' clothing, voice or mannerisms?
Or should they provide the ultimate proof and drop to the floor and show everyone a gay sex act, just to be sure?

Just a thought. Are there any real live actual homosexuals arguing here for something they want or are most of proponents just the usual suspects who like to argue the opposite to the majority no matter what?

If there are no such people here, , the whole back an forth would seem to be a complete waste of time.

The reason that proponents of same-sex marriage resort to calling their opponents bigots is to cover up for the lack of logic in the argument for the creation of same-sex marriage.

This whole campaign has been a fascinating exercise in linguistic distortion and dishonesty that ought to be studied by anyone who ever wants to change anything. We have seen something created out of nothing, be rightly regarded as an absurdity and reach the brink of success inside 20 years.

Same-sex marriage is not illegal, any more than carnivorous vegetarianism is illegal. It is non-existent. Gays already have the right to marry; i.e., to form a union with one person of the opposite sex. Understandably they don’t want to marry. Instead they want to form a union with a person of the same sex. This too they may do, but it is not a marriage, so we have this extraordinary campaign to steal a word to denote as marriage something that is not a marriage. Thus, opinion polls ask, “Should gays be allowed to marry?”, even though they already can, thus implying they are being discriminated against, when they should ask, “Should the union of one man and one woman have a word exclusive to it?”. Because the whole thing is so illogical, the campaigners misname their campaign as for marriage “equality” when it has nothing to do with equality, and condemn their logical opponents as “homophobic bigots”, which is as absurd as claiming that the opponents of carnivorous vegetarianism are vegephobic bigots.

Marriage has had the same meaning since it entered the English language from the French. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. That is the power that was given to the federal parliament in the Constitution. Nobody involved in the development of the Constitution ever thought it meant anything different. It did not need defining in the Constitution because it already had a common law meaning.

The High Court has amended the Constitution to allow parliament to create, not “legalise”, same-sex marriage. Some applaud this amendment, but they would not applaud other amendments that a future High Court might make. If parliament does create “same-sex marriage”, the English language will no longer have a word that means actual marriage, the union of one male and one female. People who are really married will have to find a new word - or grab an adjective.

When restaurants in the southern states of the US were forbidden to serve people of one race, they were still restaurants. Their nature did not change. When laws forbad a man of one race from marrying a woman of another, they were a restriction on access to marriage: i.e., a restriction on access to the union of one man and one woman. They were not changes in the meaning of marriage. It should be a simple matter to distinguish between what marriage is and who has access to it. If marriage is the union of a man and a woman, then banning certain women from marrying certain men is a restriction on access but not calling a non-marriage a marriage is not a restriction on access but acceptance that words have meanings.

Undoubtedly the campaign to steal the word “marriage” has succeeded in convincing most people. Consequently, any campaigner for anything ought to study it for pointers to success with their own issues – whether logical or absurd.

The same-sex marriage campaign has two lessons: the first is you can convince people of anything if you frame the debate the right way (as long as it does not cost any money); the second is you can never predict what issue will be created at some future date for people who did not give a toss about the issue in the previous 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years to suddenly become self-righteously passionate about it and condemnatory of all those poor benighted souls who did not jump aboard the new bandwagon the day they themselves did.

It seems absurd to consider the latest deliberations of distraction by the political party or “Mughal” class of professional traitors in their efforts to encourage the sham of gay “marriage”.

The party mughals have been serving a transnational network of bailed out, corrupt private bankers for decades now. The notion that the sham of Gay “marriage” must be due to popular pressure from below is absurd – the mughals themselves and their media colleagues have been pushing it onto the people from above, in the smug and snug positions granted them by their financier handlers and media collaborators.

The sham Gay “Marriage” campaign is just a move to procure at least some support and favour for the servile mughals who are increasingly desperate to hide their actual craven cowardice and irrelevancy, while trumpeting an extreme pretense at "social justice" during a regime of ongoing disenfranchisement, destruction of sovereignty, and impoverishment. It's a sick card trick.

Unfortunately, the process involves also a manipulation of those constituents who, for whatever reason, fail to adjust to gender difference and basic nesting or natural familial urges. The process also sees an effective encouragement of children to aspire to such favoured “elite” status via learned personal dysfunction (or even body dysmorphia in cases like the concurrently celebrated gender failures Malcom MacGregor or Bruce Jenner).

If such a class of sell-outs and traitors cared for popular wishes there would never have been: Iraq (and other) wars based on official lies, privatization of public assets, floating exchange rates, abolition of tariff protection for local industry and employment, and the deregulation of banks or cannibal access by derivatives speculators on commercial banks.

//Homosexual people who are married might be concerned since they would be indistinguishable from heterosexual same-sex couples.//

Sorry, but what heterosexual same-sex couples? I've never heard of heterosexual same-sex couples until you pulled them out of your hat just now. Are you sure they're real? I've heard about bigfoot but I don't believe he is real... do you have any sources to back up the existence of heterosexual same-sex couples beyond your obviously fertile imagination?

