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 > Demonise and censor: the winning strategy of the gay marriage movement > Comments

Demonise and censor: the winning strategy of the gay marriage movement : Comments

By David van Gend, published 5/6/2015

As for me, I am a “bigot” in big red painted letters on the wall of my medical centre this week, courtesy of a local vandal who does not like my opposition to same-sex marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All
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.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 7 June 2015 6:31:13 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 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.
Posted by mil.observer, Sunday, 7 June 2015 6:52:29 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
//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.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 7 June 2015 7:35:53 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
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!
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 7 June 2015 9:04:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Prompete, Monday, 8 June 2015 8:11:46 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 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.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 8 June 2015 8:24:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All

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