//Why should I have to prove anything since I am making no claims of being discriminated against?//

//Don’t you agree that if a person goes before a court claiming that they have been discriminated against that they should have to prove the fundamental fact that they have a homosexual orientation?//

The problem here is proving it. There is a device used to measure sexual arousal known as a plethysmograph, not entirely dissimilar to a polygraph... but like a polygraph it is an imperfect machine. Polygraph results are not accepted in Australian law as admissible evidence. I very much doubt that plethysmograph results would be accepted either. I think about the best the courts can hope for is to accept a man's statement, given under oath, that he bats for the team he says he does.

ttbn,
As I said, the debate over Marriage Equality has nothing to do with homosexuals or the wider community, it's a power struggle among competing factions in the political sphere.
Homosexuals are part of the community, they have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, they can marry and have children if they want to and the necessity of having opposite sex, married, biological parents as the primary caregivers to children is beyond debate, not even the most fanatical social justice warrior can make a case against it. If marriage really is just a piece of paper, (a position which no married person supports) then it follows that only the best outcomes should be promoted as the ideal, homosexuals should be encouraged to marry a person of the opposite sex if they want children and a person who cannot control their sexual desires should not be married at all. As I've said before there are plenty of temptations in life for a married person but the whole point of being married is to develop the strength of character to resist and stay true to the course you've chosen, if you want the best possible outcome for your children it's going to take work and dedication and a measure of self denial and self control. Heck, let's be brutally honest, most married people aren't going to be troubled by demands in the bedroom once children come along anyway, the choice for homosexuals really boils down to whether or not they can accept celibacy as the price of a stable family life and good outcomes for their children as the vast majority of opposite sex couples do.
By the same token we shouldn't discourage homosexuals from pursuing alternative lifestyles if they want, most people would support a separate category of civil unions for homosexuals, they can do as they please in their communities, form their own churches, write their own vows and have their own legal definition of spousal rights and responsibilities.
So call me a supporter of marriage diversity and an opponent of marriage equality, vive la difference!

Craig Minns.
"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."

Your implication that I am a fool demonstrates the authors point. No?

It's not my implication, it's your inference.

However, if the shoe fits...

As for the author, whether he has the support of fools or otherwise, he's still a bigot.

There are undoubtedly homosexual bigots and I would seek to oppose them every bit as much as I oppose the nasty quasi-religious form.

I don't oppose fools though, I just feel sorry for them.

J.O.M.

I can understand you not wanting me to talk about your kind, gentle and generous Nazis! >Because everywhere you look there's and Indian with a clipboard wagging a finger!<

So very revealing, and on both counts!
Rhrosty.

So, nobody here wants to admit to being a homosexual?

Is there something you want to tell us, ttbn?

ttbn, "So, nobody here wants to admit to being a homosexual?"

It would not be surprising if none are homosexuals, the percentage being low in the general population, around 2% max., and of those the number who want to marry is much smaller again. Not all homosexuals would be pleased to throw their lot in with the 'gays' and their 'gay pride' demands and attention seeking either.

Returning to the OP, it is a rather remarkable feat that so few could be so effective in mobilising and managing the media.

Onthebeach,

You are probably right. The few that I know do not seem interested in the fuss at all. Happy the way things are. Makes you wonder how 82 posts (so far) could be clocked up. Must be a very boring long weekend for everyone. I don't think the government will consult any of us on the matter. Makes me wonder, though, about the strength of feeling of some of the posters backing the very small gay community. Doesn't seem natural to me.

Govt should not be involved in personal relationships,so the whole argument is spurious.

The real issues of stopping the wars and bring our financial masters to heel are not being addressed.

ttbn,
The Pew Institute survey I cited earlier didn't attempt to calculate the number of homosexuals in the U.S but of the 1100 people surveyed only 4% were married and co-habiting, while some 50% expressed an interest in being married at some point in the future.
Having come this far one wonders why Gays would want to take such a massive backward step anyway, the whole point of the Gay movement was liberation from the norm and the formation of gay communes and alternate lifestyles, which in some places they've actually managed to achieve. You could say that the proof of who's behind the marriage equality movement could be discerned by inquiring as to who might have a an interest in unmaking nearly 50 years of "progress".
Have a look at this documentary about the Gay culture in California, it's weird and salacious in parts but the internal power structure of the community and the mindset of Gay men is laid bare, it's actually pretty interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKCcr_ayvMo

I was amazed the Irish voted for gay marriage. Years ago in the 60s my sister in law went to visit Eire and customs opened her bags and found the contraceptive pill. Luckily she had only one packet for personal use. No abortions, no contraception? No living in sin, so to speak. Fifty years later they have done a complete turn around. My cousin waited years to get the Popes agreement to an annulment, and went to England to live eventually. I thought, 'Hey' - even though you get the Pope's OK, you still have to get a legal divorce. She'd married an American in Boston. She had an American divorce eventually. But she deserted him legally it appears.

Personally, I have known lots of gay people, some my friends. Non of them wanted marriage which is just as well as the relationships invariably didn't last long. Others were content to quietly live out the lives, have a private agreement and equity clause in their wills.What they want is social acceptance and quite honestly I don't think they will ever get it.

I can't see the RC church agreeing to conduct marriages so even civil marriages are OK. Gives the lawyers more divorce money I suspect.

However, it seems to me to be some social and political agenda here, and quite honestly I don't share their opinion, and I am not a bigot.

Bushbunny, there have been gay people accepted socially for at least as long as records are available, with some discretion required, which might also be a feature of some straight relationships that have also been accepted if not really condoned.

I can't really see what all the fuss is about.

Let's do better than our great-great-great grandparents did and get the issue behind us. What people do in the bedroom and the way they want to formalise their relationship shouldn't be connected.

An interesting thread, one that has probably now reached the appropriate stage of repetition on both sides that indicates argumentative exhaustion.

The most notable fact seems to be that not one single homosexual person has chosen to participate. Which I choose to interpret as a sign that the topic doesn't generate the same level of interest in their camp (sorry!) as it does in ours.

In a few years from now we will have forgotten that there was ever a serious debate on the topic, just as we have forgotten that there was once a serious debate on slavery etc.

It's all about growing up, people. One day, we shall all be able to act as adults, and treat all this as the irrelevant sideshow that it clearly is.

Just not yet, apparently.